Leaving It to the Professionals

Inertia, Passivity and Cowardice

Ten years or so ago the NZ Police actively discouraged citizens from attempting to prevent crime in the process of occurring.   The police put themselves forward as the "experts" and told all "amateurs" to mind their own business.  No doubt this was motivated in part by wanting to protect unarmed and untrained civilians from harm.  But it was also due, we believe, to the prevailing climate of the time, which obsessed about political correctness with officialdom acting as society's nappy-changers.

It occasionally goes so far as to bring prosecutions against citizens who run down thieves, for example, and apprehend them.  Conscientious citizens have been charged with varieties of offences, such as assault, or kidnapping.  Clearly in such cases there are elements of discretion but it has seemed to ordinary citizens that some prosecutions appear vexatious to say the least.  Rarely have the police explained positively and clearly what the rights of citizens are with respect to apprehension of criminals caught in the act and the rights of making citizens' arrests. Rarely do the police actively encourage citizens to apprehend people in a lawful manner, explaining the boundaries, rules, citizens rights, duties and the relevant law.  "Leave it to us" is the usual message, "we're the experts". 


Here is an information piece on the rights of citizens when it comes to self-defence, protection of property, and making citizen's arrests for those readers interested.  And here is the recent case of a Christchurch man convicted of kidnapping after apprehending thieves at his business.

Kaiapoi business owner Dave Clemence has been fined $3000 after being found guilty of kidnapping  two thieves. Christchurch District Court Judge Gary MacAskill said Clemence acted in disregard of the victims' rights by detaining and delivering to police two thieves who had been caught and beaten by men who were his associates or employees. He told Clemence: "You took the law into your own hands and did that which the law does not allow. You are to be held accountable for your conduct."  The judge refused the defence bid for a discharge without conviction, and gave Clemence the required first-strike warning about repeat violent offending.

Good one, judge.  Of course, if  Dave Clemence had been a well-known, elite sportsperson, he would not only have been discharged without conviction, but enjoyed permanent name suppression for the next two millennia (but we digress).  In the light of the Clemence case, consider the following:

Police are praising the actions of three people who stepped in and stopped a man allegedly beating a woman on a busy road.  Kamo Senior Sergeant Dan Cleaver said a 20-year-old man and 21-year-old woman were arguing near a bus stop on Kamo Road when the man started allegedly assaulting the woman about 7pm last Friday.

Three members of the public, two men and one woman, stepped in to stop the violent assault.  Mr Cleaver said the 20-year-old man then turned on the three people and started punching them while continuing his assault on the female victim.  He then took off and was arrested by police a short while later.  One of the men received moderate injuries and the other two people received minor injuries.  Mr Cleaver said the bravery of the three members of the public probably saved the woman's life, as the offender's attack was very violent.

"We encourage people to take a stand against family violence and police would like to thank the three people for having the courage to intervene and stop the violence," Mr Cleaver said.

What these police know, as do we all, is that to intervene and take a stand against such violence necessarily requires that one must be violent to one degree or other.  And we believe strongly that the police are righteous in commending such actions and encouraging such citizens' responsibility, provided the force employed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Earlier this year, a vicious daytime assault took place upon a woman in Auckland.  She screamed for help, but neighbours just watched. 

A mum viciously attacked on her daily walk is furious that up to a dozen witnesses refused to intervene.  The daytime attack that left Praveet Singh with fractured eye sockets and a broken nose has sparked calls for Kiwis to "do their duty to one another".

Singh, 40, was on her regular pre-dinner walk near her home in Papatoetoe, Auckland, on Thursday when she was set upon in the street by a man who allegedly started punching her, and threw a bottle at her.  Singh sought safety in a driveway but she said the man chased her and the attack continued.  The mother of two said homeowners watched as the beating continued. One had pushed her back towards her attacker. "The neighbourhood gathered and I kept screaming for help and no one did anything. It was a freakshow to them. I've been beaten nearly to death and there were spectators."

Why did neighbours just watch?  Why did they not do what the folk in Kamo did, referred to above?

The first excuse was that it was a domestic dispute and it would be wrong to interfere.

Narendra Kumar said he initially thought it was a domestic assault and had been reluctant to intervene.

Inexcusable.  Another neighbour feared retribution, firstly from the police, and secondly from the attacker if he stepped up.

Another neighbour who saw the attack said he was afraid of being charged with assault if he got involved. "Otherwise we would have done something. We feel the New Zealand self-defence rules are really too poor. The attacker's seen us before. If he gets released from jail, he could come here."  [Emphasis, ours]

To the extent that the police and the justice system have led that neighbour to think he might be prosecuted if he got involved, government agencies and officials and the courts are manifestly at fault.  The police and the ministry of justice cannot have it both ways.  They cannot encourage people to go to the aid and defence of others being attacked--congratulating them when they do, as happened in Kamo--and at the same time repeatedly give the impression that the citizen-defender may well be prosecuted himself.

Retired police detective inspector Graham Bell, presenter of Police Ten 7 on TV, said the [Auckland] attack was deplorable. "There's a growing tendency for people to just not want to look over the fence or keep looking at the ground and just moving on."  They might be worried about being hurt, about repercussions from offenders, and not getting the back-up of courts if they intervened.

"Public violence has got worse than it once was. For that reason people are more frightened than they used to be. I think the potential for personal injury is much higher than it once was. You know the police can't do everything. The police really are only as good as the rest of the citizenry. We all have a duty to one another. The courts need to do more to back up people who do intervene in good faith."

The police in particular need to start giving coherent, clear messages.  Firstly, the police need to decide whether it is both necessary and morally imperative for people to become involved preventing observed criminal acts.  Do the police really believe, as Graham Bell argues, that the "police are only as good as the rest of the citizenry"?  If so, the duties of citizenry in this regard need to be more clearly spelled out, repeatedly, by the police and politicians and officials.  For too long we have been encouraged to be passive--"leave it to the police".  Call 111 and walk away.  But it will never suffice--and enlightened law enforcement officials know that.  Such an approach leads to the actions of Praveet Singh's neighbours or, more accurately, inactions.

We believe that communities and citizens in general need to be educated and challenged constantly in these matters.  We do have a moral duty to defend our neighbours and fellow citizens and their property.  It would be very helpful for the NZ Police to remind us of this frequently.  The Bible teaches that if you see a thief in action and do nothing, morally you have given the thief your consent and become a thief-in-heart yourself.

Secondly, society needs to be instructed constantly about what to do and what the citizen's legal rights are--that is, what is lawful and what is not, when it comes to stepping forward to prevent criminals breaking the law.  Thirdly, when a citizen does intervene, only to be subsequently prosecuted, there is a duty upon the police to provide clear explanation and justification as to why a prosecution is being taken.  Otherwise we all should resign ourselves to seeing more of Praveet Singh's neighbours and less of the three brave and upright people of Kamo.  Finally, the courts in any such prosecutions need to reflect the citizens duty of care to neighbours and their property as the case is ruled and adjudicated.

The police, without appropriate citizen policing, will never be good enough.  Graham Bell is right.