NOT PC applauds dairy owner for protecting his own life

Allow me to pause for just a moment to say a very loud "Bravo!" to the Christchurch dairy owner who protected himself and his wife from machete-wielding thugs by shooting them in the face with an air pistol.

"Bravo!"

Let's be clear about this: He had the right to defend himself and his wife against the thugs, who were at the time slashing at the air near his throat and chest and had backed him up against the cigarette racks, and he had the courage not to let the bastards win.

"Sir, I applaud you."

I can not say the same for the New Brighton police, who said the actions of the dairy owner, who calls himself 'Nike,' were "certainly not good practice".

Police advice was to comply with robbers and "get them in and out as quick [sic] as possible."  Police said they were "discussing" whether Nike's actions would have further repercussions.

This is appalling.  Getting these thugs "in and out as quick as possible" would likely have resulted only in another corpse.  Is that what Detective Constable Matt Grant of the New Brighton police really wants?  Would he stand still while thugs used himself and his wife for target practice, if a weapon was close at hand?  (If he would, then his wife should start packing and be out the door within the hour.)

Bear in mind that, by the testimony of the man attacked, "they tried to kill us from the very start. It happened really fast. They ran in holding the knife out and started trying to chop me."  Would Detective Constable Matt Grant have our hero simply hold up his hands while the thugs actually slashed him across his throat and chest?  Would that somehow help end the violence?

The police policy of unarmed capitulation to get the thugs in and out as quickly as possible is a killer.

It killed Navtej Singh, who was complying with the thugs in Manurewa who shot him without compunction for the price of a few six-packs.  It killed John Vaughan, shot in the head at the Mangere Bridge branch of the ASB while complying with all the demands of thug who killed him.  And it put at threat the dairy owner last week who was shot in the arm by rampaging thugs who were themselves intent on getting in and out as quickly as possible, without any concern about who they harmed along the way.

Observe three things. 

1. The idea that banning bottle stores under 150 square metres would do a anything at all to lessen armed robbery is absurd on its face.  It would have done nothing to help John Vaughan, nor the two dairy owners above -- nor any of the many dairy owners who daily feel the ire of thugs who know no better than using violence to get what they want.  Government ministers know their new law is absurd -- they just hope their voters are too dumb to know.
2. The idea that complying with robbers' demands will keep you safe is absurd, and contradicted by the evidence.
3. "Complying" when a machete-wielding nutcase is slashing the air around your chest and throat means complying in your own murder.  Detective Constable Matt Grant might not think so, but we each have the right to defend our own lives against aggressors.  The police can either help people in that job -- and if they were to assist dairy owners to properly defend themselves, that on its own would help discourage the thugs and bring order -- or they can hinder them, leaving them unarmed in the face of savagery that the police's compliance (and the law courts' leniency) has helped unleash.

UPDATE:  Bravo, too, to Crusader Rabbit for this comment:

I'd like to point out to the idiot detective constable that even sea urchins have spines--for the purpose of self-defence.

Well said, sir.