Police Officers Should Not Be Armed All The Time

by Nurin Nafisah

Indonesia recently seems to have a terrible situation since there are so many outbreaks and violences between demonstrators against police officers. On one hand, the demonstrators claim that they will not do such violence if the officers do not start it. While, on the other hand, the officers believe that they will not harm anyone if the demonstrators do not make a riot. Well, the statement which says that, if the officers do not start the violence, the demonstrators will do the same, is not all wrong. Indeed, the police officers should not be armed with lethal-weapons under all circumstances.

Supporters of arming lethal-weapon for police officers argue that arming police officers under all circumstances is an effective way to prevent the crimes and vandalisms in society. They say that the violent criminals will use weapons to harm people, so it is impossible for officers without their weaponries. This may be true, in some cases, but always bringing lethal-weapons under all circumstances will not solve the criminality problems. In fact, there is some case of a shooting failure by police officer when he chases the criminal, he accidentally fires the innocent civilian instead of the criminal. Like a President of New Zealand Police Asrociation Greg O’Connor states on the article “Survey: Police should not be armed”, that criminals do not necessarily arm themselves against police, they arm themselves against each other and police are becoming collateral damage in that. So here, we may conclude that if the police is not armed, there will be no collateral damages. To solve the criminality problems, we may suggest the government to ban totally the free arms traficking first. The violent criminals will not have weapons if there is no free arms traficking. 

Moreover, the use of lethal-weapon under all circumstances by police will bring the violent impression towards people in society especially children who see them. This impression will influence the image of police officers on their eyes. Police is the one who is considered as the hero but he uses a gun to solve his problems in chasing the criminals. This image may affect the children’s minds to do something violently if they want to get what they want. Besides, there are so many police officers who are still using lethal-weapons in situations not requiring it. For example a runaway thief, who is not armed, has been shot death by a police. In this case, we can say that it is even the police himself who has done the crime. It will be better if it is like in Norway, where police officers are not armed, but they always carry it in their patrol cars. So, they will use the weapons when it is really required. Then, arming police under all circumstances is not always effective to solve the criminality problems, but it will create such a violent idea instead.

Some people may still believe that police officers should always be armed with lethal-weapon under all cicumstances, because armed force is often necessary. Police officers should always be armed in any occasion, considering their dangerous job. They claim that being armed is often necessary to capture offenders and keep the public safe. It may be right at a glance, but still, police officers should be peaceful officers and should not need to compel force to persuade, especially in residential communities. To shoot or hit someone is street justice and should be barely needed. The street justice is like what happen in Indonesia recently, where the police officers fight against the demonstrators and create a riot. Police should not act as if they are superior than the civilians, so that they can hit and shoot them as they wish. Yesmil Anwar, as a criminology expertise of Universitas Padjajaran Bandung, says that to reinforce the law, police officers do not have to use violent ways. The officers must have the ability and capability in handling and preventing the riots, instead of fighting it back. He also suggests that to avoid the fight between the police and the demonstrators, it will be better if they use a water canon to stop the anarchy. It will prolong their time to console the riot. The lethal-weapon will make the outbreak of the riot even worse, because they feel to be intimidated after all. Besides, the using of lethal-weapon in confronting the civilians is against the human right. Therefore, in this case, arming the police officers with lethal-weapon is not that often necessary.

Thus, it is not always effective and necessary for the police officers to be armed with lethal-weapons under all circumstances, if their reason is just to avoid the crime or riot. As the meter maids, for instance, they do not have to bring lethal-weapons with them while they are working, right? To protect the residents, indeed, they must be armed, but it should be a non-lethal weapon, so that we will be protected peacefully and no collateral damages made by the officers’ harmful weaponries.