Comply, don’t provoke
Sandip Kumar, part owner of a superette in Fairfield, was left battered and bruised after being attacked by an armed group at his shop earlier this year. He remembered seeing a firearm thrust at him, but told this newspaper everything else became a blur once he ducked for cover from being pummelled by a flurry of fists. His brother and part owner of the dairy, Chirag Dodia, said armed robberies were part of owning a dairy. ‘‘It happens to everyone in the dairy business.’’
It has happened much too often for Hamilton dairy owner Jignesh Patel. In 2008 he was robbed three times in eight months and became a champion of arming the police.
Whangarei dairy owners, expressing their frustration at the frequency of armed robberies, this month called for police to ramp up their investigations, for courts to get tougher to deter such violence. They intended putting law and order top of the agenda when they met National MP Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi.
The ACT Party just might get their vote. It proposes a new crime of home invasion, punishable by a maximum of 25 years in prison, and would allow shopkeepers to keep weapons in their shops. Party leader Jamie Whyte said criminals were well aware that shopkeepers were defenceless and were taking advantage of this in brutal robberies. The possibility that a shopkeeper was armed would deter them. Any police decision to prosecute a shopkeeper who acted in self-defence would be reviewed immediately by the Solicitor General and would be subject to a ‘‘public interest’’ test.
The idea of shopkeepers arming themselves was rejected by the chairman of the New Zealand Association of Convenience Stores, Roger Bull. Its policy – a sensible one – is to comply with the demands of armed robbers, do nothing to provoke them ‘‘and get them out of the way as quick as possible.’’
Prime Minister John Key – just as sensibly – said arming shopkeepers would put weapons in the hands of people were are not trained in their use. Those weapons could be used against the shopkeepers themselves. It’s a powerful argument. New Zealand still shies from allowing the routine arming of the police and innocent people are not immune from being endangered by police officers who have been trained in the use of firearms.