John MacDonald: I'm 50/50 when it comes to citizen's arrests

I’m 50/50 on this idea the Government’s got of letting people do citizens arrests.  

For security guards? Yes. For every other member of the public? It’s a definite no for me. 

Let’s start with security guards and why I think these powers would be good for them.  

How long have we been saying that they need more teeth to do their job? Ages. 

And what we’ve meant by that, is the ability or the right to actually provide security as opposed to standing at the door and pretty much doing nothing when someone nicks stuff from a shop or assaults someone.  

I think it's fair to say that at the moment, security guards only really come to life at sports matches. Everywhere else, they're about as threatening as the person who stands at the door at Bunnings. Or parent help at the Year 8 disco.

So, yes, change the law to the extent where security guards are enabled to be more effective than they are now. 

There is one proviso, though: we will have to make sure that security guards are screened and trained even better than they are now. 

I think too, security firms will have to consider the type of people they employ. Because if the law changes and security guards have the right to detain people, then we’re going to have to have security guards who are physically capable of doing it.  

When I look around now at some of the security guards outside places like banks, for example, I can’t imagine some of them being capable of dragging someone to the ground and sitting on them until the cops arrive.  

But as for the rest of us being allowed to make citizens arrests – forget about it. For many reasons.  

For me, it’s not a particular line in the Crimes Act that stops me from intervening when I see someone breaking the law. I have never, and never will, make a citizen's arrest because I’ve got no idea what I’m taking on.  

I’m not the largest person in the world, but even if I was, you’d never get me intervening. Because you just don't know what someone is on, what they’re capable of, and what weapon they might be carrying.  

I had an experience recently where a guy, completely off his face on something, was assaulting another guy.  

And straight away I thought ‘I’m not getting involved here’. And when I say not getting involved, I mean physically.

It wasn’t the law stopping me - it was my own personal safety that stopped me.   

I did stick around though, and I called the cops. But there was no way I was going to take him on, and there is no way I’d attempt any sort of citizen's arrest.  

But I reckon the really dangerous aspect of this is the licence it would give muppets out there to take the law into their own hands.  

You’ll know as much as me, that there are people who would just love to have the law on their side. Thinking they're Bodie and Doyle from The Professionals TV show.   

And while I’m not one to stick up for criminals, I wouldn’t want them getting roughed up unnecessarily by the vigilante types who would see this law change as a licence to do whatever they wanted to detain someone. 

What’s more, this law change would go completely against everything the police tell us about not intervening and putting ourselves in danger.  

For the same reasons why I will never do it: you have no idea what someone is capable of doing, especially if they’re high on drugs, and you don’t know what weapons they might be carrying.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from Newstalk ZB.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
I'm fifty to fifty of this idea the government's got
of letting people do citizens arrests fifty to fifty for
security guards, yes, absolutely, For every other member of the public,
it is a definite no for me. Let's start with
the security guards and why I think these powers would

(00:35):
be good for them. How long have we been saying
that they need more teeth to do their job? How
long of ages? That's the answer to that question. And
what we've meant by that is the ability or the
right to actually provide security as opposed to, you know,
standing at the door and pretty much doing nothing when

(00:57):
someone knicks stuff from a shop or assaults somebody. I
think it's fair to say, isn't it that at the
moment security guards only really come to life at sports matches.
That's the only time they send to breathe everywhere else
and any other time they're about us threatening as a

(01:18):
person who stands at the door at bunning saying good heh,
how are you going? Aren't they? They're about us threatening
as the cardboard cutout cop that they have at might
a tend or there is threatening as the parent helper
at the year eight disco. So yep, absolutely change the
law to the extent where security guards are enabled to

(01:42):
be more effective than they are now. I've got one
proviso on that one, though. We will have to make
sure that security guards are screened and trained even better
than they are now. I think too, that security firms
will have to consider the type of people they employed, because,
you know, if the law changes and if security guards

(02:03):
have the right to detain people as I think they should,
then we're going to have to have security guards who
are actually physically capable of doing it. You know, when
I look around now at some of the security guards
outside places like banks. When I walk up the casual
mall after lunch today, for example, and go past the
ACEB bank, I bet the person outside the ACEP bank

(02:29):
as not the type who would be capable of dragging
someone to the ground and sitting on them until the
cops arrive. That's my impression. But as for the rest
of us being allowed to make citizens arrests, forget about
it for so many reasons.

Speaker 1 (02:46):
You know.

Speaker 2 (02:47):
For me, it's not a particular line in the Crimes
Act that stops me from intervening when I see someone
break in the law. I've never made a citizen's arrest,
and I will never make a citizen's arrest.

Speaker 1 (02:59):
You know what.

Speaker 2 (03:00):
It's got nothing to do with the law. I'll never
do it because I've got no idea what I'm taking
on and I grudted it. I'm not I'm not the
largest person in the world, but even if I was,
you would never get me into vening because you just
don't know what someone is on. You don't know what
they're capable of, and you don't know what weapon or

(03:21):
weapons they might be carrying. You might recall the experience
I had. I talked about it. It was in Cathedral
Square last month and this guy completely offers, faced on something,
was assaulting another guy, and straight away I thought to myself,
I'm not getting involved here. And when I say not

(03:42):
getting involved, I mean I mean physically. And it wasn't
the law stopping me. I wasn't thinking, oh, yes, that
paragraph in the Crimes Act that doesn't let me do that.
I wasn't. I didn't get involved because I wasn't going
to put my own personal safety at risk. Wasn't the

(04:03):
law stopping me, and yes, I felt a little bit
guilty afterward for not doing more. I did stick around
that I called the cops, but there was no way
that I was going to take this guy on, and
there was no way that I was going to attempt
any sort of citizens arrest. But people like me aren't
the really dangerous part of the law change the government

(04:24):
wants to make, I reckon. The really dangerous aspect of
this is the license that would give the muppets out
there to take the law into their own hands. And
you know as much as me that there are people
out there who would just love to have the law
on their side. You know, the types who think their
God's gift to herever and they're here to protect us.

(04:45):
So you'd have me hiding across the road dialing one
one one, and you'd have these other muppets thinking they're
boding and Doyle from the professionals rip it into the sky.
Because all the law says are going to do there,
I'm allowed to detain them. And look, while I'm not
one to stick up for criminals, I wouldn't want them
getting ruffed up unnecessarily by the the vigilante types. They

(05:08):
would see this law Change has a license to do
whatever they wanted to detain someone. And what's more, this
Lord Change, it goes completely against everything the police tell us.
Every time you do hear a story about someone intervening,
the police say, oh, yeah, that was that was good,
that was good, but but that you shouldn't do it.

(05:28):
That's what they say all the time, don't they For
the same reasons why I have never made a citizen's arrest,
and for the same reasons why I will never make
a citizens arrest. You've got no idea what you've taken on.
You have no idea what someone is capable of doing,
especially if they're high on drugs, and you don't know
what weapons I might be carrying.

Speaker 1 (05:48):
For more from Canterbory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.