14 February 2011

Capsicum not an option in fatal shooting

| johnboy
Join the conversation
80

The Herald Sun has an explanation on why capsicum spray wasn’t tried before Nathan Doherty was shot by police in Wanniassa:

ACT Policing deputy chief Bruce Hill said officers believed they had the situation under control after talking with the man when he was inside the house for some 30 minutes early yesterday morning. But he emerged armed with a kitchen knife in one hand and a meat cleaver in the other.

“He had his face protected against us possibly using capsicum spray,” Commander Hill told ABC Radio today.

Officers tried to disarm the man with “verbal commands” as he advanced towards them for about 300 metres. He than made an aggressive lunge towards a sergeant, who shot him.

Nathan had previously been shot in the leg by police in November 2007.

The question now is whether we should have tasers out with the general duties police who end up dealing with these situations?

Join the conversation

80
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

buzz819 said :

I believe you! Wait, playing Call of Duty is being in the army right?

Haha I doubt he would have been competent enough to make the rank of Captain in CoD. The whole “shooting opponents in the leg” thing would have kept his score pretty low.

fernandof said :

pleb said :

and FFS! no-one believes you were ever in any army!

Perfectly fine by me. I’m not looking for anyone’s acceptance here.

I got my answer re this incident (see comment #36). As for the tone and the insults in this discussions, I understand it’s a difficult topic and sometimes people just have to release some steam. I’ve been in the army, and in comparison, this is nothing.

I believe you! Wait, playing Call of Duty is being in the army right?

pleb said :

and FFS! no-one believes you were ever in any army!

Perfectly fine by me. I’m not looking for anyone’s acceptance here.

I got my answer re this incident (see comment #36). As for the tone and the insults in this discussions, I understand it’s a difficult topic and sometimes people just have to release some steam. I’ve been in the army, and in comparison, this is nothing.

fernandof,

you arent making any sense.

first this,

‘You are right that I do not know the police procedures, rather the army ones’

THEN THIS

‘Look, I really had it with people who think they know it all. You think you know what training I had and where it apply? Good for you. You want to gloat on you’re exceptional knowledge of everything possible in the world?’

(sounds like you’re speaking about yourself here)

AND THEN

‘That said, given the different contexts an army soldier and a police officer has to deal with, I accept that the policy used by the police is more suitable for the situations they are confronted with (as I clearly stated in comment #36).’

What is this policy? If you have a copy please add the link to this thread. I am interested to read it and don’t want to make assumptions or speculate on this matter without being properly imformed.

and FFS! no-one believes you were ever in any army!

fernandof said :

BerraBoy68 said :

The policy for usage of fire arms by any soldier (officer or non officer) is the same:
1. you identify there’s a threatening situation, e.g., a suspicious person is approaching
2. you clearly shout that person to stop
3. if the person continues to approach, you shoot the lower body
4 however, if at any point you identify life threatening situation (e.g., the person picks up a gun a points it at you), you aim to the centre of mass and shoot

The operational doctrine you’re describing here is so different to anything used by the Australian army that anybody who has served in the Australian forces simply won’t find it credible, as you’ve discovered.

I’ve worked (a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away…) with Poms, Americans, Indians and even a couple of Finns, and I’ve never heard of *anything* like this. Shoot the enemy in the leg? Seriously?

It doesnt matter how slowly you type, hindsight is a wonderful thing. The police turned up to a stand-off, with a man inside his house after a female had called 000 to report the situation.. and they didnt make a safe initial assumption that there might have been a hostage and it might be a special situation? I know there was no hostage, we all know that now, but did the police who were responding to the 000 call from an unknown female know that? As I said which you quoted, those first on the scene did indeed call for backup, so isnt it fair to assume that an officer made that same assumption, hence why the police numbers tripled?

No dvaey, it isn’t fair to assume an officer made certain assumptions. I could dissect this ridiculous post, but what’s the point? You are clearly out of your depth and your comment above shows how little you know about the incident.

the guy with mental health issues will have his life dragged through the media for the next week or two

No he won’t.

Maybe you missed the whole saga with the mully crash last year. Maybe you forgot what the media focused on in the week after the accident.. heres a hint, it was the history of the guy who wasnt in the stolen car, whos family was killed, yet somehow his entire criminal history is relevant.

I didn’t think we were talking about Mully or the other criminals who died in that crash. Completely different scenarios involving three recidivist offenders, two of whom were breaching their bail at the time, which is why the media deemed it relevant.

I guarantee you Mr Doherty’s life will not be ‘dragged through the media’ for the next week or two.

Well, technically youre right.. the officers involved have only been ‘cleared’ by their own union. When I raised this issue once before, the response was ‘well a police officer shouldnt have an undecided case hanging over his head for that long’, but apparently its okay for a member of the public.

No, don’t qualify it with “technically you’re right.” You know I’m right, because once again, you shoot from the hip with inaccurate statements about something you know very little about. They weren’t ‘cleared’ at all. You seem to be confusing a union/senior police offering support to the officers as them ‘being cleared.’

Why are people who disagree with police ‘nut cases’? Attitudes like that, only serve to strengthen the publics view that police believe theyre above the law and the public, when anyone who complains is a nut-case, until enough nut-cases get loud enough that things start getting investigated. Im sure you thought 9 people who were capsicum sprayed at the watch-house were nut-cases too.

No dvaey, not the public’s view – your view.

Plenty of people on this site disagree with police. I singled you out as a nutcase because the comments you make give the impression that you feel nothing but contempt for them. What a shame you feel such negative thoughts for people who, by and large, are in the job to help people and to make a difference in the community.

dvaey said :

This is exactly what I was asking for. I was saying that police shouldnt be cleared by their own brothers, they should be held to the same account (if not higher) than the public they serve. If its good enough for a member of the public to be found liable or not by a judge in a court of law, why is it not good enough to expect our police officers to be the same? Why can a police inquiry be conducted so much quicker than a court inquiry? Are the police inquiries able to foresee evidence that the court hasnt seen yet? My whole dislike of these situations isnt because of a dislike of police, its a dislike of the system which treats one individual better than another.

Police are subject to their own internal inquiries section, the Ombudsman, Parliamentary (or Legislative Assembly) inquiries, coroners court and civil court. And if they are found by any of these that they have acted unlawfully they will be subject to a criminal court.

What else would you suggest?

Not to mention trial by media, public opinion and people with chip’s on their shoulders with internet access.

dvaey said :

Spideydog said :

dvaey said :

By that time, the police involved have probably almost forgotten about the shooting and have probably been promoted to a different unit/station, while the family is still waiting for an investigation to even start.

Dvaey, you insensitive horrible little human being. To even suggest that the police members involved are totally unaffected after such an event and even get pats on the back

I didnt suggest theyre unaffected or that they get a pat on the back. I was suggesting that their lives go on, their careers go on, and 12-18 months after the incident, the officer is probably in a different situation to what they were in at the time. Unless you disagree, and that after a police shooting or other accident, that the officers involved are taken off-duty until the end of an inquest?

Yes you were. How the heck do you know if their lives and careers go on, you know something the rest of us don’t? How do you know that they don’t suffer depression, PTSD or any other associated disorders after a tragic event like this……. You have just make assumptions with a obvious distrust and dislike of police. They’re not robots, they are human beings. IF they are able to continue with duty, why should they be suspended from duty if the initial and follow up investigations (which are completely transparent) show no wrong doing? You say that Police should be treated the same as the rest of the community but you expect them to be held to the value of “guilty until they prove themselves innocent” Their lives are already buggered without you coming along and wanting them sacked until they can prove themselves innocent.

dvaey said :

This is exactly what I was asking for. I was saying that police shouldnt be cleared by their own brothers, they should be held to the same account (if not higher) than the public they serve. If its good enough for a member of the public to be found liable or not by a judge in a court of law, why is it not good enough to expect our police officers to be the same? Why can a police inquiry be conducted so much quicker than a court inquiry? Are the police inquiries able to foresee evidence that the court hasnt seen yet? My whole dislike of these situations isnt because of a dislike of police, its a dislike of the system which treats one individual better than another.

And where exactly are they being treated differently? Show us exactly where in any of the incidents you have discussed where the Police have come out straight away and cleared themselves? All I have seen is them given an initial assessment and that the matter is being compiled and will be presented to a coroner. Isn’t that what occurs for your average citizen when a matter is being investigated ….. if evidence exists, it goes before criminal court and where it doesn’t, it goes before a coronial court.

This matter isn’t a “police enquiry” this matter is a police investigation that WILL go before a coroner. A coroner will oversee the entire case and make decisions/opinions. If evidence exists where a criminal offence is disclosed, it will be referred as required.

My opinion stays the same with you, that sadly you appear to have had or witnessed bad interactions with Police and have developed an intense distrust/dislike of Police, or your just paranoid. I just hope someday that you can see that the majority of the members are hard working HUMAN BEING’s that do the job and put their LIVES and well-being at risk FOR YOU.

And the Mully cup goes to….

fernandof said :

No, the reason I do not wish to state where I was trained is because there is too much hatred directed at me in this conversation, and I don’t want my nationality to cast negative light on my country of origin. You’ll probably dismiss this, but there you go.

I’m only comfortable to say it’s a western county with high GDP in hope it will give me some credibility. If it doesn’t, then so be it, it’s really no big deal.

GDP cannot be that high if they cannot afford to train their troops properley. I take it you dont think that double-tapping is cost effective?

Spideydog said :

dvaey said :

By that time, the police involved have probably almost forgotten about the shooting and have probably been promoted to a different unit/station, while the family is still waiting for an investigation to even start.

Dvaey, you insensitive horrible little human being. To even suggest that the police members involved are totally unaffected after such an event and even get pats on the back

I didnt suggest theyre unaffected or that they get a pat on the back. I was suggesting that their lives go on, their careers go on, and 12-18 months after the incident, the officer is probably in a different situation to what they were in at the time. Unless you disagree, and that after a police shooting or other accident, that the officers involved are taken off-duty until the end of an inquest?

Spideydog said :

You always come on here shooting from the hip with knowledge that is soooo far from the mark it is laughable.

So my assertion that a police officer would be back at work after a shooting before a coroners inquest, and that they could even be promoted or transferred to another unit in the year or two while a case is pending.. is comlpetely laughable?

Spideydog said :

Otherwise I suggest that you allow the courts to run their course and the facts of the matter will be aired properly.

This is exactly what I was asking for. I was saying that police shouldnt be cleared by their own brothers, they should be held to the same account (if not higher) than the public they serve. If its good enough for a member of the public to be found liable or not by a judge in a court of law, why is it not good enough to expect our police officers to be the same? Why can a police inquiry be conducted so much quicker than a court inquiry? Are the police inquiries able to foresee evidence that the court hasnt seen yet? My whole dislike of these situations isnt because of a dislike of police, its a dislike of the system which treats one individual better than another.

Tooks said :

Well, the police turned up and spent 40min trying to get him out of the house. Wouldnt it be police policy to negotiate assuming theres a hostage there?

I’ll type this slowly so you understand. T h e r e w a s n o h o s t a g e. No one at any stage has indicated they believed it was a hostage situation. You should stop making assumptions if they lead you to conclusions like that

It doesnt matter how slowly you type, hindsight is a wonderful thing. The police turned up to a stand-off, with a man inside his house after a female had called 000 to report the situation.. and they didnt make a safe initial assumption that there might have been a hostage and it might be a special situation? I know there was no hostage, we all know that now, but did the police who were responding to the 000 call from an unknown female know that? As I said which you quoted, those first on the scene did indeed call for backup, so isnt it fair to assume that an officer made that same assumption, hence why the police numbers tripled?

Tooks said :

the guy with mental health issues will have his life dragged through the media for the next week or two

No he won’t.

Maybe you missed the whole saga with the mully crash last year. Maybe you forgot what the media focused on in the week after the accident.. heres a hint, it was the history of the guy who wasnt in the stolen car, whos family was killed, yet somehow his entire criminal history is relevant.

Incase you missed it, here’s the RA story about the media doing exactly that last time.. Id like to be able to agree with you that it wont happen to him, but Im sure we all thought the same last time..
http://the-riotact.com/too-much-truth/19733

For an example, look at the Mully case.. the police were cleared of any wrongdoing the night of the accident

Once again, you’re wrong. You can’t clear someone before the incident has been investigated.

Well, technically youre right.. the officers involved have only been ‘cleared’ by their own union. When I raised this issue once before, the response was ‘well a police officer shouldnt have an undecided case hanging over his head for that long’, but apparently its okay for a member of the public.

Tooks said :

You really need to see someone about your psychotic hatred of police. You remind me of that nut case who used to – and probably still does – always write into the Canberra Times with similar sentiments.

Why are people who disagree with police ‘nut cases’? Attitudes like that, only serve to strengthen the publics view that police believe theyre above the law and the public, when anyone who complains is a nut-case, until enough nut-cases get loud enough that things start getting investigated. Im sure you thought 9 people who were capsicum sprayed at the watch-house were nut-cases too.

BerraBoy68 said :

I have been a small arms instructor and am yet to meet anyone from any military that teaches its people to not to shoot to kill.

The only way you’re going to get any credibility is to state why you believe you were trained any differently. Personally, I’m guessing you’ll come back with a Walter Mitty argument about not being allowed to talk about it. Until then, feel free to shoot your mouth off, if your argument is as good as your supposed military weapons training then you’ll still miss the mark and shoot yourself in the foot. Have a nice day though!

No, the reason I do not wish to state where I was trained is because there is too much hatred directed at me in this conversation, and I don’t want my nationality to cast negative light on my country of origin. You’ll probably dismiss this, but there you go.

I’m only comfortable to say it’s a western county with high GDP in hope it will give me some credibility. If it doesn’t, then so be it, it’s really no big deal.

I was trained as a soldier and in the course of my service I’ve been promoted to to an officer. After a long while of climbing up the ladder I’ve been granted the Captain rank. After servicing for a a while more, I’ve decided to leave the army and pursue a different career.

The policy for usage of fire arms by any soldier (officer or non officer) is the same:
1. you identify there’s a threatening situation, e.g., a suspicious person is approaching
2. you clearly shout that person to stop
3. if the person continues to approach, you shoot the lower body
4 however, if at any point you identify life threatening situation (e.g., the person picks up a gun a points it at you), you aim to the centre of mass and shoot

That said, please read comment #36 in which I accept that the context of an army solider is different than that of a police officer, and that the policy used by the police is more suitable to their situations.

jake555 said :

fernandof said :

That said, I still fail to see how my training has any relevance to what I write. For that matter, I fail to see how the training and experience of any one questioning the actions of the police have any relevance to the question they ask. You may argue that someone more knowledgeable wouldn’t ask the question in the first place, but that doesn’t make the question irrelevant.

Let me cast your mind back to….hmmm…..let me see…..Yesterday.
You’re the one who brought up your unique form of “aim for a leg” training. Well done, you’ve successfully turned what could have been an interesting topic into a dull one.

Unfortunately, I think you’re right: I should have not brought that point up. The training I had is irrelevant to the argument I was making. The policy of shooting attackers in the lower body does exist and is widely used in many armies in the world. So, regardless of my personal training, as long as such a policy exist and is used, the question of why it has not been used by the police on this incident is a valid one.

That said, given the different contexts an army soldier and a police officer has to deal with, I accept that the policy used by the police is more suitable for the situations they are confronted with (as I clearly stated in comment #36).

jake555 said :

fernandof said :

Yes, I too think that’s what happened, and that’s why I think if the officers aimed to kill, they misused their rights.

Let me clarify, in your explanation of the incidents, what happened was:
a. the attacker runs toward a team of officers, meat cleaver at hand all ready to inflict lethal wounds
b. the police, somewhat disorganised, are backing off shouting and treating
c. when the threat level raised to too dangerous level, officers shoot
c(a) my assumption, they aimed to kill

What I’m saying is that between b and c, the officers could have shot possible non-lethal shots and eliminate the risk before it’s too great and they have to react with lethal force.

BTW – re your previous comment immediately above – I’d love to see a practical demonstration of your idea of popping off shots at a moving armed offender’s leg from a couple hundred metres away, however I think you’d struggle justifying their death if you happened to hit a femoral artery or their chest instead – when they are a couple of hundred metres away from injuring anyone.

You’re quite good in selective reading, aren’t you?
As I wrote in the quote you added, you are supposed to shoot before the situation becomes fatal, but only after you get a good shot. You are not supposed to shot at hundreds of meters, but rather tens of meters away. In that range, you can absolutely aim for the lower body.

Mind you, if your shots do kill the poor bastard (regardless of where they actually hit), that’s too bad, but absolutely allowed by the policy. Your aim would be questioned, of course, but the policy does allow for casualties.

Reality check8:46 pm 15 Feb 11

Grumpy Old Fart said :

From what is described of this individuals past he was suffering some form of mental impairment and given his actions of 2007 who was monitoring him?

Also, at what stage did those in the situation become aware of the mental health issues of the guy with the knife? From what Ive read, this wasnt a case of the police being attacked as soon as they arrived on the scene, they were negotiating for over half an hour before negotiations broke down, but apparently no-one thought to call for backup (whether that be negotiators, TRG or even a mental health professional).

I think you’ll find it’s SRS, we don’t have TRG in Canberra. And how do you know who was and who wasn’t called for? Were you there? Do you know what the response time for SRS even is? As for mental health professionals attending – they WILL NOT attend violent incidents such as this. Let’s just throw another person in danger while we’re at it? Negotiations were made, and the turkey decided to rush Police with a knife and a meat cleaver, and guess what – game over. You can’t blame all the problems in the world on “mental health issues”. He paid the price for his actions, end of story. My heart goes out to the officers who were on scene, it’s something they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

As for these things taking forever to reach Court – welcome to the ACT Court system. Police have a 4 hour investigation time limit from the time of arrest – not 6 months. All the evidence would have been readily available to investigators after the shooting. Stop watching Hollywood movies and join us in the real world.

dvaey said :

By that time, the police involved have probably almost forgotten about the shooting and have probably been promoted to a different unit/station, while the family is still waiting for an investigation to even start.

Dvaey, you insensitive horrible little human being. To even suggest that the police members involved are totally unaffected after such an event and even get pats on the back and promoted is beyond belief and goes far beyond your usual tin foil hat conspiracy theories. Those members will have to live and re-live those moments for the rest of their lives.

You always come on here shooting from the hip with knowledge that is soooo far from the mark it is laughable. You have NO knowledge of police procedure or even credible knowledge of how to deal with such incidents. You just see “Police incident” then you just see red and want to sledge mud with ill informed verbal diarrhea. AT NOT TIME HAS ANYONE CLEARED POLICE IN ANY OF THE INCIDENTS YOU HAVE REFERRED TOO.

I suggest you re-read Grumpy Old Farts Post – post # 41 I think as it is probably one of the most intelligent and well thought out posts here I have seen. You may even learn something.

If you are so much better and know how Policing should be done, apply to join, put on the uniform and show them how it’s done. Otherwise I suggest that you allow the courts to run their course and the facts of the matter will be aired properly.

Good night to you.

Doza was the best mate anyone could have. I cant stress enough that he wouldnt harm a fly, and i have come to terms with and accepted that this may have not necessarily been the personal point of view of the officer who shot him. Please keep your blogs to the point and speak only of the actual question that this thread actually relates to. You guys need to realise that this mans family and loved onesuse the internet to, try to be tactfull in your responses to these articals. fernandez or whatever keep your childhood fantasies of grandios to yourself. this is a serious issue, who wants to here you rantin on about any former training you may have had in the army, and what you think you would do if a bloke was running at you. get a tact mate, and get a life.
DOZERS BUDDY FOR LIFE

Well, the police turned up and spent 40min trying to get him out of the house. Wouldnt it be police policy to negotiate assuming theres a hostage there? As it turned out, it wasnt a hostage situation, but at the time why wasnt it assumed that it could have been? (Given that they had 6 police there in half an hour, I can only guess that they did make that assumption that there was atleast a stand-off)

I’ll type this slowly so you understand. T h e r e w a s n o h o s t a g e. No one at any stage has indicated they believed it was a hostage situation. You should stop making assumptions if they lead you to conclusions like that.

In reply to your other post:

This is the problem. The first I heard about this story, was on the radio when they were explaining how the police were cleared and the shooting was justified.

Quote where anything was said about police being cleared. Tip: you can’t because it was never said.

the guy with mental health issues will have his life dragged through the media for the next week or two

No he won’t.

For an example, look at the Mully case.. the police were cleared of any wrongdoing the night of the accident

Once again, you’re wrong. You can’t clear someone before the incident has been investigated.

When was the last time an investigation happened in a situation like this, where the police officer wasnt cleared in under 24hrs?

How about every time?

You really need to see someone about your psychotic hatred of police. You remind me of that nut case who used to – and probably still does – always write into the Canberra Times with similar sentiments.

dvaey said :

Tooks said :

Hostage situation? Where did you pull that one from?

Well, the police turned up and spent 40min trying to get him out of the house. Wouldnt it be police policy to negotiate assuming theres a hostage there? As it turned out, it wasnt a hostage situation, but at the time why wasnt it assumed that it could have been? (Given that they had 6 police there in half an hour, I can only guess that they did make that assumption that there was atleast a stand-off)

buzz819 said :

dvaey said :

For an example, look at the Mully case.. the police were cleared of any wrongdoing the night of the accident, but the coronial inquest in the courts isnt even starting for another 3 weeks. They could at least wait for the victims bodies to be cold before announcing their brothers-in-arms have done no wrong. When was the last time an investigation happened in a situation like this, where the police officer wasnt cleared in under 24hrs?

It’s quite funny, you want the Police investigation to go on and on… Why?

I never said it should go on and on. I just believe that if a judge in a court needs several months for all the evidence in the case to be gathered, that the police inquiry should be the same. All Im asking for is the same standards of evidence and investigation to be applied to police as they apply to the community.

How can the police be cleared before theyve even gathered all the evidence? If the police really do have all the evidence in under 24hrs, then why do judges/coroners feel they need to allow so much more time before they can come to the correct decision?

You do realise in most lockups the investigation only lasts like 4 hours?

dvaey said :

jake555 said :

Obviously. Do you realise you’re passing comment on a police matter?

Silly me, here I was thinking we were talking about one person killing another person after an attack with a firearm. Why does it matter that one person involved was police?

Maybe read my comment in the context it was written, ie. in response to someone else’s comment regarding their own training compared with that of police.

Tooks said :

Hostage situation? Where did you pull that one from?

Well, the police turned up and spent 40min trying to get him out of the house. Wouldnt it be police policy to negotiate assuming theres a hostage there? As it turned out, it wasnt a hostage situation, but at the time why wasnt it assumed that it could have been? (Given that they had 6 police there in half an hour, I can only guess that they did make that assumption that there was atleast a stand-off)

buzz819 said :

dvaey said :

For an example, look at the Mully case.. the police were cleared of any wrongdoing the night of the accident, but the coronial inquest in the courts isnt even starting for another 3 weeks. They could at least wait for the victims bodies to be cold before announcing their brothers-in-arms have done no wrong. When was the last time an investigation happened in a situation like this, where the police officer wasnt cleared in under 24hrs?

It’s quite funny, you want the Police investigation to go on and on… Why?

I never said it should go on and on. I just believe that if a judge in a court needs several months for all the evidence in the case to be gathered, that the police inquiry should be the same. All Im asking for is the same standards of evidence and investigation to be applied to police as they apply to the community.

How can the police be cleared before theyve even gathered all the evidence? If the police really do have all the evidence in under 24hrs, then why do judges/coroners feel they need to allow so much more time before they can come to the correct decision?

dvaey said :

For an example, look at the Mully case.. the police were cleared of any wrongdoing the night of the accident, but the coronial inquest in the courts isnt even starting for another 3 weeks. They could at least wait for the victims bodies to be cold before announcing their brothers-in-arms have done no wrong. When was the last time an investigation happened in a situation like this, where the police officer wasnt cleared in under 24hrs?

It’s quite funny, you want the Police investigation to go on and on… Why?

Look up Clifton Robert Lockwood, he got charged with murder, is that what want?

jake555 said :

Obviously. Do you realise you’re passing comment on a police matter?

Silly me, here I was thinking we were talking about one person killing another person after an attack with a firearm. Why does it matter that one person involved was police?

Grumpy Old Fart said :

From what is described of this individuals past he was suffering some form of mental impairment and given his actions of 2007 who was monitoring him?

Also, at what stage did those in the situation become aware of the mental health issues of the guy with the knife? From what Ive read, this wasnt a case of the police being attacked as soon as they arrived on the scene, they were negotiating for over half an hour before negotiations broke down, but apparently no-one thought to call for backup (whether that be negotiators, TRG or even a mental health professional).

Grumpy Old Fart said :

Until the findings of the investigation and the Coronial hearing is held all you will see is conjecture.

This is the problem. The first I heard about this story, was on the radio when they were explaining how the police were cleared and the shooting was justified. I love how the police are always cleared while the smell of gunpowder is still in the air, but the guy with mental health issues will have his life dragged through the media for the next week or two, and then maybe in 12 to 18 months a coroner will start looking at the case. By that time, the police involved have probably almost forgotten about the shooting and have probably been promoted to a different unit/station, while the family is still waiting for an investigation to even start.

For an example, look at the Mully case.. the police were cleared of any wrongdoing the night of the accident, but the coronial inquest in the courts isnt even starting for another 3 weeks. They could at least wait for the victims bodies to be cold before announcing their brothers-in-arms have done no wrong. When was the last time an investigation happened in a situation like this, where the police officer wasnt cleared in under 24hrs?

dvaey said :

Skidbladnir said :

Oh, and don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.

Sooner or later, someone in this situation will have learned this lesson, and we’ll be reading about a police officer being shot. Id bet my left nut that the same people who praise the shooter in this story, will criticise the shooter in that story, even if both individuals felt like they were protecting their own lives. As said in #7, if you point a gun at someone, its a fair assumption that you intend to kill them, anyone should be in their rights to defend their life?

Also, this was a hostage situation that lasted over half an hour. Surely there was enough time to get a suitably qualified marksman in, even with a taser, rubber bullets, bean bags or some other force than the most lethal force they can use.

Theres a reason why only special cops in the UK have guns…

You have got to be a troll. No normal person could possibly be this stupid.

Hostage situation? Where did you pull that one from?

I wanna see fernandof go from talking to someone, to having that person pop up out of no where, react, move back so he doesn’t get stabbed, draw his weapon (the gun wouldn’t have been drawn before this time) and shoot the guy in both legs…

fernandof said :

That said, I still fail to see how my training has any relevance to what I write. For that matter, I fail to see how the training and experience of any one questioning the actions of the police have any relevance to the question they ask. You may argue that someone more knowledgeable wouldn’t ask the question in the first place, but that doesn’t make the question irrelevant.

Let me cast your mind back to….hmmm…..let me see…..Yesterday.
You’re the one who brought up your unique form of “aim for a leg” training. Well done, you’ve successfully turned what could have been an interesting topic into a dull one.

fernandof said :

Yes, I too think that’s what happened, and that’s why I think if the officers aimed to kill, they misused their rights.

Let me clarify, in your explanation of the incidents, what happened was:
a. the attacker runs toward a team of officers, meat cleaver at hand all ready to inflict lethal wounds
b. the police, somewhat disorganised, are backing off shouting and treating
c. when the threat level raised to too dangerous level, officers shoot
c(a) my assumption, they aimed to kill

What I’m saying is that between b and c, the officers could have shot possible non-lethal shots and eliminate the risk before it’s too great and they have to react with lethal force.

BTW – re your previous comment immediately above – I’d love to see a practical demonstration of your idea of popping off shots at a moving armed offender’s leg from a couple hundred metres away, however I think you’d struggle justifying their death if you happened to hit a femoral artery or their chest instead – when they are a couple of hundred metres away from injuring anyone.

BerraBoy68 said :

While you’re there you may as well apologise to your old instructor as somewhere along the line you seem to have pissed him off sufficiently for him to give you information that will get you killed in the MEAO.

Look, I really had it with people who think they know it all. You think you know what training I had and where it apply? Good for you. You want to gloat on you’re exceptional knowledge of everything possible in the world?

In this case, yep. I have been a small arms instructor and am yet to meet anyone from any military that teaches its people to not to shoot to kill. The only way you’re going to get any credibility is to state why you believe you were trained any differently. Personally, I’m guessing you’ll come back with a Walter Mitty argument about not being allowed to talk about it. Until then, feel free to shoot your mouth off, if your argument is as good as your supposed military weapons training then you’ll still miss the mark and shoot yourself in the foot. Have a nice day though!

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

fernandof said :

Spideydog said :

PBO said :

fernandof said :

Yes, I am military trained, as a Captain officer.

Sorry, I am calling B.S. on you being mil. If you were military, you would not have gotten into this arguement the way you have and you would be using a different lingo.

Where were you based and what did you do, poge?

+1 I agree. “Captain Officer” really …… Or the entry standards have certainly slipped since I was there ????? I do hope he knows that it’s an offence to impersonate a military officer, IF indeed this is the case !!!!!!! lol

right, because the Australian army is the only one in the world. Silly me.

Ah, so you’re actually a Captain in the Salvation Army, not the Australian Army.

No – the Kiss Army.

Barmy Army?

georgesgenitals1:04 pm 15 Feb 11

Jim Jones said :

fernandof said :

Spideydog said :

PBO said :

fernandof said :

Yes, I am military trained, as a Captain officer.

Sorry, I am calling B.S. on you being mil. If you were military, you would not have gotten into this arguement the way you have and you would be using a different lingo.

Where were you based and what did you do, poge?

+1 I agree. “Captain Officer” really …… Or the entry standards have certainly slipped since I was there ????? I do hope he knows that it’s an offence to impersonate a military officer, IF indeed this is the case !!!!!!! lol

right, because the Australian army is the only one in the world. Silly me.

Ah, so you’re actually a Captain in the Salvation Army, not the Australian Army.

No – the Kiss Army.

fernandof said :

Spideydog said :

PBO said :

fernandof said :

Yes, I am military trained, as a Captain officer.

Sorry, I am calling B.S. on you being mil. If you were military, you would not have gotten into this arguement the way you have and you would be using a different lingo.

Where were you based and what did you do, poge?

+1 I agree. “Captain Officer” really …… Or the entry standards have certainly slipped since I was there ????? I do hope he knows that it’s an offence to impersonate a military officer, IF indeed this is the case !!!!!!! lol

right, because the Australian army is the only one in the world. Silly me.

Ah, so you’re actually a Captain in the Salvation Army, not the Australian Army.

Spideydog said :

PBO said :

fernandof said :

Yes, I am military trained, as a Captain officer.

Sorry, I am calling B.S. on you being mil. If you were military, you would not have gotten into this arguement the way you have and you would be using a different lingo.

Where were you based and what did you do, poge?

+1 I agree. “Captain Officer” really …… Or the entry standards have certainly slipped since I was there ????? I do hope he knows that it’s an offence to impersonate a military officer, IF indeed this is the case !!!!!!! lol

Right, I forgot the Australian army is the only one there is. Sorry for that.

No, I’m not Australian born, and I haven’t served in the Australian army. However, I did serve for quite a considerable amount of time in the army and have been released from active duty when I was a Captain.

And before you go there, it’s not some joke 3rd world country – I actually had some exercises with many other armies including the Australian force.

That said, I still fail to see how my training has any relevance to what I write. For that matter, I fail to see how the training and experience of any one questioning the actions of the police have any relevance to the question they ask. You may argue that someone more knowledgeable wouldn’t ask the question in the first place, but that doesn’t make the question irrelevant.

Spideydog said :

PBO said :

fernandof said :

Yes, I am military trained, as a Captain officer.

Sorry, I am calling B.S. on you being mil. If you were military, you would not have gotten into this arguement the way you have and you would be using a different lingo.

Where were you based and what did you do, poge?

+1 I agree. “Captain Officer” really …… Or the entry standards have certainly slipped since I was there ????? I do hope he knows that it’s an offence to impersonate a military officer, IF indeed this is the case !!!!!!! lol

right, because the Australian army is the only one in the world. Silly me.

PBO said :

fernandof said :

Yes, I am military trained, as a Captain officer.

Sorry, I am calling B.S. on you being mil. If you were military, you would not have gotten into this arguement the way you have and you would be using a different lingo.

Where were you based and what did you do, poge?

+1 I agree. “Captain Officer” really …… Or the entry standards have certainly slipped since I was there ????? I do hope he knows that it’s an offence to impersonate a military officer, IF indeed this is the case !!!!!!! lol

creative_canberran said :

You claim to be in the military, I assumed that meant the Australian one in which case my comment applies to you.

Well, it’s nice from you to make assumptions about me. Don’t. I made an assumption around how the officers actioned and I do accept it was an unevaluated assumption which made me change my mind (see comment #18).

However, regardless of my service, your comments still do not apply to me. To explain why, let me comment on this text you posted.

creative_canberran said :

I should also point out that more than a few Aussie soldiers have killed or seriously wounded themselves or fellow soldiers by accident, either through error in handling or through deliberately joking around with service weapons. Kovko ring a bell, the guy who pointed a gun at his head and squeezed the trigger?

If what comes from the training you and your fellow service people have been given is a bunch who shoot up civilians and themselves like cowboys, then you are in no position to comment on the appropriate use of force.

Okay, so you’re saying that the Australian army is misbehaving and potentially misusing their force. You know what, in some incidents I think you’re right.

But let us go back to the point you’re making: you’re essentially saying that because I’m supposedly part of an organisation that misused its power, I should not be allowed to criticise or question the actions of other law enforcements. Interesting point.

Do you think every single action the police did is fully as per regulations? Because based on what you’re saying, if the police did action wrongly, they are not allowed to investigate themselves. I mean, shouldn’t they too be “in no position to comment on the appropriate use of force”?

fernandof said :

Yes, I am military trained, as a Captain officer.

Sorry, I am calling B.S. on you being mil. If you were military, you would not have gotten into this arguement the way you have and you would be using a different lingo.

Where were you based and what did you do, poge?

fernandof said :

Yes, I am military trained, as a Captain officer, if you must know. But no, I don’t think I’ve to be retrained. You see, different contexts call for different policies. My questions were in alignment to the context my training was give, and obviously that context do not apply to policing.

Obviously. Do you realise you’re passing comment on a police matter?

BerraBoy68 said :

Fernandof – if you are military as you say, and you’re instructor at basic told you to aim at anywhere other then the center of mass of bad guy facing you – then you seriously need to go back and get re-trained.

Another long friend of mine which I forgot. Where did we meet? Oh, wait, we didn’t, and so you know nothing about me.

Yes, I am military trained, as a Captain officer, if you must know. But no, I don’t think I’ve to be retrained. You see, different contexts call for different policies. My questions were in alignment to the context my training was give, and obviously that context do not apply to policing.

BerraBoy68 said :

While you’re there you may as well apologise to your old instructor as somewhere along the line you seem to have pissed him off sufficiently for him to give you information that will get you killed in the MEAO.

Look, I really had it with people who think they know it all. You think you know what training I had and where it apply? Good for you. You want to gloat on you’re exceptional knowledge of everything possible in the world? Great for you.

When you’re done, please leave me alone because obviously you know everything about me and there’s nothing my tiny brain I can possible grasp from your absolute amazing wit.

creative_canberran12:17 am 15 Feb 11

fernandof said :

Sorry, but do I know you? I’m quite sure I don’t. I’m also quite confident you know absolutely nothing about me nor my service. So how does your comment have any relevance to what I said?

You claim to be in the military, I assumed that meant the Australian one in which case my comment applies to you. You being a part of a service that has killed many more civilians in error and in haste than any civilian police force in this country has.
I should also point out that more than a few Aussie soldiers have killed or seriously wounded themselves or fellow soldiers by accident, either through error in handling or through deliberately joking around with service weapons. Kovko ring a bell, the guy who pointed a gun at his head and squeezed the trigger?

If what comes from the training you and your fellow service people have been given is a bunch who shoot up civilians and themselves like cowboys, then you are in no position to comment on the appropriate use of force.

fernandof said :

You are right that I do not know the police procedures, rather the army ones (or at least those applying to me), and hence my questions. ll.

Take it easy.

Fernandof – if you are military as you say, and you’re instructor at basic told you to aim at anywhere other then the center of mass of bad guy facing you – then you seriously need to go back and get re-trained.

While you’re there you may as well apologise to your old instructor as somewhere along the line you seem to have pissed him off sufficiently for him to give you information that will get you killed in the MEAO.

Grumpy Old Fart9:23 pm 14 Feb 11

Firstly like many I was not there so I am not going to second guess what occurred.
Secondly the Police only have at their disposal certain weapons and certain tactics in an urban environment
To shoot at an offender is an action of last resort for a Police Officer who must be able to justify being in fear of his own life or the safety of another person
Police training as repeated many times in the posts is to aim at centre mass for maximum stopping power while minimizing the risk of ricochets
Not every one who is shot once falls over but Police are trained to fire and the moment the threat stops they stop
Tazers do not work on all subjects and if you are in range to fire a tazer you are in range of a lethal blow from a sharp edged weapon. An offender who is seven metres away can reach and strike an officer before a weapon can be fired
Capsicum spray does not work on all people and you would be inside the kill range of a sharp edged weapon
The real issue here is not the action of the Police but more the action or lack of action of the mental healthnservices/facilities in this town

From what is described of this individuals past he was suffering some form of mental impairment and given his actions of 2007 who was monitoring him?

What drove him to this state and why wasn’t mental health support given earlier. I’m sure his friends/family must have seen some form of degeneration in his mental state prior to the incident.

Was he on drugs illicit or otherwise, was he drinking and who was with him, where were his ‘friends’?

Until the findings of the investigation and the Coronial hearing is held all you will see is conjecture. The path needs to be recovery for the Police involved, recovery for the family of the deceased and lastly undertsanding what went wrong with the deceased and what were the warning signs.

You may not have known but two days ago a crazed killer went on a rampage in New York and killed four people and injured many others using only knives. Thank god that did not happen here.

Well done to the Police members for protecting the citizens of Canberra and although it will be no consolation for the trauma to all I hope the shooting is found to be justified as it would appear to be.

Skidbladnir said :

Oh, and don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.

Sooner or later, someone in this situation will have learned this lesson, and we’ll be reading about a police officer being shot. Id bet my left nut that the same people who praise the shooter in this story, will criticise the shooter in that story, even if both individuals felt like they were protecting their own lives. As said in #7, if you point a gun at someone, its a fair assumption that you intend to kill them, anyone should be in their rights to defend their life?

Also, this was a hostage situation that lasted over half an hour. Surely there was enough time to get a suitably qualified marksman in, even with a taser, rubber bullets, bean bags or some other force than the most lethal force they can use.

Theres a reason why only special cops in the UK have guns…

creative_canberran said :

Sorry, but do I know you? I’m quite sure I don’t. I’m also quite confident you know absolutely nothing about me nor my service. So how does your comment have any relevance to what I said?

buzz819 said :

You are shooting off your mouth with no knowledge and no education to back up your claims.

Take a deep breath, count to ten, and read my previous comment (probably #36, but currently pending moderation so it may change). I’m not “shooting off my mouth with no knowledge”, I’m asking questions with no knowledge. My first comment (#1) wasn’t to attack anyone nor to judge anyone, but rather a legitimate question.

You are right that I do not know the police procedures, rather the army ones (or at least those applying to me), and hence my questions. Given the information I now know, I do appreciate that the policy the police force is using is much more suitable for policing than that of the army, even if the implication is that when a shot is fired, it is more likely to kill.

Take it easy.

bigfeet said :

Believe me, this incident will be subjected to inquiry by many people and organisations much better qualified and with more information than you have sitting behind your keyboard.

And it’s a shame too – so much attention will be given to the fact that an officer (rightly or wrongly, I wasn’t there so I won’t comment like Rambo over there) discharged a firearm. Meanwhile, the chronically cluster-f*cked mental health ‘system’ will continue to be ignored entirely, and incidents like this will continue to happen.

Tooks said :

You don’t seem to get it. Police aren’t allowed to shoot until the threat IS raised to too dangerous a level. They aren’t allowed to take pot-shots at armed offenders. Most shootings are an absolute last resort in response to the threat of serious injury or death.

Right, so you’re saying the policy is to fire only as last rest resort when all other options have been exhausted. In such a policy, if a shot was made, it’s too late to aim for anything.

And here’s surprise for you (and probably many other forum readers): I accept this. I can see the benefits of having a policy that limits the use of fire arms as much as possible, and in such circumstances, I see why, if a person has been shot, he or she are more likely to die from their wounds.

Tooks said :

… you have zero knowledge of policing, which you’ve made very clear.

Yes, I do have zero knowledge of policing and many other things as well. That’s why I dare to ask questions and collaborate on my opinions. So while I did make it very clear I know very little about policing, you have made it abundantly clear that you misunderstand lack of knowledge with idiocy. I prefer to stick with my approach, if it’s all the with you.

fernandof said :

To mitigate this risk, they have all kind of tools, including the right to shot to kill.

What we’re discussing here is whether the right to kill was correctly used by the police officers. My argument is that if the police aimed to kill, then in opinion, that right was incorrectly used.

Police do not have a “right to kill”. That is an absurd suggestion and really says more about you than any other comment you have made.

What police have is a right to use force to defend themselves or to defend others. Exactly the same right that you, me, or anyone else has.

Police do not “aim to kill” or “shoot to wound” or “shoot to disable”.

They are trained to use force (including shooting) to save their life, or the life of another. And they are trained to aim at the largest part of the target. This is not just AFP or Canberra police. It is all police.

Believe me, this incident will be subjected to inquiry by many people and organisations much better qualified and with more information than you have sitting behind your keyboard.

creative_canberran6:18 pm 14 Feb 11

fernandof said :

Ozi said :

Police weren’t standing 300 metres away, letting off potshots at his legs as the male ran towards them from this great distance. They were backing up, weapons drawn, 300 metres down the street away from his house. All the while, yelling at him to drop the knife and meat cleaver as he aggressively followed them. I don’t know the total distance when the shot was fired, but I imagine it was close range.

Yes, I too think that’s what happened, and that’s why I think if the officers aimed to kill, they misused their rights.

Let me clarify, in your explanation of the incidents, what happened was:
a. the attacker runs toward a team of officers, meat cleaver at hand all ready to inflict lethal wounds
b. the police, somewhat disorganised, are backing off shouting and treating
c. when the threat level raised to too dangerous level, officers shoot
c(a) my assumption, they aimed to kill

What I’m saying is that between b and c, the officers could have shot possible non-lethal shots and eliminate the risk before it’s too great and they have to react with lethal force.

Given the absolutely terrible job the Australian Army is doing in Afghanistan, where they have been found trigger happy and lacking caution on numerous occasions resulting in civilian deaths, best if you’re in the military not to lecture on the correct use of force.

fernandof said :

Ozi said :

Police weren’t standing 300 metres away, letting off potshots at his legs as the male ran towards them from this great distance. They were backing up, weapons drawn, 300 metres down the street away from his house. All the while, yelling at him to drop the knife and meat cleaver as he aggressively followed them. I don’t know the total distance when the shot was fired, but I imagine it was close range.

Yes, I too think that’s what happened, and that’s why I think if the officers aimed to kill, they misused their rights.

Let me clarify, in your explanation of the incidents, what happened was:
a. the attacker runs toward a team of officers, meat cleaver at hand all ready to inflict lethal wounds
b. the police, somewhat disorganised, are backing off shouting and treating
c. when the threat level raised to too dangerous level, officers shoot
c(a) my assumption, they aimed to kill

What I’m saying is that between b and c, the officers could have shot possible non-lethal shots and eliminate the risk before it’s too great and they have to react with lethal force.

I don’t care if your Army, SAS, Reserves, or a Commando. Put on a Police uniform and try and deal with a situation like this.

You area obviously unaware of Police procedures and what it is like to be put in a volatile situation where you have no idea what is going to happen. Police are not marching around the streets in tightly formed squadrons, the Sergeant was most probably by himself, he had maybe two patrols for a cordon.

You are shooting off your mouth with no knowledge and no education to back up your claims.

Put on a Police uniform and try and do community Policing – Policing, not army who are trained nufty’s who want to kill someone, Policing.

olfella said :

And don’t forget it took them 20 plus shots to put down a dog last year….hehehe

http://the-riotact.com/police-shoot-savage-dogs-in-macgregor/30105

(link for those who dont remember the story)

Agree with the comments made about the mental health system. Regardless of what went right and what went horribly wrong in this particular incident, I think it’s reasonably clear this man was in a fairly psychotic state which, it seems to me, is a fact which has received little to no attention thus far.

I have my own opinions regarding the actions of police, however I think some attention should be given to the fact this man had obviously lost control and needed help of a different kind.

Tooks said :

Most police shootings occur at the very last moment. Off the top of my head, most shootings are from a range of about 1-2 metres. What you seem to be suggesting is police take shots at the offender before he becomes too much of a threat. That’s not the way it works.

Analysing such an incident with next to no accurate knowledge of events with the benefit of hindsight is pretty pointless.

And don’t forget it took them 20 plus shots to put down a dog last year….hehehe

fernandof said :

Ozi said :

Police weren’t standing 300 metres away, letting off potshots at his legs as the male ran towards them from this great distance. They were backing up, weapons drawn, 300 metres down the street away from his house. All the while, yelling at him to drop the knife and meat cleaver as he aggressively followed them. I don’t know the total distance when the shot was fired, but I imagine it was close range.

Yes, I too think that’s what happened, and that’s why I think if the officers aimed to kill, they misused their rights.

Let me clarify, in your explanation of the incidents, what happened was:
a. the attacker runs toward a team of officers, meat cleaver at hand all ready to inflict lethal wounds
b. the police, somewhat disorganised, are backing off shouting and treating
c. when the threat level raised to too dangerous level, officers shoot
c(a) my assumption, they aimed to kill

What I’m saying is that between b and c, the officers could have shot possible non-lethal shots and eliminate the risk before it’s too great and they have to react with lethal force.

c. when the threat level raised to too dangerous level, officers shoot

You don’t seem to get it. Police aren’t allowed to shoot until the threat IS raised to too dangerous a level. They aren’t allowed to take pot-shots at armed offenders. Most shootings are an absolute last resort in response to the threat of serious injury or death.

You may have had training in various firearms, but you have zero knowledge of policing, which you’ve made very clear.

c(a) my assumption, they aimed to kill

Your assumption is wrong. And while I don\’t think you are an idiot, some of your comments certainly are idiotic.

troll-sniffer3:59 pm 14 Feb 11

ah, fernandof, a fully paid up member of the armchair experts brigade. Wear your badge with pride sunshine, you’ve earned it, you deserve it.

fernandof said :

threepaws said :

So you are saying that the police officer should have put the life of the person who was trying to kill him ahead of his own?

I think you might be expecting a bit much there…

No, I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that the work of a police would require, by definition, some level of risk on their well being. To mitigate this risk, they have all kind of tools, including the right to shot to kill.

What we’re discussing here is whether the right to kill was correctly used by the police officers. My argument is that if the police aimed to kill, then in opinion, that right was incorrectly used.

Saying that, I do appreciate that none of us know the full details of the incident, so it may very well be that given new information I’ll be corrected. However, given the small amounts of details we all have read to date, I don’t think I’m mistaken.

The information I have to date is:
1. there was no threat from the surrounding vicinity
2. the exit point of the attacker was know (the door of the house)
3. a team of police officers identified the target running from the exit point towards them with a lethal weapon
4. the team of officers has about 300 meters worth of running time to react to the assault

My assumption on the incident is that the team of officers reacted to the assault by shooting the attacker in order to kill (i.e., aim to centre of mass).

Based on what you wrote, you have next to no knowledge of what actually happened, so I’d suggest you stop speculating about the incident and how you would have done things better by perhaps shooting him in the big toe. In fact, your assumptions are so far off the mark, you may as well be talking about a different hypothetical incident.

Most police shootings occur at the very last moment. Off the top of my head, most shootings are from a range of about 1-2 metres. What you seem to be suggesting is police take shots at the offender before he becomes too much of a threat. That’s not the way it works.

Analysing such an incident with next to no accurate knowledge of events with the benefit of hindsight is pretty pointless.

Disinformation3:01 pm 14 Feb 11

It is impossible to “shoot to wound” as people can bleed to death very quickly.
In a situation where deadly force is warranted, the idea is to STOP the situation. People have absorbed many bullets and have continued to kill police shooting at them.
I’d love to have someone who insists on the possibility to “shoot to wound” someone, put them in a close situation with someone who is psychotic with a meat cleaver and insist that they “shoot to wound” with the full understanding that they may be financially and socially ruined if they impair this persons functionality in doing so and likely very dead if they don’t.

Decisions about people being shot can only be made at the time and place. Anyone else who says it can’t be, has NO experience. Anyone who has the experience will prefer to be alive.

fernandof said :

Yes, I too think that’s what happened, and that’s why I think if the officers aimed to kill, they misused their rights.

Let me clarify, in your explanation of the incidents, what happened was:
a. the attacker runs toward a team of officers, meat cleaver at hand all ready to inflict lethal wounds
b. the police, somewhat disorganised, are backing off shouting and treating
c. when the threat level raised to too dangerous level, officers shoot
c(a) my assumption, they aimed to kill

What I’m saying is that between b and c, the officers could have shot possible non-lethal shots and eliminate the risk before it’s too great and they have to react with lethal force.

And I’m saying that’s all very well and good for you to think that but:
a. Police aren’t trained or even allowed to aim at anything other than ‘centre of seen mass’
b. In this case this was done, with a single effective shot to the chest
c. Whether or not this shot was fatal, as long as Police had correct justification for their actions, they have not done anything wrong.

The only point of contention I can see is whether or not there was justification for the shot being taken, and it certainly seems like there was from all reports thus far.

With your Australian Army Ninja training, you may have been taught differently, but Police are not trained for “non-lethal” or “lethal” shots. It is merely centre of seen mass.

fernandof said :

threepaws said :

So you are saying that the police officer should have put the life of the person who was trying to kill him ahead of his own?

I think you might be expecting a bit much there…

No, I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that the work of a police would require, by definition, some level of risk on their well being. To mitigate this risk, they have all kind of tools, including the right to shot to kill.

What we’re discussing here is whether the right to kill was correctly used by the police officers. My argument is that if the police aimed to kill, then in opinion, that right was incorrectly used.

Saying that, I do appreciate that none of us know the full details of the incident, so it may very well be that given new information I’ll be corrected. However, given the small amounts of details we all have read to date, I don’t think I’m mistaken.

The information I have to date is:
1. there was no threat from the surrounding vicinity
2. the exit point of the attacker was know (the door of the house)
3. a team of police officers identified the target running from the exit point towards them with a lethal weapon
4. the team of officers has about 300 meters worth of running time to react to the assault

My assumption on the incident is that the team of officers reacted to the assault by shooting the attacker in order to kill (i.e., aim to centre of mass).

And I argue that the police officer would have been shooting to protect himself and others by simply shooting to stop the attacker. Only the end result, not the intention, defines this as ‘shooting to kill’.

Do you really think that the police officer consciously made a decision to kill someone? If that is true then I would have thought aiming for the head would make more sense…

Ozi said :

Police weren’t standing 300 metres away, letting off potshots at his legs as the male ran towards them from this great distance. They were backing up, weapons drawn, 300 metres down the street away from his house. All the while, yelling at him to drop the knife and meat cleaver as he aggressively followed them. I don’t know the total distance when the shot was fired, but I imagine it was close range.

Yes, I too think that’s what happened, and that’s why I think if the officers aimed to kill, they misused their rights.

Let me clarify, in your explanation of the incidents, what happened was:
a. the attacker runs toward a team of officers, meat cleaver at hand all ready to inflict lethal wounds
b. the police, somewhat disorganised, are backing off shouting and treating
c. when the threat level raised to too dangerous level, officers shoot
c(a) my assumption, they aimed to kill

What I’m saying is that between b and c, the officers could have shot possible non-lethal shots and eliminate the risk before it’s too great and they have to react with lethal force.

fernandof said :

I’m glad you can so confidently announce I’m an idiot. I really am, for you. Then again, I guess I’m just more tolerable than that nobody who said that people who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don’t.
(that’s a reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjarne_Stroustrup, but it won’t ring a bell unless you’re into software)

I cannot pass judgement on your intellect, only your comments, which I maintain are idiotic. Police weren’t standing 300 metres away, letting off potshots at his legs as the male ran towards them from this great distance. They were backing up, weapons drawn, 300 metres down the street away from his house. All the while, yelling at him to drop the knife and meat cleaver as he aggressively followed them. I don’t know the total distance when the shot was fired, but I imagine it was close range.

Therefore “From 300 meters it would be very difficult indeed to aim at anything, but if the guy was running at them, then they could aim for at least 2 good shots. It would require them to be calm and wait for some seconds, but I think this could have been achieved in the context of the situation, i.e., no immediate threat from the vicinity and the exit point is known.” really has no bearing on this situation.

And I don’t care if you are SAS or (more likely) army reserves: in this situation the Police acted completely correctly, and within guidelines and procedures.

threepaws said :

So you are saying that the police officer should have put the life of the person who was trying to kill him ahead of his own?

I think you might be expecting a bit much there…

No, I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that the work of a police would require, by definition, some level of risk on their well being. To mitigate this risk, they have all kind of tools, including the right to shot to kill.

What we’re discussing here is whether the right to kill was correctly used by the police officers. My argument is that if the police aimed to kill, then in opinion, that right was incorrectly used.

Saying that, I do appreciate that none of us know the full details of the incident, so it may very well be that given new information I’ll be corrected. However, given the small amounts of details we all have read to date, I don’t think I’m mistaken.

The information I have to date is:
1. there was no threat from the surrounding vicinity
2. the exit point of the attacker was know (the door of the house)
3. a team of police officers identified the target running from the exit point towards them with a lethal weapon
4. the team of officers has about 300 meters worth of running time to react to the assault

My assumption on the incident is that the team of officers reacted to the assault by shooting the attacker in order to kill (i.e., aim to centre of mass).

georgesgenitals2:11 pm 14 Feb 11

frannie said :

R.I.P DOZA may your children remember your wonderful smile xx

As for the police!!! they have alot to answer for shoot to wound not kill canberra police are getting too gun happy these days and it makes me sick

Gotta be a troll.

frannie said :

R.I.P DOZA may your children remember your wonderful smile xx

As for the police!!! they have alot to answer for shoot to wound not kill canberra police are getting too gun happy these days and it makes me sick

Perhaps he didn’t make it clear that he was only trying to wound the police with the meat cleaver, not kill them…

Skidbladnir said :

fernandof said :

Agree to all, but doesn’t explain why the first aim was to kill and not to disable.

There’s only one person who knows for sure what the officer was aiming at, but please tell us how you’ve read their mind and know that they intended to kill, rather than unintentionally killed.
Otherwise, make apply some logic and assume they took a simple and effectual method of preventing further escalation?

You know what, you’re absolutely right. My first comment was indeed under the unevaluated assumption that the officers have aimed to the centre of mass in order kill. If that’s not the case, I do apologise and I stand corrected.

In other words, if the officers used their fire weapons in order to disable the target, rather than to kill him, and the target died as a consequence of the shots, then I’ve absolutely no issues with the actions of the police.

fernandof said :

3) Why would a police officer (or anyone else) put the offender’s safety above his own by trying to shoot him in the legs?

I’m sorry to be so blunt, but that’s what is expected from a police officer. A police officer has a great deal of rights that regular citizens do not have, but they also have a great deal of responsibilities and expectations, one of which is to risk their well being in favour of the community they serve. That’s why they are expected go to unsafe areas and keep the peace.

So you are saying that the police officer should have put the life of the person who was trying to kill him ahead of his own?

I think you might be expecting a bit much there…

Ozi said :

fernandof said :

Okay, but this still doesn’t explain why the officers were aiming to kill. It’s still unclear why they didn’t shoot him in the legs.

How about you stand in a darkened street, have a well-built man advance and lunge at you with weapons and then see how good your fine motor-skills and aim is when it comes to shooting him in his (rapidly moving) legs?

Bad luck for me, I know the feeling all too well, as would most of the people serving in active army duty. There are ways to train people to react in split seconds to do just that. I know, I’ve been in such training and had to retrain every 3 months to maintain an acceptable level of skill.

Ozi said :

Seriously, these kind of comments are both inevitable and utterly stupid. It is, however, heartening to see such a strong rebuking of such idiocy by the RiotACT community.

I’m glad you can so confidently announce I’m an idiot. I really am, for you. Then again, I guess I’m just more tolerable than that nobody who said that people who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don’t.
(that’s a reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjarne_Stroustrup, but it won’t ring a bell unless you’re into software)

fernandof said :

Agree to all, but doesn’t explain why the first aim was to kill and not to disable.

Well, they very effectively disabled him, there’s just no chance of a recovery.

Also, bear it in mind that although the subject was advancing towards the police, he was armed, and walked past occupied suburban residences for 300 meters.

There’s only one person who knows for sure what the officer was aiming at, but please tell us how you’ve read their mind and know that they intended to kill, rather than unintentionally killed.
Otherwise, make apply some logic and assume they took a simple and effectual method of preventing further escalation?

Skidbladnir said :

fernandof said :

Okay, but this still doesn’t explain why the officers were aiming to kill. It’s still unclear why they didn’t shoot him in the legs.

Too much Hollywood for you.

Bollocks.

Skidbladnir said :

A gun is not a toy.
A gun is a tool of destruction.
Its primary intention is to exert lethal force.
Guns have minimal capacity to reliably inflict a nonlethal injury to a living target.

Basic firearm safety.
1) Do not touch a gun until you are willing to accept all of the moral and legal consequences of handling something which could end human life.
2) Never point or aim a gun at something unless you are willing to accept the moral and legal consequences of pulling the trigger, including the destruction of the target.
2a) Never point a gun at a person unless you are prepared to kill them. If you are not ready to kill your target, do not point a gun at it.
3) Be aware of your target’s surroundings.
3a) Know what is behind and to the side of the targets, assume they will be destroyed if you fire the gun.
3b) Assume your projectile will overpenetrate the target and retain lethal force.
3c) Minimise riochets.
4) Never disengage the safety until you intend to fire.
5) Never put a finger near the trigger until you are ready to fire.

As such, a police officer, gun drawn and pointed at you, finger on the trigger = you are being given your Last Chance Ever.

Agree to all, but doesn’t explain why the first aim was to kill and not to disable.

Skidbladnir said :

Also:
a) The human leg contains the femoral artery, pierce it and your target will likely die.
b) Fracture a bone with a gunshot, you may never use it again.

Very true. However, aiming to kill (centre of mass), will probably create a bigger chance for a lethal shot.

frannie said :

R.I.P DOZA may your children remember your wonderful smile xx

As for the police!!! they have alot to answer for shoot to wound not kill canberra police are getting too gun happy these days and it makes me sick

Firstly, I am sorry for your loss.

Secondly, are you related to the Mully clan?

R.I.P DOZA may your children remember your wonderful smile xx

As for the police!!! they have alot to answer for shoot to wound not kill canberra police are getting too gun happy these days and it makes me sick

fernandof said :

Okay, but this still doesn’t explain why the officers were aiming to kill. It’s still unclear why they didn’t shoot him in the legs.

How about you stand in a darkened street, have a well-built man advance and lunge at you with weapons and then see how good your fine motor-skills and aim is when it comes to shooting him in his (rapidly moving) legs?

Seriously, these kind of comments are both inevitable and utterly stupid. It is, however, heartening to see such a strong rebuking of such idiocy by the RiotACT community.

Solidarity said :

you’ve obviously not had any form of training in light weaponry.

Well, actually, I had and hence my question. I’m trained in a variety of assault rifles and handguns, although I’m not licensed to carry any in Australia (which is absolutely fine by me). From 300 meters it would be very difficult indeed to aim at anything, but if the guy was running at them, then they could aim for at least 2 good shots.

It would require them to be calm and wait for some seconds, but I think this could have been achieved in the context of the situation, i.e., no immediate threat from the vicinity and the exit point is known.

And this response is valid for many of the comments here.

The only other comment I’d like to respond is of Tooks:

2) If someone is running at you with a deadly weapon, you would be taking a huge and foolish risk to aim at someone’s legs in such a high stress situation. Missing in this situation is not an option.

Yes, you would be taking a risk, I absolutely agree with you; however, I disagree that it’s a foolish one.

3) Why would a police officer (or anyone else) put the offender’s safety above his own by trying to shoot him in the legs?

I’m sorry to be so blunt, but that’s what is expected from a police officer. A police officer has a great deal of rights that regular citizens do not have, but they also have a great deal of responsibilities and expectations, one of which is to risk their well being in favour of the community they serve. That’s why they are expected go to unsafe areas and keep the peace.

Obviously I do not know the full details of the incident and so I can’t pass judgement whether the actions of the police officers was correct or not – that’s for the internal investigation to decide. Saying that, my comment was specifically for the explanation the deputy chief gave (read the original post) around the incident and I couldn’t find any specifics around why the officers aimed to kill.

Oh, and don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.

Darth Weston1:01 pm 14 Feb 11

Quoting KB1971: “Re tazers:” …”They dont always work.”

The LAST thing you want to be thinking in that kind of situations is “I really hope this works…”

The Police have a tough job and while I do not disagree with Tasers, it is the copper on the ground who will make a decision. They should be supported for their decisions.

hmm, self-edited rant about police having difficult job….

fernandof said :

Okay, but this still doesn’t explain why the officers were aiming to kill. It’s still unclear why they didn’t shoot him in the legs.

Too much Hollywood for you.

A gun is not a toy.
A gun is a tool of destruction.
Its primary intention is to exert lethal force.
Guns have minimal capacity to reliably inflict a nonlethal injury to a living target.

Basic firearm safety.
1) Do not touch a gun until you are willing to accept all of the moral and legal consequences of handling something which could end human life.
2) Never point or aim a gun at something unless you are willing to accept the moral and legal consequences of pulling the trigger, including the destruction of the target.
2a) Never point a gun at a person unless you are prepared to kill them. If you are not ready to kill your target, do not point a gun at it.
3) Be aware of your target’s surroundings.
3a) Know what is behind and to the side of the targets, assume they will be destroyed if you fire the gun.
3b) Assume your projectile will overpenetrate the target and retain lethal force.
3c) Minimise riochets.
4) Never disengage the safety until you intend to fire.
5) Never put a finger near the trigger until you are ready to fire.

As such, a police officer, gun drawn and pointed at you, finger on the trigger = you are being given your Last Chance Ever.

Also:
a) The human leg contains the femoral artery, pierce it and your target will likely die.
b) Fracture a bone with a gunshot, you may never use it again.

Why aren’t tazers common in the police force?

– people who are on drugs, are well built, or are wearing thick clothing are “resistant” to tazerings.
– have a huge stigma associated with police abuse.
– have been knows to cause heart attacks.
– there have been situations where people with knives were tazed, resulting on them falling on the knife/stabbing themselves from the involuntary action caused by the tazer.
– Both “prongs” have to dig into the subject to be effective
– You have to be with a few meters of the suspect to shoot them with a tazer.

The guy ran down police, wearing a mask, holding 2 bladed weapons. It very much seems like suicide by cop.

What needs to be done? we really need a complete overhaul of the mental health system. Because the current model doesnt seem to be working

fernandof said :

Okay, but this still doesn’t explain why the officers were aiming to kill. It’s still unclear why they didn’t shoot him in the legs.

The officer may not have been “aiming to kill” (I know they are trined to do so) & to be honest do you blame them? If someone was coming at me with a meat cleaver & hellbent on doing me bodily harm I would shoot too.

Im sure the officer in question didn’t want to kill him, just stop him. Death resulted, it was the offenders choice.

Re tazers: Why do we need to save some people from themselves? They dont always work.

fernandof said :

Okay, but this still doesn’t explain why the officers were aiming to kill. It’s still unclear why they didn’t shoot him in the legs.

you’ve obviously not had any form of training in light weaponry.

fernandof said :

Okay, but this still doesn’t explain why the officers were aiming to kill. It’s still unclear why they didn’t shoot him in the legs.

Whenever police shoot someone, inevitably a bunch of muppets started asking “Why didn’t they just shoot him in the leg?”

Although it’s been explained umpteen times in the past, we’ll try again.

1) Police are not trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to aim at the centre of seen body mass.
2) If someone is running at you with a deadly weapon, you would be taking a huge and foolish risk to aim at someone’s legs in such a high stress situation. Missing in this situation is not an option.
3) Why would a police officer (or anyone else) put the offender’s safety above his own by trying to shoot him in the legs?

fernandof said :

Okay, but this still doesn’t explain why the officers were aiming to kill. It’s still unclear why they didn’t shoot him in the legs.

For a start any time they miss means a bullet is heading god-knows where in a built up environment.

But aiming for the centre of mass is always advised.

Okay, but this still doesn’t explain why the officers were aiming to kill. It’s still unclear why they didn’t shoot him in the legs.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.