• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When are police killings justified?

lionking

In the Peanut Gallery
lionking
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
58,033
Location
Melbourne
A coroner in Melbourne has just found that a police officer may have committed an offence when he shot dead a man wielding two swords in a busy Melbourne street.

Biggs was drug-affected and waving two samurai-style swords when he was shot in the upper back by Sergeant Samuel Cahir at an intersection in Carlton North.
On Friday, coroner Audrey Jamieson ruled Biggs' death was preventable.
She said the incident demonstrated the tragic results when police relied too much on bravado and spontaneity at the expense of policy and training when dealing with mentally ill and drug-affected people.
Click to expand...

"Sgt Cahir created the scenario which led to Mr Biggs' death when he single-handedly confronted Mr Biggs, a man armed with weapons in a busy residential area, acting in a dangerous, violent and irrational manner," she said.
Ms Jamieson said that while Sgt Cahir and Leading Sen Const Hawkins were up to date with operations training, they "appear to have lacked the capacity to implement it".
Click to expand...

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-...police-over-fatal-shooting-20091023-hcfo.html


I'm watching an Australian ABC Four Corners show analysing police killings like this aimed at showing the culpability of police when confronting violent, albeit psychotic, people.

I'm afraid I have very little sympathy for people killed by police in these circumstances. What say you?
 
Last edited:
Great balance by Four Corners when it describes a youth brandishing two knives and threatening police as being killed by a "hail of bullets" (four were shot I believe), with home videos of his childhood birthdays being played. Capsicum spray and warning shots were used without effect.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
with home videos of his childhood birthdays being played.
Click to expand...

That technique was used to eulogise Rachel Corrie and to gain sympathy for David Hicks. Its one of the most cynical tactics used in the media.
 
I'm all for police snipers being used on the next prat who holds up protesting on a motorway bridge.

On a more serious note, I really don't have a problem with someone being shot if they refuse to drop their weapon/s.
 
Sledge said:
On a more serious note, I really don't have a problem with someone being shot if they refuse to drop their weapon/s.
Click to expand...

Civil libertarians here do though. I think they would prefer coppers to be injured or killed. Seriously.
 
They're idiots. If a police officer points a gun at you and tells you to do something, you do it. If you don't, you expect bullets.
 
It's difficult to comment on this specific case as there is not enough information. I can't see the video - do you have a link? If the Victoria police had been issued Tasers then Biggs would be alive today. If the officer hadn't broken with operational guidelines (this does not appear to disputed) then Biggs probably would still be alive.

We don't know the extent of Biggs drug problem nor his past. We don't know if he was a known nut job of the harmless variety or a spaced out murderous animal with previous.

Coming from the UK originally, I would imagine this case would have been dealt with by way of evacuating the immediate area, calling back-up for containment then calming down the perp prior to arrest. That is not to say that the UK police don't get it very wrong on occasion.

I do have some sympathy with Biggs as he may well have needed treatment and been able to return to society.

There is just not enough info to give an informed opinion but I'm going for unjustified in this instance. Police forces should at all times be in the position to use incapacitating but non-deadly force. These officers do not appear to have had the tools at their disposal (Taser) that would have allowed that.
 
Last edited:
On the whole I have no idea what to think, the article does not give enough information to create an informed opinion.
 
lionking said:
Civil libertarians here do though. I think they would prefer coppers to be injured or killed. Seriously.
Click to expand...

This is insane. Do they think the same should apply to the public in general as well? It is better than the loonitics with swords cut up a few bystanders than have the police shoot them?
 
No. I think people threatening civilians with swords should be shot.

I have seen videos of people walking through tasars and capsicum spray without effect. Do you want me to post them?
 
lionking said:
Interesting comment. Are you saying police have never been killed by armed lunatics? Do you want me to name them?
Click to expand...

No he was saying that your statement about people prefering that the police get hurt or killed is a strawman.

I think this is at best only partialy correct, but it is certain no one in this thread has yet advocated that position, even if it has been advocated before.
 
lionking said:
No. I think people threatening civilians with swords should be shot.

I have seen videos of people walking through tasars and capsicum spray without effect. Do you want me to post them?
Click to expand...

Thanks LK, I would be interested to see the cases where a member of the public "walks through" a Taser hit that has been delivered by a policemen in the course of arrest. Not interested in the capsicum spray to be honest.

I'd prefer not see "Jackass" style videos but actual footage as described above.

Demanding sod ain't I?
 
Depends on if the guy was actively threatening someone with the swords (note that unlike a gun, merely brandishing a sword is not enough to be considered threatening).

If so, then shooting him is completely justified.

If not, then the police officer should be charged with manslaughter.
 
ponderingturtle said:
No he was saying that your statement about people prefering that the police get hurt or killed is a strawman.

I think this is at best only partialy correct, but it is certain no one in this thread has yet advocated that position, even if it has been advocated before.
Click to expand...

Nobody in this thread, but I am extrapolating from news and TV reports. So far you have said you don't know what to think. I do.
 
lionking said:
Nobody in this thread, but I am extrapolating from news and TV reports. So far you have said you don't know what to think. I do.
Click to expand...

Yes you have clear biases that are making your decision, this fits those baises in a preliminary view. So you go along with your biases.
 
RPG Advocate said:
Depends on if the guy was actively threatening someone with the swords (note that unlike a gun, merely brandishing a sword is not enough to be considered threatening).

If so, then shooting him is completely justified.

If not, then the police officer should be charged with manslaughter.
Click to expand...

There is more to it than that. It is entirely possible that the police behaved improperly with out it rising to the level of manslaughter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom