When are police killings justified?

I imagine that the officers attempted to pull the car close to the suspect in order to block him off from civilians. The officer on the side opposite the suspect exited the car, while the other one stayed in to avoid being skewered. This would be consistent with a 'containment' policy. However, when the car drove away is when things went from 'maybe reasonable' to, 'major cockup'. At that point I can't say that I blame the officer who shot the man except for agreeing with the foolish choice to pull that close to the suspect in a manner which didn't allow for both officers to confront or at least distract the man.

It may have been that the man would have been shot anyway. Maybe not. At any rate, a couple of poor choices which goes against policy makes it so that we can't know.

How the coroner knows this from the body, I'm not sure I understand.
 
Darat said:
In the report you linked to the victims were killed before the police arrived...
Click to expand...
Exactly, and none were killed (except the lunatic with the sword) after they arrived.

A good job by the police, apparently in Australia they'd get accused of homicide.
 
Darat said:
According to the police force and the coroner they do:
Click to expand...
No, they don't. A generic policy is a nice guideline, but real life doesn't neatly follow the textbook.

Deranged man swinging swords around in a crowded area? Stop him before he kills somebody. Don't let him run into a store, or onto a bus, or to get near bystanders while you call for backup from a safe distance in your patrol car.
 
WildCat said:
No, they don't. A generic policy is a nice guideline, but real life doesn't neatly follow the textbook.

Deranged man swinging swords around in a crowded area? Stop him before he kills somebody. Don't let him run into a store, or onto a bus, or to get near bystanders while you call for backup from a safe distance in your patrol car.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a nice, generic policy, doesn't it?
 
WildCat said:
No, it's called using your professional discretion, which apparently the coroner thinks shouldn't be allowed.
Click to expand...

But that isn't what they described at all. They described an entirely different reason for the shooting. Your reasoning makes the cops into liars.
 
WildCat said:
Exactly, and none were killed (except the lunatic with the sword) after they arrived.

A good job by the police, apparently in Australia they'd get accused of homicide.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in this thread, and certainly nothing about the incident referenced in the opening post, that provides any evidence for that conclusion.
 
WildCat said:
No, they don't. A generic policy is a nice guideline, but real life doesn't neatly follow the textbook.

Deranged man swinging swords around in a crowded area? Stop him before he kills somebody. Don't let him run into a store, or onto a bus, or to get near bystanders while you call for backup from a safe distance in your patrol car.
Click to expand...

Pity then that the police didn't follow your procedures....
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
You're the one who took things to an absurd level with your attempt to justify shooting someone because they might throw a samurai sword at you. I just pointed out your absurdity. Don't blame me.
Click to expand...
Kevin, how much experience do you have in training police officers? He speaks from knowledge of the profession. What I see you doing is speaking from speculation. Have you been a trainer of police officers?

ETA: my brother in law has told me that his rule number one in a potentially violent situation is to try and get control of a situation. In that light, the comments on "why wasn't the partner and the cop both taking this situation on together" are probably questions my brother in law (homicide detective) would also ask.

DR
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
No, it's called using your professional discretion, which apparently the coroner thinks shouldn't be allowed.
Click to expand...

You must be referring to a different incident to the one that is referenced in the opening post since there is nothing in that report that provides any evidence for that conclusion.
 
Darat said:
There is nothing in this thread, and certainly nothing about the incident referenced in the opening post, that provides any evidence for that conclusion.
Click to expand...
Sure there is. The police shot a man with a sword just for attacking them with it. They didn't leave him alone until backup arrived, didn't run away, didn't hide in their squad cars. The murderous bastards!

Darat said:
Pity then that the police didn't follow your procedures....
Click to expand...
They certainly did. Confronted the perp, and ended the threat. Didn't wait around until someone was hurt or killed.

Darat said:
You must be referring to a different incident to the one that is referenced in the opening post since there is nothing in that report that provides any evidence for that conclusion.
Click to expand...
Then what's all this I hear about the "procedure" they supposedly violated?
 
Ryokan said:
I'm glad I live in a civilized country where the police don't carry guns and are forced to find alternative ways to resolve issues.. :)
Click to expand...

Trust me, I would very much like that. Maybe I'll come over and live in a remote cabin somewhere. Or go to quasi-lawless Svalbard and carry a shotgun everywhere.

Sadly, the policy here seems to be one of escalation at every turn. Right now, in time for the climate summit, they're passing legislation that means anyone can be held on suspicion that they might want to participate in a "violent protest" (that's about the extent of the definition given). Add that to that specific case where police were ruled to have endangered a person's life (by attempted strangulation, ironically on the man who had called the police in the first place, and not the perp), but with no consequence since conveniently nobody could remember exactly which officer did it.

It's a case of the politicians in power needing scary people to point to as a diversion while they do what they want. Both "leftist rioters" and "ethnic gangs" fill this role. They do what they can to sabotage integration and keep immigrants suspect and marginalised, and to get ever more violent and spectacular clashes between "anarchists" and more and more heavily armed police. I see all these groups - including the poor police officers - as victims of a cynical government.
 
WildCat said:
They certainly did. Confronted the perp, and ended the threat. Didn't wait around until someone was hurt or killed.
Click to expand...

Except it seems they shot him, then lost sight of him, his swords and his gunshot wound and only found him an hour later. So it appears they shot him and then waited around for time more than ample for him to hurt someone else. Not to mention, they might have saved his life.

In your opinion, should police officers ever be subject to critique? If so, when?
 
WildCat said:
Sure there is. The police shot a man with a sword just for attacking them with it. They didn't leave him alone until backup arrived, didn't run away, didn't hide in their squad cars. The murderous bastards!
...snip...
Click to expand...

Yet that has nothing to do with your conclusion that "..apparently in Australia they'd get accused of homicide...".

WildCat said:
They certainly did. Confronted the perp, and ended the threat. Didn't wait around until someone was hurt or killed.

...snip...
Click to expand...

No they didn't - you said that "Deranged man swinging swords around in a crowded area? Stop him before he kills somebody. Don't let him run into a store, or onto a bus, or to get near bystanders while you call for backup from a safe distance in your patrol car."

That is not what they did.
WildCat said:
Then what's all this I hear about the "procedure" they supposedly violated?
Click to expand...

Seriously perhaps you should at least read the article that is referenced in the opening post since you don't seem to be responding to anything from the actual report?
 
ThatSoundAgain said:
Trust me, I would very much like that. Maybe I'll come over and live in a remote cabin somewhere. Or go to quasi-lawless Svalbard and carry a shotgun everywhere.

Sadly, the policy here seems to be one of escalation at every turn. Right now, in time for the climate summit, they're passing legislation that means anyone can be held on suspicion that they might want to participate in a "violent protest" (that's about the extent of the definition given). Add that to that specific case where police were ruled to have endangered a person's life (by attempted strangulation, ironically on the man who had called the police in the first place, and not the perp), but with no consequence since conveniently nobody could remember exactly which officer did it.

It's a case of the politicians in power needing scary people to point to as a diversion while they do what they want. Both "leftist rioters" and "ethnic gangs" fill this role. They do what they can to sabotage integration and keep immigrants suspect and marginalised, and to get ever more violent and spectacular clashes between "anarchists" and more and more heavily armed police. I see all these groups - including the poor police officers - as victims of a cynical government.
Click to expand...

You didn't say where 'here' is, but sounds like Denmark? Yeah, forgive me for saying so, but Denmark has gone to hell in a handbasket when it comes to the police force the last few years. I have a cousin in Copenhagen, and his girlfriend was detained, suspected of resisting arrest, and put in a small holding cell (varetekt) for three months while the police investigated her case. Guilty or not (She probably was, my cousin and his friends are among the people the Danish authorities call 'anarchists'.), three months in a holding cell without being convicted of any crime is an atrocity.

So far the Norwegian politicians have managed to remain sober when it comes to the police, compared to our Scandinavian brothers. And it doesn't seem to get changed anytime soon, thank god! We like it as it is!
 
Darat said:
Yet that has nothing to do with your conclusion that "..apparently in Australia they'd get accused of homicide...".
Click to expand...
Sure it does. Violated police procedures according to the coroner. They should have waited for backup instead of going in all Rambo with guns a'blazing. Just ask Kevin Lowe. Or as the story stated "Ms Jamieson said Sgt Cahir, a serving officer, may have committed an offence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act."

Of course, Ms. Jamieson had over 5 years to think about it, while the officers on scene had a few seconds.

No they didn't - you said that "Deranged man swinging swords around in a crowded area? Stop him before he kills somebody. Don't let him run into a store, or onto a bus, or to get near bystanders while you call for backup from a safe distance in your patrol car."

That is not what they did.
Click to expand...
It's exactly what they did.

Seriously perhaps you should at least read the article that is referenced in the opening post since you don't seem to be responding to anything from the actual report?
Click to expand...
From another article:
She described the death of 27-year-old Biggs as "a poignant example of the tragic consequences when the police rely too heavily on bravado and spontaneity at the expense of policy".
Click to expand...
It takes her 5 years to reach this conclusion. The veteran cop on the scene decided to substitute his experience and judgement for "policy", as frankly I'd want anyone to do in an emergency situation which policy hasn't envisioned. And they didn't have 5 years to think about it.
 
ThatSoundAgain said:
Except it seems they shot him, then lost sight of him, his swords and his gunshot wound and only found him an hour later. So it appears they shot him and then waited around for time more than ample for him to hurt someone else. Not to mention, they might have saved his life.
Click to expand...
What makes you think he still had his swords when he ran off to die?

And the police stumbled onto the scene, they weren't called there. They don't know if there were injured people about. The cop outside the car didn't know if his partner inside was injured either, the perp did smash the window in an attack on the car after all.

In your opinion, should police officers ever be subject to critique? If so, when?
Click to expand...
Sure. But this one seems like a stretch. And hey, I criticized the police just yesterday: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5244845#post5244845
 
Darat said:
From what the coroner has stated the police are supposed to follow the procedures they have for dealing with such a situation, which isn't what the police man in question did.

I don't know if the Victorian police force has their procedures on-line or not.
Click to expand...

I still don't know how that is the Coroner's decision!

Basically, from what the coroner said, he was wrong to get out of the car. So I am to assume the proper thing for a policeman to do is stay in the car. OK, what good are all the police going to be if they all stay in their cars?

I like this quote from the Police Union Secretary found in another article:
"It's obviously a difficult thing for our members to come to terms with because they will be damned if they don't, and clearly now, damned if they do.''
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom