When are police killings justified?

[Kevin_Lowe]

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?

I speak from fact to the extent that facts have been presented. He has presented no facts whatsoever, just an appeal to his own authority. Said authority is highly questionable because his supposedly authoritative statements clash with the available facts.

As the previously linked article about the 21 foot rules states, lots of trainers of police officers have read about the 21 foot rule, taught about the 21 foot rule, but never actually understood the 21 foot rule.

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.

Agreed, it's very odd, and even the "shoot 'em all!" advocates should have to acknowledge that since the partner could have been helping shoot.

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."

"An offence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act" <> homicide.

It's exactly what they did.

For pity's sake, you didn't even have to muster up the energy to click on the links I gave you. I summarised the relevant bits for you in post #124.

They wounded him and then sat on their thumbs for an hour while he ran around a park with all of his original problems plus a bullet wound. For that matter his two swords were found with his corpse, so your claim that he might have dropped his swords is yet more fantasising on your part.

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.

I'd maybe want Harry Callaghan or Martin Riggs to take the law into their own hands, but they're fictional characters for whom doing so always works out in the end. I do not want every Victorian cop given a license to kill every time their "experience and judgement" says "screw the rulebook, I'm going to shoot this guy".

Since this incident did not work out well in terms of public safety at all I'd be happy to cite it as a reason why police should not have this discretion, and should have their actions thoroughly scrutinised whenever they break with policy and kill someone.

Do us all a favour and read all the links and posts you've been provided with before you respond.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I speak from fact to the extent that facts have been presented.

You and I both have parts of a story, a nice small pizza slice. He has about hte same facts, but also has context that you and I both lack.

Agreed, it's very odd, and even the "shoot 'em all!" advocates should have to acknowledge that since the partner could have been helping shoot.

Aye.

I am somewhat puzzled at the Coroner's conclusion in re an area outside of his expertise, police procedure, but maybe he's familiar enough with cases from the past years, decades of doing inquests, that he is very familiar with police procedures in a lot of different cases.

DR

 

[Careyp74]

I get the feeling that Lionking's straw man from page one is about to make a repeat appearance.

That was not a strawman. A strawman is when you build an argument, not having to do exactly with the argument at hand, one that is easily destroyed, in the hopes of winning your argument. Let me give you an example:

There have to be reasonable limits on the extent to which police officers are allowed to kill citizens in order to ensure their own safety. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to say "I had no choice but to kill that guy - if I didn't kill him, there was at least a one in a million chance he could have killed me if he wanted to! It could even have been higher than one in a million - can you prove otherwise?".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You and I both have parts of a story, a nice small pizza slice. He has about hte same facts, but also has context that you and I both lack.

He may also have biases that we lack as well: policies that are in the best interests of police are often not in the best interests of the rest of society. Much more importantly however he appears to me to have gotten his facts wrong then tried to bluff his way out of it, which strongly inclines me to reject any future appeal to his authority.

 

[staunch]

I think this is at the heart of the matter - I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying that in extreme circumstances the police shouldn't kill someone but in this particular instance the police helped create those extreme circumstances by not following their training.

Police dont shoot to kill people, they use deadly force,In this type of incident. They shoot to stop. The suspect creatd the incident, not the police. How do you train to deal with a nut case weilding a sword. They don't teach or have classes on sword weilding suspects. Police procedure will be different in each situation. If the officer believed the public was in imminent danger he has a choice, do something or do nothing, he is obligated to do something, right or wrong he made a decision to approach the suspect. He gave the suspect verbal commands. The suspect was in non-compliance with the commands. If a suspect does not respond to verbal commands the police take the situation to the next level. In this case deadly force. A verbal command only has to be stated once. The police do not have to repeat it. ie:" If they say you are under arrest and you don't comply you get maced in the face. If a suspect displays a weapon the police will use there firearm. The idea is for the police to have the advantage. and take control of the situation.

 

[Darat]

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.

...snip...

Where do you get that from?

 

[Darat]

Police dont shoot to kill people, they use deadly force,In this type of incident. They shoot to stop. The suspect creatd the incident, not the police.

...snip..

I've snipped there because the rest of your post is apparently just your speculation on what actually happened? And since that differs from the reported coroner's conclusions on what have you based your speculations?

 

[staunch]

OK, what is the correct approach when driving up to a scene like this? We have a guy with a sword, out in public, and you just drove up with your partner. You call it in, and now what?

Take control, Secure the area, Use verbal commands, stop the threat, The concern for public safety is at the top of the officers priority. If the officer is convinced there is no imminent danger to himself or the public he is obligated to get the suspect to drop the weapon. This would be his second priority. Disarming the suspect lowers the level of threat. Once disarmed non-lethal force can be applied.

 

[Darat]

...snip..

I am somewhat puzzled at the Coroner's conclusion in re an area outside of his expertise, police procedure, but maybe he's familiar enough with cases from the past years, decades of doing inquests, that he is very familiar with police procedures in a lot of different cases.

DR

(Assuming Aussie coroners' courts are very similar to UK ones.)

It is the role of the coroner and the corner's court to make a determination of the reason for a death and what or who was responsible for the death, that is really the core function of the court. They have to make determinations like this all the time, here is a recent example that's been all over the UK news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8326226.stm

 

[Darat]

Take control, Secure the area, Use verbal commands, stop the threat, The concern for public safety is at the top of the officers priority. If the officer is convinced there is no imminent danger to himself or the public he is obligated to get the suspect to drop the weapon. This would be his second priority. Disarming the suspect lowers the level of threat. Once disarmed non-lethal force can be applied.

Can you point to where you are getting this information from?

 

[staunch]

Can you point to where you are getting this information from?

30 years of police experience, over 300 hours of instruction on the use of deadly force. This is procedure my department followed. It is similiar to what police are trained to do in most states. I could be wrong.

 

[Darat]

30 years of police experience, over 300 hours of instruction on the use of deadly force. This is procedure my department followed. It is similiar to what police are trained to do in most states. I could be wrong.

Are all the states in Australia pretty much the same in these matters?

 

[staunch]

Are all the states in Australia pretty much the same in these matters?

I don't know, but I believe if you search around you will find one australian police officer who has training in the US. What I wrote is more common sense. If you don't believe it makes sense, then we can have a lovely discussion on what you believe makes more sense. I quoted police procedure. All police departments have procedures. That deal with deadly force. Even Australia.

 

[WildCat]

"An offence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act" <> homicide.

So what exact "offense" are we talking about?

For pity's sake, you didn't even have to muster up the energy to click on the links I gave you. I summarised the relevant bits for you in post #124.

I read the 2nd link, missed the first.

They wounded him and then sat on their thumbs for an hour while he ran around a park with all of his original problems plus a bullet wound. For that matter his two swords were found with his corpse, so your claim that he might have dropped his swords is yet more fantasising on your part.

Yes, but the story also revealed he had been hitting a pedestrian with the sword. It does not say why the officers didn't chase after the suspect. We don't even know their side.

I'd maybe want Harry Callaghan or Martin Riggs to take the law into their own hands, but they're fictional characters for whom doing so always works out in the end. I do not want every Victorian cop given a license to kill every time their "experience and judgement" says "screw the rulebook, I'm going to shoot this guy".

Since this incident did not work out well in terms of public safety at all I'd be happy to cite it as a reason why police should not have this discretion, and should have their actions thoroughly scrutinised whenever they break with policy and kill someone.

So when a cop sees a man attacking a pedestrian with a sword you expect him to stay in their cars so as not to "take the law into their own hands"?

Do us all a favour and read all the links and posts you've been provided with before you respond.

Gotcha Chief. Now let's hear what Police Constable Kevin Lowe does when he sees a pedestrian get attacked by a man with a sword.

 

[Darat]

I don't know, but I believe if you search around you will find one australian police officer who has training in the US. What I wrote is more common sense. If you don't believe it makes sense, then we can have a lovely discussion on what you believe makes more sense. I quoted police procedure. All police departments have procedures. That deal with deadly force. Even Australia.

So that takes me back to the question I asked you: "I've snipped there because the rest of your post is apparently just your speculation on what actually happened? And since that differs from the reported coroner's conclusions on what have you based your speculations?"

 

[Darat]

So what exact "offense" are we talking about?

..snip...

I think you've forgetten the etiquette here... You made the claim that "..apparently in Australia they'd get accused of homicide...", it is up to you to provide the evidence to support your claim.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So what exact "offense" are we talking about?

The article didn't say, but that doesn't make an OHSA infringement the same thing as homicide, which is what you were asserting police officers in Australia get accused of under circumstances like these.

Yes, but the story also revealed he had been hitting a pedestrian with the sword. It does not say why the officers didn't chase after the suspect. We don't even know their side.

No, it said he had been hitting a pedestrian crossing.

The rest of your post was based on that misconception so I snipped it.

 

[WildCat]

The article didn't say, but that doesn't make an OHSA infringement the same thing as homicide, which is what you were asserting police officers in Australia get accused of under circumstances like these.

It is quite possible here for homicide charges to be brought for violating OSHA regulations. Don't know about in Oz.

No, it said he had been hitting a pedestrian crossing.

The rest of your post was based on that misconception so I snipped it.

Heh, divided by a common language. I'm not at all clear, though, how one attacks a "pedestrian crossing".

 

[staunch]

So that takes me back to the question I asked you: "I've snipped there because the rest of your post is apparently just your speculation on what actually happened? And since that differs from the reported coroner's conclusions on what have you based your speculations?"

From the article.
Sgt Cahir told an advancing Biggs to drop his weapons before shooting him.

He didn't comply. Biggs was shot dead. No one has disputed Cahir did not give him the verbal command to drop the weapon. Biggs did not comply. Non-compliance got him killed. Coroner's are human they make mistakes Did he make a mistake I don't know. Your quoting a person in authority. We know how that works. The point is he didn't shoot Biggs then ask him to drop the weapon. He followed procedure, verbal commands.

 

[WildCat]

I think you've forgetten the etiquette here... You made the claim that "..apparently in Australia they'd get accused of homicide...", it is up to you to provide the evidence to support your claim.

Apparently no one knows what the charges will be, which seems odd. 5 years of investigating and they still don't know what charges will be brought?