So what are the options for unarmed police in that situation? Order an evacuation of the building and barricade the doors to attempt a negotiation? I wouldn't like to be trying to negotiate with someone high on drugs on a rampage though.
The Law Australian Police brutality thread.
- Thread starter Aristotle Pickett
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Could have, but you only try non-lethal when you have a lethal option also ready (e.g. two officers, one with tazer and the other with a gun pointed). It's still very dangerous because even while being shot, a person can rush at an officer and cover a significant period of ground before they drop (if they do).
Here come the increased search powers in public places -
Overreach?
www.abc.net.au
Overreach?
Bondi Junction attacker's interactions with Queensland Police 'forensically' examined amid debate over stop-and-search laws
Queensland Police says it is confident the response to previous interactions with the Bondi Junction attacker were "appropriate".
www.abc.net.au
- May 13, 2014
- 1,777
- 1,944
- AFL Club
- Geelong
The question will or should be, can she justify every shot she fired?
If she can and they agree with her then no dramas.
For clarification if anyone isn't aware, once an officer opens fire on someone, they will continue to fire until the threat is neutralised. There's no set number that is ok or not ok. As long as the threat justified the use of a firearm and they stopped firing once it was CLEAR the threat no longer existed, there's no problems.
And of course, no such thing as aiming for the legs or anything dumb like that...
Why are you trying to run the whole she'll be in trouble from our lefty govt sorts? Literally everyone said she was brave and did the required thing, if there is any bureaucratic mess it'll be covered by her superiors
There are other shootings that are questionable but even in the wake of bloke taking his gun home to murder stalking victim I haven't seen a big disarm the police movement, jumping at shadows
Conclusion: Cops should have guns.
I think the more salient discussion is whether police should have lethal weapons, rather than guns. For example, as a thought experiment, pretend projectile firearms don't exist, and instead police have an anti-existence device. They push a button and the target person blinks from existence. Is that a tool they should have access to and authority to use in any given circumstances?
- May 13, 2014
- 1,777
- 1,944
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Which is exactly what I've said.
- May 13, 2014
- 1,777
- 1,944
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Who said anything about disarming the police? What a dumb suggestion.
Yep, wasn't trying to correct you.
Unsurprising that they'd have ways to cover themselves legally. The last thing you want in the back of your mind as a police officer in a scary situation is to be worried about getting in trouble if you employ your firearm. A moment of hesitation can result in yourself, your coworker or the people you're trying to protect being seriously hurt or killed.
Well, flipping obviously Chief. What I'm saying is that you don't want police to be afraid of using their firearm, which is something that's also obvious too.
Well then you're a silly sausage.
We shouldn't be trying to recreate the US cop mag dumping on a chestnut/handcuffed perp, what i've seen of aus cops when guns are required seems pretty reasonable. Nothing needs to change here, maybe the take your gun for 'private security' thing
Don't play dumb, it's not cute
You've raised it now in two threads(in the crime board), literally no one has questioned the use of firearms in this situation yet you're trying to create a narrative of 'people are calling for justification for every shot'
We don't have anywhere near the same level of threat of firearms that police need to delay with here, so of course it's rare and the culture is different. Having said that, police in the US rarely go overboard with shootings, despite what the narrative is. It's extremely rare for a shooting to not be justified over there.
Their problem IMO is not when and how they fire on suspects but the general attitudes and policing methods they employ in general. That's a huge, complex topic on its own.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #424
If they're doing it right then why would they be afraid? If they're afraid, it's because they're likely doing something dodgy.
Generally though, I agree that since the bad old days of VicPol shooting people for going mentally unwell in public they seem to have eased up.
When there is a threatening, aggressive person with knife in hand, then that should be a situation where police shouldn't be afraid of using a firearm.
Yet in the past we have seen police criticized for shooting in this situation.
Similar threads
