Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

1.The aim is not specifically to kill but to stop the offender. The highest chance of success at this is achieved by aiming at the largest target area, the torso.

2.Re the circumstance of the most recent event, I'm pretty happy with the police response, not much else he could/should have done. But I also think its healthy to ask questions and get some transparency re these events, which has happened here.

1. Thought so. I guess the lethal force directive comes into play as soon as a gun (brandished by the crim) enters the equation.

2. Yep sounds like it was totally the correct use of force. And agreed: it doesn't hurt to ask questions and for the police to be transparent. It seems there is a marked difference in how the police are handling this compared with the tasering: seems like they know that in this instance the officer acted procedurally correct, and in the tasering incident, the officers fucked up big time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dero13

He could of got help if he really wanted it & lived a normal life. You can't have double standards expecting Police to go to the rule book 100% of the time & excusing members of the public for there actions.

I didn't excuse him for his actions. If you took the time to read my posts you would see I did the opposite.

You are the person who is posting with double standards here Dero.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

Sorry probably should have written "didn't have to have a crap life and turn to crime, his choice" as having a crap life in the first place may not necessarily be down to an individual's choices.

Far more reasonable, thanx.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

1. Thought so. I guess the lethal force directive comes into play as soon as a gun (brandished by the crim) enters the equation.

yeah and even then it's really just an extension of the same principle as to effectively neutralise someone with a gun you really have to use lethal force ax they can still shoot back is wounded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

Sorry probably should have written "didn't have to have a crap life and turn to crime, his choice" as having a crap life in the first place may not necessarily be down to an individual's choices.

Pfffft! You fucking bleeding heart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

12. Yep sounds like it was totally the correct use of force. And agreed: it doesn't hurt to ask questions and for the police to be transparent. It seems there is a marked difference in how the police are handling this compared with the tasering: seems like they know that in this instance the officer acted procedurally correct, and in the tasering incident, the officers fucked up big time.

You make a very interesting point Geezah. The level of detail revealed here is much greater. You have to ask why that would be.

Give it time, people will come around to the idea of police carrying cameras on their person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abziie

Give it time, people will come around to the idea of police carrying cameras on their person.

I think it's inevitable, not necessarily because it is appropriate but simply because surveillance is ubiquitous and privacy is a thing of the past.

The're already in police cars anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

1. Thought so. I guess the lethal force directive comes into play as soon as a gun (brandished by the crim) enters the equation.

2. Yep sounds like it was totally the correct use of force. And agreed: it doesn't hurt to ask questions and for the police to be transparent. It seems there is a marked difference in how the police are handling this compared with the tasering: seems like they know that in this instance the officer acted procedurally correct, and in the tasering incident, the officers fucked up big time.

This.

Amazingly this time around the police story didn't change once. No need for damage control if you do your job and follow procedure.

cameras on each police officer is not only a massive expense, and think it shows a serious lack of distrust.

those that want to be corrupt will always work out a way around it. this would do nothing to build the culture which is where the focus needs to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

^

Is that irony Dubz? You need to stop hanging out with Fewsion so much.

But I got irony right right? So where's the irony in that?

Rhetorical. Carry on with the fatal shooting discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

It's completely wrong to conflate this and the taser death. They just happened to occur close to each other.

I don't think it matters that the two events occurred close to each other and were vastly different. There is something that relates them together (and any other incident in which someone is killed) which is the taser issue. Had the police officer been carrying a taser, then in all likelihood the shooting may have been avoided. This would represent a justification for the introduction of the taser and this is something that I support ie: correct use.

The thing that I am actually in two minds about is the (now hypothetical) scenario in which tasers were not introduced. In that case the only option would be to shoot. We know that the introduction of tasers has done nothing to lesson the number of times that guns are drawn, whereas tasers are now used about 5x per week.

So which is the lesser of two evils..... 5 people a week getting electrified (probably about 98% of whom pose no mortal danger to police) or 5-6 people per year getting killed who only had a knife as a weapon (which is roughly what the stats were prior to 2008 )?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischa21

cameras on each police officer is not only a massive expense, and think it shows a serious lack of distrust.

those that want to be corrupt will always work out a way around it. this would do nothing to build the culture which is where the focus needs to be.

Surveillance for this purpose would not be about removing corruption, but having a clear indication of what happened in events like shootings, taserings, dealing with drunks, punching the shit out of cricket fans etc.

The footage would be used to exonerate innocent policemen or innocent citizens in such instances where there has been force used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

I don't think it matters that the two events occurred close to each other and were vastly different. There is something that relates them together (and any other incident in which someone is killed) which is the taser issue. Had the police officer been carrying a taser, then in all likelihood the shooting may have been avoided.

You seem to know something that the police don't, given they've stated having a taser wouldn't have made a difference in this instance.

I bow down to your skills as an armchair analyst!

Just to be sure as well, has the confirmation of an "ice-fuelled rage" come only from "senior police sources"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

I don't think it matters that the two events occurred close to each other and were vastly different. There is something that relates them together (and any other incident in which someone is killed) which is the taser issue. Had the police officer been carrying a taser, then in all likelihood the shooting may have been avoided. This would represent a justification for the introduction of the taser and this is something that I support ie: correct use.

The thing that I am actually in two minds about is the (now hypothetical) scenario in which tasers were not introduced. In that case the only option would be to shoot. We know that the introduction of tasers has done nothing to lesson the number of times that guns are drawn, whereas tasers are now used about 5x per week.

So which is the lesser of two evils..... 5 people a week getting electrified (probably about 98% of whom pose no mortal danger to police) or 5-6 people per year getting killed who only had a knife as a weapon (which is roughly what the stats were prior to 2008 )?

I don't think that is the issue. I think the issue is about the people not the weapon. Don't forget about the recent event when the policewoman shouted "taser, taser, taser" and then shot a harmless person having a psychotic episode in his families kitchen.

They now walk around with batons, pepper spray, tasers and pistols.

I think NSW police have pistol training once a year. Think about that. I think that's grossly inadequate. As I understand it the taser is being regularly misused. For example the chest is meant to be avoided. They've thrown these weapons at young police with inadequate training. And it seems they are not adequately skilled in decision making. Six people charging at a person suspected of stealing biscuits with pepper spray and tasers?

must a have been a bit of a rush for the crook before he copped it-apparently he hit 200km/h on the m4.
Is it just me or do lots of people in these CA & P threads seem to really yearn for a "perfect world"??? you might be waiting a bit longer for it than you would prefer : )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

You seem to know something that the police don't, given they've stated having a taser wouldn't have made a difference in this instance.

I bow down to your skills as an armchair analyst!

Excellent! You can clean my shoes while you're down there.

And bring me some grapes too. I like to eat grapes.

at the end of the day the guy was a criminal who performed criminal acts. Things happened, decisions were made, he's dead. If it were an innocent person who died, then sure, let's cross examine the episode, but it was a crim who died and on balance it's not such a big deal

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

Excellent! You can clean my shoes while you're down there.

And bring me some grapes too. I like to eat grapes.

But how will I possibly manage to get past your hordes of adoring fans?

^ get your adoring fans to take 'em out?

VIC police this time

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/li...420-1xb0o.html

Quote:

Ms Hendtlass said Senior Constable Stacey Kronk and Constable Michael Brooks confronted Bloomfield at the Appletree caravan park at 2.13am on November 11, 2006.

''In the light of their headlights they could see Mr Bloomfield near the telephone box,'' the coroner said in her findings released yesterday.

"He was dripping with some sort of liquid and was flicking a cigarette lighter.

"In an attempt to make Mr Bloomfield drop the cigarette lighter, Mr Kronk sprayed him with Beacon oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray.

"The spark from the cigarette lighter ignited the solvent and/or propellant in the OC spray.

''This flame then ignited the accelerant on Mr Bloomfield.''

Mr Bloomfield, who suffered from schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder and alcohol and drug abuse, died the next day.

The coroner said the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy and read the police report on the incident formed the opinion Mr Bloomfield had died of self immolation.

"However, I have not formed the belief that Mr Bloomfield intended to die,'' she said. "Accordingly, I find that James Bloomfield died from severe burns.''

Just tackle them, for crying out loud. Half this bloody country is doing MMA, surely the po-po could possibly do the same and NOT resort to their little toys?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

VIC police this time

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/li...420-1xb0o.html



Just tackle them, for crying out loud. Half this bloody country is doing MMA, surely the po-po could possibly do the same and NOT resort to their little toys?

Tackle a guy who appears to be attempting to light himself on fire and burn with him? Nah I'll just use the spray thanks.

meh, there seems to be little other recourse. Taser, firearms and capsicum spray are all pretty dangerous around fire.

Maybe a go-go gadget baton?

That does seem like they did the right thing and just got horribly unlucky.

Taser could spark and set him off. Guns going to kill him and the cop needs to watch out for his own safety so there's no way he is going to get into hand to hand with the guy doused in an accelerant.

Watching someone burn to death due to a horrible accident when you were trying to stop them harming themself would be devastating too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

That does seem like they did the right thing and just got horribly unlucky.

Taser could spark and set him off. Guns going to kill him and the cop needs to watch out for his own safety so there's no way he is going to get into hand to hand with the guy doused in an accelerant.

Watching someone burn to death due to a horrible accident when you were trying to stop them harming themself would be devastating too.

It's a pretty unusual situation and I suspect wasn't even covered by police training with capsicum spray, I doubt the copper even considered in the moment the possibility of the accelerant catching fire like that. Just unlucky as you say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

It's a pretty unusual situation and I suspect wasn't even covered by police training with capsicum spray, I doubt the copper even considered in the moment the possibility of the accelerant catching fire like that. Just unlucky as you say.

Yeah I doubt there's much on training on "stopping a crazy guy from setting fire to himself when he's already doused in flammable liquid"

lol at someone suggesting that the cop tackle the guy.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/teens-shot...421-1xdce.html

Police shoot 2 teenagers in a car after they mount a curb and strike a woman.

God, shopping mall wiggers are becoming a bit more hectic...

You could accuse the boys who got shot in the Cross this morning of many things, but being wiggers is not one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

Is it just me or do lots of people in these CA & P threads seem to really yearn for a "perfect world"??? : )

Nope its not just you

Mounting a footpath in the cross at prime time could have been tragic. These kids wouldn't have stopped till they're stopped forcefully by the sounds of it. That a 24 year old was a passenger while a 14 year old drove

Quote:

Originally Posted by B_e_de

God, shopping mall wiggers are becoming a bit more hectic...

you must have pulled "mall" and "wiggers" straight out of your arse - that or you don't know shit from clay...

Dunno why they have to appeal for calm, if anyone thinks the police did anything wrong then I'd like them to immediately leave the country as they have no place here.

In my view this is indicative of the problem with the bleeding hearts attitude towards Aborigines, not enough is being done to combat their anti-social tendencies.

Good for you Dubz

Dubz that isn't crafty trolling its just a cheap shot mixed with some racism

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

Dubz that isn't crafty trolling its just a cheap shot mixed with some racism

Erm....think you might need to re-read the definition of racism.

Although I'm not surprised someone is already playing the racism card, it's played so often it's largely lost all meaning except as a shield to prevent discussion and allow people to continue acting badly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

In my view this is indicative of the problem with the bleeding hearts attitude towards Aborigines, not enough is being done to combat their anti-social tendencies.

That's pure racism dude. If Aborigines are anti-social I'd best inform my relatives, who are hard working family oriented people... clearly doing it wrong. Might buy 'em a flagon eh? That'll set them brothers straight eh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

Erm....think you might need to re-read the definition of racism.

here you go... didn't think they changed the meaning but I double checked as you suggested

"Racism is generally understood as belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics"

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

here you go... didn't think they changed the meaning but I double checked as you suggested

"Racism is generally understood as belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics"

What's that got to do with my comment? I said that not enough was being done to combat anti-social behaviour amongst Aborigines.

I didn't say all Aborigines are anti-social. That would be racist. Try reading rather than trying to find every opportunity to play the race card to avoid having to make a proper argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gruso

That's pure racism dude. If Aborigines are anti-social I'd best inform my relatives, who are hard working family oriented people... clearly doing it wrong. Might buy 'em a flagon eh? That'll set them brothers straight eh.

Didn't say all were. Just that not enough is being done.

See my above comment for more details.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

I didn't say all Aborigines are anti-social. That would be racist. Try reading rather than trying to find every opportunity to play the race card to avoid having to make a proper argument.

Then there'd be no need to mention Aborigines at all if you weren't speaking about all of them though right?

It's a ridiculous reply though, you can of course make a racist post without making it racist against an entire race of people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Then there'd be no need to mention Aborigines at all if you weren't speaking about all of them though right?

It's a ridiculous reply though, you can of course make a racist post without making it racist against an entire race of people.

No, incorrect. The people in the car were Aborigines, so mentioning them makes perfect sense without it being racist. I'm not singling them out, they're at the centre of the story (have you read the report?)

I'm pretty sure that racism involves making assumptions about someone based on their race, which I'm not doing.

If I'd been in the Cross and seen the car and given it a wide berth because it contained Aborigines then that would have been racist. Although in that particular case I would have been correct in my decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

I'm pretty sure that racism involves making assumptions about someone based on their race, which I'm not doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

In my view this is indicative of the problem with the bleeding hearts attitude towards Aborigines, not enough is being done to combat their anti-social tendencies.

You suggested that all Aboriginals (i.e. 'them') tend toward anti-social behaviour.

Happy to chalk this up to poor choice of words, but...

Spoiler:

I believe they're called 'natives', Dubz

Just shut up Dubz, propagating this sort of 'covert' racism is part of the problem, just because they are aboriginal and they did something wrong doesn't mean you get a free kick.

Not driving on the footpath whilst running away from police = increased chance of not getting shot by police.

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

Just shut up Dubz, propagating this sort of 'covert' racism is part of the problem, just because they are aboriginal and they did something wrong doesn't mean you get a free kick.

No but the fact that the main issue seems to be appealing for calm in the aboriginal community rather than focusing on the fact that a group of scum (not scum because of their race, scum because they're scum) ran over a poor woman and could have killed her and others, shows that the focus is all wrong.
I would expect the Aboriginal community to be condemning the action of these morons, but they're not.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/we-dont-sh...423-1xfoq.html

Deary me, again too many people watching cop shows and movies "why didn't they shoot him in the arm?" "why didn't they shoot the tyres?".

^ Dubz there is barely any hype about it at all... its not like the mayor of sydney has personally gone down to the block and begged them not to riot.
Historically there has been some pretty heavy handed police work performed on the youth of the block, hence the tensions. It is what it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

No, incorrect. The people in the car were Aborigines, so mentioning them makes perfect sense without it being racist. I'm not singling them out, they're at the centre of the story (have you read the report?)

I'm pretty sure that racism involves making assumptions about someone based on their race, which I'm not doing.

If I'd been in the Cross and seen the car and given it a wide berth because it contained Aborigines then that would have been racist. Although in that particular case I would have been correct in my decision.

mate that's fucked. if they were caucasian, would your response be "more needs to be done about stopping the anti-social behaviour of caucasian?" and in fact, there are SO many programs that are focused on aboriginal health and wellbeing (my work is involved with them) and so by even making that statement shows you have no clue what you're talking about.

I think the police response was probably justified here. the fact the car hit a pedestrian and she was pinned under the car suggests they weren't caring about the safety of others and it was likely more would get hurt.

I don't even... a 14 year old driver.

the only worry is they were shooting at the car and reports are shots flew through the car and out the back. it's lucky the police didn't shoot pedestrians!

I was in the X about twenty minutes before this happened. crayyyyy

edit: fixed just for Macc