In a country that enjoys some of the tightest gun controls in the world and lowest levels of gun ownership, our Police have armed themselves to the teeth and ostentatiously display their "kit", US style.

In Queensland the 'Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000' provides for the use of reasonable force.

Section 615 provides authority to use reasonable force to exercise a power of arrest. The degree of force does not include that which could be likely to cause grievous bodily harm, or death, to a person.

Section 616 provides authority to use force that could be likely to cause grievous bodily harm, or death, to a person. But the seriousness of the offence should be such that it is punishable by life imprisonment.

Offences like 'break and enter', speeding or 'failing to comply with the direction of a Police Officer' are not punishable by life imprisonment. The offences of murder and attempted murder are.

Yesterday police in Qld shot a driver because they claim that he was trying to murder them.

Police had been pursuing the vehicle and suspected that the occupants had committed an offence not punishable by life imprisonment.

When the vehicle U-turned and approached the police they stopped their Police-car, got out and stood in the path of the approaching vehicle.

They allege that the car was going to be used to murder them and under the authority provided by section 616 a firearm was drawn and discharged, hitting the driver. The bullet entered the car from the driver's side.

Did the Police create their own life-threatening situation which justified the use of section 616?

The trajectory of the bullet would determine whether or not the person who fired it was in the path of the approaching car.

In a statement to the media the Police Minister Judy Spence said that the shooting sent a clear message that people should obey police directions "or face the consequences".

This statement demonstrates an ignorance of the law and sends a message to the police service that they may summarily execute a person who fails to obey their directions.

I've felt for a long time that there is something lacking in the way that police officers are trained. They are supposed to enforce the law, yes granted. But they are also supposed to protect its citizens.
Why do they shoot to kill? Why not simply disarm the culprit or shoot them in the arm/leg, whatever. It would seem that shoot to kill would have to be the last resort, not the first and only.

Also do they have to cause car accidents with their police chases?
Can't they simply follow someone? Do they have to panic people?

I think it all comes down to either their lack of the right type of training (overkill is not the answer), or the force is attracting 'rambo' types - which it can do without. Or at least we, the public, certainly can . Whatever happened to your 'friendly' neighbourhood police officers that used to be around way back when ..

The law is there to protect people - not to be manipulated by its law enforcement officers...

For the couriermails write up on the shooting

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22941715-3102,00.html

Years ago I did the tourist show at FBI headquarters. The question was asked about shooting to disable vs shooting to kill.

The person answering questions made the point that it is a lot harder to shoot to disable than to shoot to kill and far more prone to failure. If they need to shoot someone then they need to stop them, not have them able to carry on an attack. It's a lot harder to hit a moving leg than a chest.

R0bert

Thankyou RObert, I stand corrected. The passenger was shot in this instance. And the first report that I heard is very different to the official police media release that the tabloids have run with.

Interesting to note the following taken from the Courier Mail article

"Milne, of Jimboomba, appeared in the Beenleigh Magistrate's Court yesterday charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, acts intended to cause grievous bodily harm and break and enter offences. The matter was adjourned until this morning."

No charge of attempted murder. Maybe an agreement has been reached between police and driver that suits both parties.

From memory of the media story the bullet appeared to have entered the side of the vehicle which places the police officer out of its path.

Perhaps a charge of attempted murder might have raised more questions than answers.

sintch, the Courier Mail has been known to be incorrect in it's reporting from time to time :)

I would imagine that it's difficult to make a charge of attempted murder stick in a case like this, very difficult to prove that the driver intended to hit the officer or that his intent was to kill him.

I was a police officer on a narrow road with a car charging at me I'd not want to wait to find out if they planned to stop. A quick judgement call is needed.

If the driver of the car did appear to be using the car to attack the officer then in my view responsibility for the consequences of that should lie with the driver.

I'll assume for the sake of the discussion that the driver of the car was driving dangerously (the courts can make the determination about that). How much better that he was stopped in that back road than getting back onto one of the main roads out of Tamborine and fleeing at speed. Far too much chance of a fatality in that either to the driver, his passenger or worse yet to anybody unlucky enough to be on the road at the same time. The roads around Tamborine are not very impressive, good enough to allow for a lot of speed but not good enough to maintain that speed.

R0bert

There seems to be a lot of nonsense spoken about police chases.
If they don't chase them then the crims will know that driving a stolen car is unpunishible as they cannot be stopped.

Just to follow them is silly all they would do is speed up and as the police could not chase them they would wave them goodbye.

Regarding weapons, well if they have to be armed then they should have effective weapons, not peashooters.
There needs to be an increase in penalties for shooting or injuring
police. Some judges seem to be in another world.