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.

Why should you get an increased penalty for shooting a police officer than shooting a civilian?

Also, has anyone notices how all police look like they're 17 years old these days?

botheration, it's not that police are getting younger but you're getting older.

My main concern is that police aren't required to qualify more than once a year for weapons training. To be proficient in handling and safety requires much more regular attendance at the range.

I agree with R0bert in regards the whole "shoot to kill" issue.

Despite what we see in movies, hand guns are actually quite hard to aim with, and in the heat-of-the-moment, a shot to the chest may be necessary in order to stop potential attackers quickly. From what I've heard though, police are trained to aim for the abdomen as it can take a long time to die from a bullet wound there.

Bazz,

<<If they don't chase them then the crims will know that driving a stolen car is unpunishible as they cannot be stopped.>>

I agree, but I don't think catching a petty car thief is worth the risk of running down a person who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If the thieves continue down the path their on, they'll be caught eventually anyway.

Actually, if sighted in properly to suit the ammo and the shooter, handguns can be aimed very accurately.
At an IPSC match, semi-autos are very reliable up to 25 yards and beyond. At a Service Pistol match, revolvers are accurate up to 50 yards.

If the police formed the reasonable (even if not necessarily correct) view that the driver was seeking to run them down, then they did not need to use powers conferred by the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 to shoot. They could shoot by virtue of their right to self defence. It wouldn't even matter if the vehicle were not at that moment on a direct line of impact; after all, vehicles can be steered.

Hello Sylvia,

I note in your response that the police have the right to self-defend. Yes, you are quite correct. In fact, we all have that right.

But you miss the point. I am not challenging the police right to use force. I was once a police officer and I know how difficult it is. I challenge convenient mis-use of force.

Police car chases killed, and still kill, a lot of relatively innocent youth. Public outcry put pressure on politicians who leaned on police to moderate their procedures.

Perhaps if police shootings become as prevalent in Oz as they are in the US then we may have another public outcry.

I remember the tele shots of a woman in Melbourne being shot by a female officer.
She had a carving knife and stood the other side of a fountain when she was fatally shot.
In an obviously demented state, she stood threatening to attack any who would try to detain her.
One is tempted to ask why she was shot? certainly out of her tree, and some distance away, did she express threat to life?
The constable was entitled to feel threatened, but life as a policeman is to be threatening too. To resort to shooting dead a distressed woman is to admit the use of force, by shooting, is a sign of a person ill equipped to be a policeman/woman, signs of a person perhaps who could have been the other side of the fountain.
fluff4

It seems to be in the nature of any attempted arrest that it has scope for escalating the danger to all concerned. The police in this particular case would presumably have thought that the impossibility of getting past them in a vehicle would cause the fugitive to give up, or at least abandon the vehicle. When it became apparent to them that this was not the case, I see no particular concern about their using potentially lethal force to address the situation they found themselves in.

If we were to take the view that the police must avoid causing escalation, then they'd pretty much have to leave crims alone.

The argument boils down to whether or not the police use force in proportion to either the 'offense' committed or the threat. There are instances where the police have a preconceived mindset before they actually apprehend someone, which is dangerous if you happen to be that someone and you haven't done anything wrong or illegal. In my meagre dealings with the police, I've found that they tend to cut corners a lot, particularly when they are on patrol in a lonely spot and they come across someone who they think might be doing something wrong. It can be a case of you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent in their eyes.

The other problem is that if someone does something a bit wrong, he can have the full fury of the constabulary thrown at him. Eg, demonstrators at the some embassies in Canberra, while somewhat exuberant, aren't really deserving of being roughed up. Physically stopped when they try to jump the fence, yes, but roughed up, no. Police have also intimidated people holding banners in peaceful protest outside Parliament House by asking for their personal details. I'm not into that type of demonstrating myself, but I can see when the police response is out of proportion to the offence/threat. As far as I'm concerned, the real problem is too many police are cowboys, thugs and the type who want to feel like they're doing something useful. They then go out of their way to make it happen. Very dangerous!

Are some unlawful? YES/ and no. Its a case of, you just had to be there. Now the first thing a human thinks of when he or she is confronted by a threatening situation is to defend ones self. (Police or not). Mental health is a big one now days and people are loosing it for all sorts of reasons. So what is the answer?

How about this! Police should have the right too tranquilize an extreme threat.( DONT USE BULLETS JUST IN CASE IT WAS NOT NEEDED) Think about it! Send the persons a non painful good night sleep, and we will all work it out in the morning.
Some will find holes in my idea, but at least, it wont be a bullet hole. Not too many come back from that.

When I was Bank Teller some decades ago, we were told never to use our revolvers unless there was a direct threat to life. To basically forget we had a gun.

In the UK a rarely armed constabulary seems to work at least as effectively as our paramilitary "force". And note the word force has crept back into use in NSW as opposed to "service".

Regarding attitude one only needs to recall that the present Commissioner said he would ignore a High Court ruling to protect the Heads of State in Sydney, if need be. Iemma should have kicked his butt to Pluto for that comment.

Police should not be allowed to carry arms in a civilised society,such as Australia.
It seems curious that New Zealand and Britain do not arm police.
They prefer to have a system that allows for police to obtain firearms from a police station where the arms are kept secure under lock and key.
In the 1970's Australian Police forces were not armed as a general rule.
Due to the increase in the number of armed bankrobberies,Police were slowly allowed to patrol with arms.
Then with affirmative action,some females were issued with arms.
Today they are all in Rambo mood.

If this thread id indicative of the total population, there seems to be strong view in community that Police should only be armed in exceptional circumstances. Governments so willing to be opposed to the Public it represents suggest that, We, the People, should proposed Citizen Referenda.

Brock,

"...In the 1970's Australian Police forces were not armed as a general rule."

In NSW the police have been armed since 1788. The historical progression from 'Convict Constables' to today's police has seen them all armed.

An essay on the subject could be titled "From Flintlock to Glock"