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.