Paul.L,

There’s so much high octane rhetoric in there it’s hard to know where to start answering it.

>>1) I’m not remotely religious…<<
Somehow I believe you, but you certainly come across as zealous. Point 2 makes me think you had a bad experience that’s now fashioning your defence of the police. That must be where I’m getting the “born-again” vibe.

>>You’re the one standing back making pronouncements on what they should have done and how. Not me.<<

All I’ve said is that the cops should take the path of least damage to control the situation. It’s you who has done all the specious extrapolating. I basically think, to take the David Carradine line, that one should “maim rather than kill, injure rather than maim, subdue rather than injure” etc wherever possible – sound advice I reckon. (BTW, I’m not the slightest bit interested in “Politically Correct Reactionary-ism” as you spin it.) Other than that I’ve speculated on what might have happened and said so, but I am not without my suspicions, based on my experiences. I’ve also admitted that I wasn’t there – what more can I say?

Re the non-lethal technology, the idea for the mesh was just an idea for the future in a separate post and unrelated to apportioning blame for this particular incident.

>>”You say >> “. It's not that hard to do if the police take the whole initiative seriously.”

Really? You know this how? Do you have a prototype or have you just seen it in the movies?<<

Because I know that if the police force, like anyone else, takes an issue seriously, they can fix anything. It is not that technologically difficult to do if they put the resources and effort into it. You should know by now that the lack of political will is the real killer (of the idea) here. … but if you’d only get your blinkers off, you’d see that, Paul.

TBC

>>There is a statute in most criminal codes and also exists in the common law called SELF DEFENCE, maybe you’ve heard of it. Simply put it allows people to act with potentially deadly force if it is required to protect life.<<

Oh I’ve heard of it alright. Take a life to potentially protect a life is what it boils down to in this case. I also understand the bigger law of life: the law of reciprocal action, which applies to everyone in life, cops included. No special privileges for them here, except in the laws of man, which only sit as a subset of, but cannot trump, the wider laws - a very good reason to do the least amount of damage in any given situation.

>> No, what I’ve done is introduce some FACTS into this discussion. Something you have NOT been able to do. So Maximal hyperbole? Your post show that you are clearly suffering from Politically Correct Reactionary-ism so I’ll take that with a grain of salt.<<

Yes you’ve brought forward some facts, and to that extent, fair enough. But you’ve also filled all the gaps, like polyfilla, with your ideological a priori opinion. You’d make a “good” Miss Marple.

A seminal point in this situation is that the primary witnesses – the four cops – have a vested interest in the outcome. The one best able to put a complementary slant on things is dead. Situations like these can lead to spurious claims being made by police – so the investigators need to be alive to this possibility.

Overall, I’m not pretending the kid was an angel. But it could have been a salvageable situation. Not that we’ll ever know now. The potentially bad aspect of this, is that some unsavoury types with an axe to grind with society will use incidents like these to push their own barrows. I’d have thought that was another good reason for cops to use minimal force. I’m sure the more enlightened members of the constabulary are thinking hard right now about how to fend off the political backlash.

Well look at that. More methane created than from a 15YO corpse.
The bottom line in the thread is that customary Common Law doesn't apply any more and anyone hearing the progress of the matter in the media wouldn't care that it was not applied.

Thats where we are going and that is why kids are being shot dead here in Oz and elsewhere in the world.
You will find this a common chord in my ramblings as the NON FARMER.

Even you police writing in blethering about being in the frontline would be aware that if you've pissed off a senior at work and make a tiny tactical mistake under their watch - that your arse will be grass and they'll be the lawnwower.
The greatest danger to this alleged democracy is that we refuse to demand due process.

We know he was 15 years old.
We know his mum could not control him, she rang the police.
We know he was suffering after his fathers death.
We are told he was a red neck white supremacists.
That he may have been on drugs? was that from the press or is it true?
Ten shots, 10 bullets fired from how far away?
No more than 5 mter's surely?
See he as killed because he was threatening police, how long was that knife blade?
You can not shoot a person in the legs if he/she is moving we are told?
Ever been rabbit shooting?
I have often, nothing special 6 rabbits six head shots from 50 meters or more away.
Maybe a couple gut shot on the run from 100 away.
42 police deaths in Victoria 1987 to now, twice the number of NSW in that time, probably more than the total of the whole country in that time.
Some say we defame the police re read the thread, some speak of this dead kid without any evidence like he was a one man crime wave.
He was only 15 years old.
He is dead, he should be alive no way around it cowboys do serve in every police force in every state, I have questions that will never be answered for these three gentlemen, but rest assured they will be found not to have done anything wrong.
We proudly say the law id blind it also is deaf and sometimes dumb but it always looks after its own even if they are criminals.

Re the "net" idea of RobP's.
For many years I have thought that was a good idea after seeing a semi concealed gun net fired from the ground catching wild birds in a survey .

It covered quite a few metres ,I'm guessing, around about a circle at least 5 metres wide and caught a heap of birds as it was very fast and accurate .

It would have to be worth a try one would think if a good mesh was found .

A fire extinguisher full of chemical company stun toxins and glues at the face is my quick pick .

Sort of like a temporary super glue for the eyelids .

Give up going to the Moon and Mars until we get something effective!

Thanks kartya jim.

I think the mesh would be well worth a try for standoffs and domestic violence situations. If it was lightweight enough it could be clipped to a policeman's belt and made standard issue. Otherwise, it could be stored securely in every police patrol car and used on an as-needs basis.

Even with such technology, you'll still get the odd policeman who thinks that just bailing up an aggressor is not enough and will feel the need to sink their boots in or sit their burly frame on the subdued. But at least the lethal option will have been eliminated.

I would steer away from using chemicals to the face if possible as that could lead to poisoning and may have the same, although much slower, effect of using a bullet.