Paul.L: << You would know that the relevance of this to the case under investigation is almost non existent. Victoria Police may well have some issues but to suggest that the Victoria Police shooting record tells us ANYTHING about what happened that day is patently false and you know it. >>

Why is the relevance of Victoria Police's appalling record of shooting people "almost non existent"? You understand probability and statistics - what makes you discount their salience in this case?

To me, this looks like an incident that fits well into a well-established pattern of police violence in Victoria, and thus warrants very close examination. Yes, let's wait for the Coroner's recommendations, but I'm very sure that s/he will take Victoria Police's horrendous record into account. So should we all.

<< Been to any “ART” exhibitions lately? >>

Ah, so you're still hung up on the 'child pornography' that wasn't, according to all knowledgeable, statutory and other relevant authorities. You really should grow up and get over your strange attitude to the human body.

I'm not surprised you're into 'Warhammer'. So was my 18-year old son until he grew out of it.

CJ,

The relevance of this incident to a discussion on police shootings in Victoria, is obvious. The relevance of the history of police shootings in Victoria, to the question of guilt or innocence of the four police involved in the shooting of the 15yr old boy, is non existent.

Statistics and probability have no role in determining the guilt or innocence of people under the law. Its that simple. The eyewitness and physical evidence, ballistics, etc collected are the only relevant details in such a case.

You say >> “To me, this looks like an incident that fits well into a well-established pattern of police violence in Victoria, and thus warrants very close examination.”

I have no problem with the close examination part, but how it looks to you is supremely irrelevant. Since you weren’t there, you simply don’t know what it looked like, let alone what it actually was.

You say >> “but I'm very sure that s/he will take Victoria Police's horrendous record into account. So should we all.

I see. So we should punish these Police, if they are found guilty, for all the acts committed by Victoria Police over the years? If you knew ANYTHING about the law you would know that the record of a group to which a person belongs is irrelevant when deciding whether they are guilty or not, which is as it should be. Even a persons own past actions cannot usually be admitted into evidence when deliberating upon a persons guilt or innocence over another matter.

After all, you supporters of Henson’s art wouldn’t like to be held responsible for the actions of the predators who hide within your midst. If you continue to bait me with your stupidity ( Warhammer etc ) I will retaliate, and don’t necessarily expect a proportionate response

Rob P

You say >> “I'm guessing - and I stress only guessing - that as the kid was only 15 he's had some delusions of grandeur or watched too many violent movies or whatever and gone over the top. What's probably likely is that the cops involved had never seen a situaton where someone ignored a warning shot. And what started out as an act of minimal force by the police quickly escalated into one of maximal force. “

Then you say >> “At the very least, everyone should learn from this.”

You think we should be acting on the basis of your guesses? Maybe we could do away with trials altogether and just have you guess the guilt or ortherwise of defendents.

We have a presumption of innocence for a reason, to prevent innocent people from being convicted of doing things they haven’t done. Something you claim to be passionate about. Yet you are doing precisely that to these policemen. In the aftermath of a coronial inquest there will be a time to argue over whether police need more training or better weapons etc. Until then, as far is the law is concerned, the police acted appropriately

Dearie me Paul, as a lawyer you'd make a good engineer. If you knew ANYTHING about the law you would know that the Coroner's Court is not bound by the rules of evidence. Indeed, it may

<< ...inform itself in any way it considers appropriate...

After the inquest, the Coroner will give a finding about the case. If the Coroner finds that a person should be charged with a criminal offence, the police and courts deal with the person the same way as with any other criminal case. The Coroner may also give an opinion to help prevent the recurrence of such deaths in future. >>

http://www.apla.com.au/legal/coroner.php

In other words, the Coroner doesn't determine the guilt or innocence of anyone. S/he has a broader brief, which is to determine whether or not there is a case to answer.

Maybe you should stick to 'Warhammer'. Speaking of which,

<< I will retaliate, and don’t necessarily expect a proportionate response >>

You're so intimidating - just as well I'm not a plastic alien.

CJ,

As a PC activist you make an even worse lawyer.

I never suggested the coroner would be the arbiter of guilt or innocence of these men. So the rules of evidence for a coroner’s court are IRRELEVANT. Moron.

If you had bothered to quote what I said it would, of course, have completely undermined your petulant point.

I will say it again so even a disgusting pervert such as yourself can understand.

“The relevance of the history of police shootings in Victoria, to the question of guilt or innocence of the four police involved in the shooting of the 15yr old boy, is non existent.”

As you have so kindly pointed out for us, the coroner does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. So you little diversion is entirely irrelevant.

So keep barking little dog. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that a PC nerd like yourself would feel brave when you are safe at home in your computer room. But then safe at home in your computer room is no doubt where you indulge your other disgusting habits. A safe haven for a really BRAVE man.

Woof Woof.

By the way, do you have a politically correct dictionary or encyclopedia that dictates your opinions or does green weekly or alternet just give them to you a bit at a time?

Well, Paul, the bottom line is, if my views are not decisive in this case, then neither are yours. Because neither of us were there. If you are a lawyer then maybe you have a vested interest in tilling the soil so that a particular view is looked at favourably by the court?

The penny drops. It explains the your steamroller approach and never-ending argument.

Now that I know what I'm dealing with it's probably not useful to continue this discussion.