You need to remember that the average police member (SOG excepted) spends *barely* enough time training with his or her revolver to be less of a threat to themselves than someone else while using it. This is for practical training time reasons - alot of members will never even draw their service revolver, much less use it, and there is alot more to policing than being able to shoot. The pistols are more for intimidation than for actual use.

As a result, an average 10 year old farm child who grew up shooting rabbits is quite likely to be a more accurate marksman than most constables.

From memory 7 shots were fired, for two hits in the legs and one (lethal) in the chest. Think about that for a moment. Thats less than half even hitting the target. Im going to guess the members were aiming at the legs and the chest shot was a recoil shot fired after one of the leg shots. For all the good that did the boy.

"Just shoot him in the leg" has a great ideal behind it, but it is one ideal that average police members simply *will never* be able to live up to. Shooting people in the leg is something for the SOGs, if at all.

The police did the right thing. The boy appears to have gone for suicide by police shooting; the real victim here is the member who's gun will be matched as having fired that lethal round. For that person, the hell that will come from what should have been another night at the office is probably only just beginning.

My point is starting this thread was to
raise the issue of police training.
To ensure that this sort of thing does
not happen again.

It's a difficult situation. We all realize
that, I think.

However, it simply is not good enough to
say that the police were right, and they
did the right thing.

A young life was lost and we need to ask -
could the situation have been handled in
any other way?

All I am asking is that the entire matter be
examined - with no blame being laid - simply
have the matter be looked at objectively - no finger
pointing - just how else could the situation
have been handled?

I feel that all parties would appreciate another
evaluation. Rather just closing the case with,
"Yeah, the police did the right thing!"

A lost life deserves some further answers.
As do the officers who now have to live
with their actions. Closing the case will not
achieve anything.

Foxy, you are right. These police officers acted as they knew best at the time assessing the situation using their training and/or experience. They now have an enormous burden. Heads should roll in the upper echelons where training is determined.

I read a very interesting letter to the editor in one of Australia's newspapers.

In Greece the police kill a 15 yr old-with an angy mob behind him!- and there are riots. In Australia 3 police officer kill a lone boy and there is deafening silence. Strange isn't it. Shameful actually.

From work experience I've seen people of all ages 'off their faces' with drugs, alcohol or mental illness, and any combination of these, and there are methods to deal with people like this. Pulling a gun is not one of them. From their 'reality' they are fighting for their life, waving guns around excerbates that.

Absolutely the training is inadequate and needs serious review. Not only because a boy was killed, but also because of the consequences to the officers themselves.

For the Christians, you'll appreciate this little bit of paranoia, have you ever looked at the significance of the Victorian police badge?

Dear Anansi,

Thank You so much for your comments
and for understanding the point
that I've been trying to make for
this entire thread.

All I am asking for everyone's sake -
please - don't let this case
simply be brushed aside.

The police training desperately needs
reviewing.

Hi kartiya jim.
I think we have probably got some of the best training techniques available to police forces anywhere in the world, here in Australia. Constantly are they updated.

Every situation is different of course.
Most police seem to have gotten killed at domestic disputes where there was lots of screaming and waving of arms.

The Constable knows his lawful entitlement when it comes to pulling his pistol.
He doesnt in anyway do it lightly and he will indeed be under fear of serious harm if he does pull it.
I think I only ever had my gun out once, over a number of years, in the prescence of an offender.
Its not common.

As time passes Im sure science will provide other alternatives to the pistol. I heard their working on Star trek type ray weapons that can nullify but not kill. Maybe a few years away yet?

Anasi,

>> “In Greece the police kill a 15 yr old-with an angy mob behind him!- and there are riots. In Australia 3 police officer kill a lone boy and there is deafening silence. Strange isn't it. Shameful actually.”

What’s shameful is that the Greeks would riot for three days. Its typical REACTIONARY behaviour.

It’s really tiresome hearing from people who know nothing about guns, policing or the danger the police were in, on the night.

You say >> “ I've seen people of all ages 'off their faces' ... and there are methods to deal with people like this.”

What UTTER rubbish. When a CRAZED person advances on police with knives drawn, police have to make a decision. When two doses of capsicum spray don’t work they KNOW the offender is seriously worked up. They MUST assume that the offender intends to injure someone and that he isn't going to be talked down.

In confronting this person one of the police found themselves in a position where he couldn’t retreat. The options are, use capsicum spray and if that fails contain the situation. However when a policeman feels his or his colleagues lives are in imminent danger, he has a responsibility to act. They are trained to shoot at the torso deliberately, because the other options are not particularly reliable or safe. Police shoot to put the defender down. Once the decision to fire is made it is clear that someone is in a life threatening position and that all those who are in a position to stop the offender should act. Which is what happened. 1 bullet or 10, the police shoot until the offender is no longer in a position to threaten.

Do we really expect police to be shot or stabbed before they take action? Under those circumstances I wonder how many of the critics of the police’s actions on the night would volunteer to be the sacrificial lamb? I wonder how many of them would offer their necks up whilst armchair critics pontificated on where the line for deadly force should be drawn