I thought I might raise a reasonably recent personal internal discovery I had within myself last year.

Early last year I did a Justice Administration course via a Tafe which was the required 200 hours of Diploma level study before you can apply to join the Qld Police Service.

I don't consider myself a stereotypical Christian due to being fairly open minded, compared. But the fundamentals of my rules regarding life is treat others as you wish to be treated, and thou shalt not kill..

How does 'thou shalt not kill' fit into roles such as military and the police. My question for the universe was, if I'm volunteering to put myself into a position where the potential for using a weapon is VERY real, then am I not CREATING and inserting myself as a volunteer to cause harm to others...?

This question actually tore me up for months. I talked with people I respect and even AT THAT TIME I read a book about the youngest fella in Australia to make it in to the Australian SAS. He touched on the morals of killing. I wrote to him and thanked him for what his thoughts did for me and the difference he made in my life. He wrote back.

The answer was ... wait for it .... waaaaait ... 'Intent'.

What were my intentions for joining the Police Service?. My GENUINE intention for wanting to join was for personal growth and to make a positive difference in others lives.

As for the potential for taking lives, then it was about making right decisions based on personal judgement with preservation of life being foremost in my mind, and actions. The offender KNOWS the potential consequences of their actions and as a Police Officer they KNOW the tools you have at your disposal and the possible outcome of them threatening others lives.

The justification is about my intent, and theirs.

I DID simplify my answer for space.

I didn't end up joining for very different reasons.

STG, whether it be a police officer, a soldier, or a security guard, at least in the civilized, non-extreemist world, they have one thing in common, that is they do not intend to shoot people.

They will however shoot if threatend to either defend themselves, and or, to protect others and,their level of involvement and the extent to which they have to be threatened before shooting depends largely on both their 'role' and their 'situation' at the time.

I would go so far as to say that no police officer in Australia goes to work thinking they might just shoot somebody today.

I agree with rehctub. If these law enforcement personnel go into the job with a non-violent attitude and are respectful of the weapons and other people's lives, then so be it.

With respect to mixing Christian values with the need for carrying weapons in a law enforcement capacity, the Bible is full of examples of apparently God-condoned violence and killing, so it shouldn't be a problem.

If God was willing to allow the killing of all first-borne of Egyptians in order that they would let the Israelites go, then I am sure God would have no problem with killing others in self defense

Bit confused. Nothing I said relates to 'as opposed' to anyone else. I didn't, and wouldn't, suggest people without faith have a different intention to that of myself.

This is the LAST time I mention my faith online. Nowhere can you get a reasoned conversation about it. Just had a similar experience on my blog regarding Easter.

Enough's, enough. I'm FKN sick of defending myself over it.

suzeonline is right.
I've always admired her logic.
In the same manner that God was willing to allow the killing of all first-borne of Egyptians in order that they would let the Israelites go, our society sanctions the killing of the un-borne in order to let their mothers go on with what they were doing before their plans were interrupted.
No one should therefore have any problems with killing in self-defense as long as it is done with a non-violent and respectful attitude.

StG
May I say that it is a shame more people like you do not join the police forces. People who have a conscience, who would no doubt only wield their gun after careful consideration of all circumstances.

You obviously had your own reasons for not joining. I have never carried a gun but have worked with many who have and it comes with a big responsibility.

StG, if you don't want a discussion on your choice of beliefs or faith, then don't start a thread about your thoughts on being a Christian and wanting to join a police force where you may have a dilemma with killing someone!

Proxy, thanks for the vote of confidence, however I didn't think this thread was about abortion?

If there is a God then obviously he/she/it has no problems with the killing of unborn babies, because there are far more supposedly God-given miscarriages and stillbirths amongst the women of our world than there are abortions.

StG: Hi. I understand what you're saying I think and I basically agree with Rehctub on this issue.

It's a moral dilemma and IMO intent does matter. For example, if given the choice between taking care to save my soul and stopping someone from killing someone else, especially a child, I would use the most effective method available to me to stop the aggressor and worry about my own status later (You know, the first will be last and the last first sort of thinking).

A couple of additional thoughts:

I think the actual translation of 'Thou shalt not kill' has been determined to more properly be, 'Thou shalt not murder.' There is a bit on it and the finer points of translation if you scroll down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Killing_or_murder

At least one of Jesus' adherents was a Roman Centurion. (Matthew 8:5-13)

You could always adopt the 'righteous vengeance' model of Christianity, as portrayed with deicious irony in the classic 1990s film 'Pulp Fiction':

<< The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee. >>

Great thread STG; I admire your intelligence for raising this and acknowledge in so doing, that you are assisting fellow Australians who may be entering law enforcement fields of work and/or already joined or held careers for quite a few years struggling with their spirituality/christianity component in relation to using guns.

I too am Christian and spiritual. My viewpoint is that my God, Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Our Lady my guardians [all upstairs] know and comprehend every little thought process zipping along
in my soul and mind, intuitively knowing the difference between when I intentionally although unnecessarily hurt another being or animal or creature, compared to when it is intentionally necessary to save someone else.

No different to that of any Christian/Spiritual police officer.

STG I agree with the person you spoke to over the phone.

'Intent' is the answer in relation to the Christian aspect regarding guns.

Dont take anything personally when you generously and kindly give of yourself/life on this Forum as we are all individuals and unique enjoying sharing our views and experiences which assists other readers; our wider communities. STG as you know, we all are individuals who interpret threads/subjects differently and at the same time, others' comments can be misinterpreted completely at times. I have done this and after re-reading posts realised.

After reading all of the responses to your wonderful thread I have to say that no-one has had a go at your Christian/Spiritual side.

The subject is Religion and guns. My interpretation of responses are that most have in actual fact agreed with the chap you had your conversation with. The type of intent is the key. People are including their own beliefs within their viewpoint not challenging your Christianity/spirituality in this thread.

A much needed thread in todays world and a loving Happy Easter to you STG. Please keep posting and contributing, I have enjoyed reading your contributions

Great thread STG; I admire your intelligence for raising this and acknowledge in so doing, that you are assisting fellow Australians who may be entering law enforcement fields of work and/or already joined or held careers for quite a few years struggling with their spirituality/christianity component in relation to using guns.

I too am Christian and spiritual. My viewpoint is that my God, Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Our Lady my guardians [all upstairs] know and comprehend every little thought process zipping along
in my soul and mind, intuitively knowing the difference between when I intentionally although unnecessarily hurt another being or animal or creature, compared to when it is intentionally necessary to save someone else.

No different to that of any Christian/Spiritual police officer.

STG I agree with the person you spoke to over the phone.

'Intent' is the answer in relation to the Christian aspect regarding guns.

Dont take anything personally when you generously and kindly give of yourself/life on this Forum as we are all individuals and unique enjoying sharing our views and experiences which assists other readers; our wider communities. We all interpret threads quite differently too when tired. I have done this and re-read threads and my contributions realising later that the author of a thread has stated an issue for enlightenment rather than seeking assurance or comments to debate.

However STG as you know, we all are individuals who interpret threads/subjects differently and at the same time, our comments are misinterpreted completely. After reading all of the responses to your wonderful thread I have to say that no-one has had a go at your Christian/Spiritual side.

The subject is Religion and guns. My interpretation of responses are that most have in actual fact agreed with the chap you had your conversation with. The type of intent is the key.

A much needed thread in todays world and a loving Happy Easter to you.

You are making the point about the type of 'intent' is how I interpreted your thread

StG

A police officer is only permitted to use his service pistol in restricted circumstances, essentially where there is an imminent lethal threat.

In this case it could be argued that the offender has made his decision to risk forfeiting his life and for your part as policeman on the spot you are required to preserve your own life and that of any others at risk. Therefore on both counts you are morally right, even considering the sanctity of life, in attempting to stop him (that is the goal of discharging your weapon, not the aim of killing) and to continue to do so until the threat is neutralised, when you would seek medical assistance for him.

If in aiming at the centre of body mass, which is the only alternative in trying to stop the onslaught of a determined lethal threat, your action results in the death of the assailant, then that is an unintended, although possible eventuality.

In the course of normal duties it would be rare for police to ever fire their service pistols and with a few exceptions all go through their career without ever firing their pistol in anger (so to speak). It was an honest and moral decision not to join up where you thought you might hesitate to use your pistol if required.

I really feel for police, because offenders are always cowards and would usually have the drop on police. Cops have a right not to be treated as objects of abuse, punching bags or targets and they have loved ones who want them home unharmed at the end of their shift too.

Hope that helped a bit.

suzeonline,

Its not my faith I have an issue with, it's people like yourself continually taking the opportunity to hijack threads such as this for the purpose of personal agenda and trolling. Quite OBVIOUSLY the thread has ZERO to do with ANYONE'S faith other than mine and the dilemma it caused me over wanting to join the Police at that time.

But here, I've got to give YOU time over the people who did actually understand the topic.

If you want a theological discussion about religion and killing, please, start another thread.

Pelican,

Cheers, I actually didn't end up applying for various reasons. 12+ hour shifts versus the remuneration, lifestyle at home, politics, quality of others joining, others personal stories etc etc. Just wasn't worth it. I talked with a detective who can't sleep without getting drunk, lost his family, etc, he said don't do it.

Pynchme,

Yeah, those are the sort of things that were churning around inside.

CJ,

"Yea, as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I fear no evil, because I am the baddest mother f*$#%r IN the valley". ;o)

we are unique,

Cheers.

Cornflower,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Stg

When I saw the topic of your thread I thought it was to be about the recent actions by Christian Militia such as the recent terrorism by Hutaree.

Of course, as I read on it was about the conflict of carrying a weapon as part of the career as a policeman while being religious.

My first point is that anyone would have difficulty with the conundrum of being in a position where it may be necessary to wound or take a life. Being Christian does not give a monopoly on morality.

Which brings me to my second point:

Suzeonline was well within her rights to consider that this was a discussion about religion and carrying a gun, given that your opening post discussed this very issue. To then accuse her of flaming is irrational.

Finally, I would also like to point out that having worked with police (I agree with Pelican) the majority do not use their weapons without good reason (unfortunately there is a minority of gung ho types as in any organisation). However, it pains me that both you and Cornflower have made blatant claims about "offenders", and I will quote CF:

>>> because offenders are always cowards and would usually have the drop on police <<<

NO, offenders are not always cowards, nor are they necessarily aware of their transgression, for example mental disorder, and "usually have the drop on police" no, not necessarily. Offenders may or may not be armed, dangerous or even more threatening than an injured animal. Generalising about transgressors is the type of attitudes I would expect from conservative authoritarian types who believe they are always in the right.

CJ Morgan

Loved Samuel L Jackson's piece in Pulp Fiction, my favourite scene in the entire movie.

In defence of StG, I don't think he was implying that the religious have the corner on morality, just that for him it was a personal conflict. That is how I took it and I am sure given StG's usual posts he was not making any judgements on others regardless of their beliefs.

Dear StG,

Good topic.

You said; “The offender KNOWS the potential consequences of their actions and as a Police Officer they KNOW the tools you have at your disposal and the possible outcome of them threatening others lives.”

However I'm not sure intent, particularly on behalf of the offender, is a proper yardstick to judge the strength of ones moral justification in taking another's life.

Most of the police shootings in recent times in Victoria are not directed at hardened criminals but rather mentally disturbed or drug affected individuals, usually knife wielding rather than gun armed.

So I would argue the though of these individuals knowing the consequences of their actions is fraught.

My brother worked as a Federal Policeman and said pulling over a car with armed bikkies and drugs on board was less intimidating than walking down a pathway after taking a man's children away from him after a Family Court judgement knowing there were guns in the house.

The more harden criminals in the drugs case quickly assessed the situation, pulled over, put their weapons on the ground beside their car and sat their with their hands up.

Cont...

Cont..

Through the eighties in Victoria it was a different story with many criminals shot and quite a number of police gunned down or blown up. I always reflect on this when I hear people calling for us to return to the good old days when the police were hard-arses. Thankfully some enlighten members of police command and the government defused what had become an all out war and lives on both sides are being preserved as a result.

I'm not aware of the culture within the Queensland police force but the point I'm making is that it can be entirely out of your control and often you actions are dictated by those who command you.

This is one of the reasons why I have respect for our law enforcement and armed service personnel. They have sacrificed a portion of their autonomy for the service to their community or country.

To put it crudely they have been prepared to shelve part of their natural morality to effectively do their job. Rather than deny this or find a moral justification for an immoral act perhaps we should recognise the sacrifice being made, often on our behalf.

I remember doing a tour of the Fremantle Goal during which the guide pointed out that the Ten Commandments on the wall had been altered to read “Thou shalt not Murder”. The reason was right next door the state was busily dropping citizens through trapdoors.

Shouldn't we refrain from such hypocrisy?

Severin,

As Pelican said, I didn't say the religious have the monopoly on morality. You thinking I actually said that makes you irrational.

You said:

>>>However, it pains me that both you and Cornflower have made blatant claims about "offenders"<<<

Ummm what did I say?. Just out of curiosity.

Fractelle/Severin, "Offenders may or may not be armed, dangerous or even more threatening than an injured animal."

Horses' apples, it is about an actual imminent lethal threat. All uses of firearms or other protective kit are reported and are subject to scrutiny and possible investigation. The use of police firearms and every other piece of police kit is very tightly controlled.

On threats I generalised for brevity and did not mention:

- violent offenders under the influence of drugs; and

- the use of police to manage psychiatric cases - which I find horrendous as would the police, however mental health does not attract funding.

However I though that most would accept some generalisation for brevity and to avoid diverting the thread away from the central issue.

Now what about the ethics of killing?

csteele,

Thanks for the comment and I'm glad it got you thinking.

You said:

>>>"However I'm not sure intent, particularly on behalf of the offender, is a proper yardstick to judge the strength of ones moral justification in taking another's life.

Most of the police shootings in recent times in Victoria are not directed at hardened criminals but rather mentally disturbed or drug affected individuals, usually knife wielding rather than gun armed."<<<

Unfortunately I had to simplify my original post for space. 350 odd words for such a complex topic barely scratches all that can be raised about the issue.

The law regarding utilising potentially deadly force dictates your life and that of another has to be a real and imminent danger before it can be utilised ... or words to that effect. Of course, you have other options regarding overcoming force that don't put as much threat to life on the offender. I'm not talking about "intent" as in 'a life time of wrong doing with obvious disregard to social expectations', I'm talking about 'intent', as in 'imminent threat'. If a mentally challenge individual is coming at me with a knife then his 'intent' is justifiably assumed to be that of wanting to stab me. Being stabbed can lead to death.

Yes, of course there's nuances regarding justification of force like you pointed out with the mentally ill. Fortunately those aren't issues I'll need to deal with.

Stg

Here's your answer:

>>> The offender KNOWS the potential consequences of their actions and as a Police Officer they KNOW the tools you have at your disposal and the possible outcome of them threatening others lives. <<<

Quite a blanket generalisation, in my opinion, as well as an affront to our legal system whereby a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The offender may not realise the are offending,as I previously stated in my last post and as Csteele has himself expanded upon.

I apologise for assuming that you wished to discuss religion and carrying arms - can't imagine where I got that idea - nor that it was an conundrum solely for the religious. In fact I'm no longer sure WTF your topic is about.

Csteele I am pleased you understand Stg's POV - because I don't. That said, I pretty much agree with most of what you wrote in your post having worked with Victorian Police during the 90's.

CF

I think everyone knows by now that my former moniker was Fractelle as I announced it very soon after returning to this forum

csteele, "To put it crudely they have been prepared to shelve part of their natural morality to effectively do their job. Rather than deny this or find a moral justification for an immoral act perhaps we should recognise the sacrifice being made, often on our behalf.'

I agree with you up to a point, however it is more likely that a police officer would be put in the position of having to defend himself or others. Is it immoral for the officer to defend himself or to protect vulnerable others in the immediate vicinity? I think not and I would also regard that morality as intuitive, deeply ingrained in us as humans for survival.

That doesn't say that police wouldn't be affected by what they were obliged to do and more so where the offender was out of his mind through drugs or mental illness, but nonetheless presented a lethal threat. That is why counselling is now provided.

There are flies in the ointment such as where police are required to manage people suffering from severe mental health episodes, or drug addicts who can be very strong and violent.

The military situation is more complex I believe - defence of us, our loved ones and vulnerable others is very different from killing for country (no, I would not defend the last mentioned).

[Deleted for abuse.]

StG, there is no need to get upset at myself and Severin for merely giving our online opinion about your opening paragraphs on this thread.
It is our opinion and we are entitled to understand what you said in our own way.

StG <"I don't consider myself a stereotypical Christian due to being fairly open minded, compared. But the fundamentals of my rules regarding life is treat others as you wish to be treated, and thou shalt not kill..How does 'thou shalt not kill' fit into roles such as military and the police"?

Having read through your own words again StG, what person WOULDN'T have thought that this thread was about religion and killing?
I think you owe Severin and myself an apology.

Like I said, if you want to debate religion and killing start your own thread.

ALL THIS:

>>>"the Bible is full of examples of apparently God-condoned violence and killing, so it shouldn't be a problem.

If God was willing to allow the killing of all first-borne of Egyptians in order that they would let the Israelites go, then I am sure God would have no problem with killing others in self defense..."<<<

TO ME...has ZERO do with MY OWN issues regarding carrying a weapon in a job. TO ME, that IS inflammatory. TO ME, that is an off topic theological debate.

It SEEMS to me the thing you two just don't understand about religion and faith is that it's an INDIVIDUAL experience and doesn't fit some sort of generalised all encompassing idea you guys have about it.

I will apologise for calling you a troll, and I apologise for being rude. It seems I misinterpreted your intent - thanks GOD I don't have a gun. Jokes. I appreciate you may not quite get where I'm coming from regarding faith - although I've explained MANY times - and that the bible FOR ME is a guide and a personal thing. By personal, I mean, I have my own understanding of Christianity and what faith means to me.

I get shirty when it APPEARS I'm being pigeon holed. You'll notice I didn't do that to you about your Catholic background. You are an individual with your own experiences that make up your own version of spirituality. Whether that be a Theist spirituality or something more of your own design and/or lands within your own personal comfort.

I hope that some stage I'm granted that freedom by you to not be stereotyped. Maybe?.

Sorry suzeonline for going off topic but I thought killing included abortion.
However your comment about miscarriages is nonsensical, otherwise your argument would have to extend to blaming God for all deaths by natural causes.
In this case you are effectively blaming God for not granting us all eternal life!
But I do grant you that this discussion is about killing in self-defense, which abortion assuredly is not.
On that basis I accept your rebuke: old testament mythology it is then.
Given that Islamic mythology also includes Allah's extermination of the "first-borne" of the Egyptians, will you permit Koranic criticism as well?
Islam and killing should blow this discussion wide open.

StG, while it's clear that you experienced a faith-based ethical dilemma when contemplating placing yourself in a position where you might have to shoot someone, it's also very clear that many, many religious people have no such misgivings. So you're correct - yours is an individual problem.

However, I think you're being a bit hard on Severin and suzeonline. None of us knows the idiosyncracies of your religious convictions, but many of us do have a working knowledge of your religion and also can cite many examples where being a 'Christian', 'Muslim', 'Buddhist' or whatever hasn't prevented people from using guns to kill others - sometimes actually in the name of their faith.

Wow, classy, well done. After all I've done to try and keep this thread away from something resembling a cage figh,t here you rock up and blow this out your nose. Cheers. Appreciate it.

Sorry CJ, previous was aimed at Proxy.

You're more than likely right, but I'm not going to discuss the history of religion and violence. I hope that's okay with everyone.

Please though, go for it yourselves. I'll read with interest.

StG, Thanks for the apology (I think!).
I wasn't stereotyping you at all, but merely saying that according to the Bible, God does permit killing in certain extreme circumstances.
Isn't that true?

I am certain that the God depicted in the bible would not condemn you for killing in self defense or while protecting others.

Proxy, "< However your comment about miscarriages is nonsensical, otherwise your argument would have to extend to blaming God for all deaths by natural causes."

I was brought up to believe that God was responsible for everything that happens on this Earth. Was I taught the wrong thing?

You would have to ask StG whether a discussion on Islamic mythology would be helpful on this thread Proxy, it doesn't matter to me :)

But surely you brought old testament mythology into the thread suzeonline?
Therefore when you state that this thread is about religion and violence,
having cited what is also an Islamic myth,
you have already started a discussion on Islamic mythology, albeit unwittingly.
If this mythology doesn't matter to you,
why did you bring it up,
if not merely to bring StG down?
Otherwise, I don't see its relevance to StG's clear intent.

Ok Proxy, I'll bite.
Are you suggesting all the stories of the old testament are myths?
I am ok with that, but I also think that many stories in the new testament are myths as well.

I enjoyed reading the bible because they were good fiction stories, although maybe some of them could have been based on loose truths.

In any case, Jesus was not heard to debunk any of the stories told in the old testament was he?

If you think the new testament doesn't advocate violence, then you might want to check it out a little closer.

There are many websites dedicated to proving this- here's just one:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

Stg

From Suze:

>>> StG, Thanks for the apology (I think!). <<<

Ditto (I think).

Wish I got to see your deleted flame. ;)

Can't really add much to this thread as it is not about one's religion and carrying a weapon.

Refuse to be baited into an argument about abortion by Proxy - which is also not about religion and carrying a gun.

What else to say?

1. I did own a 22 once, shot a couple of rabbits - made rabbit stew. Don't enjoy killing but would do so to survive.

2. Not all people suspected by police as offenders are offenders - some get shot and are innocent.

Cornflower

A question for you. If CJ Morgan and I claimed the sky was blue on sunny days, would you argue it was green? Assuming you are not colour-blind and already think it is green.

CJ thanks, again, my little ray of sanity.

Severin,

Deleted?. All information is still there, I believe.

>>>"Not all people suspected by police as offenders are offenders - some get shot and are innocent."<<<

Of course, and that's something the officers have to live with. You'd hope and pray that doesn't happen but given the nature of firearms anything is possible.

My apology to you and suze was genuine.

I have always enjoyed Severin and JP Morgan for their very considered, articulate and well balanced comments on this forum. I have so often read opinions that place vituperative responses in these columns that reflect very conditioned and prejudiced attitudes that are uncalled for.

A thread will always tend to become slightly off-subject as it is discussed as other considerations come to light. Why is it that there is so much angst when this occurs? Just because this forum is anonymous is no reason to be rude. I mention this in defence of Suzeonline as a case in point when I thought she made a very salient point only to be shot down in flames. I too thought the original post was all about religious faith and killing.

You might be interested to know that the sacred Baha'i Writings expressly deal with the carrying of arms, as follows:
Carrying of Arms
“It hath been forbidden you to carry arms unless
essential,”
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 76)
“Bahá'u'lláh confirms an injunction contained in the Bayan
which makes it unlawful to carry arms, unless it is necessary
to do so. With regard to circumstances under which the
bearing of arms might be "essential" for an individual,
Abdu'l-Bahá gives permission to a believer for self-protection
in a dangerous environment. Shoghi Effendi in a
letter written on his behalf has also indicated that, in an
emergency, when there is no legal force at hand to appeal
to, a Bahá'í is justified in defending his life. There are a
number of other situations in which weapons are needed and
can be legitimately used; for instance, in countries where
people hunt for their food and clothing, and in such sports
as archery, marksmanship, and fencing.
On the societal level, the principle of collective
security enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh (see Gleanings from the
Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, CXVII) and elaborated by Shoghi
Effendi (see the Guardian's letters in The World Order of
Bahá'u'lláh) does not presuppose the abolition of the use of
force, but prescribes "a system in which Force is made the
servant of Justice", and which provides for the existence of
an international peace-keeping force that "will safeguard the
organic unity of the whole commonwealth". In the Tablet
of Bisharat, Bahá'u'lláh expresses the hope that "weapons of
war throughout the world may be converted into instruments of
reconstruction and that strife and conflict may be removed from the
midst of men".
In another Tablet Bahá'u'lláh stresses the importance
of fellowship with the followers of all religions; He also
states that "the law of holy war hath been blotted out from the
Book".
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 240)

Snake

Thank you for your support and right back atcha regarding your contributions to OLO. Have always respected thoughtful consideration regardless of whether I agree with the opinion or not.

Stg

I accept your apology, thank you.

It is normal for some OLO posts to go off on tangents, but StG's opening post was referring to a personal dilemma of wearing a gun in view of his religious beliefs. I tend to think if StG was a Buddhist the raising of this issue may not have attracted as much defensive comment.

He was not (as I interpreted) making a judgement that because his own personal conflict was causing him some concern, that any other person, be they atheist, buddhist or calathumpian, would not also give some pause for thought about the possibility of using a gun.

Sometimes I think we tend to see flames when there is no fire.

I try not to take sides (contributor-wise) on most issues even if it means disagreeing with some posters who I normally have much in common and often admire their abilities to express themselves in a way that I cannot.

But in this case I think StG's intent has been misunderstood.

As an atheist I hope other atheists don't fall into the same trap that befell Pell and Jensen over Easter to use what should be a time of peace and goodwill, to attack atheists using what can only be described as hatred and misinformation. The nonsense comments about atheists hating God (an entity they do not believe in) is indefensible.

http://www.news.com.au/national/atheists-are-believers-who-hate-god-says-anglican-archbishop-peter-jensen/story-e6frfkvr-1225848927144

It is in the spirit of secularism, honesty and open communication that I defend StG's opening post. And yes I admit I went off on a tangent to get to the final point. :)

Dear Servin,

You said “Csteele I am pleased you understand Stg's POV - because I don't. That said, I pretty much agree with most of what you wrote in your post having worked with Victorian Police during the 90's.”

Thank you for acknowledging the assessment of the period. They were interesting times. I knew a relative of one of the officers gunned down in the Walsh Street shootings and who was also a serving member. There was a sense of the hard nuts in the force taking out criminals with prejudice but it was the ordinary, often young, officers on the streets that got the blow back.

There were 11 fatal police shootings in the two years prior to Walsh Street. Of the 6 who were accused only four survived the police to make it to trial.

This was a couple of years after the bombing of the Russell Street police HQ which claimed the life of a young female officer.

As an aside I feel I do understand Stg's point of view and his reaction, even if it might have been deemed a little over the top. I felt he was referencing what had informed his personal morality or 'life rules' if you will but wasn't intent on making that the focus of his argument.

He said; “I don't consider myself a stereotypical Christian due to being fairly open minded, compared. But the fundamentals of my rules regarding life is treat others as you wish to be treated, and thou shalt not kill.”

I am not privy to any history between the two of you so this is entirely the view of an outsider. Purely on the face of it I did feel you had taken the topic on a tangent that I'm not positive it warranted.

I respect of course your right to do so in an open forum and only addressed this because you mentioned it in your reply to me.

I am heartened to see the matter being defused and resolved to a satisfactory degree.

Of course that should have been Dear Severin not Servin. My turn to apologise.

When I was called up for military service when I was 18, I stated My religious convictions on killing another human and said I was happy to join in any on field ambulance service. They exempted me.

My eldest daughter after graduating from school informed me 25 years ago that she had decided to join the police force; she was influenced by the cop show dramas on TV. I and my wife a nurse talked to her what that experience would be like. It wasn't so much that she would have to use a gun but that she would have to attend scenes where guns or knives had been used. My wife being a nurse told her of the healing and care injured people received at hospital following violence and trauma. She then took up nursing specialising in surgery. She dedicateed her life to restoring the wounded by being involved in surgical nursing.

I also have a nephew who has been in several war zones as RAAF security, though he carries a gun his work has been to give security to the lives of the crew and law abiding citizens. I also have another nephew and his wife both in the police force in country towns, thay have never needed to use a gun in the line of their work. Of the people I know closely who are Christian, the only time a gun was used, he a young Highway Officer had a gun pulled on him; however he in that split second knew what the outcome was to be so pulled his revolver and shot the guy threatening him. He was so traumatised by the experience they gave him six months of work. He had a wife and young child at home

Dear Cornflower,

You said “Is it immoral for the officer to defend himself or to protect vulnerable others in the immediate vicinity? I think not and I would also regard that morality as intuitive, deeply ingrained in us as humans for survival.”

Might we consider that most of the police in England and Wales are not armed. From Wikipedia “After the deaths of a number of members of the public in the 1980s fired upon by police, control was considerably tightened, many officers had their firearm authorisation revoked, and training for the remainder was greatly improved. As of 2005, around seven per cent of officers in London are trained in the use of firearms. Firearms are also only issued to an officer under strict guidelines.”

Some cursory calculations show that in comparison, over the last two decades, a citizen in Victoria was about ten times more likely to be fatally shot by police than in England and Wales.

Is it because we have worse criminals? Maybe but I'm more inclined to put the position that there is a certain police culture and training regime we have created here that is failing us.

We should advance the notion that every death of a citizen at the hands of those who we charge to protect us is a failure either of training, resources, or mentality.

After the shooting by three officers in 2008 of 15 year old Tyler Cassidy who was armed with two large knives and behaving erratically at a shopping centre in Melbourne we now have the introduction of Tasers. Surely the impetus for their roll out was that what had happened was not acceptable morally.

I think Stg had every right to examine his moral stance on taking a human life when considering a career with the police force. We would need to ask him if he would have felt more comfortable joining the English constabulary than the Queensland.

Further I'm not sure that morality is a survival instinct. You might need to expand that notion a little.

csteele,

My personal issues would've been the same no matter where I might've joined.

pelican,

Thanks heaps for taking the time to try and understand me. Much appreciated. You got it in one.

Dear StG,

Just wondering. Are you saying, putting all other considerations aside, you would still have the same issue with your life rule that 'thou shall not kill' even being member of a police force where the probability of being issued with a weapon capable of causing death was very unlikely?

Or is it the fact you would be part of an organisation that may take a life rather than you specifically being armed?

Obviously the issue is about carrying a weapon that has the potential for taking a life as part of a job. The issue isn't with the organisation itself. I'm not moving to England to join the Police. If I had those thoughts I'd be heading to NZ.