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.]