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.