Dear individual,

You claim "Nobody gets killed by Police when no weapon wielding criminal is threatening someone."

Poppycock!

"On 24 August 1985 John Shorthouse aged 5 was shot dead in a police raid on his home in Birmingham. The incident produced hostility towards the police over two days after John's death when a policewoman was dragged from her patrol car and beaten by youths. Following the Shorthouse case, West Midlands police abandoned its practice of training rank-and-file officers for firearms duties and formed a specialist squad."
Wikipedia.

At one stage over 17% of British police were authorized to use firearms, well up from a historic 5 %. Because of deep concerns over the number of deaths from police shootings the figure is now back to 7% with all other authorizations being revoked.

Had they been tightened earlier it have saved  Harry Stanley in 1999. A "painter and decorator, born in Bellshill near Glasgow, was walking home when he was shot dead by two Metropolitan Police officers following an erroneous report that he was carrying a sawn-off shotgun in a plastic bag. The officers challenged Mr Stanley from behind. As he turned to face them they shot him dead at a distance of 5 meters.  It later emerged that the plastic bag actually contained a broken table leg that Stanley's brother had just fixed for him."

And it might have helped Stephen Waldorf who "was shot by police hunting David Martin, who absconded from custody at Marlborough Street magistrates' court where he was due to face a charge of attempting to murder a police officer. Waldorf was critically injured in a police ambush in a west London street after he was mistaken for Martin. He was shot five times, and then pistol whipped by an officer who had attempted to shoot him in the head, but had already used all his ammunition." Wikipedia

I personally think Australia has missed the boat now which is a pity.

Morganzola;
Re Katter, these days politicians are expected to present like say,
Malcolm Turnbull. It was for that reason that Barnaby Joyce got
ridiculed the way he was by the media and government.
He got his billions and millions mixed up.
However if you ignore some of the colourful phraseology and look more
closely at the figures you find that his figures are correct.

The result is genuine problems can be pointed out by someone who is
not as polished as the media would like, but they are discounted as
buffoons.

It will pay us to look past all that and consider the facts.

Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 9:20:15 AM

All that you have done is highlight the ineptitude of British armed police. In the opinion of many they are this way because of lack of familarity with firearms.

You think that Australia has missed the boat?

Do you prefer that our police be un-armed when facing dangerous criminals?

How many police would have died at the recent Queensland bank robbery when one policeman was shot (ultimately fatally) had they not been armed?

Only those who care nought for their fellows safety would expect policemen, or anyone else, to face armed criminals without an adequate means of self-defence.

Ah Is Mise,

The choices were to take up the challenge and look more deeply at the nuances within the English/Swiss figures or ignore them entirely and move to another issue. I had thought you might have attempted the former. Oh well. Just goes to show I'm not always the best judge.

To your last post which I see is high on emotion but devoid of figures, probably a good move. 

You say; "All that you have done is highlight the ineptitude of British armed police. In the opinion of many they are this way because of lack of familarity with firearms."

Rubbish. There was only one possibly accidental shooting in the examples I gave. The others came down to the difference in attitude and lethality between armed and unarmed officers.

Being a Victorian I have seen the toll of citizens and police officers exacted by an out of control gun culture within a police force. Thankfully those days are mostly behind us.

You ask; "Do you prefer that our police be un-armed when facing dangerous criminals?"

I don't think I am familiar enough with the Queensland shooting to comment specifically however I will say my preference is for armed and dangerous criminals to be confronted by highly trained, armor wearing, specialist police officers. I don't think we should be expecting the ordinary officer to be placed in such dangerous positions. To think otherwise is to have scant regard for the lives of both community members and police officers. Aren't you putting ideology ahead of human beings?

 I have a relative who is a police instructor. Part of the protocol when using a taser is to have a second officer behind the tasering member with his weapon drawn. My relative will nearly always take this position because there is only 10% of those he works with that he trusts in a tight situation to not put him in danger of being shot by one of his own.

This assessment comes from seeing how hundreds of them have reacted in training which they try to make as realistic as possible.

"To your last post which I see is high on emotion but devoid of figures, probably a good move.

You say; "All that you have done is highlight the ineptitude of British armed police. In the opinion of many they are this way because of lack of familarity with firearms."

Rubbish. There was only one possibly accidental shooting in the examples I gave. The others came down to the difference in attitude and lethality between armed and unarmed officers"

Ineptidude covers far more than accidents.

" I don't think we should be expecting the ordinary officer to be placed in such dangerous positions. To think otherwise is to have scant regard for the lives of both community members and police officers."

If only the criminals were so considerate to wait until the Specialist Squad is called out.
Bit like asking the enemy to hold off on the ordinary infantryman until the Commandos can be called.

"Aren't you putting ideology ahead of human beings?"

No, I'm a firm believer in every policeman and every law abiding citizen having the means of self-protection when confronted by a criminal attack.
There is only one thing that allows a 60 year old, 7 stone woman to face an 18 year old 12 stone criminal intent on her rape and murder, with equality and a better than even chance of saving her life.

However ideology in Australia says that she cannot possess anything for the purpose of defence and that she should ring '000', explain the situation to the clerk on the other end whilst the criminal obligingly waits for her to finish the call and give a description of him as well.

Dear Is Mise,

I have provided you with actual incidents plus figures, international examples, local perspectives etc and you come back with "Ineptidude covers far more than accidents"?

Sorry mate but that doesn't cut it.

Your ideology along with Bob's ten gallon hat belong in Texas. I could probably scrape up enough for a ticket for the both of you. You might feel safer there as one in 20 adults are under the control of the justice system either through direct incarceration, parole, or community based orders though the murder rate is an eyeopener.

Australia thankfully is headed in a different direction.