How many saw the disgusting effort yesterday, when the whole Queensland police force sat back watching a couple of armed thugs, hijacking car after car on a rampage around Brisbane?

Did you notice the complete lack of police action? They sat on their butts, watching the chopper footage, but making no effort whatsoever to stop these potential killers.

They left it to the NSW cops, not all that well led themselves in recent events, to do Queensland cops job for them.

It appears that the top cop jobs are now filled with high heel wearing academic cops, when it is hobnailed boots that are needed.

Time to get out the broom, sweep out these lily livered police commissioners & deputy commissioners, & get some muscle back on the street. Our no pursuit policy, is making our streets a free zone for crooks & hoons.

Currently our traffic cops are only of use to hide in the bushes, to extract money from decent citizens by traffic fines, but are totally useless when it comes to protecting those same motorists from real criminals. Get rid of these dead heads at head office, & give the working cops a chance to do their job.

to busy getting ready to march at Mardi Gra. Just ask Christine Nixon in Victoria.

Good evening to you HASBEEN...

You'll not get any argument from me my friend ? The massive changes I've witnessed in NSW, from when I first joined till my retirement has been positively breathtaking ? Not entirely the fault of the executive command either.

As you're well aware it's the politicians who orchestrate policing policies generally, always with one eye on their fiscal strategy as well ? The age old question; why do police continually dedicate so much of their time on mandated traffic law, when the real criminals seem able to roam around with relative immunity ? Revenue my friend and more revenue !

This bleating about lowering the road toll is only a part of the overall strategy in the grand scheme of things. Governments are always on the lookout for further revenue streams ? A HWP officer can write up a couple of thousand dollars worth of penalties in the space of just a couple of hours, if he has a mind to. They wheel a mug, do him for excessive speed, unroadworthy vehicle, etc. etc. and the 'traffic infringement book' will 'ring' like a pub cash register on a busy Saturday afternoon ! Mate it's truly wicked, and it puts the coppers in a very bad light, as unofficial revenue raisers.

HASBEEN it's no wonder the public harbour such a low opinion of police per se. Their house has just had a 'bust', takes nearly an hour for someone in blue to take the complaint and view the break in, and that's the last you'll hear of your property ? Five clicks over the posted speed limit, 'whamo' a couple of hundred bucks fine, thank you very much, have a nice day !

Dear Hasbeen,

According to The Australian newspaper the police
chase that you're referring to has now re-ignited
Queenland's police "No-Pursuit Policy."
This 4 hour high-speed chase that took place from
Southern Queensland to Northern NSW has once again
brought this policy up and the police union is
extremely critical of the policy. It is the
policy that is being criticised - not the police force.

A Queensland police helicopter tracked the men in their
blue Mitsubishi Lancer for at least 2 hours as it hurled
down the motorway at speeds of more than 150km/h.

The car was eventually stopped when NSW police used road
spikes to puncture its tyres after being warned of its
impending arrival.

The policy was introduced in Queensland in 2012 following
a coronial inquiry that investigated the deaths of 10
people during police pursuits over a 4 year period.

Don't be so critical of the Queensland police officers
who were simply doing their job under rather difficult
conditions in this case.

The NSW Parliamentary Inquiry presently being conducted into police bugging operations back in 1999 to 2001 has revealed sinister conduct by some who are now NSW's top cops. Commissioner Scipione and two Deperty Commissioner's Cath Burn and Nick Kaldas have all have to front the inquiry. The most worrying claim is from Kaldas that he was improperly and possibly illegally bugged by other police during an operation whose team leader was Burn with Scipione in overall control.
The inquire itself which was set up by the combined vote of Labor, The Greens and The Shooters has come under extreme political pressure. The Chairperson of the inquiry Robert Borsak (Shooters Party) has accused Attorney-General Brad Hazzard (Liberal Party) of trying to "cajole", "threaten" and "bribe" him into not conducting the inquiry and has referred Hazzard to the corruption watchdog. This in itself is a most serious accusation. The question remains, what is going on at the top of the New South Wales police force?

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/background-parliamentary-inquiry-into-the-nsw-police-bugging-scandal-20150129-1311gh.html

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/shooters-and-fishers-mp-robert-borsak-attorneygeneral-brad-hazzard-tried-to-bribe-me-over-police-bugging-inquiry-20150128-130p68.htm

Foxy my sweet, I am sorry if I gave the impression I was complaining about the cop on the beet, or in the cars, quite the contrary. It is the head office brigade, who continually make it harder for the flat foot to do the job, I'm complaining about.

It appears the head office crowd are like a deer fixed in your car headlights, doing absolutely nothing, in total fear of getting it wrong. They would rather do nothing right, than ever get something wrong.

There was no police chase, as their should have been, just chopper surveillance. Even that required TV chopper help, when the police thing needed refueling.

There were plenty of places to interdict the crims, with little danger to anyone but the crims. Surely they should be fair game. However the boss cops are frightened of criticism by the bleeding heart brigade, if they even spoil the crims hairdo.

We need to get back to old world policing. Protect the public by taking out the bad guy, quick time, in the quickest easiest & safest way for the cops concerned. If that means no more bad guy, great, saves a heap of legal aid, & court costs.

Dear Hasbeen,

I am not convinced that the "no-pursuit" policy should
be changed in Queensland. After all this policy was
introduced in 2012 following a coronial inquest
that investigated the deaths of 10 people during
police pursuits over a 4 year period. That's a high
number of deaths that need not have happened.
And in the case you're talking about here - the guys
were caught - and nobody died as a result of police
pursuit.

So you think it’s just about keeping the bad guys safe, Hasbeen?

<<We need to get back to old world policing. Protect the public by taking out the bad guy, quick time, in the quickest easiest & safest way for the cops concerned. If that means no more bad guy, great, saves a heap of legal aid, & court costs.>>

What about the 87 innocent people who died between 2000-2011 (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/441-460/tandi452.html)? How did you determine that the benefits of preventing the potential harm caused by the people apprehended in those pursuits outweighed the losses suffered in the deaths of the innocent bystanders? Why, just recently a toddler was killed when a vehicle being pursued crashed into their backyard (http://au.ibtimes.com/police-car-chs-17-month-old-toddler-western-sydney-1409135).

You sound very confused regarding traditional policing strategies versus contemporary policing strategies. You don’t specify which contemporary policing strategy/ies you’re critical of; none suggest that a ‘no pursuit’ policy is a must. If the general public are willing to lose a few innocents here and there, and are capable of maintaining a good, working relationship with the police despite these, then there’s no conflict there.

Apparently you’ve also determined that "protect[ing] the public by taking out the bad guy, quick time, in the quickest, easiest and safest way for the cops concerned" is safer and more effective than crime prevention strategies (still no mention of the safety of the general public). Or is it just some contemporary policing strategies that you’d want to ditch? You need to expand on what you mean here before any constructive or meaningful response could be given. As it stands, I don’t think you’ve thought this through very thoroughly. You just seem to have cobbled together some fragmented, incomplete and cherry-picked data to suit your own worldview.

Don't we all decide things from our own world view AJ Philips. I think it's fair to say I don't think much of yours either.

When my son was bashed by a bunch of Lebs in Sydney, the police who attended tried to talk him out of a complaint. They told him not to expect any result from a complaint, as it was too time consuming trying to track down the thugs. They never got anywhere with Leb valance anyway.

Meanwhile, just half a kilometer the police were protecting the population by hiding in the bushes, with a radar gun, booking motorists for a few kilometers over the speed limit. Revenue raising, the new form of public protection.

Most bashings, & robberies are conducted by people in stolen cars. If they are not caught & apprehended, they are away free & clear. It is only the basically law abiding who can be caught later from their cars number plate. The crims grow bolder by the day.

So we see the academic policing in action. Try not to take a complaint, to keep the records of cleanup high, but avoid any confrontation with criminals, particularly of certain ethnicity, as we don't want to stir up the multiculturalists.

Hasbeen,

Our worldviews and biases may be impossible to eliminate completely, but there are still critical thinking techniques that we can utilise to help reduce their influences. Relying on selective snippets of information that prove convenient, while discarding the rest, was never going to be a good start.

As for the police response to what happened to your son, I would want to know far more than what you’d be able to tell me before I could comment or form an opinion on it. I see too many people forming hasty and uninformed opinions on what should be done, or should have been done, here or there (the classic example being the public’s demand for harsher sentencing despite multiple studies demonstrating that they estimate more lenient sentences than judges when presented with the same facts).

Bashings and robberies may be conducted by people in stolen cars in most cases (I don’t know), but I don’t think either of us has adequate data, or is representative enough of the general public, to make a determination as to whether or not catching these people (and when they’re in their stolen cars specifically) is worth killing a few innocent bystanders every year.

I can only imagine how angry what happened to your son makes you feel. Oh what I would want to do to someone who did that to one of my kids! Lebanese or not. But your problem is not with academics (or “academic policing”, whatever that is). The two traditional policing eras failed us all a lot more than the community policing era (both in different ways), particularly in their later years, and I have already touched on why in other threads.

Continued...

...Continued

Everything you have attributed to “academic policing” is purely in your own mind. Take your claim regarding clean-up records, for example. There are research techniques that can reveal the number of crimes reported but not recorded (it’s how we can know to some degree of certainty that sexual assault was far more prevalent in the good ol’ days when no-one reported it) so why would “academic police” employ such devious and unhelpful practices when (apparently being academic) they’d be fully aware of just how quickly, easily and inevitably their figures would be superseded with more accurate stats? Not to mention how poorly it would reflect on them.

You see, your comments are riddled with little ‘signposts’ like these that expose the fact that you have no idea of what you’re talking about.

"So we see the academic policing in action. Try not to take a complaint, to keep the records of cleanup high, but avoid any confrontation with criminals, particularly of certain ethnicity, as we don't want to stir up the multiculturalists"

As happened in the Rotherham, UK, sex abuse scandal.

"Rotherham Council's leadership resigns following damning child sex abuse report

Rotherham council's ruling Labour cabinet announces its mass resignation following the publication of a damning independent report into child sexual exploitation in the town Rotherham, where around 1,400 children were sexually abused over 16 years

Rotherham Council's entire leadership has resigned following the publication of a damning report into the town's child sexual exploitation scandal.

An independent report, ordered by Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, concluded that the local authority was "not fit for purpose" after finding it has a culture of "bullying, sexism, suppression and misplaced 'political correctness"'.

Following the publication of the report, which was written by Louise Casey, Rotherham Council's ruling Labour cabinet issued a statement announcing the entire leadership was stepping down."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11390001/Rotherham-child-sex-abuse-scandal-council-not-fit-for-purpose.html

OTB,
Local councils in the U.K have a very different role to those in Australia, Rotherham has has no real analogue in this country but what is disturbing is the number of Australian public servants, Police officers and private consultants who are of British origin and who were schooled in that system.
We've always attracted the dregs of the British professions unfortunately, the chances of the kind of incompetence and wrongdoing which have come to light in Rotherham only become more likely the more British public servants and educators we have.

What's interesting about Eric Pickles' report to the British parliament is that it points out other serious flaws in the administration of services in Rotherham, the lack of enforcement of basic compliance guidelines in other areas, laxity in areas like Mini Cab licensing and business permits allowed this noxious Pakistani element to operate in the community.
Increasing red tape and everyday interference by government in people's lives is probably the most obvious effect of multiculturalism, getting public servants to overcome their own biases and apply those rules equally to all citizens regardless of ethnic background seems to be a bigger challenge than convincing the individual citizen to accept them.

AJ Philips those posts could only have come from an academic, trying to cover up academic deficiency, & apply for a grant at the same time.

Obviously you & your mates have your eyes wide shut to the growing no go zones in our cities. Zones where real Ozzies dare not go, & even most cops won't venture.

My son was attacked on the edge of a no go zone, in pure ethnic violence. This is one of the techniques of expanding those no go zones. There was no attempt to rob him, just to injure. Of course an academic would never live in such an area, so can assume they don't exist.

You people are more sympathy with ethnic academics than the people who pay your salaries, & are really not worth bothering with. You are blood brothers of the band on the Titanic. Keep on fiddling.

Hasbeen,

If you have to resort to name calling, then you have well and truly lost the argument. As I’ve mentioned twice before, I’m not a professional academic. Although I’m flattered that you consider me intelligent enough to be one.

It seems we’ve now drifted over to “no-go zones”. How did we get there when you still haven’t linked all the fragmented ideas in your previous posts? You haven’t even explained what you mean by “academic cops”, and now you’ve introduced this new concept of “academic ethnics”. Good Lord!

Do you think that reverting back to the days of old, where police were all big burly men that practiced a reactive-only style of policing, is going to solve anything? How are all the proactive measures of contemporary policing strategies inferior to just having big burly brutes? How have you determined that (contrary to any study that has ever been conducted on these issues) the advantages of having a police force consisting of nothing but big burly brutes, that are only reactive and not proactive, would outweigh the benefits of successfully reducing crime with countless preventative measures? You don’t even know what any of these strategies are, do you? You’ve just assumed the causes of, and the solutions to, the problems you mention. And through the lens of your white male privilege at that!

Speaking of our white male privilege and cops in high heels, how is an entire force filled with big burly men going to be helpful to women who have been sexually assaulted and want to report it? Do you think they’re going to be comfortable with that? Is it any wonder sexual assaults were never reported “back in the day”? Police need to be representative of the general population to achieve full legitimacy and co-operation with the public. Having female police is not just about political correctness. And what about the Indian fellow who respects the legitimacy of our police institutions and is more comfortable with them because he was once pulled over by a turban-wearing cop? You’ve never thought of any of this, have you?

Continued...

...Continued

You just sit back comfortably in your world of white male privilege and assume that there is some political correctness conspiracy going on, without the slightest thought concerning, or knowledge of, any of the issues beyond your own experiences.

According to conspiracy theorists like yourself, academics are these eccentric people who live tucked away in their “ivory towers”, far removed from the real world, and sit around all day and dreaming up quaint little ideas that they can use the rest of the world as one big test case for their "social experiments". In reality, however, lawmakers make changes based on the advice of these people because they have spent a lot of time gathering and collating mountains of data and evidence for any of the changes that they may propose.

You live in your own bubble of ignorance protected with conspiracies of academics and their alleged data fiddling without the slightest shred of evidence for any of your claims, or the slightest thought to just how insanely far-fetched such suggestions are. Apparently a young tech guy can embarrass many countries by revealing their intelligence to the world; an American president can be exposed as a philanderer by his intern, and yet millions of academics all manage to all keep a big secret for their New World Order without anyone blowing the whistle. Out of 10,000 emails, not even climategate could reveal anything but a small handful of lines that sounded suspicious when taken out of context.

You need a serious reality check, Hasbeen.

It was outrageous that gun wielding thugs were threatening motorists. A free new car and a bravery award are due to the motorist who sorted one of them.

The chopper needs a marksman on deck at all times for opportunities that present and can be created.

Yet another case to show that the Howard-inspired 'gun control' is all expensive bureaucracy that wastes police time and is not aimed at illegal guns and does SFA towards reducing or preventing violence with or without guns.

Dear Jay,

Absolutely brilliant post.

Thank You!

G'day there HASBEEN...

As you'd well understand my friend, there's a world of difference between the theory and the practice. Unless you're there, doing the job, speaking to witnesses, accumulating evidence, and the other million an one tasks that befall a detective. One can only rely on theory or hypothesis, speculation, hearsay, conjecture, and all the other stuff, that the 'Saturday night quarterback' relies upon to boost his competency in the eyes of those who he seeks to impress ?

An example of academic interference in matters of custody as an example, was the recent NSW Bail Act fiasco, when the former AG Mr Greg SMITH, amended the Act rendering everybody and his dog, eligible for bail. The current incumbent Brad HAZZARD quickly had to again, re-amend (if such an expression exists?) the Act in order to keep many of these 'hard heads' from obtaining bail ! Greg SMITH, albeit well meaning, went against advice of police and others, and the Martin Place incident was a consequence of that amendment, as this peanut Man MANIS was on bail at the time.

I don't believe Greg SMITH has any moral case to answer, concerning MANIS being on Bail. But, from such errors of judgement, we should all learn, no matter how well intended we may be, we should always take advice from those who know, and who do the job, otherwise such oversights will continue to have unintended consequences. And in this case, tragic.

Jay of Melbourne,

You would be re-writing the findings of independent reports and history if you denied that Pakistani (Kashmir) men targeting white girls for abuse was repeatedly played down for fear of accusations of racism.

Also that the Labour Party was involved.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11066646/Rotherham-politics-imported-from-Pakistan-fuelled-sex-abuse-cover-up-MP.html

Rotherham: politics ‘imported from Pakistan’ fuelled sex abuse cover-up – MP
Simon Danczuk says unhealthy style of politics obsessed with ‘looking after your own’ fuelled culture of cover-up in child sex abuse cases

An unhealthy brand of politics “imported” from Pakistan is partly to blame for the cover-up of mass child abuse in Rotherham and other British cities, a campaigning MP has claimed.
Simon Danczuk, who helped expose a pattern of grooming of white teenage girls by men from a Pakistani background in Rochdale, where he is the Labour MP, said a culture of intimidation and closing of ranks within parts of the Asian community had mired politics in towns and cities across northern England for years.
He said Asian councillors were under constant pressure from the community to “conform” and other politicians acquiesced for fear of being accused of racism, failing to face up to evidence of abuse as a result.
Last week a scathing inquiry report said there had been a “blatant” failure of leadership from politicians and council officials in Rotherham over the sexual abuse of at least 1,400 children over 16 years.
The Rotherham scandal and a series of cases in towns including Rochdale highlighted how evidence of Pakistani men targeting white girls for abuse was repeatedly played down for fear of accusations of racism..
He said he had personally come under pressure from Asian councillors and members of the community for speaking out as well as being warned by prominent figures in his party.
He pointed to the way in which two Muslim councillors in Rochdale had provided character references for one of the perpetrators of the Rochdale abuse...

He described it as “a looking after your own” within the Asian community which other politicians had accepted.

Ann Cryer, the former MP for Keighley, said she had come under constant pressure from the “politically correct brigade” when she raised the issue."

o sung wu,

I don’t buy this picture you paint of a giant chasm between practice and theory when it comes to criminology and policing. The two are inextricably intertwined, from what I can see. It’s not like we’re talking about string theory versus applied physics here.

You may have the practical experience of having been a cop before, but I think it’s safe to say - going by past discussions - that you know nothing of criminological theory, and very little of how and where it’s applied. As I’ve mentioned once before, many criminologists are former cops, so if the theoretical side of things were really as off-the-mark and unhelpful to practical policing as you imply, then surely one of these former-cop criminologists would tap the others on the shoulder and say, “Look guys, you’ve got it all wrong.” This doesn’t happen, though, because criminologists are not as far removed from the action as you seem to think they are, and nor are they as clueless.

Being one who is actually “on the job” can be as much of a hindrance as it can be useful. How, for example, is a cop, who is dealing with tragedy after tragedy in one particular area, going to be able to objectively and accurately gauge the extent of the problems their dealing?

If you could make good of your implications and share with me something of your experience that suggests that Hasbeen is closer to the mark than I have been, then I would be interested to hear about it. I don’t think you can, though. I think you are just using your experience to stick up for someone you are more politically aligned with; someone you would prefer to appear to be the one who is correct in this discussion, but realise isn't.

By the way, Greg Smith is a politician, not an academic. He’s also one of the last politicians that anyone could accuse of being a Lefty. I don’t think he was acting on the advice of any academics either.

Oh dear A.J. PHILIPS...You do make me feel so tired with your petty bleats of paranoia. As I've said to you previously, I have absolutely no interest in you, your studies, your claims, your personal life, your academic achievements, your friends in the police...nothing, zip ! I find you an immensely tedious and an infinitely boring individual. Moreover, I don't like you. As I indicated to another contributor herein, there are those in life one takes an instant dislike, and you're it my sad little friend.

Should you ever manage to dupe your way, into some oblivious and unwitting policing organisation, I'd feel so very sorry for them. Clearly you're psychologically unfit for service as a sworn member. I did serve both on several recruiting boards, and over eight years (two separate periods) on the Academy instructional staff. But,for the sake of argument, let us suppose you do manage to 'trick' your way in ? I reckon within the first sixty days, the rest of your class will unquestionably 'put the dog' on you, you're such an insufferable and unendurable bore, A.J.PHILIPS.

Wow, o sung wu! I don’t think I’ve ever been spoken to like that in all my life.

<<As I've said to you previously, I have absolutely no interest in you, your studies, your claims, your personal life, your academic achievements, your friends in the police...nothing, zip !>>

Nothing I have said up until this point should suggest that I thought otherwise. But I’m interested in your career, especially when you suggest that the knowledge you’ve acquired from it negates many of my claims.

<<I find you an immensely tedious and an infinitely boring individual. Moreover, I don't like you. As I indicated to another contributor herein, there are those in life one takes an instant dislike, and you're it my sad little friend.>>

Why would you stoop to this? I have been nothing but polite to you. All I can deduce from this is that my comments are on the money and that makes you feel uncomfortable because they contradict a dearly held worldview that you thought was supported by your experience as a cop. So you interpret the discomfort that my contradicting of your worldview creates as a problem on my behalf. But given the fact that your post is probably the harshest thing anyone has ever said to me, I don’t think the problem lies with me. The last enemy I had was when I was 14. I’m the type of person who is able to get along with absolutely anyone - even those I don’t like.

I may be boring, but at least I'm a good person.

<<Clearly you're psychologically unfit for service as a sworn member.>>

I had to do a 5000 word essay on the psychological testing of recruits (you know, the ‘Big Five’ ‘n’ all), so I’m quite an expert on the topic now and would be fascinated to know what you are talking about here. I don’t think even you know yourself, though. This was just meant to be an insult because apparently you’re not a very nice person.

Continued…

...Continued

I don’t think you could even state how the ideal cop scores in the various areas of a psychological test. I can, and I can assure you that I score reasonably close to it in most areas - a little high in the “openness” and “agreeableness”, and to a lesser extent, the “neuroticism” categories, but otherwise close enough.

As you suspect, though, I do know how to fool the tests. I know the psychological requirements of recruits so back-to-front now that I can achieve a perfect score for a cop on the sample tests that I’ve tried. Which is why I know you are just trying to be nasty here. You, on the other hand, I suspect would score way too high on the neuroticism category nowadays. Your experience as a cop seems to have left you very angry and easily stressed. I don’t want to be a cop though. I've seen too many cops retire as very damaged people.

Oh dear o sung wu, top marks for patience.

I have given up bothering with the fairies from the bottom of the garden, be they normal fairies, or Democrats. It is just too boring.

I have decided to do the same with the prattling clowns, their verbosity is just too wearing.

I do however find it interesting that you can tell, from someone's writing style, that they love the sound of their own voice. Until now, I wouldn't have thought that possible.

That's the way, Hasbeen. When you have nothing left, just continue with the insults.

You guys are two peas in a pod, not a brain cell between the two of you.

You know HASBEEN, this pathetic, fractured little soul; A.J.PHILIPS - for someone who claims he's '...at least a good person...' ? It does raise the question concerning the level of his social maturity ? Notwithstanding his arrogance nevertheless, remains breathtaking !

On the positive side, his somewhat sorrowful, even 'teary' retort '...I don't want to be 'sob' a cop though...' ? Reminds me of the querulous, whining little boy who took his bat home ? Indeed if true, it would be most pleasing news for all police academies, I suspect.

Hey guys - this is only an opinion forum afterall.

Lighten up.

Did you hear about the 25 Irish people who drowned?

They were River-Dancing.

And -

What did an idiot invent?

An inflatable dart-board. :-)

Foxy if you can't read an intended insult in this peanuts every word, you are much less perceptive than I have always assumed.

Some people are just not worth the effort.

Foxy,

Apologies for not heeding your sensible advice, but I feel I need to defend myself from such vicious and unprovoked attacks.

o sung wu,

It's ironic that you would accuse me of being a "whining little boy who took his bat home" when I am the only one here still willing to discuss the issues. As soon as yours and Hasbeen's arguments fell flat, the two of you became abusive.

How does stating that I am at least a good person question my "level of his social maturity"? You don't know, do you? It just sounded good.

Your accusing me of arrogance is revealing. All I have done is state the facts. The discomfort they may bring you does not therefore render me arrogant (or what I say as “intended insults”). Anything I’ve said that could be interpreted as arrogance has only ever been in self-defence.

There was nothing about my stating that I don’t want to be a cop that suggested that I was pouting. This too is something you’ve made up just to belittle me. I find it difficult to believe you’re 75. I haven’t had such childish insults thrown my way since primary school, and in such a childish and cowardly manner too by having it spoken to someone else in front of me. You’re a bully and thus fit the traditional policing mold well. You probably wouldn’t be accepted nowadays, though.

I have been almost uncharacteristically polite to you given what you’ve dished out to me. I’ve shown an interest in your career and invited you to share your knowledge and experiences with me and all you’ve done in response is hurl abuse my way when you think I’m wrong, instead of explaining why it is that I’m wrong. Which suggests that I’m right.

You two are thoroughly disgusting people. You can at least be excused with your apparent psychological damage from decades of police work; characterised by your unpredictable and abusive outbursts, hyper-sensitivity to perceived criticisms that aren’t apparent to anyone else, and misplaced question marks. I don’t know what Hasbeen’s excuse is, though.

The untenable saga now enveloping the top cops in NSW continues. Yesterday both Deputy Commissioners, and would be if they could be Commissioners, Nick Kaldas and Cath Burn addressed the Police Inquiry, not to give evidence, but to attempt to set the record straight. Kaldas was presented for the first time with a document compiled by Burn which outlined the allegations that led to him being placed under surveillance, including a claim he planted evidence. Kaldas said he believed it was Burn who first raised his name as a possible person of interest. Burn told the inquiry she no longer thought Kaldas was involved in corruption, but defended her reasons for being suspicious.
The good folk of New South Wales deserve better behavior from their top cops, and this includes Commissioner Scipione. If those in command of the police force can not work together, in fact they display thinly veiled animosity towards each other, then they need to be replaced, not just for the peoples sake, but also for the good of the ordinary coppers who risk their lives protecting the state from criminals. Its time for the Baird Government to act.

Dear AJ,

I guess when the right buttons are pushed we all
react - (myself included).

Often - humour helps in unpleasant situations.

At least I tried to lighten things up.

Dear Hasbeen,

I'm not giving up on you - just yet!

G'day there PAUL1405...

Me thinks another major scandal sits simmering just below the surface. Nick is one clever, well regarded cop destined to be our next Commissioner, unless something emerges from his long forgotten past ?

In my humble opinion the whole style of NSWPOL inexorably changed when Peter RYAN took over the reins. There was considerable dissatisfaction within the rank and file, with many of his initiatives. His personality aside I thought he tried hard to clean-up the top command structure, prying out those who've been ensconced in their little cubby holes, out to the LAC's ?

One notable A/C was shunted down to W'Gong., threw a magnificent 'hissy fit' and well the rest is history as they say ! Just glad I've retired, I've still got several good mates just awaiting for their (early) retirement, and they'll be off ! The problem is a lot of very valuable experience is lost with their going ? All through internal politics or miss-management whatever they call it ?

G'day (again) HASBEEN...

I've already heard many people are now launching into massive criticism of police who yesterday unfortunately had to shoot dead that young girl who allegedly was wielding a large butchers knife, in or near a Hungary Jack's concessionary ?

Comments the likes of which suggested, shooting the knife out of her hand; wound her in the leg; fire warning shots; and other suggested options ? All of which are magnificent. However, all police in this country, notwithstanding the State in which the serve, are universally taught to aim, at the 'centre of the seen mass', nowhere else. This is the absolute standard for all 'justified police shootings.

There've been a number of High Court judgements, apropos justified police shootings, one of which was the old Viro judgement, long superseded I believe ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

In the case of the shooting of the 22 year old
girl - wielding a kitchen knife? One has to
question the training of the police officers.

That four trained police constables
could not disarm one young girl with a kitchen
knife and they had to resort to killing her -
has to be questioned.

Something is indeed very amiss with their training.
A thorough investigation needs to be conducted
so that acts like this could be prevented in the future.

This reflects badly on the entire police force.

Foxy my sweet, you can't expect any cop to take the chance of serious injury, because the do gooders have insisted we let the nut cases wander the street.

If you want someone to disarm nut cases, get a flying squad of bleeding hearts together to do the job. If they are going to bleed all over the media, that might as well do it on the street.

Until we change tack, & permanently lock the nut cases up for their own, & our safety, the better. However I'm not holding my breath. The bleeding hearts are blood brothers with the nutcases, so that is where their sympathy lies.

Of course we could lock up the bleeding hearts, they have done more to harm our society than all the criminals put together.

At least that would get them out of the top jobs in our police forces.

Hi there FOXY...

Prima facie I'd agree, it doesn't look good. Of course neither of us were there, I certainly don't know any of the facts, but the way in which you've summed up, it does indeed look quite messy ?

What I said in my last thread, stands. ALL police are trained to aim at the 'centre of the seen mass'. Whether or not this protocol now 'appears' to be somewhat redundant, I don't know. I'd not wish to be in the shoes of the fellow who shot her. Not so much from the legal perspective, rather from the emotional and moral aspect ? This youngster must have been on something to face down an armed copper ? It's so sad that a young life has been lost so unnecessarily. I just hope for all concerned, the cop who fired the fatal shot is NOT tried in the Court of public opinion ?

Dear Hasbeen,

How silly of me - here I was thinking that it
was the job of police officers to be able
to handle difficult situations (that's what
they're supposedly trained to do),
and to protect people.
That their own "safety" should not be their
primary concern, but that the safety of the public took
precedence - even those of the "nut cases" that
you describe.
And how do you know that this young girl was a
"nut-case?" We should perhaps also question the mental
stability of the officer who shot her.
Obviously he was out of his depth mentally.

Fox,

What possible purpose would have been served by a police officer becoming a victim himself and adding to the problem?

It is amazing how some minds work. Your reflex action is to fault and blame the police. But why?

Most citizens would have reasoned that the police officer applied his training and the rules he was given, but was forced by the resolute, continued actions of the offender to use his service pistol to stop the threat. The offender would have been warned, but allegedly she lunged at police with a knife.

Fox, "We should perhaps also question the mental stability of the officer who shot her. Obviously he was out of his depth mentally"

That is completely uncalled for, disgraceful. Don't you claim to have a relative in the police somewhere? Presumably someone wants him to come home after his shift.

Thank you to the police for a good job done to the best of their ability.

No Foxy, that is totally wrong. The cops are trained to protect the public, not the nut cases. We expect our armed forces to take risks with their lives to protect us, it is not part of a cops duty. A cops family are entitled to expect them to come home in one piece, the same as a librarians family.

If you really want to blame someone rather than the lady involved, a little examination of the case would be sure to turn up some magistrate or medical officer who turned this person lose, when they should have been locked up.

Shades of Martin place, & the blame should be directed at the guilty.

Yep you guessed it, the bleeding hearts, who took away the facilities to retain, & the will to deal intelligently with, the nut cases.

OTB,
I noted your comments here relative to Rotherham.

I considered posting here as well but with all that was happening here I decided to post a separate thread.

It is not intended to snub you, but to give the subject its due importance. Like to see your input.

Dear Hasbeen,

You were the one who brought up the question
of "Wrong people in the top jobs," in the police force.
I am doing what you're doing.
Questioning the training that these "top"
people provide to young officers.

I know that there
are better ways in which difficult
situations can be handled without lives being
lost.

I did have a high-ranking relative in the LAPD (now
retired) who handled some very difficult situations,
including the Los Angeles race-riots.

Better methods do exist. All our "top" blokes in the police
force
have to do is consult with other "top" blokes in
police forces globally,
and they will learn what does and doesn't work.

Obviously the current way of enforcement cannot
continue - we can't keep losing people. Even the
"nut cases," you refer to.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I'm sure that the young officer who shot
the young girl will be provided with full
counseling and he will receive full
support from his fellow officers.

What will the family of the dead girl get?

Fox, "Better methods do exist. All our "top" blokes in the police
force have to do is consult with other "top" blokes in police forces globally, and they will learn what does and doesn't work"

Perhaps you might inform the police what better methods exist where an offender has already been subjected to available methods to dissuade an attacker but continues to lunge at police with a large knife?

Your gratuitous insult to men is also apparent. To be expected I guess. I suppose you believe that since the offender was a woman, police should have been chivalrous and bared their chests for her deadly assault.

Tell us now, what would you have done if you were the cop in font of this assailant?

Fox, "What will the family of the dead girl get?"

Now the offender is infantalised as a 'girl'. Again, predictable.

Those 'blokes', men, are always disposable though aren't they?

Hi (again) FOXY...

I again reiterate, all police a taught to aim at the centre of the seen mass. Every copper in the country follows this strict procedure. Furthermore this is the standard practise of the US FBI they follow exactly the same point of aim. To my knowledge, no law enforcement agency teaches their officers to wound or to disarm a potential offender with their standard issued handgun.

I was a participant at the FBI Firearms Instructors School, in 1986/87 and was subsequently certified as bona fide FBI Firearms Instructor. Never at any formal F/A training course, were we participants ever taught to shoot to wound, or alternatively, shoot a weapon from the grasp of an offender.

However, there was one incident in the US some years ago now, where a police sniper managed to shoot a handgun from the grasp of a potential offender as he was walking and waving the gun around shouting threats. That particular 'cold' shot was made by a marksman, using a finely calibrated, precision weapon system. I might also add, I attended the FBI Sniper's School, and no such practice was taught nor even mentioned during the conduct of that course.

Never does a police officer make admissions whilst under oath, in matters of police shootings '...I shot the person in order to kill him...'? In evidence, police always say '...I shot the individual to (i) save a life, (ii)to protect my own life, or (iii) to prevent the commission of an crime. That's it.

Your comments, apropos the counselling the police officer is getting ?You can take it from me FOXY, he'll more than likely be finished as an operational copper, and if he does manage to stay in the job, his career is finished, not because he did the wrong thing, rather his total emotional breakdown. To take a human life is utterly devastating I know what I'm talking about here FOXY, enemy or not, they're human beings, with blood, bone, muscle tissue, small B/W photos of family, friends, parents...? Believe me, those images stay with you forever and ever.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I am aware that police officers are trained to use
deadly force on suspects wielding weapons.
And that is what I am questioning.

I would have thought that the amount of force
officers used should be proportional to the
threat posed. Four trained police officers coming up
against one young (she was 22 years old)
girl, brandishing a kitchen knife - logic dictates
that the odds would be in the favour of
the police officer's ability to take control of the
situation.

All I am asking for is to re-examine the use of a
less-lethal force.

Anyway, I do appreciate your taking the time to explain
things to me from a police officer's point of view.
It is appreciated.

What you are doing Fox, is making the police officers responsible for the armed offender's decision not to comply with directions to discontinue her attack and drop the weapon.

It was her decision not theirs that resulted in the use of a service pistol to stop her onslaught.

You are frivolous about the risk to the officers of a large knife in the hands of such a determined assailant. Why should the officers risk injury anyhow? Justify your stance that they should present themselves as meat for stabbing.

All I am doing is simply questioning the current
training methods of police officers in regards to
using deadly force on suspects wielding "weapons."

The amount of force used by officers should be
proportional to the threat posed. The suspect was
not wielding a gun - and why do we treat animals
more kindly than humans? A wild animal causing panic
would have been tranquilised and captured by a net -
but not killed. Surely a human being - even a deranged one
deserves similar treatment - instead of being shot.

The role of the police is to protect life and property
and to detect and prevent crime. It is entirely their
responsibility for the way they deal with and react to
any given situation they are the ones who are
supposed to be in control. Therefore the responsibility
is theirs and theirs alone. And they should be
provided with the sort of training that enables them to
do their job - no matter how difficult it may be. If they
are unable to handle the situation - or if they see that
the situation is spiralling out of control - they
should be trained to call for back-up from a special
unit if necessary. All in all police officers
training should be such - that the risk of injury
to either themselves or their suspects is minimal.

A "wild-west" sort of mentality for law enforcement officers
is inapproriate in this day and age.

For the woman that was shot, Have to agree with OTB, o sung wu and hasbeen (my usual opinions are normally polar opposites of theirs!).

Not much the police could have done it that case. The non-lethal methods were employed first and shooting was last resort. Maybe since a knife was wielded they could have pulled a baton and beat the crap out of her but then everyone would have screamed "police brutality" won't they? And no, center mass was the only logical place to aim as trying to hit a small moving target of arms and legs only happens in movies.

Fox, "All I am doing is simply questioning the current training methods of police officers"

Horses' apples! You are making all sorts of wild allegations and sledging the police.

How do you arrive at your conclusion that the police are poorly trained and do not operate under agreed, publicised, audited controls, particularly where the use of the lethal and non-lethal tools are concerned? It impossible if you have been reading the media that you wouldn't be aware too of the reporting and independent scrutiny and accountability that follows any use of a firearm.

It is anything but 'Wild West' and you willfully disgrace all Australian police by spreading that bull. It could easily be a line out of the Housos comedy series. Perhaps not though, the comedy writers wouldn't do that because it isn't satire or harmless leg-pulling, it is mendacious propaganda to corrode the public's respect for the police.

Hi there FOXY...

You are indeed quite correct in your summation concerning the 'use of force'. So much so, you do surprise me FOXY, generally the public don't know a great deal about the lawful use of force ? Though I shouldn't be surprised at all FOXY, few can ever successfully peddle utter nonsense, were you're concerned, you're far too smart for that !

In legal parlance it's termed the 'Doctrine of Proportionality', a standard that's been argued on and off for years in our highest courts. Including the Privy Council,in the days when we deferred to their guidance, direction and judgement. Despite many Aussies ridiculing and deriding many of the old Privy Council's commentary and occasional judgements, some excellent material has emerged from their chamber ? The 'reasonable man' test is a good example together with many others.

I don't know, you must understand FOXY, I was not there ? However if it were me, my evidence for the Coroner would be thus ?

'...owing to the immediacy of the threat to myself, and fearing that I'd suffer serious injury or death, at the hand of a female person, (who I now know to be.......the deceased person) who was wielding a large knife, and having no other means available to me, and no means or capacity of retreat, in the split second of the attack, I consciously discharged my police issue F/A while pointing at the centre of the seen mass of her torso, in accordance with my official training...' !

I've furnished sworn testimony in other non-lethal matters, and it's the job of the Magistrate to determine the appropriateness, and the 'proportionality' of the force used by police.

I would suspect FOXY, counsel for the deceased young woman, would attempt to 'dismantle' the events, I'd already described, in my 'evidence in chief' before the Coroner. Though it would be very uncomfortable and emotionally stressful for me as the shooter, that in fact, is his job.

otb,

Do you actually read your posts before
you send them?

All I can do, is politely suggest that
you go back and re-read what you have written
to me just now.

It's pretty low and vile!

Dear O Sung Wu,

Thank You for your understanding and explanations.
And for getting what I've been trying to say.
As always, it's deeply appreciated.

I'm too upset at the moment to continue with this
discussion. I'm going to
go and have a cuppa (and a good cry).

I'm withdrawing from this discussion.

Cheers.

Fox,

You are just avoiding the questions that have been put to you. Here is one (again),

How do you arrive at your conclusion that the police are poorly trained and do not operate under agreed, publicised, audited controls, particularly where the use of the lethal and non-lethal tools are concerned?

It impossible if you have been paying any attention to the media at all, that you wouldn't be aware too of the reporting and independent scrutiny* and accountability that follows any use of a firearm.

*including parliamentary scrutiny.

Hi (again) FOXY...

I'm very sorry for adding to your distress, I had no intention of doing so ? As you've so rightly opined, it's just a discussion amongst a gathering of mostly friends, while we all tend to rattle each other's cages occasionally, I'm sure nobody means anyone harm, harm of any sort. After all we've enough misery surrounding us, each and everyday, if anything we should all remain close together, and present as a truly united front, to any and all who may desire to observe us ?

I'm sure you would agree FOXY, there are many countries in the world, where such a Forum would never be permitted to exist. And should by happenstance, it was allowed to operate, everything and everybody thereon, would be very closely monitored even censored to the point that any opinion that was anti-establishment, would have severe consequences. Take it easy FOXY please.

The problem is that "A lie told often enough becomes the truth". [Vladimir Lenin]

I know enough police through volunteering, where not so coincidentally there are many police and other service oriented men and women putting their backs and hearts in to assisting others, to always be doubting as by reflex the motivation and actions of police. Yet it seems to be the way of some to do just that, to doubt the goodwill and intentions of the very people we trust to enforce laws and protect us.

Some sections of the media like to use the wooden spoon to increase their audience for an edition, with scant regard for the damage they do.

At the very least we should refrain from criticising the luckless police who attended, putting their lives on the line, until the usual investigation has reported.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Thank You for your kind words and your
understanding. As I stated previously it
is appreciated.

You may be interested to learn that according
to the ABC, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age,
Daily Mercury, Sunshine Coast Daily, Daily Examiner,
just to name a few - the Sydney shooting has now
raised concerns about police lethal force - and
calls for more officer training is being looked at.
This apparently has been on the cards for quite some
time due to the increase of police shootings over
the past years.

Professor in Policing - Michael Kennedy (a policeman
with over 20 years experience) who teaches at Western
Sydney University has made it clear that it is
"time to review police training on the use of deadly
force."

BTW: -The young girl who was shot had Aspergers' Syndrome.
Her family is also calling for a review of police training
on the use of lethal force.

The following link may be of interest:

http://theconversation.com/shoot-to-kill-the-use-of-lethal-force-by-police-in-australia-34578

The link confirms that in reality no police officer
wants to kill another human being and it suggests that
to avoid putting police in this invidious position
perhaps the focus of "post-shooting investigations"
should be not just whether the homicide was justifiable,
but also if the homicide was avoidable.

We're told that "identifying these issues will allow
for the development of best practice and reduce the need
for the use of lethal force by police."

See you on another discussion.

Cheers.

Something that is of great concern to myself and others in the community is police investigating police, in matters involving a critical incident. No matter how transparent or how impartial an investigation appears to be, the fact remains it is police investigating their own. Greens MP David Shoebridge has described the recent McClelland review into the way NSW police conduct investigations into their own as a "whitewash". What is need when it comes to critical incidents is an independent body to investigate to ensure that public confidence is maintained in the integrity of the police force. This would be a benefit to police officers as well.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/review-of-police-investigating-their-own-a-whitewash-says-greens-mp-20140124-31e0x.html

Dear Paul,

This current shooting will be investigated
by the State Crime Command's (SCC) Homicide
Squad and by investigators from the South
West Metropolitan Region. The investigation
will be overseen by the Professional Standards
Command.

Hi there FOXY & PAUL1405...

Of course I'm now out of the job, changes are made, procedures are examined and often modified. You're so right FOXY when you say when a member of the public is shot dead by police, it's emotionally devastating for that copper, and all those concerned.

PAUL1405 be assured, whatever body or whoever is directed with investigating a fatal shooting by police, there will be no cover up. Because the Coroner is the individual that is endowed with the necessary coercive powers, to fully investigate ALL the circumstances associated with that shooting.

This includes the facts leading up to the event. The actual shooting itself; and the events immediately after the event. He will examine evidence of the deceased herself, all her medical and psychological background. Full details of the police officer who shot her, his training records, regardless of time and seniority, right back to, and including his recruit training records. The weapon itself will undergo a complete ballistic examination, including the make, age, and type of ammunition used, ensuring that it's approved by the Commissioner or his delegate.

Any and all witnesses that can furnish any relevant evidence, touching on any part of this enquiry, will be called. And they'll be examined under oath, as to what they saw, heard, smelt, and if relevant 'felt' if deemed necessary and appropriate.

Be assured, the Coroner's enquiry will be absolutely exhaustive, and the details thereof will be made available for full public scrutiny. There will be no cover up PAUL1405.

Hi O Sung Wu,

I'm not suggesting for a minute that there would be any kind of cover up in this day and age by the police officers involved in the investigation. I understand the Coroners roll in this, and he will be very much guided by the various reports from the officers conducting the investigation, and to that extent its fine by me. However I do see the value in having an independent investigative body. After the State Government announced the McClelland Review, David Shoebridge release a statement on behalf of The Greens which I think is still valid today and goes beyond the more serious critical incidents.

<<In NSW the Greens have long campaigned for a review of the current oversight system which is overly complex, opaque and which has consistently failed those with legitimate complaints about police actions.
Greens MP and Police Spokesperson David Shoebridge said:
"Police oversight in NSW does not work and there is widespread community dissatisfaction with the current system.
"The failings are most obvious in the police handling of critical incidents where flawed internal investigations consistently vindicating police actions, even in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary.
"The flaws of the system were recently highlighted following the deaths of Adam Salter and Roberto Curti with subsequent investigations demonstrating the inherent flaws of a system where police investigate police
"To comprehensively address the problems with the scheme the review also has to consider incidents beyond just critical incidents.
"The NSW Police and Ombudsman together receive over 10,000 police complaints a year - the size of this problem therefore cannot be understated.
"It is well and truly time that we have independent investigations of critical incidents and end the practice of police investigating police.
"The Greens have long argued that police need to be doing police work, not investigating their colleagues' actions. A truly independent oversight body is the best way to achieve this," Mr Shoebridge said.>>

Hi Foxy

Thanks for that link it made for most interesting reading. What is disturbing is the relationship between mental illness and police shootings.

"Of those persons shot by police, 42% were suffering a mental illness at the time of the shooting. Schizophrenia was the most common illness (59% of those with a mental illness)."

The other worry concerns the number killed, and the number classified as unlawful homicide. Without independent investigation this can only cast suspicion as to the findings of justified homicide in so many cases.

"Interestingly, only one of the 105 fatal shootings identified in the study was classified as unlawful homicide. The issue remains that a fatal shooting may well be classified as a justified homicide, but that finding does not mean that it was not an avoidable homicide.

"The young girl who was shot.."

Continual infantalising of the offender because she was a woman. Women always need protection and must be wrapped in cotton wool apparently. They are not accountable for their own decisions and are eternal victims. Men should risk their own bodies and go in harm's way to shield them, even from themselves.

Double standard.

Amazingly the same poster/s who infantalise and may even excuse or diminish the crimes of women (applying that convenient positive stereotype) and cannot accept that a woman could present a dangerous threat with a weapon, would nonetheless demand that women be on the front line in battle and the Commando and SAS regiments must change to have women in their ranks and as officers. That is after their packs have been trucked in and the men have erected their tents, ablution blocks and latrines. I also support women being of the front line where their skills and abilities are matched to the tasks, which is a different concept to the demands of the feminists.

Regarding taking responsibility for decisions, it is also remarkable that the OLO 'Progressives' were trenchant in their insistence that it was quite OK, just and right, that a girl (and she was a girl, a child minor) be shamed, publicly humiliated, summarily marched off and held for interrogation and forced to apologise for saying 'ape' at a first grade footy match. That was despite the fact that the word has used generally for all players on opposing teams since time immemorial.

It is the compartmentalised thinking of political correctness. I wonder whether there would be an carry on if the offender carrying the knife had been male and the police officer a woman.

I am going off for a coffee and a cry (of exasperation). Could some female white knight appear to rescue and reassure me, apologise and soothe my wounded feelings?

Good morning Beach.

It is not too difficult to gauge the thinking of the ultra right on police matters, after all they support a police state, where such actions as police shootings would be unquestioned, and common place.

<<It is the compartmentalised thinking of political correctness. I wonder whether there would be an carry on if the offender carrying the knife had been male and the police officer a woman.>>

That makes no difference Beach, there is a need for independent investigation of this other police matters. Do you agree, or would you rather continue with this smoke screen mentality of claimed sexism?

It is just the 'Watermelon' Greens faction doing their thing. Bob Brown had heaps of trouble with them and gave up.

It is typical of the ambulance chasing Greens that they would be hunting headlines. Honestly, where would the investigative skills and powers come from if not from within the police?

However to even direct and answer at the lightweight Shoebridge's foolish troublemaking would be to lend some legitimacy to his protesting and quest for news photo opportunities and no-one wants to do that.

Dear Paul,

One positive thing to come out of this Sydney shooting
has been that now there are so many concerns and calls
for reviews -
about police lethal force and calls for more effective
officer training. This is not a problem that has suddenly
arisen - it has been an ongoing problem for many years
in all states and territories and as Prof. Michael
Kennedy (himself an experienced policeman, and now a
professor in policing) has stated it is "time to review
police training on the use of deadly force."

People with mental illnesses have presented a huge problem
to police over the years - and the statistics of shootings
are high. They include both genders - and age
groups. Mental illness does not discriminate.

This issue has received a great deal of coverage and we
hope that there will be positive results that will come
out of this for the benefit of the community and the
police.

As stated earlier - the reality is that no police
officer wants to kill another human being and to avoid
placing police officers in this invidious position
the focus of post shooting investigations should be
not just if the homicide was justifiable but also if the
homicide was avoidable.

Identifying these issues will allow for the development of
best practice and reduce the need for the use of lethal
force by police. And that is something that any rational
person would want.

See you on another discussion.

Fox,

What destroys your credibility entirely is that you are determined to stop short of acknowledging and admitting the obvious, which is that police are already subject to available laws and on top of that they are rigidly required to apply a host of guidelines governing their response to threats against them and the public. As well, uses of force are always reported on and reviewed for accountability and for continuous improvement.

In fact it is astounding that more police are not killed by offenders through having to pause to consider the restrictions placed upon them and the weight of the judgement (and certain ramifications when a court second guesses them in the comfort and security of police presence with hours, days, even months to decide).

It is sly of you to twist it all around to pretend you are in fact helping police by sledging them and demanding additional, redundant reviews, and by claiming they need new methods and training. All arrived at through complete ignorance of operational considerations and without concern for the risks they face.

Any police, including other emergency officers, examples being military, fire and ambulance and their relatives reading this should take some comfort that police and other services have the full support of the public. The critics and the odd grandstanding politician have their secondary agendas as usual. When they leave their pedestals the thin blue line will still have to keep us, our loved ones and our assets safe and we the law-abiding public are very thankful to you for your vigilance, dedication and sacrifice.

Thanks Foxy, a very intelligent post and I totally agree, the situation is crying out for change, both for the public confidences aspect in the police force, and for the protection of serving officers themselves. Some prefer to put their head in the sand on this issue, but they are a minority in the community. On The Beach would you agree the head in the sand people are in the minority?
David Shoebridge has campaigned on this issue over a number of years now, raising it often in the NSW parliament. The ultra right extremists try to portray David as a grandstanding troublemaker, but as they are very much in the minority it all water of a ducks back!

p/s Foxy I will catch you on another thread soon. we will be away for a couple of weeks from tomorrow, visiting Aotearoa and The Maori Land Court in Rotorua. It should be interesting.

Sadly, it will be a very long, cold day in Hell before the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens are concerned about the welfare of police officers.

BTW., has Shoebridge removed that lie from the Greens site yet? See here,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6716&page=0#204708
- the Post by Is Mise, Sunday, 8 February 2015 1:16:12 PM)

When I was growing up in Perth in the 70's the coppers didn't even carry guns, if I do not misrecall.

Clearly times have changed.

Now, its all about hollow point bullets and shoot to kill just in case you don't take them down with the first shot and in turn risk being injured or killed yourself.

This of course has led to some serious tragedies in some cases, and many shootings of the mentally unwell come to mind.

Yes DreamOn as I mentioned at the very beginning of the thread, the bleeding hearts & the do gooders have to take much of the blame for these deaths.

They & some ratbag psychiatrists pushed for the closure of mental institutions, so now many who should be locked up for their & our safety are having to be dealt with by the cops in emergency situations, on the street.

It is a source of continual annoyance to me, that these people so often get it wrong, but continue stuffing up in the same jobs, long after they have proved their incompetence.

We really do need to start sacking public servants who are proven failures at their jobs.

Hi there all...

Thinking to myself on what other options might be available to police whenever confronted with similar situations...? Clearly this unfortunate lady suffered from a mental illness ? FOXY quoted a Prof KENNEDY (apparently an experienced ex cop) calling for a better approach, and different style of training for police, who are confronting 'armed' individuals who do suffer from a mental illness ?

With all due respects to Prof KENNEDY, what better training does he suggest precisely ? What does a mentally ill person look like ? All of those who've engaged in violent crime, display all manner of behaviours that I've witnessed over time ? Some are supremely calm, others are screaming uncontrollable, and everything in between. Which have a mental illness ?

Be unequivocally assured, I've had far more formal training in these tactical matters, than Prof KENNEDY ? Am I 'blowing my own trumpet', NO, I'm stating a fact.

No expert irrespective of their acclaim and qualifications, should make public statements about any event that he'd NOT witnessed. Clearly that may cause pain and distress to ALL concerned. It's the Coroner who possesses the powers, and can draw upon any and all expertise he sees fit, nobody else.

That would include people such as myself. If the Coroner sought my opinion, and commentary on any part of the job, then I'll be called to give evidence ! Otherwise, you'd not hear a peep from me, in any public setting ? Why, because I wasn't there, consequently I'm not in possession of all the facts. As a side issue, any Coroner who'd be sufficiently ill-advised to call me for expertise, would indeed be 'certifiable', as I now have difficulty remembering my own name !

Still I do understand there are those who wish public exposure, for a reason or reasons only known to themselves ? I have given 'expert' evidence in serious criminal matters in the past, and learnt the necessity to maintain you're 'own counsel', if or until, your professional opinion is properly sought, and in the correct forum !

Hi HASBEEN...

Your annoyance is easily explainable my friend, in fact you're probably better acquainted with the knowledge then I. For some inexplicable reason, whenever a problem is identified, or additional revenue is sought, our political leaders still prefer to consult with academics.

Apropos revenue I'll concede well established economists should always be sought, but also your ordinary everyday suburban CPA should be consulted as well ? After all, the economists sees the macro-economic picture which is necessary. Whereas it's your CPA that can accurately measure any impact, those government strategies might have, on the ordinary Mums and Dads, as well as the effect that may occur to the success or otherwise of small business. After all, many of the experts claim, it's Small Business that's the essential life-blood of Australia.

Housing and treating the mentally ill - again not only should the most eminent psychiatric doctors be consulted when problems and changes are found necessary. But it's the health workers, ambo's, police, social workers, in other words all those other 'stake holders' (I detest that term!) engaged in providing services to the mentally ill, all of whom should be heard and their suggestions if they've merit, should be enacted. For it's these people who are at the coal face with these special patients, and understand their peculiar needs and concerns best !

And to allay unnecessary public concern, those I/C should regularly reassure society, of the continued welfare and safety of all mentally ill patients. Furthermore reassure them, that they're closely monitored and well cared for, obviously for the collective benefit of everybody in the community.

*HasBeen*

Community treatment often times produces the best results in terms of achieving and maintaining stability, but patients aren't released unless they are judged to be neither a threat to themselves nor to anyone else.

Where it can go wrong is in the follow up and this in turn really comes down to funding. To follow your line of reasoning though, I would agree that if the politicians aren't going to fund the follow up support, then arguably the policy needs to be rethought.

It's just another case of scum bag politicians not honouring their word and their commitments.

Additionally, some of the mentally ill who have had unfortunate encounters with the cops are those who have either recently broken down or otherwise not yet come to the attention of the brain dopers.

The cops have to be braver and better trained in non-lethal take down techniques, with lethal force really only being used as an absolute last resort. For that of course, they may well deserve a pay rise.

..

As for shooting civilians, I found the news that it was actually the cops who shot the barrister and not the so called terrorist to be rather amusing. But then, I have a particular disdain for money grubbing lawyers who turn people out to financial ruin, prison and miscarriage of justice when they are unable to meet their ridiculous fees. The whole industry is a very bad joke and Australians need to wake up and give some other people a go at the top job, and preferably ones who will evolve the remorseless money grubbing legal system into a universal justice system.

A synthetic Sjambok would be perfect for some situations, the offender with the big knife could be an example.

Imagine the howls of protest though from those who like to be regarded as 'do-gooders', even though lives would be saved. Police disarmed her with a Sjambok, isn't that a whip?, so terrible!

All emotion and not practical - bleeding hearts, but others (easily dispensable men) must take the risks and consequences :(

Dear Beach, can I take it from your post, you are the opposite to a 'Do-gooder' and see yourself as a 'Do-bader'. Do you agree it would be a better world if more people went around "doing good" and less of the "doing bad" stuff?
Can I ask, is the opposite to a bleeding heart, a heartless person, with no emotion, just full of all that practical stuff?

Paul1405,

Your fatuous posts confirm that it will be a very long, cold day in Hell before the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens are concerned about the welfare of police officers and the general public. However the 'Watermelons' always have plenty to say to protect criminal outlaw motorcycle gangs who manufacture and traffic drugs, and coincidentally are responsible for drive by shootings to protect their drug territory.

BTW, you still haven't answered that question, has Shoebridge removed that lie from the Greens site yet? See here,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6716&page=0#204708
- the Post by Is Mise, Sunday, 8 February 2015 1:16:12 PM)

Beach utter nonsense, "(Greens) protect criminal outlaw motorcycle gangs" You will say anything that you think will discredit The Greens. SO be it, always careful not to show your true hand, what you do not like about us Greens is we are for freedom and democracy and do not support your ideal of a totalitarian police state.

Paul1405,

You wouldn't find any more totalitarian than the Greens.

What's the bet one of the favours the Qld Greens cash in for giving preferences to Labor will be an easing of the law and disbanding of the highly successful police taskforce Maxima? It will herald a return to bikies ramping up their drug manufacture and distribution and all of the violence and standover that goes with it.

Maxima successes. Thanks due to Campbell Newman.
http://www.qt.com.au/topic/taskforce-maxima/

Hi there everyone...

Speaking of 'Cops. Wrong people in top jobs' - I've been hearing quite a lot of opinion, both on the ABC and on a Sydney commercial radio station 'condemning in every way' the AFP police, for the perilous state these two in Bali are in. Blaming the AFP completely, for the immediacy of their execution ? I'm not so sure.

I've heard and understood some of the argument including the events touching upon the father of Scott RUSH imploring the AFP to stop his son from even leaving Australia. To counter this the AFP stated they didn't have a power to stop RUSH the younger from departing ? Further, I'd heard RUSH was then on Bail for offences of dishonesty ? If so, it would be a State matter, and one would first need to examine the conditions of Scott RUSH'S Bail ? Often an individual on Bail, with close ties and other considerations are not necessarily precluded from leaving the jurisdiction, to travel abroad.

Perhaps my memory is deceiving me, but didn't the then, recently retired, AFP police Commissioner Mick KELTY, travel to Bali to plead leniency for RUSH when he too was sentenced to death with CHAN and the other bloke ? Obviously that process was upheld, because of the immaturity of RUSH and the fact he was just a mule, and in no way a major player ?

After all, each of the Bali nine as they're 'popularly' referred to, must share most of the responsibility for their individual predicament ? Again I emphise I'm against the death penalty, but in the case of SUKUMURAN and CHAN, they're really bad, arrogant dudes, so I've no compassion for them. The families, I have immense feeling for, I really have, both as a father and grandfather ! These two maggots ought be very ashamed at the misery they're putting their two families through, without doubt !

Paul you are searching for the opposite to a 'Do-gooder' I believe.

That would be do sensible or intelligent.

Well, I would have to agree that it was less than ordinary for the Feds to drop them in the sh!t in Indonesia whilst knowing full well that the Death penalty could apply. They could have just as easily picked them up in Australia (if that is where they were headed)

but then, if you heard the Feds carrying on about "crims" as they do then perhaps it would come as no surprise.

As for those amongst the bikees who are manufacturing and distributing narcotics, we would all do well to remember that when it comes to drugs like cocaine that it is not your everyday working Joe who has the spare cash for that. Amongst their cliental are lawyers and doctors (assuming they are not knocking off the hospital supply) and they should not be exempted from spot checks in the same way that the miners are.

If you don't go after the cliental in a big way commensurate with your action against the bikees, then it is no different than charging the prostitute and letting his/her client go.

DreamOn,

Sorry to disagree with you but it was the offenders chose the place of arrest.

Because prudent policing where such a large shipment of hard drugs is concerned is to intercede and make the arrest when the evidence becomes available to do it successfully and ensure the charges will stick.

I cannot understand why the ABC is misleading its viewers on that. It is stirring, troublemaking, but whatever for?

I agree with your comment about the professionals who support the drug industry and make it profitable. That is a point I have made many times before. There is plenty of white powder and tablets about in the cbd offices where the big money is being earned.

Your idea of spot checks is a good one and it should start with government employees and their contractors, Court officials and politicians too.

Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 14 February 2015 8:51:54 PM

" ... but it was the offenders chose the place of arrest. ... "

Well, I wouldn't say that they chose to be arrested but I think that I understand what you mean.

" ... Because prudent policing where such a large shipment of hard drugs is concerned is to intercede and make the arrest when the evidence becomes available to do it successfully and ensure the charges will stick. ... "

Given the Indonesian system of "discretionary payments," as is alleged, I would have thought that it would have been a much safer bet to snatch them in Oz, in their own jurisdiction where they could have made reasonably certain of a sure prosecution.

" ... I cannot understand why the ABC is misleading its viewers on that. It is stirring, troublemaking, but whatever for? ... "

If that is the case, it for the AFP to force a retraction from the ABC.

" ... I agree with your comment about the professionals who support the drug industry ... "

Ah yes, I would love to see some of these money grubbing wig parasites and doctors go down, but part of the problem is the false sense of reverence, which of course leads to cases like Jayant Patel. On dispute, regulators will say things like but oh no, the dr said .. therefore it must be true. What a joke. I know plenty of nurses and other hospital staff and the thieving from stock is absolutely rampant. As for those who control the system .. more useless than titties on a bull.

A little bit more about the Indonesian system though, and please do have a heart for the Indo locals, as they are the ones who bare the burden of what I am about to say.

You see, in Indo, if you want to join the police or become a judge or the like (any decent position of status) you have to pay, and by Indo standards, a significant amount of money in order to get the job.

This is perhaps a mechanism by which the families who have money control the place and stay in positions of influence. It has little to do with merit which is one of the reasons these kinds of countries stagnate.

And of course, as soon as say Mr Policeman has his job, the first thing that is on his mind is getting his capital back.

So, you see them making their monthly rounds of the Pussy parlours and the drug dens etc etc And or if you turn up at the court, and you pass the attitude test, and it is not a matter which is in the international spotlight, the first thing the registrar will do is wander off to see if the judge is in a position to "help."

Of course, if you fail the attitude test, or start running off at the mouth, refuse or are unable to pay, then you are likely to be screwed as the normal processes of the law will proceed, and once matters have been escalated, there is little likelihood of anything other than the hammer coming down hard.

Hi there DREAMON...

You last thread is quite correct concerning the amount of incidental pressure that's invoked, should anyone in normal Indonesian society wish employment in the judiciary, police or escalation up the ladder of rank in any branch of the Indonesian military ? Unless of course you have strong family connections, that are born to rule, as it's practiced in the sub-continent ?

Should a 'ne'er do well' get apprehended at the primary line, either coming or going into the country, as you quite correctly opined, provided the incident is initially below the radar as it were, a few well placed 'gratuities' might often disentangle the initial misunderstanding.

This unofficial or secondary judicial process, is quite evident throughout most S.E. Asian nations, to a greater or lesser degree. Though not mentioned in their original Standard Practice of Jurisprudence, it nevertheless exists, and flourishes from all accounts.

Remuneration for the ordinary policeman, or customs officer, magistrate or equivalent are poor. Without the regular 'backhanders' they exist on the lowest of pays, so corruption is the only avenue available to them to obtain a living wage. The term justice doesn't seem to form any part of their vocabulary ?