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?