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!