"A man attempting to rob a check-cashing store in Irving, Texas, had his robbery thwarted when an employee triggered the alarm. Police quickly responded to the robbery in progress, and the handgun-armed robber decided to take a hostage.

This turned out to be the worst decision of his day, and the last decision of his life.

The officers simply could not let the armed robber leave the scene with his hostage.

One of the Irving Police officers on the scene retrieved his patrol rifle out of the back of his SUV and posted up alongside his vehicle ..... The officer braced against if for stability took aim at the hostage taker’s head ...., remembered his sight offset, exhaled, and “solved the problem.”

http://bearingarms.com/boom-headshot-texas-hostage-taker-smoked-irving/

Would this be acceptable in Australia?

Dear Is Mise,

I think that in the US they have different policies
to our police force. Maybe it is a question of when
lives are threatened it's "Shoot
first..." I believe our forces would shoot only as
a last resort. But I could be wrong. O Sung Wu would
know.

I've looked stuff up on the web and learned
that in the US the police force are allowed
to shoot first.

In this country the NSW police force have been given
the right to shoot first when dealing with
terrorists.
Makes sense.

I would hope our police don't solve crimes by 'shoot first, ask questions later' mode, because too many things can go wrong with this scenario.

The first thing that sprang to my mind was, isn't it lucky that policeman was such a good shot, because he could easily have shot dead the hostage if either the robber or the hostage suddenly moved at the last second.

The other point was that the robber may well have had a serious mental illness, and maybe a specially trained person, or the robber's relatives could have talked him down, rather than have the police shoot him dead, with no judge or jury.

Finally, I can only imagine how the hostage's mental health is going after firstly being a victim of a robbery and hostage situation, and then standing next to someone as they are shot in the head, with blood, skull and brain tissue splattered all over them...

I realize it is better than being dead, but surely it didn't need to end that way?
I have also noted that more police in the US have been called to account lately for shooting dead alleged criminals in such a manner. I think things are changing.

Hi Is Mise, you know my point of view on this. There are no winner in your story, only looser's, a robber and hostage taker lost his life, a copper who killed him has to live with that for the rest of his life, the hostage has been traumatised and will suffer for a longtime to come, as will others, the dead persons family, the officers family, bystanders etc. it not a Hollywood movie where the good guy simply shoots the bad guy and then they go home to watch telly or something. No its the real world where bad things happen, and they happen far too often.

Do I think there should be "carte blanche" for police to shoot first. No I don't think so.

Here's one courtesy of the Denver Police Dept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xgnlx-Yo&feature=youtu.be&t=35

Plenty more on U Tube.

For god sake Suse, grow up. You say, "I would hope our police don't solve crimes by 'shoot first, ask questions later' mode". How many questions does it take to establish that an armed offender is threatening to kill his hostage. Who the hell cares why they are doing it, They will be no less dangerous to everyone after they serve any time or treatment they might be given.

If our lot had taken out the hostage taker in Martin place, a couple of innocents would still be alive.

You, Pall & the like would procrastinate until we totally loose control of our streets & our boarders, then complain at the result.

Time to issue any of our cops, who prove they can handle one, a sniper rifle to dispense suitable quick justice. Just think, the savings in judges & legal aid might fix the budget.

If 'growing up' means I have to agree with anything you say Hasbeen, then I am comfortable remaining young thanks.

As for the Martin Place siege, we can all look at that situation in hindsight and think we know better than the police that were involved did, but that would be ignorance in the extreme if we aren't trained police ourselves and understood the whole situation.

But I realize that police siege situations and guns in general are your specialty...in your own mind.

Suse, look what you have to look forward to, when you grow up, and reach the ripe old age of 110! You can become a crusty old bloke, who's down on the whole wide world! Such fun awaits.
I myself hope to become the Sheriff Of Dodge City taking over from the scourge of the criminal class Sheriff Hasbeen, who in 30 years personally dispatched summery justice to no less than 1000 law breakn' varmints, everyone from the Dillinger Brothers to jaywalkers, they all ended up on Boot Hill! Alas at the age of 147 Sheriff Hasbeen hung up his trusty colt 45 and went to the big roundup in the sky.

Hasbeen, I'm not sure if there is a police force in the world yet that meets your ideal, but possibly the police force on Haiti comes close they like to shoot first and don't ask questions later.

The vast majority of British police officers do not carry firearms (except in Northern Ireland). The image of a Metropolitan Police officer in a custodian helmet is an archetypal image of a police officer. They've been a highly effective police force for almost 200 years. Certainly Britain does not have crime on the scale that you see in many countries where the police do have firearms.

So you obviously don't need to give police firearms for them to be effective. Indeed, if we are to compare to Britain to, say, South Africa or Mexico, then maybe the reasonable conclusion to draw is that police without firearms are actually more effective than the alternative.

Paul1405,

How was that 'shooting first and asking questions later' as you and some others allege?

What about the right of the innocent bystander/victim to police protection?

BTW, if the person kidnapped happened to have (say) a metal hair styling comb* in a pocket or purse and was fortunate enough to score a hit in the offender's throat, ear or temple where upon he bled out, should the victim be charged with an offence?

Here is one in Sandalwood,
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PBYT8ZI?psc=1

Remembering of course that in Australia excepting NSW if she did agree with a police officer who smilingly asked the distraught victim after the attack if she ever imagined her comb might be useful for self defence, she would likely end up on serious charges herself.

In Australia the leftists who have no thought for victims of crime and whose first priority is criminals's rights have changed the law over years to make it an offence to be proactive in defence by having or carring anytying that might at a stretch be construed an overzealous, career-scrabbling constable or police prosecutor (more likely) as a 'weapon'.

Toni Lavis, ".. if we are to compare to Britain to, say, South Africa or Mexico, then maybe the reasonable conclusion to draw is that police without firearms are actually more effective than the alternative"

False comparison.

Then again, the reckless diversity that Britain has to have thanks to the leftists has resulted in serious crime. See here,

<Labour wanted Mass Immigration to make UK more Multicultural, says Former [Labour Party] Adviser

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the 'economic benefits'(sic) and need for more migrants.
Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.
Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s>
http://tinyurl.com/labours-diversity-scam

Police and their loved ones should have the right and reasonable expectation that they will be going home unharmed at the end of a shift. There is a scream of protest if other workers are not afforded comprehensive proactive workplace health and safety conditions.

//False comparison.//

Because they have more crime in Mexico and South America? That's what we're comparing here, otb.

Or do you think it's a false comparison because there are less white people in those countries and you subscribe to the racist dogma that brown people are inherently more criminal than white people?

//Then again, the reckless diversity that Britain has to have thanks to the leftists has resulted in serious crime.//

Of course, dear. Until the dreaded communists increased Britain's migrant intake in the early 2000s, they didn't have serious crime in Britain. Burke & Hare, Jack the Ripper, the Kray Twins, Dennis Nilsen, Myra Hindley, Ian Brady, Graham Young and Harold Shipman are all just mythological figures: propaganda invented by the communists to make it seem as if Britain had problems with serious crime long before it actually did - in the early 2000s, when it was introduced by foreign people. Before the foreigners introduced serious crime to be Britain, it was a peaceful and joyous utopia where nobody was ever mean to anybody else. Not even in Northern Ireland.

No. It would not be acceptable to our poofy police, although, to give them their due, it's not their fault but the fault of the politcised superiors. The American officer should (a might very well have) received an award for doing his job - protecting the public. The situation was solved by one man, with no fuss and no following expense and pallaver which would have seen a week judge hand out weak sentence.

"The situation was solved by one man"

I don't see how the police officer had any alternative where a member of the public was being threatened with imminent death by an offender who refused to comply with police instructions to lay down his weapon and set the hostage free.

For the hostage, the public and the police, it was fortunate that one officer had access to an accurate long-arm (M16 or similar) and was well trained, using the vehicle as a rest and doubtless taking into account possible fall of shot and so on. Everybody but the offender who was responsible for his own fate went home unharmed that night.

The police officer will receive a commendation and when he does, it is thoroughly deserved. Thankfully, counselling is available now for the police, who are forced by criminals to put their lives on the line and must live with the memories of doing what they have to do.

I don't envy the work that the police have to do.
The decisions that they are forced to make at
times can't be easy and I'm sure that those
decisions are carefully scrutinised - and those
decisions are justly or unjustly - examined after the event.

Being a member of the public I feel that we're really not
in a position to judge. If members of the police feel
that the wrong decision was made at the time it should be
senior members of the force who should decide what course
of action should be taken

On the extreme right we have the pro gun, shoot to kill mentality of those who believe there is always justification for coppers to use their guns as the first resort. The same extremest's believe in a police state, even going as far as supporting a politically controlled, well armed 'citizens militia'.
The extremists not only want unfettered police powers to 'shoot to kill' they want the same police force used politically to control perceived undesirables in society, leftists, communists, feminists, trade unionists etc etc.
All sounds very familiar, there are one or two on the forum who fit this bill.

Unfortunately Foxy, that is something I can not agree with, police, policing, police. We have had a number of instances in NSW of police investigating serious matters concerning other officers, only to produce finding that can best be described as a whitewash.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-24/police-escape-discipline-in-investigations:-figures/6803146

What is needed is an independent judicial body to investigate these serious allegations involving police.

Paul1405,

By 'we' you mean Greens featherweight and serial clown, David Shoebridge.

Sensationalism to get a headline.

If Only!
If we had a policy of 'shoot first, ask questions later' our streets would be a darn sight safer.
And this mental illness card is becoming a bit of a joke because if a person is so unwell, why are they out without a carer.

Dear Paul,

I recall the ex-police officer who got kicked
out of the police force for being a whistle-blower.
This showed me that there are honest police officers
in NSW.

Therefore I'm a bit dubious about not trusting
people to investigate their own. Surely if we ask
them to put their lives on the line for us we need
to trust them in return? I don't believe that they
would all whitewash things. Not all of them are
dishonest and we have to rely on the honest ones
to do the right thing - as the whistle-blower did.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The guards. Move along sir, nothing to see here.

But I always preferred the response of Sir Samuel 'Stoneface' Vimes:

Q: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A: I do.
Q: Ah, but who watches the watchman who watches the watchmen?
A: I do that too. All the time.

Samuel Vimes is fictional, which is probably why he's such a decent guard.

For those of you who like to read an awesome who-dunnit with regular coppers (not detectives) as the main protagonists and a heavy emphasis on the importance of guns, I recommend you all read Men at Arms by Sir Terry Pratchett. It's funny, clever, exciting and it might even make you think...

It made me think the first time I read it.

Fortunately in my 32 years in the job I've never had an occasion to discharge my weapon. I've needed to draw, and point my weapon a number of times, but not actually discharge it. Though in one instance I needed to destroy a large dog, I managed to foul-up that task to my everlasting shame. The howls that resonated from that poor mortally wounded animal, all because I failed to shoot him in the approved manner, will live with me forever I'm afraid.

Back to the topic, the reason most coppers are reluctant to fire their weapon even when completely justified to do so, is the onerous Coroner's Inquiry that generally takes place, months, even a year or so after the event. That extended time lag can inflict an enormous amount of stress on police, much more than either the public or the judiciary comprehend?

Notwithstanding the realisation, that he's taken a human life, together with the attendant publicity from a clamouring media pack, already assigning and apportioning blame? In other words, 'trial by media and public opinion' negatively impacting on the already highly stressed police officer. Whatever the true circumstances of the shooting are, the copper often ends up a vocational basket case, all because of the assertions of guilt?

Reality,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-15/gold-coast-officer-shot-in-face-addresses-court/6858122

Gold Coast police officer Gary Hamrey recalls moment he was shot in face following armed robbery at Arundel Tavern

and,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1116931/As-happened-Gold-Coast-bikie-brawl-footage-released.html

The 'one shot' Tasers wouldn't have deterred an attack on police.

and,

http://www.qt.com.au/topic/bikie-gangs/

and,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organised_crime_in_Australia

Dear Is Mise,

Pleasant videos mate and you say you there are plenty more on youtube. Well if that is how you fill your evenings and get your kicks who are we to judge.

I do hope you were aware the person in the second video did not have a gun nor was he committing an armed robbery. He did though sequentially die of his wounds.

Here is the thing though. Over 30% of armed robberies pre the gun buyback involved a firearm. The figure is now about 10%. The likelihood of a victim dying in armed holdups has dropped dramatically.

Why then are you seeking to dilute our gun laws or do you care for gun rights more than victim rights?

Hi Foxy, I can only point you to the Roberto Curti case. By examining the facts in this case, and given the outcome, any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that there was a miscarriage of justice and several police officers should have gone to jail.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-used-excessive-unnecessary-unlawful-force-on-brazilian-student-roberto-curti-court-hears-20141117-11o3tr.html

Hi o sung wu, thanks for putting the human side to this. What so many do not understand is when someone (a person with feelings) kills another human being, regardless of the circumstances, there are no winners only losers. I posted that earlier. I am pleased to hear that in your long service with the police you never had to use you weapon against another human being, which fortunately is the case for the vast majority of officers, lets hope it stays that way.
Maybe there is also the human element in good people, a bit more than simply worrying about the bad publicity afterwords as to why they don't shoot when they feel justified in doing so.

There are many in society who want to load the gun, but don't want to pull the trigger.

Steel,

"I do hope you were aware the person in the second video did not have a gun nor was he committing an armed robbery. He did though sequentially [bit by bit?] die of his wounds."

The report said that he had a gun and his right hand is not visible, but if you have any info then a reference would be handy.

"Here is the thing though. Over 30% of armed robberies pre the gun buyback involved a firearm. The figure is now about 10%. The likelihood of a victim dying in armed holdups has dropped dramatically." Reference?

"Why then are you seeking to dilute our gun laws or do you care for gun rights more than victim rights?"

I only seek to remove the stupid parts of our gun laws and I care for victims rights, I care that people in Australia are denied any means of self defence.
Do you realize that to carry a stick to ward off a savage dog is unlawful as is having an umbrella for the purpose of protecting one's head from nesting magpies?

Paul,

No winners?
Utter rubbish. The hostages were winners because they are alive and it is undeniable that it is better to be alive, with a few bad memories than dead with none.

I know/knew dozens of men and one woman who had killed numerous times and didn't have one regret and never thought about it except for a laugh or two on Anzac Day.
The woman was the late Nancy Wake, a distant relative that I met a few times. She killed more men than any other woman in Australian history including one German soldier with her bare hands, no regrets at all.
Winners? Australia and France.

I have a friend who shot criminals in a New Guinea night club; the crims held the place up and murdered the security guard and ordered everyone to lay on the floor.
Fearing for the safety of his pregnant wife and others he drew his pistol and shot five of the criminal murderers dead.
Hasn't lost any sleep over the incident.
Winners? His wife and the rest of the night club patrons and staff and New Guinea in general.

Hi there PAUL1405...

Indeed, for any copper to shoot and kill another, whatever the circumstances, is most certainly a career defining moment. In all Australian jurisdictions the judiciary are always very suspicious of taking a human life. Even in circumstances which have shown police have acted in a correct, lawful, and even in a heroic manner.

And as I said earlier, I consider myself very fortunate indeed not to have been placed in a position where it was necessary to shoot another person. I came quite close on a few occasions, but fortunately it never actually happened?

A half century on, I still have negative reminiscence from my military days. I need only hear the familiar sound of 'rotor wash' to cause a very stifling response. An adverse sensation of a type, I'd never wish it, to revisit me, especially when a copper.

Dear Is Mise,

You wrote;

“The report said that he had a gun and his right hand is not visible,”

What report?

As an aside;

American suffers a horrific mass shooting in a cinema.

In order to defend himself against such an attack a man arms himself with a pistol to go watch a movie.

Man accidentally shoots woman in the back in the cinema.

Who are the winners in this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/26/man-who-feared-mass-shootings-brings-gun-to-movie-theater-accidentally-shoots-woman/

This is what you would want for Australia?

SteelRedux,

The report (written words) that accompanied the video.

No one was a winner in the example that you give, but one could provide plenty of instances of like happenings, such as home invasions where the victim was injured by the criminal, and was thus the loser and the police were not there to protect said victim.

What I want for Australia is sane gun laws, not the mish-mash of so called National Gun Law which sees it as an offence in WA to possess an inert brass cartridge case, i.e, one that has been fired or has never been fitted with a cap, whereas in other states it is not an offence at all and one is free to use one on a pencil or as a whistle.

No comment on the unlawful possessing an umbrella for self defence against an irate magpie?

How about a reference or two to your earlier assertions?

I agree with you completely IS MISE; there should be total regulatory consistency with all types of weapons. Including firearms and other 'proscribed weapons' of all descriptions, types and configurations. In order they may be properly regulated and policed. Your example of an unfired case, is quite typical of the 'mish mash' legislation that currently exists from State to State.

As an example edged weapons:- Most of the States permit the ownership of double edged knives, save for Victoria, where it's been deemed through regulation, a 'proscribed weapon', thus illegal. Therefore one may possess a double edged knife in Albury, however should he cross the Murray, he can be locked up for possession? National consistency is the most sensible answer? Yet the annual Police Commissioner's conference, fails to address such anomalies leaving police with a haphazard set of laws with which to operate?

Less social functions, all at the taxpayers expense, and more time dedicated to establishing machinery to make policing just a little easy to accomplish, without all the red tape that currently exists now.

It should be noted, edged weapons of all types and all configurations are now the weapons of choice for most youths, louts and gang members, all out to intimidate and stand-over others in the community. I'm sure all of you can recognise just how dangerous these weapons are, even in the hands of someone totally untrained in their respective uses.

Dear o sung wu,

You wrote;

“It should be noted, edged weapons of all types and all configurations are now the weapons of choice for most youths" ... "I'm sure all of you can recognise just how dangerous these weapons are, even in the hands of someone totally untrained in their respective uses.”

A couple of years ago I attempted to go to the assistance of a policeman who was dealing with chap late at night who turned out to be a psych patient drugged out his mind. He was flailing away though I thought the copper was handling the situation really well. I went for this blokes arm and held it for a bit, but I lost my grip when the copper tried to swing him to the ground. To cut a long story short neither the policeman or myself realised in the dark he was actually being stabbed with that very arm. Neither of us saw the knife. The copper nearly lost his life.

The policeman was in uniform but unarmed. To this day I struggle with what happened, thinking how I might have done more to stop him being hurt. I now know what a stabbing action looks like and it isn't what you see in the movies. I also know how quickly things can escalate, when a seemingly benign situation turns to life-threatening in seconds, and how thoroughly dangerous knives are.

You have talked about your battle with PTS. I have had a small glimpse of it after this event where one moment I would be fine then the next I would be a mess, absolutely rock bottom, seemed to come in waves. Really struggled for a month thinking I had failed the officer. Was offered psychological help but declined. It was my cousin, also copper, who talked me through it and I will be forever grateful.

I understand yours is far more long term and orders of magnitude greater than what kicked me around and I found it really brutal going, so I can only imagine what you've dealt with.

My opinion is, people only need to service each others needs by a fewer number of people in predominately unskilled industrial machinery society. Left over employment needs are hamburger industry workers. After fast foods, left over employment fend for themselves crime, ice selling drugs and other illegal activities.

A society of everyone has a gun US America, frustration of an unfulfilling life, rage media, my description of a service industry economy.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7167&page=7

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

From what you've said you've nothing whatsoever to reproach yourself about, concerning the level of aid you provided the copper. In fact there are many instances where the police are left on their own whenever there's a need to apprehend a violent offender, with many people preferring to just stand around idly watching as the events escalate. I guess it's down to human nature, not to get involved, when the physical stuff arises.

I suppose as humans we always wonder whether we could've done more in such circumstances? I was on day shift (detectives) doing a 'foreigner' and the radio called for the 'closest member' to attend a small suburban park.

Being just up the road, I (reluctantly) called it in. There, I saw this bloke in his fifties, well attired in a dark business suit, laying at the base of a tree, apparently insentient. There also was a middle aged woman kneeling by his side holding his hand. She told me she had seen him exit this well known restaurant across from the park, and he appeared to have stumbled and fell, whereupon he started vomiting until he lost consciousness. She wasn't in his company nor did she know him.

I did the usual - checked vitals; absence of a pulse at the neck and wrist; placed him in the coma position; loosened clothing at his neck; quick check of his airways; an onlooker called the Ambo's. while I commenced CPR. When the Ambulance attended, they took over, and he was later conveyed to hospital.

Enquiries later revealed the man died, as a result of suffering a myocardial infarction. Complicated by a partially blocked airway? Some remnants of food were later found lodged at the back of his throat, and had not been properly cleared prior to commencing CPR. Though evidence taken at the Coronial enquiry revealed this partial blockage, no mention of culpability or carelessness was attributed to anyone, nor was it 'stated nor inferred'. But I knew the truth?

o sung wu,

It was once the legal duty of citizens in NSW to go to the aid of a policeman if need be, a few years back this law was removed from the books.

Back in the early 1960s a soldier (who was later a Sgt/foreman alongside me; he had the Fitting Shop and I, the Machine Shop), and his mate went to the assistance of a Constable who was getting the worst of it from 5 or 6 thugs, near Town Hall Underground. The two diggers waded in and evened things up but the 'troops' arrived and bundled them into the paddy wagon along with the attackers.
Fortunately the Constable came to and said something to the effect that the diggers saved him.
The were quickly released, with apologies, and subsequently received a commendation from the Commissioner along with a copy of the letter that he sent to AHQ requesting that their actions be noted in their records.

Hi there IS MISE...

You're quite right. Under the Crimes Act 1900 a constable may direct a citizen to render him aid, if he was being assaulted, or in an imminent breach of the peace. I'm not sure if this provision has been repealed or is still to be found in the statute? Our old mate CHRISGAFF1000 would probably know, as he was a former police prosecutor.

I reckon most decent blokes would help a copper if he was getting a real kicking, you don't need to be able to handle yourself, just be prepared to help out in some modest way?

Sounds like you had nothing to blame yourself over either. No pulse at all? How on earth did the coroner determine this the food had any impact whatsoever?

The main thing that I felt guilt over was not realising the policeman was unarmed. It was dark and I was taking my cues from him. I was too hesitant when I went for the other bloke's arm because as I said I had thought the copper was trying to disengage and de-escalate the situation, particularly since he hadn't resorted to baton, spray or even something more lethal. I really didn't want to bugger it up but thought I had to help. Turns out I should have gone in harder, I just didn't think he'd be in uniform but without any standard issue gear. Found out later he was on his way back from a court case in another town.

After realising he was wounded he dialled it in telling them he had been stabbed. I got him to open up his vest and let me have a look while he kept an eye out for the bloke with the knife. I told him he needed to get off his feet and he handed the phone to me, the operator said I needed to make sure the blood was not gushing. Seems if the spleen is punctured then bleeding out is a serious possibility (turned out later it was lacerated), so I took him to the headlights to check, then to the rear seat of his patrol car getting him to lie down. He dialled his wife to tell her what had happened. Meanwhile I'm trying to be as clear as possible about the location to the operator and keep an eye out, but was at a loss with what to do next.

Cont...

Cont...

Cars had kept flying past without stopping when suddenly a ute pulls up and a chap in a jacket leans out and asks me if he could help. I kid you not this is what I asked in return, “Are you a doctor?” The answer? “Yes”. The timing of this fellow was immaculate. Enormous relief.

The cavalry arrived about 3 minutes later and the policeman was on a chopper being airlifted 10 minutes after that. I gave a preliminary statement then went home. It was very sobering to find his blood on my clothes.

Even writing this now I'm getting down on myself for not being immediately aware of what was occurring that night. I felt I was 5 seconds behind on everything and failed to ever fully catch up. If I had been more on the ball at the start I might have help stop at least some of his wounds. Possibly a little irrational but that is how it is.

Some on the forum hold the view "The police can do no wrong." This false notion has been knocked on the head, time and time again. At the moment in NSW two former police officers Roger Rogerson and Glen Mc Namara are facing the most serious of charges, the murder of Jamie Geo a student and drug supplier. Recently we had an inquiry into police bugging st the highest levels within the force. I acknowledge that, the vast majority of police are honest hardworking people doing an excellent job for the community, but that is not to say anyone of them is above reproach and therefore incapable of doing the wrong thing. Given the susceptibility of humans, and police officers are as human as you and I, to at times, do the wrong thing, and the need of the community to have an honest and uncorrupted police force. When serious allegations have been made against officers nothing less than an open, transparent and impartial independent inquire will do, in all these cases police investigating police is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.
In 2014 there was a strong push in Queensland for an independent inquiry into police shootings after 6 people were shot in 8 months. There are numerous examples Australia wide where an open, independent inquiry into police action has been warranted, in the public interest, yet has not been forthcoming.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/queensland-police-shootings-to-be-reviewed-after-four-deaths-in-two-months

Paul1405,

I am a strong advocate for accountability. However where causality is concerned and for simple practical reasons, I believe you may barking up the wrong tree demanding that another independent body be set up with the necessary investigation skills and powers of the police.

In the case of the disgusting, infamous offender, Martin Bryant (Port Arthur), who was taken alive but is a good example to consider. The authorities and his treating doctors were well aware before the event of the extreme stress, fixations, blaming and possible (probable!) reactions of a man with marginal IQ. He wasn't mad, but those with marginal IQ require the strong set routine of a sheltered workshop where they can be occupied, observed, counselled and calmed the major part of the day.

However, for dumb-arsed differing ideology and rationalisations both of the major parties stupidly followed the example of their equivalents in the UK and sold off the Commonwealth government's rehabilitation and mental health facilities, forcing mental patients back into the care of already stretched families. Before the sales and divestments there were places for the Bryants and others to be taken by families and police where necessary.

Many are convinced that John Howard was at pains to avoid a Royal Commission or any formal public inquiry into the Port Arthur slayings because it would reflect very badly on government and political decisions and administration. As well there was the problem that the weapon used had been legally handed in to police prior as part of an amnesty.

None of that excuses that noxious grub Bryant, who chose to commit the crimes and made plans to do so. He should rot forever in gaol without the attention the feckless media regularly give him and in so doing risk encouraging a copy-cat one day.

tbc..

contd.

In other jurisdictions and the US is an example, it is recognised that mentally incompetent and mad people along with those suffering from depression make up a sizeable proportion of the offenders police may be forced to kill. Suicide by police bullet is apparent too.

If it is to be believed that police cannot be trusted to investigate police, they surely cannot be trusted to fulfill their normal duties either. However I believe there is abundant, irrefutable evidence that it is very easy indeed to set up and manage independent, rigorous and exhaustive investigation by taking police from different commands, and by having a special unit within the force.

Police investigating police. I don'y buy the economic argument that there is a cost involved and therefore its better to have an internal investigative body and save money. In NSW with a force of about 17,000 people an independent investigative unit is warranted, as it is federally, and in other states. No matter how detached an internal unit is from the main body, there is always going to be a perception of bias as police investigate police. Whether that bias is intentional or accidental it is always going to be there no matter what. Remembering to that often these inquiries are of a most serious nature, involving the loss of human life. In such circumstances only the most open and independent inquire will do.

Paul1405, "there is always going to be a perception of bias as police investigate police"

Perhaps among the easily influenced and the oppositional disturbed who are forever confronting authority. Dishonest headline hunting politicians prey upon them, making them more confused and angry against the world.

It is not smart to stir up youth to be angry and distrusting of government and legitimate authority. Better to encourage young people and show them how to participate in their community and work together with others for a good result. -More civics and less confected outrage is needed.

The Greens will always struggle for credibility where they prefer the easy path of garnering that few percent of votes from fomenting protests, instead of coming up with real policies, integrated, costed and budgeted for.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

It's of little value to you, if people continue to reassure you, that you did everything possible to provide assistance in the circumstances, and you don't believe it yourself? And yet after all this time, you continue to remonstrate with yourself, 'that I could've done this, or I could've done that'. Be content with the knowledge, you tried to do something. Much more than many others in our community would've done, I can assure you of that STEELEREDUX!

The instance I'd described earlier, though I (think) I did my best, I failed to properly clear his airway, and that was a serious error. His mouth contained a fair quantity of vomitus as well, the food particles apparently, were lodged well back in his throat near the root of the tongue.

I believe it was probably my unwillingness to deal with all this 'muck' in and around his mouth, even though I did ultimately commence CPR in a timely manner. It's my understanding most uniformed patrols carry plastic CPR depressors, which fits over an adults mouth, alleviating the need to make any contact, with the patient. Thereafter I nearly swallowed a full bottle of Listerine, one of the less pleasant duties I've needed to perform, still?

Beach, "easily influenced". "confronting authority", "stir up youth",
"distrusting of government and legitimate authority ".You indicate a willingness to support a complaint, unquestioning and submissive society. In your ideal there is no mention of checks and balances, no mechanisms to question government authority, no questioning of decisions which undermine democracy, at all. The danger is the erosion of civil liberties by that very authoritarian regimes you might see as legitimate government.

Hi there PAUL1405...

While it might appear the coppers get away with just about anything, you'd be surprised at how invasive and thorough their various internal investigations are? The auditory processes the average copper must submit himself to, is astonishing as well as draconian. He doesn't enjoy the same legal protections a normal citizen takes as a given. And he's compelled to answer questions that are put to him - in other words, the burden of proof is reversed, he's considered guilty, until proven innocent?

The number of IID's I've had to contest personally, would knock out a brown bull! One extraordinarily frivolous complaint, it was alleged by this women, that I was speeding in an unmarked police vehicle? When my advocate asked how could she be so sure that it was me driving, she said she recognised me from a media photograph that had been shown in the previous nights evening news? The only small error in her account, I happened to be overseas on rec. leave at the time of this alleged offence. Oh those heady days of being a policeman Paul!

Hi o sung wu,

When dealing with the public you will always from time to time have complaints lodged against you. Greater the number of people you interact with the greater the number of complaints. One of my sons is a public bus driver, and from time to time, at least once a year there is a serious complaint lodged, which he has to answer. Considering the number of passengers he would transport per year, many thousands in fact, and given the number of crazy people that use public transport, the percentage is very very small.
When you are in a job like that of a police officer, and you have to confront people in a way that is necessary, and often adverse to them, there is a high likelihood that people will take their anger and frustrations out on you, through the complaint mechanism, and certainly that's not always justified. People working for 'Centrelink' can attest to that fact also.

Where I want an independent body investigating complaints against police, is only those of the most serious nature, including instances resulting in the loss of life or serious injury, and those of great public interest. I see your case as an internal matter only.