"A senior policeman has defended the actions of fellow officers who shot dead a teenage boy at a skate park in Melbourne's north last night, claiming the youth said "I'm going to kill you" before he was gunned down.

The boy has been named as Tyler Cassidy, 15.

At a press conference this morning, Assistant Commissioner Tim Cartwright said the officers had been confronted by the knife-wielding boy at the All Nations Park in Northcote.

Assistant Commissioner Cartwright said the boy had threatened the officers with knives while saying to one officer, "Kill me, I'm going to kill you."

He said the threatened officer backed away into a stairwell. The cornered officer then fired on the boy as did two others as they tried to defend their colleague.

Assistant Commissioner Cartwright said the police officers had done everything they could before opening fire on the youth.

"I don't think the police were trigger happy but that's why we have the coroner," he said.

"The members have reacted as we would want them ... they've ultimately had no choice."

He said it was not known how many shots were fired and the incident was over in a matter of two to three minutes.

The teenager is believed to have stolen two knives from a nearby Kmart after threatening staff.

Assistant Commissioner Cartwright said the youth had earlier tried to take kitchen knives from his home but his family had disarmed him.

He said there was no suggestion the boy suffered from mental illness or was drug-affected at the time. It was not known what had triggered his rage.

"The family's rightly very, very upset," he said.

Police were called to the Northcote Plaza Shopping Centre car park about 9.20pm yesterday after receiving up to four calls from the public about an agitated male carrying knives.

Assistant Commissioner Cartwright said the officers - two female constables, a leading senior constable and a senior constable -  had tried to calm the armed teenager who ran a short distance to the skate park before approaching one of the police officers and threatening to kill them.

Seconds after a warning shot was fired into the ground, three of the officers shot at the youth who was standing up to 14 metres away.

"This is a dreadful tragedy,'' Assistant Commissioner Cartwright said.

He defended the actions of the officers and said they had been trained to fire at the central body mass rather than shoot to wound.

"The movies would portray that you can shoot to disarm people. That's not our experience. These are events that are life-threatening. People are extremely nervous, agitated, scared."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/kill-me-ill-kill-you-shot-teens-warning/2008/12/12/1228585078632.html?page=2

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't know if they have a shoot to wound policy, but he had the cop cornered anyway. we cannot expect the police to put themselves in even greater danger in these situations.

Someone waving a knife at armed police threatening to kill them is a serious health hazard.

I would not do it !!!!

In fact I think he is a candidate for the Darwin awards.

mantra wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 12:40pm:

" He defended the actions of the officers and said they had been trained to fire at the central body mass rather than shoot to wound. "The movies would portray that you can shoot to disarm people. That's not our experience. These are events that are life-threatening. People are extremely nervous, agitated, scared." http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/kill-me-ill-kill-you-shot-teens-warning/2008/12/12/1228585078632.html?page=2

Yep, that's what they are trained to do and rightly so. Was it justified? I guess there will be an investigation but on what has been presented then that would be the expected outcome. Calling the individual a child is probably generous.

Chopper Read was as big if not bigger than most men at 15 and quite dangerous. Cornered in close proximity to a knife weilder that is physically capable of killing or wounding you accompanied with verbal intent to do just that. Do ask the criminal to fill out a personal history questionaire or do you decide it's better for his family to grieve rather than yours.

Natural Selection at its best.

Quote:

Chopper Read was as big if not bigger than most men at 15 and quite dangerous. Cornered in close proximity to a knife weilder that is physically capable of killing or wounding you accompanied with verbal intent to do just that.

He might have been small and skinny.  It's a wonder the police haven't got some sort of net they can throw over people - or dart guns.   The Victorian police will probably be supplied with Tayser guns now if they haven't already got them, but they are renowned for shooting a lot of people.

I find it difficult to imagine that 4 properly trained police couldn't overpower a 15 year old.  Three of them opened fire - but then again they probably weren't much older than the victim and panicked.

They could have overpowered the kid. But they might not have. That's the point. They might have died trying. The police have every right to put their own life first. They are not there to help knife wielding maniacs. They are there to protect everyone else from them. They did not panic. They did exactly what they are trained to do.

It's really sad, but in that situation I think they did the right thing. He didn't go down after getting the pepper spray, so I think that says something.

On tonight's news, they reported that he subscribed to a white supremicist group, and that he had threatened others with the knifes before the police arrived, and also that he shouted that he wanted to die.

Now if I was faced with a crazy person with a knife, who says they want to die, then I would certainly be prepared to shoot them if I felt I was in imminent danger.

That is the call that the police made, and if the reports are correct, it does seem justified.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 7:34pm:

On tonight's news, they reported that he subscribed to a white supremicist group, and that he had threatened others with the knifes before the police arrived, and also that he shouted that he wanted to die.

Quick, check - are we missing any regular posters from the multicultural board?

Surprised me till I heard it was the Vic police...

You gotta wonder where common-sense comes in or does it give way to police procedure instead.

muso wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 9:46pm:

mozzaok wrote on Dec 12th, 2008 at 7:34pm: On tonight's news, they reported that he subscribed to a white supremicist group, and that he had threatened others with the knifes before the police arrived, and also that he shouted that he wanted to die. Quick, check - are we missing any regular posters from the multicultural board?

Did you check under your bed and in your closet for wacists before you went to bed last night, Muso? ::)

Rubbish!
What sort of a cowardice police force do we pay for who cannot disarm a 15 yr old kid?
No, he wasn't even a particularly well built 15 yr old.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/kill-me-ill-kill-you-shot-teens-warning/2008/12/12/1228585078632.html

"He said the threatened officer backed away into a stairwell. The cornered officer then fired on the boy as did two others as they tried to defend their colleague.

It was in a skate park! Where did the cornering occur?

If you listen to this video in the link below, you'll hear the Freudian slip by the assistant police commissioner  "It's dreadful that we use ...umm err..lose young people in any circumstance...."
And if you look at the scene, you'll realise that the police action was reprehensible and unforgivable.
It was after 9pm at night, there wasn't much public danger....not many kids were skating in the dark.
They drum him up as a white supremicist....hmm... very topical.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/teen-shot-dead-by-police-20081211-6wtt.html

Give me a simple baton, and I'd take on a kid with a knives well before ever thinking of shooting to kill. And also without even thinking that there were 3 other trained police officers present to subdue the situation.

This is simply a precurser to the widespread introduction of tasers.
But would tasers have been a better option in this situation? I doubt it. Batons would be far more effective.
And a better option would have been "net guns". This kid would've been easily immobilised with 4 officers firing net guns on him - no bravery or morality required.

For the police who commited this heinous act, I hope they go crazy trying to live with their subserviant actions. They deserve it.

It's the apathetic public who continues to fall for this continuous cycle of :
1. Political and media drumming for more control in a certain area.
2. An event which supposedly justifies the beating of the drum.
3. Public acceptance and submission.

It's as easy as 1,2,3 to control us free Australians with this simple technique.

But not the Greeks it seems.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28131093/

Amadd wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 12:00am:

Rubbish! What sort of a cowardice police force do we pay for who cannot disarm a 15 yr old kid? No, he wasn't even a particularly well built 15 yr old. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/kill-me-ill-kill-you-shot-teens-warning/2008/12/12/1228585078632.html "He said the threatened officer backed away into a stairwell. The cornered officer then fired on the boy as did two others as they tried to defend their colleague. It was in a skate park! Where did the cornering occur? If you listen to this video in the link below, you'll hear the Freudian slip by the assistant police commissioner  "It's dreadful that we use ...umm err..lose young people in any circumstance...." And if you look at the scene, you'll realise that the police action was reprehensible and unforgivable. It was after 9pm at night, there wasn't much public danger....not many kids were skating in the dark. They drum him up as a white supremicist....hmm... very topical. http://www.theage.com.au/national/teen-shot-dead-by-police-20081211-6wtt.html Give me a simple baton, and I'd take on a kid with a knives well before ever thinking of shooting to kill. And also without even thinking that there were 3 other trained police officers present to subdue the situation. This is simply a precurser to the widespread introduction of tasers. But would tasers have been a better option in this situation? I doubt it. Batons would be far more effective. And a better option would have been "net guns". This kid would've been easily immobilised with 4 officers firing net guns on him - no bravery or morality required. For the police who commited this heinous act, I hope they go crazy trying to live with their subserviant actions. They deserve it. It's the apathetic public who continues to fall for this continuous cycle of : 1. Political and media drumming for more control in a certain area. 2. An event which supposedly justifies the beating of the drum. 3. Public acceptance and submission. It's as easy as 1,2,3 to control us free Australians with this simple technique. But not the Greeks it seems. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28131093/

I also thought it was quite strange that the police shot down the teenager. Particularly when all he was holding were a couple of knives.

Don't they have martial arts training or something?

Quote:

Don't they have martial arts training or something?

I believe that they do get some basic martial arts training, but you wouldn't need 4 Jackie Chans, or even one, to take down a kid without murdering him.
Notwithstanding, the police officers would have to be complete untrained bozos not to have come preprared for the situation.

This was murder in the first degree. The officers involved should be locked up for life.

Amadd wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 1:04am:

Quote: Don't they have martial arts training or something? I believe that they do get some basic martial arts training, but you wouldn't need 4 Jackie Chans, or even one, to take down a kid without murdering him. Notwithstanding, the police officers would have to be complete untrained bozos not to have come preprared for the situation. This was murder in the first degree. The officers involved should be locked up for life.

Indeed. The least they could have done with the bullet was wound the kid.


Perhaps the police had an agenda?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24693072-421,00.html

Quote:

The least they could have done with the bullet was wound the kid.

That would mean using common sense. Police are not trained to use common sense, they are trained to be robots and should be punished accordingly by the free thinking public who control the use of force and it's discretion - Don't we?
The police get pictures of a head and torso to shoot at, nothing else. They don't see anything else.

It's easy to miss the obvious when you're trained to look elsewhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvKUqmEiA3E

Quote:

It's the apathetic public who continues to fall for this continuous cycle of : 1. Political and media drumming for more control in a certain area. 2. An event which supposedly justifies the beating of the drum. 3. Public acceptance and submission. It's as easy as 1,2,3 to control us free Australians with this simple technique.

Yes we are pretty controlled by the government & its departments, but we have so many minority groups here now and a lot of them are dangerous.  Most of the senior police have left the force and the young ones are mainly running the show - many of them with very little experience.  

In this instance I don't think the public will accept this shooting - remember the outrage when they shot that French bloke with a knife on some beach a few years ago.

This incident will ensure that all police will be armed with Taser guns - but even they can kill.  I've never heard of a net gun before - but it could have been used for this boy.  It's easy to say he was a supremist - but he was only 15 and boys are into all sorts of stuff at that age - nothing is permanent in their lives.  

Victoria Police have also had their fair share of inquiries (Beach et al). Criticisms centred around the fact that Victoria Police members were fatally shooting members of the public (both innocent and guilty) at a rate exceeding that of all other Australian police forces combined.

Mostly the deaths were alleged to be due to ineptitude and mistakes on the part of members - but others were said to be deliberate executions. These views were fuelled when various members of the Armed Robbery and Homicide Squads were charged with murder-related offences after Armed Robbery Squad detectives shot Graeme Jensen while trying to arrest him. The Police Association campaigned on their behalf, and the charges were withdrawn from 7 of the 8 men charged. The officer who fired the fatal shot was acquitted by a Victorian Supreme Court jury in 1995. Wiki.

Looks like nothing much has changed.

Quote:

In this instance I don't think the public will accept this shooting

I don't know mantra, there doesn't seem to be much fight left in our society these days.
The powers that be must be in awe of themselves at how easily they've managed to bamboozle the public into obedient submission. We accept all sorts of things which would've been seen as outrageous just a few years ago (Pre-Howard).


Quote:

but he was only 15 and boys are into all sorts of stuff at that age - nothing is permanent in their lives.

I agree, but death is pretty permanent.

So, we'll get the tasers, and eventually they'll be used indiscriminantly for all types of situations.
If the cops had've used an ounce of common sense, there would be no (renewed) call for tasers.
This kid was used very effectively.

..And here they come now.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24789143-5005361,00.htmli

Quote:

What sort of a cowardice police force do we pay for who cannot disarm a 15 yr old kid?

They did disarm him, very effectively. They prevented him from stabbing anyone. For a crazy person who doesn;t get slowed down by pepper spray, that is a pretty good outcome.


Quote:

It was in a skate park! Where did the cornering occur?

In a stairwell.


Quote:

It was after 9pm at night, there wasn't much public danger..

Except of course for the psycho wandering round with a knife threatening to kill people.


Quote:

Give me a simple baton, and I'd take on a kid with a knives well before ever thinking of shooting to kill.

That's why you aren't in the police force. Only an idiot would take on a knife wielding maniac with a baton. Even if you did come out on top, you'd still probably have serious or fatal injuries. You would be a liability to the police.


Quote:

But would tasers have been a better option in this situation? I doubt it.

So it doesn't bother you that the kid died?


Quote:

Batons would be far more effective.

Except for the dead cops. Do you understand the difference between shooting someone and hand to hand combat?


Quote:

And a better option would have been "net guns".

Right, let's call in spiderman next time there's a villain on the loose.


Quote:

Don't they have martial arts training or something?

Not really. They are taught to avoid getting killed on the job. This isn't a movie.

If you dont want to be shot by the police, dont attack them with knives.

It's a pretty simple philosophy that most of us can live by.

I'm intrigued that pepper spray didn't stop the kid. I've spoken to cops who were sprayed with it as part of training and they've told me you're literally blinded for a couple of minutes after it hits your eyes and can't really function for at least 15. Was the kid wearing goggles?

Quote:

Not really. They are taught to avoid getting killed on the job. This isn't a movie.

Thanks for letting me in that little gem of wisdom.

They killed a child. The murdering officers as good as dead now anyway.

Yes I agree that shooting the probe type tasers would've been a good option in that situation.
The point is that this will be used as  "See? I told you so, we need tasers" situation.

They said they tried the capsicum spray and it didn't work.
I suppose that's only good for tennis crowds hey?

Yes I believe that net guns should've been part of the arsonal and should've been tried first before anything else.
With 4 nets over him, that kid wasn't going anywhere in the first place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfa_Di26HM4

What we have now is a situation where tasers will be introduced and carried by every police officer.
But they won't be just be the probe shooting type, they will be the "press to the body" type which would've been pretty much useless in this situation.
Anytime they wish to arrest an unarmed person, it will be zap and handcuff.


Quote:

They did disarm him, very effectively. They prevented him from stabbing anyone. For a crazy person who doesn;t get slowed down by pepper spray, that is a pretty good outcome.

Now it's my turn. This wasn't a movie, it was a 15yr old kid and 4 brave (????????) police officers couldn't disarm him rather than be child killers for the rest of their miserable worthless lives.
Stairwells in skate parks don't lead to nowhere. The officer had an exit.
It was after 9:30pm at night in a skate park, there probably weren't even any "real people" around to witness the event.

Give me a simple baton, and I'd take on a kid with a knives well before ever thinking of shooting to kill.


Quote:

That's why you aren't in the police force. Only an idiot would take on a knife wielding maniac with a baton. Even if you did come out on top, you'd still probably have serious or fatal injuries. You would be a liability to the police.

I'm not in the police force because I chose not to be.
Of course it's not the preferable option to take on a kid with a baton, but I'm damn sure that I'd do this well before shooitng to kill and having to live with that.
A baton can reach much further than a knife. It wouldn't take anyone special to able to win in that situation, especially against a much weaker kid.


Quote:

So it doesn't bother you that the kid died?

I'm absolutely outraged.

Quote:

You would be a liability to the police.

Those police officers, and to a lesser degree, many of them right through the system, are now a liablitiy to society.

They could've acted humanely and they know it.
They could've used courage and they know it.

When this kid's story of personal problems comes out, it will be even worse. Much much worse.
So much so that I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of these officers eventually tops themselves.
But if they don't, and they somehow struggle by with the fact that they have done something that most humans would consider unimaginable, they'll be nothing more than a liability to society.

An interesting question:

Just where was this kids so-called "Human Rights" under the Victorian Labor Charter of Rights???

Did he have a "Right" to a fair fight, 'Rights" to justice before a court of law, did his guardian/parents have a 'Right" to be called to the scene with the prospect of diffussion?, did his mates at the scene have a "Right" to intervene? Did the cops have a "Right" to kill at will? did negotiators have a "Right" to given time to arrive; Is State Machismo a "Right"??? Does a juvenile have a "Right" to shoot his mouth of under duress, without being shot???

"Much of the Labor Party push for human rights protections is focused on the Victorian model after Victoria became the first Australian state to enact a charter of human rights in 2006. This rejects the US model of having courts strike down laws that contradict such rights and requires only that courts issue a non-binding declaration or opinion that laws are inconsistent with the legislated rights charter. The onus then lies on the executive and parliament to amend the laws or stand as human rights abusers."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24791480-7583,00.html

The answers are self-evident .

Bleeding hearts.

Yes it is a shame.

If he was twenty would it be less of a shame?

If he had got away and killed somebody would it have been less of a shame?

If they had tried to disarm and been killed themselves, would it have been less of a shame?

The fact of the matter is that people do not know how they will react in extreme circumstances, some cope, some go to water, that is why police have to undergo assessment and training, so to assume that you could have done better is merely wishful thinking.

He was clearly deranged, and I can tell you from experience that crazy is scarier than tough.

Knives can be thrown, as well as used for slashing and stabbing, if it had been my son or daughter in the position of the police, I would tell them that their first duty was to protect themselves, and innocent citizens, not knife wielding criminals.

We all think it is a shame, but to attack the police like you are doing, without any idea of what they have to deal with in general, and this case in particular, is grossly unfair.

Just think if you had a family member there, would you want to risk their life in the hope that maybe you could catch this troubled youth without him being hurt?

I doubt it.

Your attack is far more cowardly than what you accuse the police of.

Every time they are called out they don't know what they will face, but they do it to protect us, they sure as hell have the right to protect themselves.

Quote:

Bleeding hearts. Yes it is a shame. If he was twenty would it be less of a shame? If he had got away and killed somebody would it have been less of a shame? If they had tried to disarm and been killed themselves, would it have been less of a shame?

Bleeding hearts?
No, it's bleeding obvious.
That's quite a lot of ifs there.
And what if the police had tasers?

Then again, what if the police used their common sense that four of them could easily overpower and disarm a knife weilding crazy kid without the need to kill?

I'd expect that anybody who joins the police force would be prepared to put themselves in personal danger at some stage. The same goes for the armed forces.
The methods which they used obviously lacked both courage and compassion. They should've failed the police psych. test in the first place.

These kiddy killing dogs now have to live with their own personal laws by which they are ultimately governed.
If that isn't worth an ounce of courage, then nothing is.
The Victorian police training has failed them dismally.

You have no right to make those judgements, and offensive statements, from the relative safety of your keyboard ammad.

They did not screw up the kid's head, they did not make him a confused and angry young man, they did not make him try to hijack a car with another kid in it, who luckily escaped him, and his violent attack.

I feel for the mum, but have to admit thinking that if responsibility for the kid's disturbed temperament belongs anywhere, it is with his homelife, not the police.


They just had to deal with it.

You say you could have done it better, an easy thing to say, harder to back up.
Unfortunately for those poor officers, they had no choice, and even you would have to admit that the last thing they would want to do, would be to have to shoot someone, but they did not create the situation, they just had to respond.

And what if we lived in Greece?

Greece rocked by second day of anti-police riots

By Dina Kyriakidou and Renee Maltezou

ATHENS (Reuters) - Thousands of youths rampaged through Athens and the northern Greek city of Thessaloniki on Sunday, burning dozens of shops and vehicles in a second day of rioting after police shot dead a 15-year-old boy.

Greece's worst protests in years erupted in the capital late on Saturday after the shooting of the teenager, and quickly spread to Thessaloniki and the tourist islands of Crete and Corfu.

In central Athens, glass, debris and charred cars were strewn across streets choked with tear gas. Few pedestrians ventured out, holding handkerchiefs to their faces.
Residents in the bohemian district of Exarchia where the violence erupted left candles and flowers at the spot where police shot the boy, identified as Alexandros Grigoropoulos.
"The whole neighborhood is smoldering, they even burned the post office," said resident Nefeli Chlideris, 25, a student. "Now we keep the windows shut because of the tear gas." ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4B601720081207?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Police are not going to be trained to knife fight/disarm a knife to a degree where they are totally professional at it. I think it goes you run from a knife and you disarm a gun, because you can't outrun a bullet. Not sure.

If some kid got pepper sprayed and didn't go down, he was either on stimulants or psychotic.

You do not shoot to wound. You shoot to kill. Pepper spray and batons are there for wounding.

It's sad, but the cops didn't do anything wrong, but only if the newspaper reports are true of which there is a good chance they aren't.

Quote:

You have no right to make those judgements, and offensive statements, from the relative safety of your keyboard ammad.

Yes I do. It's in our constitution.


Quote:

They just had to deal with it. You say you could have done it better, an easy thing to say, harder to back up. Unfortunately for those poor officers, they had no choice, and even you would have to admit that the last thing they would want to do, would be to have to shoot someone, but they did not create the situation, they just had to respond.

Did they want to shoot people before the public outrage at the sheer amount of people being killed by the Victorian police? Yes, some of them like to shoot people.

Did you not look at the scene of the crime? The time of the crime? The weedy young kid?
Four fifth graders could've taken him out without even so much as a baton.
I don't need to physically put myself in that situation. I know, without a shadow of a doubt that I wouldn't have shot to kill.
But the Victorian police force are an arrogant trigger happy lot who want tasers as further testament to their rule over the general public.
Pretty soon they'll be indiscrimantly zapping people left right and centre just for kicks. I know them. A lot of them are absolute pigs.

I was not talking about your personal freedom to be a goose, I was talking about having the moral right to unfairly judge, and condemn, "individual" police officers without knowing anything about what they faced.

You seem to have a chip on your shoulders when it comes to authority figures, which I am sure you feel is justified, but you don't know the officers involved, and your stated views about them, as individuals, are offensive.

Quote:

Yes I do. It's in our constitution.

It is? What is in our constitution? Like you'd know.

And what do you care about our constitution. You are just part of the great spoiler jihad that criticises all of our institutions and beliefs to white ant it from the inside.

What a load of crap that four officers, without tasers, could have disarmed a guy armed with two knives. Someone could easily have gotten a knife in the throat trying to take him down. What training or experience do you have to say that? None I'd expect.

If you pull a knife on cops, then expect to die. If you'd like not to be shot by the police, then leave the knives and other weapons at home.

It's always a tragedy when somebody's son dies, but on the positive side, somebody's father didn't die, and had this kid lived, he might have inflicted even more grief on many others during his lifetime.

So - always look on the bright side of death.... tada tadatadatada  

Quote:

I was talking about having the moral right to unfairly judge, and condemn, "individual" police officers without knowing anything about what they faced.

I got to know them well enough as a kid when put through mental torture by them, and then being left high and dry for doing nothing more than the "right" thing. They cost me years of fear until I got old enough to be confident enough to protect myself without a weapon.

IMO they cease to be individuals as soon as they join the force. I can spot one in or out of uniform a mile away, and so could most people.

I didn't have much of an opinion on this case until I saw the scene of the crime and the kid involved. They seem weak as piss to me to choose the option of taking out the kid and having that on their conscience - if they have one.



Quote:

And what do you care about our constitution. You are just part of the great spoiler jihad that criticises all of our institutions and beliefs to white ant it from the inside.

I'm saying that there's far better options than training officers to shoot to kill in every hairy situation. One or a few shots, with a net gun probably would've worked with having to get too close.
Yes I care about our rights being taken away.
Now go away and annoy some muslims.

Quote:

One or a few shots, with a net gun probably would've worked with having to get too close.

They didnt have a net gun. Batman wasn't available either.

I noticed that you dodged what I said about the constitution, you don't know anything about it.

Knife fights are not like the movies. They move really fast. And a knife in the throat equals death. The guy had two knives, one in each hand. Have you ever used a baton? I bet not. You can try to strike him hard once, do you hit one knife arm or the other? Do you hit him in the head and hope to knock him down?

Either way, to strike him you are moving into his strike zone, so he can use either hand to stab you.

How about you come back from Magic Fairy Land and think about what its like to confront an armed attacker with two knives, before you pontificate as the Chairbourne Commando about how you would have shot the knives out of his hands with your Batman Netgun.

Quote:

A baton can reach much further than a knife.

I can't believe you are still suggesting the police should have gone down that path. What sort of risk do you think the police should have taken? Do you think it is 100% certain that they could disarm him with a baton? Would you be happy with a 10% risk of death every time an officer encounters this situation? Maybe a 5%? You seem to be under the illusion that whatever training police recieve is going to guarantee them the ability to disarm a knife wielding maniac without injury to themselves. That is just absurd.


Quote:

When this kid's story of personal problems comes out, it will be even worse. Much much worse. So much so that I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of these officers eventually tops themselves.

Now your just being melodramatic. Of course the kid had problems. Should the police put their life at risk for every person with a problem?


Quote:

But if they don't, and they somehow struggle by with the fact that they have done something that most humans would consider unimaginable, they'll be nothing more than a liability to society.

Most would not consider it unimaginable. I consider it perfectly reasonable. I would do the same myself. If you point a gun at someone and they keep coming towards you, you've got no choice but to pull the trigger. You don't pull a gun unless you are rpepared to use it, otherwise you just get yourself killed. I'm not sure what kind of fairytale world people think these cops work in.


Quote:

Did he have a "Right" to a fair fight

Hell no. He had a right to die. he certainly didn't have a right to pull out a knife and threaten to kill people with it. This was not a matter of justice, it was a matter of self defence.


Quote:

I know, without a shadow of a doubt that I wouldn't have shot to kill.

Crap.


Quote:

How about you come back from Magic Fairy Land and think about what its like to confront an armed attacker with two knives, before you pontificate as the Chairbourne Commando about how you would have shot the knives out of his hands with your Batman Netgun.

Don't you mean spiderman? Does batman have a netgun as well?

Quote:

Don't you mean spiderman? Does batman have a netgun as well?

Batman has a netgun. I think spiderman just has a webgun.

http://members.fortunecity.com/kainwind/archive.html


Quote:

Batnet Gun: fires bola or net

From: The Great Batman Equipment Archive

And this crapola about 'I wouldnt have shot to kill' is exactly that. Probably never fired a handgun in his life.

Shooting guns doesn't give you the ability to be able to kill someone. There are plenty of target shooting pacifists.

You don't have to have shot a gun to know in your heart you wouldn't have shot to kill.

However I think the police are trained to shoot to kill, it's their orders. I've heard stories though if there are multiple cops they will aim at kneecaps also, as long as someone is on the torso or head, but if they are taught that I don't know.

Kill/incapacitate.

Don't give me this twat about Batman and magic fairyland Calanen.
And I didn't say that batons were the preferable option, I said that I could and would use a baton in preference to shooting to kill.
Believe me, I've been through the system (on the right side of the law) and they don't give a rats rosy ringhole about "individuals" on either side of the law.


Quote:

I noticed that you dodged what I said about the constitution, you don't know anything about it.

Do you seriously expect me to quote some condensed version of our constitution when even high court judges can't agree on it?
If you're such the expert, then you tell me our constitution, and I'll bet that I can find an argument which disagrees. But please use another thread.

OK, so you poo poo the idea of net guns. Then how about the dog squad?
They've been used very successfully in exactly this type of situation. The police knew the situation before arriving, so where was the dog squad?
I'll tell you where they were - they were resting in their kennels not very far away at all from the Northcote shopping centre.

"Tyler Cassidy was shot and killed by three officers in a skate park after allegedly threatening to kill them with two knives.

Ms Cassidy says her son was a fragile boy, a boy with needs and wants who needed protection.

She says she called police 30 minutes before the shooting and gave a description of her son's appearance, age and the direction he was heading in.

Ms Cassidy told police he was clearly distressed and asked to be phoned when he was found safely.

Tyler was believed to have been upset at the anniversary of the death of his father who died two years ago of cancer.

"He was surrounded and gunned down by four officers firing at least 6-7 shots," the statement said.

"An eyewitness confirmed Tyler patted her dog and was confronted by police and sprayed with capsicum foam, then pursued to the skate park, surrounded and hunted down."

Friends and family gathered at the scene of the killing today, one posting a sign saying: "Murder in the law is still murder."


From my (less dangerous) experience, I'd really hate to be that eyewitness. I really wouldn't expect to be hearing much more about that one!
The police and the system only put me in a 50% chance of personal harm as a 15yr old boy.
This eyewitness has a 99% chance of life destruction if she continues.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=696655

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24788737-2,00.html

The mother gave the police ample warning - it's not as if they were caught unaware - they knew exactly what they were up against and had time to work out a strategy.

He was 58 kg and 166 cm and a child.  I do have some sympathy for the police generally and know at times their work is difficult - but this boy had 10 bullets pumped into him.  What excuse could they possibly use for this sort of reaction?

Where do you get help when your child becomes out of control?  The mother thought she had done the right thing and her son would be caught and subdued through negotiation or physical restraint - not bullets.

It's a bit like the parents of Scott Rush from the Bali 9.  Yes he was going to do the wrong thing, but the parents contacted police in advance to get them to stop him before he committed a crime and look where he ended up.  He was used as bait by the Federal Police

What does a parent do?  Many will now be wary to contact the police and ask for help if their child's behaviour becomes unpredictable - yet human nature being the way it is, no matter how well you raise your child - he/she can still go off the rails or become emotionally disturbed at certain stages in their life.  

This boy was so distraught that he was begging the police to shoot him and they did.  

Amadd wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 11:58pm:

Don't give me this twat about Batman and magic fairyland Calanen.

Hey you brought up Net Guns, not me. If Doc Holliday was there, he could have shot the knives out of his hands as well.


Quote:

And I didn't say that batons were the preferable option, I said that I could and would use a baton in preference to shooting to kill.

Quote:

Believe me, I've been through the system (on the right side of the law) and they don't give a rats rosy ringhole about "individuals" on either side of the law.

What does that even mean? You went and watched court one day in the public gallery? You got called as a witness in a traffic accident.  What training or abilities do you have to say that this was the correct or preferable option? None.


Quote:

I noticed that you dodged what I said about the constitution, you don't know anything about it.

Quote:

Do you seriously expect me to quote some condensed version of our constitution when even high court judges can't agree on it?

No you referenced the constitution, and then were called on why it backed your argument. But it was just the 'vibe' apparently, because you don't know.


Quote:

If you're such the expert, then you tell me our constitution, and I'll bet that I can find an argument which disagrees. But please use another thread.

I am an expert. But I dont work for free.


Quote:

OK, so you poo poo the idea of net guns. Then how about the dog squad? They've been used very successfully in exactly this type of situation. The police knew the situation before arriving, so where was the dog squad?

How do I know? Maybe they werent available.


Quote:

I'll tell you where they were - they were resting in their kennels not very far away at all from the Northcote shopping centre.

You dont know that, they might have been on an operation. Or no handlers were about. You wouldnt call the dog squad out unless they were needed to find someone usually. I imagine they went to the park expecting a 15 year old kid to be a bit stroppy, and then taken him into custody without a problem. I doubt they were expecting to be attacked with two carving knives.


Quote:

Tyler Cassidy was shot and killed by three officers in a skate park after allegedly threatening to kill them with two knives. Ms Cassidy says her son was a fragile boy, a boy with needs and wants who needed protection.

Boo hoo - so he gets to attack cops with knives because his dinky had a flat tyre. Things are rough all over.

Although it was a screwed up situation, I think of these points when it comes to martial arts:

- Martial arts doesnt make someone invincible.
- Even an expert at knife fighting can get cut or stabbed by someone swinging wildly so of course you'd want to back off.
- It happened in a few seconds and people are often trained to fire a few shots at a time (i think) since a few small bullets aren't always gauranteed to take someone down. Four cops shooting two or three rounds each with no time to coordinate taking turns firing, would make ten rounds fired.
- You fight with what you have, not what you'd like to have.
- People always aim for the torso because it's actually not that easy to hit someone's arm or leg like in the movies.

I don't think that anybody is suggesting that they should've called in Chuck Norris (he's a bit old now anyway), but like Mantra said, they had ample time to devise a better strategy. The dog squad being just one option that I could think of as a layman.
Net guns, although poo pooed heavily, would've worked as well, but dogs probably would've been the logical option.

The eyewitness said that the police surrounded him and hunted him down. This is more believable to me than the average rosy perception of the average police force member. Especially the Victorian police.

If I deal with the police in any way shape or form, in or out of unifrom, then I expect to be controlled. They are not my friends.i

As far as I know the dogs in the dog squad are trained as sniffers, not as ball tearers. In any case they would not have been available. Do you think the knife wielding maniac (and to suggest he was anything less is naive) would have agreed not to stab anyone for half an hour while they bring in a dog to drag him down? Do you think the police planned for this lunatic to turn on them after pepper spray had failed? Can you imagine the cries of anguish if the police started setting dogs on people?

The net gun idea belongs in comic books, not in the real world.

Lots of good ideas in the real world have been adapted from science fiction.

Police have dogs for different things, general dogs can track and restrain/attack, things like that. They can even teach dogs to climb ladders.

They're not supposed to put a dog in a life threatening situation if they can help it though I do recall a situation where a guy armed with a knife was set upon by a police dog which he stabbed and killed.

Perhaps they should train the dogs in kung-fu, the use of net guns and negotiation strategy. Like Rex. He can knock people down just by jumping over them and brushing them with his paws. And he doesn't get distracted by naked women either, unless they're eating a ham roll. That's why they call him a good friend.

Quote:

I am an expert. But I dont work for free.

If you aren't willing to share your knowledge for free, then why bring it up? You just profess to be the expert and everybody is supposed to bow to your superior knowledge.


Quote:

You went and watched court one day in the public gallery? You got called as a witness in a traffic accident.  What training or abilities do you have to say that this was the correct or preferable option? None.

Do you always answer your own questions? Yes you do.

I'll tell you why I have a chip on my shoulder from just my very first experience with the system, although I'll have to omit quite a bit to keep it shorter.

As a 14yr old boy, I witnessed an event regarding a shooting where a man was left in a wheelchair for life.
To do the "right" thing for myself and for the system, I voluntarily approached the police and told them what I saw - an unavoidable mistake on my part, because this is who I was at that time.

Although I'd have much rathered been playing cricket with my friends, I was happy enough to spend about three hours filling out police reports.
A couple of days later, I was taken to a line-up to point out the person in question.

I expected the two way mirror like I'd seen on TV, but it was nothing like that.
Out the back of the run down police station, they had a bunch of similar looking blokes standing there expressionless in front of me. I immediately recognised the person in question and told the police that this was the guy that I saw.
This wasn't good enough. "No", said the policeman, "You've got to go closer and point at him".
My hand was shaking like a leaf as I pointed at the suspect.
"No" said the policeman. "You've got to get closer".
This continued until I eventually pointed to within an inch of touching the suspect on the chest.

When the first court case come around, I was dragged out of class unannounced to attend a county court hearing. This was on my 15th birthday. I expressed to the police the fears that I was feeling about this and asked if I could just go back to school. Policeman chuckles.
On the way to the county court, the police stopped at another police station for some reason and left me sitting there for what seemed an eternity.
The court case was pretty unnerving, but I said what I had to say.
I heard nothing after this, but was taken out of class for some additional statements at some other stage.
My closer friends knew as much as me as to what it was about, but I was the talk of the school for awhile because of the rumours that circulated.

The case eventually went to the Supreme court. This time I was given notice, but I had to make my own way there.
When I arrived, the witnesses and the jury were in the foyer chatting together, so the case was adjourned until a new jury was gathered a few weeks later.
When the time come for me to give testimony and point out the person in question, he wasn't there. The policemen who were either side of him looked around the courtroom with bemused looks on their faces as to where the accused was - he was sitting on the floor behind the stand.
They dragged him up so that I could point at him and give my testimony.

I heard nothing more about the case except for what I followed up for myself.
He got off the charges on the grounds of insanity and he went back to his residence just a few blocks from my house.

I heard nothing more from the police, but I very regularly saw the shooter.

Not surprisingly, I was a bit scared that he was going to come after me.
I spent lots of nights alone in those years, and although I put on an act that I wasn't worrying about it, I was.
I kept weapons under the bed, and I had everything planned in advance for when he would come to get me.
Any larger than usual creak of the house or unusual noise outside would wake me from my sleep and put me into my plan of action.
The summer months were particularly memorable when the house would creak more than usual.

Eventually I grew a bit more confident that I could take him on if needs be, and in later years I learned that he
had died from a drug overdose. My reaction was neither here nor there, I didn't really care.

In retrospect, I vowed to always look the other way.

The police always come aknockin' when they want money or a pound of flesh - They can go bugger themselves.

A respected police force should IMO happily put themselves in a 10, 20, or even 50% change of danger if their intentions are true.
They put me in that situation as a boy trying to do the right thing without so much as a phone call to see how I'm going.

And before you say..ohh boo hoo because I had to live in fear for a few years, it's just a situation which I could've easily avoided by going to the park to play cricket. The result of the court case would've been exactly the same without my involvment, but I wouldn't have seen how they treat people trying to do the right thing like pieces of meat which they own.i

I'm surprised they didn't put him in an institution. Isn't that what usually happens when people get off on the grounds of insanity?


Quote:

A respected police force should IMO happily put themselves in a 10, 20, or even 50% change of danger if their intentions are true.

Yeah, good luck with that. You could come up with a new police recruitment campaign, guaranteeing them a 70% chance of living to retirement, plus the warm inner glow they get from wrestling with drug addicts so they can get the help they need.

I'll agree with Amadd that there are too many cops who are scum. They are a necessary evil though.

The situation they put you in (by not doing anything) was pretty bad. Cops love lying to the young, naive and inexperienced.

Quote:

I'm surprised they didn't put him in an institution. Isn't that what usually happens when people get off on the grounds of insanity?

Mental institutions in Victoria?
They cost money you know.
I think they were still around in those days, but were being phased out. He must've been under the care of his parents who he lived with.


Quote:

Yeah, good luck with that. You could come up with a new police recruitment campaign, guaranteeing them a 70% chance of living to retirement, plus the warm inner glow they get from wrestling with drug addicts so they can get the help they need.

The point is that if it's good enough for them to put me (and who knows how many others?) in a dangerous situation for free, then they can damnwell accept a few dangerous situations themselves.
It wasn't meant to be realistic.

I agree that they're a necessary evil.

And suppose the cops did use their batons, they would be looking to take him out as quickly as possible. In other words, they would be swinging for the head, hard enough to knock him out cold. They probably would have killed him anyway. Might as well use a gun.

Quote:

If you aren't willing to share your knowledge for free, then why bring it up? You just profess to be the expert and everybody is supposed to bow to your superior knowledge.

I am an expert, and I have certificates issued by the state and the Commonwealth to prove it. You brought up the constitution, but couldnt back it up with anything on the lame basis that 'high court judges disagree, so mer mer mer blah blah'. You don't know, so say, I dont know. And we move on.

So you had a bad experience being a witness. They do treat witnesses like scum, and I would never be one unless I could not avoid it. Never go witness protection - they dont protect you for long.

Only until the case is over. Then you are on your own. And they dont care.

But thats everyone, everywhere. Sooner you realise that, sooner you can get on with life instead of expecting everyone to be fair, and kind and look after you.

But as for this clown - he pulled knives on cops and died. To be expected. Not the cops fault, on their crappy pay, im gonna expect they should take a carving knife to the throat? Yeah right. I would have blown that kid away too - if I was the cop. Im not going to be a pin cushion just because that kids had a hard life.

As I said above, things are rough all over.

Isn't this where the term 'suicide by cop' comes from?

Amadd do you know any good lawyer jokes?  ;)

Quote:

But thats everyone, everywhere. Sooner you realise that, sooner you can get on with life instead of expecting everyone to be fair, and kind and look after you.

Well I told you not to give me this boo hoo crap, but you couldn't help yourself could you?
I was stating just one reason why I don't expect help from the police, or anyone else for that matter. And yes, I learned at a young age that being a witness isn't a good idea.


Quote:

You don't know, so say, I dont know. And we move on.

Is it really that important to you that I state that I know nothing about the constitution? I know just a little, but ours is a very fractured one and it's hard to decifer just which laws are constitutional and which aren't.
For instance, legislations have been thrown on top of legislations which weren't even lawful in the first place.
They still continue to call councils local government when we've had referendums knocking back any recognition of them in our constitution. The most that I know about it, is that we're being bluffed out of our rights.
So tell me your pearls of knowledge about it for free or shutup about it.


Quote:

Not the cops fault, on their crappy pay, im gonna expect they should take a carving knife to the throat? Yeah right. I would have blown that kid away too - if I was the cop. Im not going to be a pin cushion just because that kids had a hard life.

Just because people accept that things are often tough and unfair, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't strive for something better.
I don't think it's a good idea for our society to be too accepting of this event.
The Vic. police have a reputation for being trigger happy, and it doesn't hurt to throw out a few suggestions or ask questions.
Yes my criticism of them is a bit harsh, but I've experienced a lot of crap from them, so that's what they get from me in return.

And why not use the dogs? They would've been well suited to this situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRC06MUWfAMi

Quote:

Amadd do you know any good lawyer jokes?

Heres one:

A man went to a brain store to get some brain to complete a study. He sees a sign remarking on the quality of professional brain offerred at this particular brain store. He begins to question the butcher about the cost of these brains.

"How much does it cost for engineer brain?"

"Three dollars an ounce."

"How much does it cost for programmer brain?"

"Four dollars an ounce."

"How much for lawyer brain?"

"$1,000 an ounce."

"Why is lawyer brain so much more?"

"Do you know how many lawyers we had to kill to get one ounce of brain?"

Sorry for what happened to you Amadd but as far as I am concerned based on the story,lethal force is what was called for and was used. Even discounting the pepper spray part of the equation. Your type of stupid suggestions would be a danger to your partner and eventually the public at large.

The police ARE NOT trained to the level of the SAS and even they don't piss about in situations like this. The aimed at centre of mass and fired multiple rounds ate a young adult threatening people while declaring a death wish. Following your idiotic suggestions would have gotten someone hurt that didn't deserve to be.

Maybe we should train an army of monkeys to take down knife wielding lunatics using non-lethal force. Bonobos would be good. They are well known for their peaceful methods of conflict resolution.

Quote:

The police ARE NOT trained to the level of the SAS and even they don't piss about in situations like this.

Obviously they didn't piss about, and the SAS are trained to singlehandedly cope with a knife attack against something much larger than a weedy kid.

If this kid was as crazy and deranged as you believe he was, I'd think that the capsicum foam was the most most idiotic idea.
But they did get close enough to foam him, and the kid get close enough to the woman witness to pat her dog without stabbing it.
So the situation must have escalated after he was sprayed, and then as the witness said, he was surrounded and hunted down.

One of the deciding factors to shoot may possibly have been that two of the officers were women. Not that I'm against women in the police force, but maybe they should be held back from front line danger.

If you consider that had the scenario gone a different way and one of the officers suffered lacerations while disarming the kid because they didn't want to kill him, do you think a bravery medal or an idiotic medal would be in order?
Or maybe he was just bluffing and he may have dropped the knives when rushed.
But we'll never know because police training doesn't allow for bravery of this type.

If you then consider other options that may have been used if the force gave a poo about avoiding killing whilst keeping at a safe (nanny) distance, I'd put them in this order: Police dogs, probe shooting tasers, net guns and lastly pepper foam. And there's probably loads more options available.
But they went out there fully prepared to kill and they must've escalated the situation by stupid actions.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. You think three did the right thing and one did the wrong thing, I think that one did the right thing and three did the wrong thing.

Can I just add something.......

I am not sure, because I don't know, if some SASR soldiers receive advanced knife fighting training, but I do know that some, who have received promotions, have not received any knife 'fighting' (different to killing) training.

Quote:

So the situation must have escalated after he was sprayed, and then as the witness said, he was surrounded and hunted down.

That's an odd way of saying he tried to stab a police officer.


Quote:

Not that I'm against women in the police force, but maybe they should be held back from front line danger.

You can't do that. The police don't know where the front line is. You can't ask a knife wielding maniac to hold off while they bring in the real police to shoot him.


Quote:

But we'll never know because police training doesn't allow for bravery of this type.

Which is a good thing, because there is a fine line between brave and stupid.


Quote:

If you then consider other options that may have been used if the force gave a poo about avoiding killing whilst keeping at a safe (nanny) distance, I'd put them in this order: Police dogs, probe shooting tasers, net guns and lastly pepper foam.

I think peperr spray is the best option.

I wouldn't know about all of them, but the ones in this video show how it's done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlkL6jJ0FhU

I don't know if the techniques work on weedy 15yr old kids vs. four defenders though.

That video is not the SAS in the sense of Special Air Service.


Quote:

SAS Self Aware Street training video. www.sas-defence.com

Their official training probably not(<-edit) going to be available for public looking anyway.

What they do in their own time is one thing, but, more than one, who has been promoted and not just a new guy, has not received knife FIGHT training.

School training vs street encounter with the unexpected... very different. You will also notice they probably train you to expect the enemy to be untrained.

Quote:

That video is not the SAS in the sense of Special Air Service

Yes I didn't look at the title properly.

This one has some British SAS hand to hand combat.
Pretty much the same ideas for knife attacks though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdglLS9WyWQ&feature=related

I'm sure you'd get hold of the full training videos if you really wanted them - for some reason.

The individual was dangerous and a fool, his ability to harm others has been dealt with appropriately in a situation of his own choosing.

As to him being "hunted down and trapped" that is just the emotional dribble that is professionally and tactically "pursuit and containment." As to bravery, police put there lives on the line all the time. Come home with broken noses and fingers or finish their shift in casualty. Grow up. An armed assailant was outgunned and I'm satisfied that that is what happens when you bring a knife to a gun fight.

Of course we could go down the SAS track. But just to let you know. There are two reasons for Ultra elite forces being so small in number. Attracting individuals willing AND capable of meeting those standards. And the enormous costs involved in training those individuals, millions of dollars each also the ongoing costs of maintaining that standard. Then the quality of pay would also come into the equation with full pensions for injured and murdered police and their grieving families.

See if that kid had killed a policeofficer that would have been murder while what thankfully transpired was a legal shooting.

Could've knock this kid on his ass with heavy arrow armed with blunt point from 10 meters or with spear shaft from 2 meters before he would move into knife range.
BTW, carving knifes are not as dangerous as boning knife, it take some force to stick carver throw heavy closing material, the kid obviously didn't know what he was doing or more likely did not have intention to kill.

Or they could have built a siege catapult and used it to hurl a big ball of clag glue at the kid. Then he would have come unstuck.

Amadd wrote on Dec 14^th, 2008 at 8:54pm:

Quote: That video is not the SAS in the sense of Special Air Service Yes I didn't look at the title properly. This one has some British SAS hand to hand combat. Pretty much the same ideas for knife attacks though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdglLS9WyWQ&feature=related I'm sure you'd get hold of the full training videos if you really wanted them - for some reason.

That's not SAS. Wrong head gear. Videos and manuals detailing their training is going to be more than secret.

A guy with the initials DO who didn't make the cut in Sydney at Mossman has been known to photocopy and distribute material from training manuals.

Just in case anyone was reading.

Next time the idiots probably will use nukes. ...ah well it is only Victoria. :D

Quote:

As to him being "hunted down and trapped" that is just the emotional dribble that is professionally and tactically "pursuit and containment." As to bravery, police put there lives on the line all the time. Come home with broken noses and fingers or finish their shift in casualty. Grow up. An armed assailant was outgunned and I'm satisfied that that is what happens when you bring a knife to a gun fight.

Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion.
My opinion is that it should've been handled much much better, as much for the police officers as for the child who was killed.
At least one of the women officers now has to live with the fact that she killed a mother's son.
And no I don't expect them to be SAS trained, I didn't even bring it up. But I'd expect that police training includes at least some basic knife disarming techniques, especially in Victoria where guns are at a minimum and other weapons would be more commonly used.

My beef is that I would've preferred to see them act more bravely for themselves, the community and the kid.
You're satisfied, I'm not...too bad.

"An eyewitness confirmed Tyler patted her dog and was confronted by police and sprayed with capsicum foam, then pursued to the skate park, surrounded and hunted down."

They're not my words.

Surely pitchforks, flaming torches and angry villagers should not be discounted. And there is never an aging delusional Spanish knight on a donkey around when to need one. Or the police could dig some sort of tiger trap with feaces incrusted spikes. Or offer him a $3 million a year exclusive councilling service at Delinquincy Hilton ala Western Australia.

or
(e) None of the above including bows and nets, but protect the public.

They are lucky not to shoot innocent bystanders or each other in the shooting spree.

You know what is easier than training to disarm a knife, especially when you don't have to be very bright to be a cop?

Stab proof vests and gloves.

tallowood wrote on Dec 14^th, 2008 at 10:05pm:

They are lucky not to shoot innocent bystanders or each other in the shooting spree.

More likely to have happened if they had done something ridiculous like shooting to wound.

easel wrote on Dec 14^th, 2008 at 10:08pm:

You know what is easier than training to disarm a knife, especially when you don't have to be very bright to be a cop? Stab proof vests and gloves.

These items are heavy and can hardly be expected to be worn all the time. So they have to take time out to get changed? Pity if you have to chase someone with the extra 20KG of chainmail. The gloves make it even more difficult to grapple with someone and what about the head, neck, groin, arms and legs. Major arteries run through the legs.

The other thing to consider is if police are going to such silly games as being suggested , and they get hurt while doing it, then it only makes it more likely that others will attempt it. If crims get the reality that they will be met with lethal force they are more likely to surrender. Afterall, that's what the idiot should have done and saved his own life. His choices means that his life is only worth a fraction of the polices' life and other innocents.

Am I glad he is dead? I don't know because I don't know if he would have gone out and harmed other people. Am I gunna shed a tear? No, if I do, then you know hell just had 12 inches of snow.

Stab proof gear is pretty light.

http://www.stabproofvest.co.uk/html/police_covert.html

Maybe it was different in your day?

I never said the cops were in the wrong shooting him.

Quote:

But I'd expect that police training includes at least some basic knife disarming techniques

It does contain knife disarming techniques. They are taught every safe option open to them - run, pepper spray, then shoot. That's more than enough options.


Quote:

They are lucky not to shoot innocent bystanders or each other in the shooting spree.

Another good reason for aiming for the torso.


Quote:

Stab proof vests and gloves.

I'd prefer not getting stabbed.


Quote:

Stab proof gear is pretty light.

You try walking around all day with all the crap the cops have to wear. You try shooting a gun, driving a car, operating a radio etc with a stab proof glove on. It's a stupid idea. It would put the public in greater danger. They should only have to carry what they need. They don't need stab proof crap, and it doesn't work anyway. They've got guns and pepper spray. The catapult idea is much more sensible.

List of rights protected by the Victorian Charter:-

Rights protected by the Charter are:
•      right to be recognised and equal before the law
•      right to life
•      right to be protected from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and not to be subject to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without consent
•      right not to be held in slavery or made to perform forced work
•      right to freedom of movement
•      right to privacy and reputation
•      right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief
•      right to freedom of expression
•      right of peaceful assembly and freedom of association
•      right of families and children to protection by society and the State
•      right to take part in public life
•      right of a person to practise and enjoy his or her culture, religion and language
•      right not to be deprived of property
•      right to liberty and security of person
•      right of a person deprived of liberty to be treated humanely
•      right of a detained child to be segregated from detained adults
•      right to a fair hearing
•      right of a person charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent
•      right not to be tried or punished more than once
•      rights concerning retrospective criminal laws.

http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/facs/bdb/fmu/service-agreement/5.departmental-policies-and-procedures/5.9-victorian-charter-of-human-rights-and-responsibilities

The Juvenile in questions' 'Rights" were clearly violated by the State.

Has the State violated the Charter for the 42nd time in a year?

He and his Family have the 'Right" to retrospective "justice".

He came quite obviously from a well to-do family, who would likely be well ignorant of the true nature of a Leviathan State such as Victoria, a Police state of reknown >(oxymoron not included).

It is likely, the brutal State easily exceeded its hand against the weak and innocent family.

Police training is likely suitable; nothing accounts for individual auto-machismo in a Leviathan State.

Right to life does not mean right to stab people.

freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2008 at 10:43am:

Right to life does not mean right to stab people.

Exactly!!

It is like the drunken idiots who claim " it's a free country, we have a right to play our music loudly a 3 am in the morning" have no concept of rights, because if they did they would understand that their actions are violating other peoples rights.

freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2008 at 10:43am:

Right to life does not mean right to stab people.

Hang on;

was someone stabbed?

Or are we quibbling about a mere State shooting?????

Right to life implies the right to self defence. That is what the cops did. You don't have to let someone stab you before you can defend yourself and the general public against them. Trying to frame this as a rights issue is clutching at straws. It is absurd.

right;

so according to 'rights' dispensationists and 'rights' pundits, one gives up ones right perhaps as soon as one walks out the door. Is that what you suggest FD?

Or, perhaps you are in defence of the State, the Leviathan state, or some near cousin. In any case, to suggest that the State is correct at all turns, and then to defend what ultimately is indefensible, really only makes Big Brother stronger.

Is it more true and correct that the State frame the incident in terms of 'self defence', this great and mighty infusion, armed and semi-dangerous at all times, rather than for once siding with the defenceless?

Seriously, it is a decrepit posture to take, that the VicPol were all affright, shaken and stirred to offence, against a wild upper-middle class student come homeboy.

Although I agree, there is probably an angle for the State to pursue in self defence, but really, the evidence is against them.

Perhaps the problem resided in expediency, and VicPol Command not wanting to be tied up in an icident for too long. Perhaps time got the kid killed.

And Politics will intervene, because 'Rights; were abused, and the kids 'right to life' was snuffed out by a posture too broad for any one player to carry. It is unlikely I reckon that in this case there was too much of a burden on VicPol to perform within the so-called :'Charter of Rights", which if we observe for a time, will probaly be disembowled and used to support the States 'Rights' to 'Self Defence"; forget the individual ones.

Ala Labor thinking.

It's simple. This is not a rights issue. Individual rights are just that - individual. They do not extend to trampling other people's rights. Never have done. Right to life does not mean you can't get yourself killed.

At least this Forum hasn't bought religion into this "event". Yet!   The Police do what they are trained and paid to do.

Go off half-cocked with knives and/or guns and threaten the public, cops get involved. It has nothing to do with your age or mental ability.  Cops are there to protect the PUBLIC not the individual.

I think too many people watch too many American TV Cop Shows.  ;)

PointDextrous wrote on Dec 15^th, 2008 at 3:30pm:

one gives up ones right perhaps as soon as one walks out the door. Is that what you suggest FD?

Where was that suggested?? That's a riduculous extension of the points that have been made.


PointDextrous wrote on Dec 15^th, 2008 at 3:30pm:

In any case, to suggest that the State is correct at all turns, and then to defend what ultimately is indefensible, really only makes Big Brother stronger.

How could it be indefensible, I have defended it. It may be that the details of the the story is wrong and will be shown to be wrong. But as the details stand at this time, a fair and justified action was taken. Interesting that the integrity of a knife weilding idiot is automatically given more credibility than the defenders. What's your agenda? Haven't attended too many victims of violent crime meetings?? Would I be guessing right?


PointDextrous wrote on Dec 15^th, 2008 at 3:30pm:

And Politics will intervene, because 'Rights; were abused, and the kids 'right to life' was snuffed out by a posture too broad for any one player to carry. It is unlikely I reckon that in this case there was too much of a burden on VicPol to perform within the so-called :'Charter of Rights", which if we observe for a time, will probaly be disembowled and used to support the States 'Rights' to 'Self Defence"; forget the individual ones. Ala Labor thinking ???????.

This is not a rights issue. Chartered Rights, Bill of Rights. These are all good things. But you should learn to understand what they are about and the spirit of these documents before you start quoting them.

Quote:

I think too many people watch too many American TV Cop Shows.

What are you talking about Neferti?
It could've been a scene from an American cop show called "dirty rotten filthy disgusting Harry".

It makes me wonder why the cops were called at all.
All the public needed was to have access to a gun and then choose somebody without a conscience to do the job.
Why do we need police protection for that?
Sorry, but their actions don't make me feel safe at all. I'd feel much safer if those cops (the 3 that shot) were behind bars.

If there is a vote, my vote is that the knife wielding idiot dies, not the cops.

It's amazing that everyone has become so domesticated that they live in La la land about the deadly danger of knife fights. Pulling a dagger on police in 19th century Sydney or Melbourne and being shot with a pistol, would have meant that the public wouldnt have batted an eyelid then, nor should it.

Now we get peace love and herbal mungbean PC wussies worried about the poor darlings rights who pulled knives on the coppers, whereas if the copper had've been stabbed and died (as some every year do die) that would have just been 's**t happens'. I dont like all police, ive met some terrible ones and some good ones. They mostly hate me because I defend bad guys. But they should have guns, and they should be able to use them when they need to without the idiocy of the general public talking about shooting people in the knee or other bs.

Pull knife on cops - and you die. It's that simple. We have so many better things to worry about.  If some guy is in a skate park or a shopping centre waving knives around, I *want* the cops to shoot him, rather than risk him sticking a knife into someone because he's having a bad day. And that includes the cops.

Its so frustrating hearing the dreamland people go on about rubbish. I imagine if it was their brother or sister that was the cop who got stabbed, they wouldnt be so understanding of people who attack the police with weapons.

hi,
under normal circumstances, i support the police in a case like this, BUT....
this sounds like they were just too lazy to wait around until this kid got tired.
One SWAT marksman could have easily disabled this kid, and not killed him.

the police involved should be charged with manslaugther and do time.
DR9.

You can't just wait around, either for the kid to come to his senses or the swat team to arrive. What if he simply ran off into a restaurant or house? It is an offence to carry a knife in public without a good reason. The police had a responsibility to get him to drop the knives, not to babysit him. You can't alter the responsibility of the police after the fact based on the outcome. Do you seriously suggest they let all people carrying knives and appearing to be slightly disturbed and threatening people to simply wander the streets till they drop it? Or should they check their crystal ball first?

The argument of la la land and fairytales which you use ad nauseam does nothing to state your positiion.

I agree that people have become too domesticated.
Domesticated, brainwashed and fearful. So, fearful in fact, that they don't accept the risk of living any more.
Rules and regulations beyond the scope of what could've been imagined 50 years ago in Australia are so rife that you've got to constantly ask yourself if BB allows this.


Quote:

Pulling a dagger on police in 19th century Sydney or Melbourne and being shot with a pistol, would have meant that the public wouldnt have batted an eyelid then, nor should it.

I'd think a (single) cop would be seen as a coward for shooting a 15yr old kid even with his pre-historic weapon that would be lucky to hit the side of a barn.

Granted, I'm on the outer spectrum of accepting risk in order to preserve freedom. And no, that doesn't mean I think it's ok for a kid to run around waving knives, it just means that I expect that kid could've been apprehended by non-lethal methods with some acceptable risk to the police and the public in that particular situation.


Quote:

whereas if the copper had've been stabbed and died (as some every year do die) that would have just been 's**t happens'.

How many cops have died? When they do, you hear about it.
From 1990 - 2005, nearly 500 people have died in police custody in Australia.

I really don't need that much protection that I need to accept a 15yr old kid being killed in that situation.
The system has the public running scared and has turned them into mollycoddled cowards IMO.i

Correct me if I'm wrong but were not pigs more equal then other animals in the "Animal Farm"?

Lets look at the facts. 1 kid weighing 58kgs weilding a knife or knives.
6 fatal shots pumped into his tiny frame from the guns of a police task force each averaging at least 75 kgs each at an estimate. Didn't they have any training at all in knocking a mild offender over with a good shoulder barge and a decoy tactic or at least a bullet in the leg? If I were police minister there'd be automatic suspension from the force for these officers, a thorough investigation and deep, deep regret that this incident ever had to happen. Rest in Peace Tyler**

Quote:

So, fearful in fact, that they don't accept the risk of living any more.

You seem to be the one unable to accept the risk involved in cornering an armed policeman with a knife. I'm not sure what sort of rose tinted view you have of the 'good old days', but no-one would have felt sorry for a kid who brought a knife to a gun fight. You are the one who seems to be living in fear. I'm not afriad. I'm not worried that the cops are going to kill just me just because I attack them with a knife. If you take on a cop with a knife, you can't expect any other outcome. Superheros are for comic books. Police are real people who aren't immortal and don't have a death wish. It is naive to expect anything else. The only people suggesting they should do more are too gutless to take on the job. They wouldn't last a week with that sort of naivite.


Quote:

Didn't they have any training at all in knocking a mild offender over with a good shoulder barge and a decoy tactic or at least a bullet in the leg?

Yes. They are trained not to do that. Shoulder barging a kid with two knives is just stupid. I don't know why people want stupid cops. I want smart ones who can think through the consequences of what they do, not simply hope for the best.

I agree. Pigs can not fly.

Quote:

I agree. Pigs can not fly.

...without a helicopter.



Quote:

I'm not sure what sort of rose tinted view you have of the 'good old days', but no-one would have felt sorry for a kid who brought a knife to a gun fight. You are the one who seems to be living in fear. I'm not afriad

I really can't say how the public would've reacted back then any more than you can. But I'd expect that they'd consider it an unfair fight.
What I can say, is that a Eureka Stockade type event could never happen today even if the public had good reason because we are now disarmed.
We're not even allowed to protect ourselves. We need to have faith in the police force to protect us, which I don't.

So am I afraid of the police? Yes I am.
I know that any contact with them at all will probably bring about a bad result for me.
I'd rather protect myself and take responsibility for my own actions thankyou very much.

I don't know how many children our police force have gunned down in the past, but I'd suspect that this case is pretty ground breaking for them and their Reichstag aims.
They've even managed to get women to kill kids without the larger public even questioning it. Now that's good!

Four police witnesses, one dead witness, and one civilian witness who said he patted her dog before being pepper sprayed, surrounded and hunted down.
Good luck with your faith in the police, they'll be there for you, right alongside God.

Amadd wrote on Dec 15^th, 2008 at 10:48pm:

You know how the government disarmed us, well, disarm the government. If you really need a gun, take one off a cop.

Tip: Do not go for the holster, they are trained to instinctively break an arm in that situation.

Just kidding, that's illegal. And too easy!

What dribble! The "kid" was a young adult not 6 years old. If he had such a substandard ability to associate cause and effect and consquences of actions then his parents need to answer some questions. So he patted a dog?? So what?? Hiltler loved puppies.

When I was 16 I weighed 63 kilos and could bench press 140 kilos.  Quite capable of taking on most grown men. Just not stupid enough or self involved enough to wave knives in public or police officers faces. Grow up, this idiot IS NOT A VICTIM. If you want to redirect your bleeding heart energies then participate with and support some real victims of crime.

So please cut the crap with this tiny frame BS, or get a job writting soap operas. I certainly feel safer with the type of police mentioned in the story than with any of you caped crusaders that have defended this young moron.

Hear, Hear, Locutius.

If these bleeding hearts want something to lay the boot into, then I would suggest they target the reasons that this particular lad became so disturbed as to arm himself, and threaten to indiscriminately kill people, rather than thoughtlessly attack police officers who would already be traumatised by the result of the incident they found themselves confronted with.

When he made his threat to kill people, and then went and stole knives, and then threatened innocent bystanders, even trying to hijack a car, and stabbing the passenger window of the car, which had a father, and son, in it, he lost the right to be considered "innocent", and had to be considered a very real, and very serious threat to public safety.

To suggest that the police officers are to blame for this incident, is terribly unfair, and if we are looking for somewhere to assign blame, then perhaps we should start looking closer to home.

Perhaps he displayed no signs of being disturbed, prior to this tragic event, but that would seem unlikely, and even though he is a victim, he is certainly not an  innocent one.

He had to be stopped from carrying out the threats, which his words and actions displayed, he was intent upon.
He could not afford to be let to escape to endanger the lives of really innocent people in the area.

While we all feel at least some sympathy for the boy, and his family, I have most sympathy for the police who had to face this traumatic situation, and will forever have to live with it's consequences, they just wanted to be able to do their job, and not be threatened with death or serious injury in the process, and that sounds fair enough to me.

Quote:

But I'd expect that they'd consider it an unfair fight.

People didn't whinge about fairness back then, especially on behalf of someone who takes a knife to a gun fight.


Quote:

I know that any contact with them at all will probably bring about a bad result for me.

Yes the police don't usually come knocking just for a cup of tea and a biscuit.

I also don't see what his light frame has to do with it. He wasn't threatening to punch someone. He was threatening to stab someone. Even a little girl is dangerous with a decent knife.

If the police had failed to stop this kid, then they would have been justifiably labelled incompetent. It was their job to stop him. They did the right thing. They protected the public.

Actually, now that you mention it, I do feel a lot of sympathy for this kid and his family. Tell you what we'll do. We'll pass the hat around, and with the proceeds we'll send flowers (nice ones) to the family of the now deceased yob (whoops damn dyslexic fingers I meant boy).

There (clink) that's my 20 cents. OK, who's next?

mozzaok wrote on Dec 16^th, 2008 at 11:35am:

Hear, Hear, Locutius. If these bleeding hearts want something to lay the boot into, then I would suggest they target the reasons that this particular lad became so disturbed as to arm himself, and threaten to indiscriminately kill people, rather than thoughtlessly attack police officers who would already be traumatised by the result of the incident they found themselves confronted with. When he made his threat to kill people, and then went and stole knives, and then threatened innocent bystanders, even trying to hijack a car, and stabbing the passenger window of the car, which had a father, and son, in it, he lost the right to be considered "innocent", and had to be considered a very real, and very serious threat to public safety. To suggest that the police officers are to blame for this incident, is terribly unfair, and if we are looking for somewhere to assign blame, then perhaps we should start looking closer to home. Perhaps he displayed no signs of being disturbed, prior to this tragic event, but that would seem unlikely, and even though he is a victim, he is certainly not an  innocent one. He had to be stopped from carrying out the threats, which his words and actions displayed, he was intent upon. He could not afford to be let to escape to endanger the lives of really innocent people in the area. While we all feel at least some sympathy for the boy, and his family, I have most sympathy for the police who had to face this traumatic situation, and will forever have to live with it's consequences, they just wanted to be able to do their job, and not be threatened with death or serious injury in the process, and that sounds fair enough to me.

Yes mate, thanks for providing some extra details here as well, besides the famous dog patting incident (I had to fight back tears at this touching scene). Of course if police dogs had been used who knows what this misguided miscreant Dr Doolittle may have been capable of.

Would love to see studies and follow information about where this behaviour comes from. It is very possible he was failed by something along the line and the most obvious place to start looking is with his parents and then his peers. The last place to look for blame are the police, that does not mean that questions should not be asked of them. What shouldn't happen is for scapegoats to be made of people doing their job in the appropriate and safe way.

Amadd, I can't speak as an authoritive witness od those part times but I can speak from a point of reality, and that is that the public discussion of a fair fight would most likely to have been non existant except perhaps amongst other criminal types bent by some warped code.

You have not elaborated as to the cause of your issue with police so I will not ask. You suggest that the animosity is without exception. I am aware of people of my aquataince that have the same difficulty as you claim. For them, only rarely is it undeserved and the police know the contempt is postponed merely because of need.

It is usually the overworked system that gives these complainers no satisfaction which ironically enough is the same overworked system that has allowed them to fly under the very same radar when they have ripped someone else off.

I want to deviate a moment on this debate since my last post on last page.

It makes a difference to certain debates knowing who is whom. I wonder how many defenders of the State shooting are BabyBoomers; furthermore, I challenge those to own up.

I am GenX.

Anybody else?????

I discourage people from making this personal. You should be able to criticise someone's opinion without resorting to ad hominems.

Thats non-acedemic, bias and aborts demographic analysis.

Guilt implied thusly.

:-*

If you think that your experience somehow makes you better qualified to grasp this issue, perhaps you should just explain, rather than expecting others to offer themselves up to your assumptions about age.

Thats like saying inexperience is a pre-qualifier for not getting a job.

A standard, decades long Baby Boomer oxymoronic system of exclusion.

Let them stand for themselves, if they have the 'skill'; otherwise they may speak freely (I presume) in their defence if they hereso reside.

But to refine the point a little;

I would not put to much store in what a BB has to say anymore. They are out of touch; even if they assert they are so imbued with exestential talent, and this the preserve of an exclusive work place or some grand life experience of which some might lorde others.

Chanting "skills" over decades has produced little of the same, only a repeat of the folly.

Skills shortage, dumbing down, call it wha t you will, its all the same. BB's and their stuff are fading, and there is nothing to fill the intellectual void, only copy-cat syndrome, and Mr Machismo of Unions Inc.

The free spirit tries hard, but without enough ladders to go round, finds the only rung to grab, is the one immediately available. Occasionally, one misses and falls, or is pushed, or is slapped off the ladder.

Dont expect BBGens to get on board with pluralcy of spirit, nor indeed of oppurtunity; confinement within a tight context of the State is a feature of that generation.

The juvenile in question certainly had his rights as espoused by the Charter; even if he attempted to throw them away.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it is the 'old timers' who have lost touch? Your post seems to be a collection of vaguely connected generalisations, lacking in justification. I'm glad no-one here offered themselves up for that sort of 'analysis'.

Quote:

It makes a difference to certain debates knowing who is whom. I wonder how many defenders of the State shooting are BabyBoomers; furthermore, I challenge those to own up. I am GenX. Anybody else?????

I'm a baby boomer - but I'm not defending the state shooting.  I can imagine if that had happened to my son at that age and how distressing it would have been.  He was a very angry boy at 15.  He didn't pick up a knife or fight with the police - but he did react very angrily under the slightest provocation and punched a few boys a little bit too hard.  

It is an age of turbulent hormones and confusion.  This boy was prone to fits of anger, but my firm belief is that this situation could have been handled differently - not having a round of bullets from 3 guns pumped into him.  He wasn't Rasputin.

People can make all the excuses they want to justify this murder, but if he was completely out of control - he wouldn't have stopped to pat a dog.  I don't believe 2 lots of pepper spray were used on him either.  

All the males who believe the police did the right thing - think back to when you were 15 and how turbulent your emotions were at that age. You might have got into some dicy situations, even arrested - but no one should expect to be killed.  

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2008 at 4:33pm:

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it is the 'old timers' who have lost touch? Your post seems to be a collection of vaguely connected generalisations, lacking in justification. I'm glad no-one here offered themselves up for that sort of 'analysis'.

Thats a generalisation; BBs' implies a specific generation, "old timers" can go beyond the generational markers. "War Timers" maybe.

I use 25 years as a benchmark, and include 3-5 years either side of center as definers, depending on the topic.

Quote:

but if he was completely out of control - he wouldn't have stopped to pat a dog

Not true. A moment of lucidity hardly cancels out his other actions. If he was not completely out of control, he wouldn't have stolen two knives. He wouldn't have threatened to kill people with them. He wouldn't have tried to stab an occupied vehicle with them. He would have come to his senses when he got pepper sprayed. Honestly, how crazy do you have to be for pepper spray to have no effect? He wouldn't have have advanced on the police with the knives. Whether he was completely out of control, 99% out of control, or stark raving mad doesn't make a difference. He had to be stopped before he killed someone.


Quote:

All the males who believe the police did the right thing - think back to when you were 15 and how turbulent your emotions were at that age.

So what? He still had to be stopped. I never went on a public rampage with knives. I doubt anyone else here did either. We certainly wouldn't have tried to take on an armed policeman. Whatever reason he had for being angry is totally irrelevant. Even if had had good reason to be pissed off it is totally irrelevant. He had to be stopped.

PointDextrous
Did you have a point in that pontificating jumble advocating superiority of your generation with complete disregard for what we are talking about and the points that have been made. Points made sensibly I might add, as opposed to your Salvador Dali type attempt at literacy.

PointDextrous states

Quote:

It makes a difference to certain debates knowing who is whom. I wonder how many defenders of the State shooting are BabyBoomers; furthermore, I challenge those to own up.

It doesn't make any difference to me who you are in a debate, it is what you are saying that matters.

Quote:

Thats a generalisation; BBs' implies a specific generation, "old timers" can go beyond the generational markers. "War Timers" maybe.

Baby boomers were born between 1946-1964 - they're not all quite over the hill yet.

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2008 at 4:41pm:

Quote: All the males who believe the police did the right thing - think back to when you were 15 and how turbulent your emotions were at that age. So what? He still had to be stopped. I never went on a public rampage with knives. I doubt anyone else here did either. We certainly wouldn't have tried to take on an armed policeman. Whatever reason he had for being angry is totally irrelevant. Even if had had good reason to be pissed off it is totally irrelevant. He had to be stopped.

Not sure what you want us to say here Mantra. Put ourselves in his shoes. Why? I am telling you that I think what happened is a reasonable expectation for that sort of rot. If you want to wear some shoes, try some on from real victims of crimes, that have lost people that were really murdered.

I will also tell you that the hiding I would have recieved from my father had I lived to make it home would have not had the benefit of death to ease the pain.

Quote:

Not sure what you want us to say here Mantra. Put ourselves in his shoes. Why? I am telling you that I think what happened is a reasonable expectation for that sort of rot. If you want to wear some shoes, try some on from real victims of crimes, that have lost people that were really murdered. I will also tell you that the hiding I would have recieved from my father had I lived to make it home would have not had the benefit of death to ease the pain.

Yes Locutius - the protection of potential victims of crime has to come first.  Maybe it does go back to his family and perhaps when he initially became so angry after his father's death they should have got help for him.

The whole scenario is just a travesty and too many lives have been affected - but theoretically we've got to look at the big picture - so the sooner Taysers are brought in the better.  It might save a few lives if nothing else - although I can just imagine how many people will be shot with these things.  The use of them would still be better than death.

As far as I can tell, no physical injury had (yet) occured. So the only real victims lie in the imagining of how events may have proceeded.
As far as I know, up until the point of his death, the only crime that had been committed was stealing knives, damaging property, scaring the public and threats to police officers (with no civilian witnesses on that one).
If tried and convicted of these crimes, he probably would've received juvenile detention. Most probably not a death sentence.

The ad nauseum statements about only caped crusaders being able able to pull off such an amazing feat as avoiding the killing of that child are ridiculous.
They wouldn't quite get their own comic strip called "The amazing four". I don't think it would sell many copies.

15yrs of age in the eyes of the law is a child, nomatter if he is built like a young Chopper Reid (as first assumed by locutius in his initial brainwashed imagining of the scene), or if he was smaller than the average 15yr old boy.
It turns out that he was smaller than average.

Media reports would've also conjured images of a hitler youth on some fascist rampage. This also seems very unlikely.
Other images conjured may include him coming from an uncaring crime ridden deadbeat family (which in itself certainly doesn't justify anything), but this was also not the case.
It might also be assumed through initial media reports that he had a long history of violence and mental disturbance.

Even if it is now accepted that this initial imagined picture that most of you would've had (if you were to be honest) turned out to be something very different, you'd still do your very best to find justification and maybe even try to convince yourselves that an eight year old girl should've been shot in that situation.
And if not, then why not?
The only point that you could come back to is "accepted risk".
To accept an eight year girl being killed in this situation, you would need to lower your point of accepted risk to the level of sheer cowardice and disgust. This is the level at which I see it now.
But I'm wondering just where you may draw the line...hmmm? 14yrs old and small? 10yrs old and large?
Where's your limit? Everybody who thought the killing was justified has one.

Gen X, but not by a long way.i

To late to try and turn it around now Ammad, most people did, and still do, think it was a terrible shame, but the fact was, it was the actions of this youth, in creating the scenario he did, that caused this tragedy.

You came out with inflammatory and downright offensive remarks about the police officers, not because you had any special insights, but because of your personal issues with authority, and assuming their response was therefore, cold, cruel, and heartless, when you had no valid reasons to make such assumptions.

The issue of when they would have to take such action is not a matter of weight, or height or age, it is about assessing whether a serious, credible, life threatening risk was involved, and the vast majority would agree, that in this case it was.

End of story.

I'd really like to hear where your accepted level of risk lies guys. It's important to me.
FD, Mozz, Muso, Locutius, Calanen?
I hope you give it some thought, because I'll try to grind you down even lower.

This story is full of negativism.
1 The kid is idiot because he took on pistol armed police with useless knifes.
2 Police are idiots because all they do is shoot to kill.
3 The kid's mother is idiot because she called to police.
4 Everybody in this discussion are idiots because they support 1 or 2 or may be 3

Let's look on the bright side.
There is an overpopulation issue, there are too many humans for the environment to support. The kid's killing is good for the earth environment. If the kid killed police it would be good for the earth environment. If anybody of us would get killed it would be for the earth environment.
Hey, it is always win-win situation if you look at things optimistically.

Nothing has turned Mozz, except that you admit that you won't answer. Ala BO.

You wouldn't want to be like that now would you?

Amadd wrote on Dec 16^th, 2008 at 9:07pm:

I'd really like to hear where your accepted level of risk lies guys. It's important to me. FD, Mozz, Muso, Locutius, Calanen? I hope you give it some thought, because I'll try to grind you down even lower.

??? It's important to you? Grind us down??? What are you talking about??

Present a detailed hypthetical and I might decide to play, otherwise as Mozza said "End of story"

A rather largely built 8 year old? Would that be OK?

He (or even she) could still quite easily kill with a knife.
Maybe even more easily than the 58kg 15yr old.

Personally, the age doesn't matter to me in this situation because I want to know beyond reasonable doubt that the intent was to kill people before the death penalty is imposed.
If he ran through K-Mart slashing boxes and not people, didn't slash the dog or it's owner, then I have reasonable doubt that the intent was to kill.

But for those who support your beloved police force without question, I want to know your age limit where the police actions are acceptable in this exact same situation.

I already put it in my last post.
In your haste to grind me down, you must have missed it.

When a serious, credible, life threatening risk is involved.

We do not need a hypothetical to assess that this was the situation that those police faced.

So in your facile attempt to extract a formula for when is a life threatening risk involved, let's just say it is when someone has the will, and capability to carry out their threats.

Your position is that this youth was incapable of carrying out his stated aim, mine is that he was, hence the police were justified, in my opinion, and that of the broader community.

Then any age or gender would be acceptable?
Is that your answer?
An eight year old girl even?


Quote:

We do not need a hypothetical to assess that this was the situation that those police faced.

You must admit that the crime itself was in fact hypothetical.

And when does the public need to accept some risk and display some bravery for the lives of children?

Edit....or at least some intelligence?

Quote:

As far as I can tell, no physical injury had (yet) occured. So the only real victims lie in the imagining of how events may have proceeded

.

So what? Are we to expect our police to not use forsight? Are they supposed to let knife wielding maniacs wander the street threatening people until someone is dead? Why do people seem to want stupid cops all of a sudden? It is a policeman's job to consider what maight happen if you let an enraged kid start stabbing people. They would be incompetent if they didn't show that forsight.


Quote:

The ad nauseum statements about only caped crusaders being able able to pull off such an amazing feat as avoiding the killing of that child are ridiculous.

No-o ne is saying that. What we are saying is that real people should not be expected to risk their own lives in this sort of situation. Obviously they could have, but that is not the point.


Quote:

15yrs of age in the eyes of the law is a child,

So what? It doesn't matter what age he was. What matters is that he was a threat. If a kitten was somehow a threat, by no fault of it's own, it would still be put down. It has nothing to do with innocence. Since when does being young mean he should be given a fair chance to stab a cop?


Quote:

turned out to be something very different, you'd still do your very best to find justification and maybe even try to convince yourselves that an eight year old girl should've been shot in that situation A rather largely built 8 year old? Would that be OK?

If an eight year old girl wasn't stopped by capsicum spray and tried to stab me I wouldn't hesitate to shoot her. The mistake you keep making is insisting this is about strength. It isn't. It is about speed, and an eight year old girl can be fast enough to do some damage. I've seen some pretty feral kids in my time, and I wouldn't want to touch them with a ten foot pole.

Quote:

If an eight year old girl wasn't stopped by capsicum spray and tried to stab me I wouldn't hesitate to shoot her.

LOL thankyou FD, at least you're honest.
Quite pathetic, but honest.

I'm just not naive and stupid. Can you imagine an eight year old girl not getting stopped by capsicum spray and then coming at you with a knife? Even if I used a baton I nwould probably hit her hard enough to kill her on the first swing, and hope like hell I didn't miss. If someone wants to kill you, and even an eight year old with a decent knife is more than capable, you don't mess around. Who cares whether they are innocent, or were bullied at school, or they're having a really bad trip on ice. Not me.

As an officer myself, (mind you only a security officer, but still) I can tell you that there is no justification in this circumstance for killing that child.

An idol threat is not a reason to kill someone. When I was trained, I was taught to use lethal and non-lethal force. And you should always lean toward non-lethal, even when your instinct tells you to go lethal.


Even if someone pointed a gun at me, it's my duty to simply subdue the perp, and protect the people around me. That's it. I'm not The Punisher..

I don't think this officer, or simaler cases do this on purpose as an abuse of power, I just think it's sheer incompetence. They were acting on their fears and not their training. And that's not a cop. That's a scard person who happens to be wielding a gun.


That's what seperates us from citizens. Our discipline, and our ability to keep a cool-head under preassure. If we can't do that, then we have no business wearing the badge.

So what would you actually do? The kid actually approached the officer and cornered him.

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2008 at 10:15pm:

So what would you actually do? The kid actually approached the officer and cornered him.

He should shoot to wound. Subdue the target and reduce the threat.

The kid was wielding a knife right? I don't know how tough you are, but I don't think I could lunge and stab someone if I got shot once or twice. Even if it was a non-vital area.

Good for you Jim.
If the intent is true, then you'd err on the side of personal risk every time, most especially when kids are involved.
And that does mean to sometimes forego the training and have some forethought about how you'd accept living with killing a person.
The public are quite capable of accepting risks, just as you are.

Well apparently they are trained not to shoot to wound, so it wasn't incompetence or lack of training. As far as I know that is fundamental to the use of guns - don't pull one unless you are going to try to kill someone. Otherwise you just get yourself killed in the end.

A wounded kid can still stab you, and the pepper spray thing shows that pain wasn;t slowing him down much. Remember the police have to deal with people on all sorts of drugs, many of which make them pretty much impervious to pain. Even 15 yo kids take them.

Another issue with shoot to wound is public safety. If 3 of your colleagues were scattered around the perp, would you want to risk shooting them as well? Or a member of the public?

Also, the fact that police only shoot to kill makes people a bit more responsive when they pull a gun.

You just admitted that you'd shoot an eight year girl FD.
Hello? Is there something you've missed here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvKUqmEiA3E

That was clever Amadd.  I'm not aware.   :D

Amadd wrote on Dec 16^th, 2008 at 9:07pm:

I'd really like to hear where your accepted level of risk lies guys. It's important to me. FD, Mozz, Muso, Locutius, Calanen? I hope you give it some thought, because I'll try to grind you down even lower.

That's a good question. The level of risk depends on a lot of factors. I'd agree with Jim that non lethal force would have been better in this case, however the perpetrator did have two knives, they had already used capsicum spray to no avail, and he was still a threat.

It's all very well to look back and do a detailed risk analysis, but when the pressure is on and time is passing quickly, there is not always enough time to assess the situation quickly enough. The risk threshold has to be lower in those circumstances. The acceptable level of risk has to be dynamic.

By the way, don't forget that the Baby Boomers were not exactly known for their respect of authority. Remember the Vietnam war, civil unrest, flower power. It was the age when people first started to challenge authority. The previous generation were the old school brigade that accepted everything that came from authority as gospel. Apart from that I'm met some 20 somethings who are much more conservative and stick in the mud than me.

From my perspective, I don't automatically take any side. I always think through issues. I don't even have an affiliation with any particular political party.

Another point is that the level of acceptable risk in the US has always been higher. That is certainly the case with both the Fire Service and other emergency responders.

For exmple, US fire fighters will routinely get on the roof of a burning building and try to cut through. They will almost never do that in Australia. The US also has a much higher casualty rate within emergency responders than we do in Australia.

Jim Profit wrote on Dec 16^th, 2008 at 10:17pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2008 at 10:15pm: So what would you actually do? The kid actually approached the officer and cornered him. He should shoot to wound. Subdue the target and reduce the threat. The kid was wielding a knife right? I don't know how tough you are, but I don't think I could lunge and stab someone if I got shot once or twice. Even if it was a non-vital area.

If I were you Jim I would get your money back for your training as shooting to wound flies in the face of every close combat tactic that I am aware of. The drawing of the weapon provides a visual warning and it is backed up by a verbal warning. At that point it is pretty well established that public and police safety is under threat and shooting at the centre of mass is a world wide established tactic, and for good reason. Tactically the only reason to wound in that situation would generally be a military one and the dangers of playing that particular tactical game are multiplied enormously and those soldiers accept the increased (almost certain) risk that they or a college will be badly wounded or killed. 15, 8, 85, (plus) knives, guns, grenades, (plus) intent, ability, = potential lethal threat and may situationally require a lethal response.

You subdue a perp with a weapon by killing them. The question that Amadd, Mantra, Point and now yourself seem to keep avoiding and FD and Mozza keep asking is was someones life in danger ? Some agree and some don't, but I can with certainty say, thank god none of you four will be relied upon to protect my family.

Amadd's standpoint here besides his claims about strength, courage and martial ability was a negative political stance against the police, the police state and Big Bother. I also reject his authority to determine exactly what risks the public are willing to accept. However he may have done extensive research into this topic with polls etc. If he has then please post them here. I'm not sure about his grasp of reality and would prefer that he not speak for me.


Mantra said

Quote:

That was clever Amadd.  I'm not aware.

Was there something I missed Mantra or were you congratulating someone for misrepresenting someone elses point. I'm not sure.

"The drawing of the weapon provides a visual warning and it is backed up by a verbal warning."

And further to that, the drawing of a firearm is a clear message by the officer that he intends to use a weapon of lethal force... That means if you proceed any further, you will most probably die.

Amadd wrote on Dec 16^th, 2008 at 9:36pm:

But for those who support your beloved police force without question, I want to know your age limit where the police actions are acceptable in this exact same situation.

A good and precise point.

What are the age statistics for State shootings? Are more youth slaughtered than aged bandits and bigots? Do State police have an affiliation and emapthy with their aged opponents which they do not share with the youth they dont understand? Are StatePol just as afright of the youth, as the youth are of them? Since when is Machismo not part of the equation?

And what about this; why werent any of the Left wing violent protesters shot in the past? Say at the G20, they certainly posed a risk flicking piss, turds bins and BS. Is it because they are secretly supported by the Marxist-Lenninst chauvinist ALP, and because the anarchist fringe calls and notifies in advance of its intent to dissent thus gaining approval, even funding?

Meanwhile some random miscreant is tried and convicted on the spot & shot by Sate manufactured Auto-Chauvinists.

This is closer to the truth than any other aligned explanation.

Quote:

Was there something I missed Mantra or were you congratulating someone for misrepresenting someone elses point. I'm not sure.

It was Amadd's little U-tube exercise Locutius.  It just showed that sometimes we miss the obvious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvKUqmEiA3E

muso wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 8:39am:

Amadd wrote on Dec 16th, 2008 at 9:07pm: I'd really like to hear where your accepted level of risk lies guys. It's important to me. FD, Mozz, Muso, Locutius, Calanen? I hope you give it some thought, because I'll try to grind you down even lower. Simply, the level for anyone should be if someone's life (or risk of grievious injury) including their own is in danger. Period. muso wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 8:39am: By the way, don't forget that the Baby Boomers were not exactly known for their respect of authority. Remember the Vietnam war, civil unrest, flower power. It was the age when people first started to challenge authority. The previous generation were the old school brigade that accepted everything that came from authority as gospel. Apart from that I'm met some 20 somethings who are much more conservative and stick in the mud than me. Yes muso, but I did not know if these facts where worth mentioning. Amadd might think they were all made up like the moon landing, the holocaust, and evolution. [quote author=muso link=1229049654/135#139 date=1229467164] From my perspective, I don't automatically take any side. I always think through issues. I don't even have an affiliation with any particular political party.

I agree and am assuming you are only explaining this because your points were not actually being listened to, or the history of your commentry on this forum was either unknown or not respected.

Thanks Helian, for refining the obvious and with accuracy. Nuff said.

mantra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 11:31am:

Quote: Was there something I missed Mantra or were you congratulating someone for misrepresenting someone elses point. I'm not sure. It was Amadd's little U-tube exercise Locutius.  It just showed that sometimes we miss the obvious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvKUqmEiA3E

OK, Ill have to see later. I don't watch u-tube at work. And rarely get the chance at home.

BTW, welcome to OZ politic Point Dextrous, do you mind saying what planet you dropped in from?

Unfortunately people seem to be letting their prejudices decide the right or wrong of this case.

Quote:

And what about this; why werent any of the Left wing violent protesters shot in the past? Say at the G20, they certainly posed a risk flicking piss, turds bins and BS. Is it because they are secretly supported by the Marxist-Lenninst chauvinist ALP, and because the anarchist fringe calls and notifies in advance of its intent to dissent thus gaining approval, even funding? Meanwhile some random miscreant is tried and convicted on the spot & shot by Sate manufactured Auto-Chauvinists.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth.
We will have an enquiry, as usual, when events like this occur, and that will be the correct forum to decide the ultimate rights and wrongs of the case.

Those who viciously attacked and abused the police for their actions, are ignoring the current facts that have been reported.
So they choose to ignore those facts, and prefer to leap to offensive conclusions, without any evidence to validate their assumptions, about what they think was the reasons for the shooting.

If, after an enquiry, some blame or guilt, is attached to the officers involved, would be an appropriate time to make comments about the, to do so now, especially in the cruel and vitriolic manner you chose, is inappropriate, to say the least.

As for trying to set an arbitrary age limit for when an offender may be allowed to be considered as posing a life threatening risk, well that is just not the major issue is it?

Intent, and ability, they are the obvious criteria to consider, age would only enter into the question in regard to whether they have the ability to carry out the threat.

Some here say that he was too young and small to be considered a serious risk, but as we weren't there, we cannot fairly make that judgement, the police were, and I have seen nothing which would make me question their evaluation of the situation they faced.

So say it is a shame, say that police should have better options made available to them to deal with armed offenders, but do not unfairly attack these individual police officers, without valid reasons for doing so.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 12:28pm:

Those who viciously attacked and abused the police for their actions, are ignoring the current facts that have been reported. So they choose to ignore those facts, and prefer to leap to offensive conclusions, without any evidence to validate their assumptions, about what they think was the reasons for the shooting. If, after an enquiry, some blame or guilt, is attached to the officers involved, would be an appropriate time to make comments about the, to do so now, especially in the cruel and vitriolic manner you chose, is inappropriate, to say the least. As for trying to set an arbitrary age limit for when an offender may be allowed to be considered as posing a life threatening risk, well that is just not the major issue is it? Intent, and ability, they are the obvious criteria to consider, age would only enter into the question in regard to whether they have the ability to carry out the threat.

Most of that appears to be rhetoric in defence ot the State.

Fine.

When you say "Those who viciously attacked and abused the police for their actions", I hope I werent included, because I am only prosecuting the State in this thread.

As for 'offensive', 'vitrolic' & 'cruel', yes off course I was. But if you beleive the State (or the ALP) has a soul to offend, you are in more trouble than you are aware. As the juvenile found out.

My postulation about age, and the subsequent defence of 'arbitrary age limit' is very definitely a legitimnate postulation by me. The stats are likely to confirm the bias I indicated.

Any age who has the intent, has the ability. Social Darwinism is a predominant feature in this problem, despite the naysayers offerings of counter-think. The age Bigotry can be confirmed.

No Point Dextrous, I was not Specifically having a go at you, your only dubious comment was unfairly labelling the police as, "S(t)ate manufactured auto chauvinists".

I was referring to Ammad's over the top tirade, which was highly offensive, and totally inappropriate.

So PD, you think the police should ask to check ID before they shoot someone?

freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2008 at 8:03pm:

You can't just wait around, either for the kid to come to his senses or the swat team to arrive. What if he simply ran off into a restaurant or house? It is an offence to carry a knife in public without a good reason. The police had a responsibility to get him to drop the knives, not to babysit him. You can't alter the responsibility of the police after the fact based on the outcome. Do you seriously suggest they let all people carrying knives and appearing to be slightly disturbed and threatening people to simply wander the streets till they drop it? Or should they check their crystal ball first?

helloo,
you sir should not have anything to do with this or any other responsible fora.
if this is a typical outcome of this type of situation then we are ALL in trouble.

the police ppl are horrible, dregs of society that we, unfortunately need.
they are legal maniacs that serve popular law.
in another world, they be interred with the rest of society's misfits.

what happened to this boy IS A CRIME, a crime against you and me.
DR9.

Quote:

if this is a typical outcome of this type of situation then we are ALL in trouble.

Why, are you planning on stealing a couple of knives, wandering the streets threatening to stab people, trying to stab occupied cars with them, facing off against the police, ignoring the pepper spray in your eyes, then approaching an officer with a drawn weapon against his instructions?

I for one am not. I don't have a death wish. Do you? If you do, then yes you are in trouble, but you certainly can't speak for everyone.

I don't see it as a crime against myself. I see it is the police doing their job and protecting me from people like this. The fact that it occasionally goes bad for the person society is being protected from is not an indictment against the police.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 5:49pm:

Quote: if this is a typical outcome of this type of situation then we are ALL in trouble. Why, are you planning on stealing a couple of knives, wandering the streets threatening to stab people, trying to stab occupied cars with them, facing off against the police, ignoring the pepper spray in your eyes, then approaching an officer with a drawn weapon against his instructions? I for one am not. I don't have a death wish. Do you? If you do, then yes you are in trouble, but you certainly can't speak for everyone. I don't see it as a crime against myself. I see it is the police doing their job and protecting me from people like this. The fact that it occasionally goes bad for the person society is being protected from is not an indictment against the police.

the ONLY time i would support the use of a firearm would be if the boy, in this case, had the knife directly poised at another persons vital organ, eg, the throat, eye or ear. this weapon would have to be within an inch, almost touching the intended victim.
this would indicate INTENT, and still nothing else.
until that knife is plunged into said victim/person, no action can legally be taken by ANYBODY, and that includes the *cough* police.
if one takes action BEFORE that knife is plunged , then THEY become the criminal.
the "police" who killed this young man should not be allowed on the street again as serving officers.
they are MURDERERS pure and simple.

i hope you can understand the difference.
the boy = intent only
the police =  legal murder

i hope you are having a nice day, and i'm sure this boy's relatives are not.
and i'll bet the police are down the pub havin' a few beers, laughing about it.

DR9.

Quote:

the ONLY time i would support the use of a firearm would be if the boy, in this case, had the knife directly poised at another persons vital organ, eg, the throat, eye or ear. this weapon would have to be within an inch, almost touching the intended victim.

;D ;D ;DDon't you think it would be a bit late then? Or do you think it would be just like on TV. The perp gets the knife to the cop's throat, then stops and turns to the other cops and says "OK, you've got 15 seconds to shoot me before I stab your colleague, take care to aim well because if you don't take me out on the first shot I will stab him anyway". This isn't a movie. This isn't some fairy tale where the bad guy pauses to explain his dastardly plan just long enough for the superhero to untie himself. This is real life.


Quote:

this would indicate INTENT, and still nothing else.

No it wouldn't. Some lame civil libertarian would claim (just as they are now) that he was going to change his mind at the last second. You can never prove the intent unless they actually followed through. Judging intent requires the exercise of forsight - something you want to deny to police.


Quote:

until that knife is plunged into said victim/person, no action can legally be taken by ANYBODY, and that includes the *cough* police. if one takes action BEFORE that knife is plunged , then THEY become the criminal.

Luckily the law says different and such notions are rightly discarded as rubbish.

At times I honestly question whether people are really just being facetious when they post ridiculously stupid points of view.

Then you re-read, and think, could anyone really be that dense?

Unfortunately, it seems they can.

That anyone could pontificate on the legality of the actions taken, whilst seemingly blissfully unaware of the concept of self defence, is mind boggling.

So if we follow DR9's logic(suppressed laughter), THEN IF HE PLUNGED THE KNIFE INTO HIS HEAD, IT WOULD NOT SHOW INTENT, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY NO VITAL ORGANS ARE LOCATED THERE. ;D ;D ;D ;D

I think it just comes from watching too much TV. In real life, when things go bad, it's all over in a few seconds. On TV, they draw it out over a few minutes and make sure it is impossible for someone to miss what is going on.

Quote:

the ONLY time i would support the use of a firearm would be if the boy, in this case, had the knife directly poised at another persons vital organ, eg, the throat, eye or ear. this weapon would have to be within an inch, almost touching the intended victim.

Knives are deadly from 5 metres away from the victim, before you can get your gun out of its holster. That's a really childish and laughable thing for you to say also. Just so you know. You'd have dead victims in all cases then if the police had such ridiculous alice in wonderland rules of engagement.


Quote:

this would indicate INTENT, and still nothing else.

I had a friend who answered crazy people's letters for the government. She said that the more capitalized words they used, the crazier they were. You might want to reflect on this.

I wonder if it was your little girl that he was threatening with the knife, that you'd be insisting on your insane '1 inch away' rule. People with knives can move very quickly. Oops, your little girl has been stabbed in the throat. Well at least the guy with the knife is still alive. Phew.


Quote:

until that knife is plunged into said victim/person, no action can legally be taken by ANYBODY, and that includes the *cough* police. if one takes action BEFORE that knife is plunged , then THEY become the criminal.

Really? Is that your considered legal opinion? It's not mine.


Quote:

the "police" who killed this young man should not be allowed on the street again as serving officers. they are MURDERERS pure and simple.

They are not murderers, or even guilt of manslaughter. Police, and even private citizens have the right to use firearms in defence of themselves or another. The use of firearms on a person wielding a knife, has always been reasonable force, as knives kill. And they kill very effectively.

hi guys,
don't think i disrespect your opinions on this grave matter.
you have yours, i have mine.
i WAS being hypothetical after all, and the facts WERE different to this in this boy's case.

however, speaking hypothetically again, if i were accosted for whatever reason in a public place, and feeling threatened, and had a weapon on my person - a hand-gun -
i would warn once, draw the weapon, one shot to ground and the next shot between their eyes.

of course, then i'd be bailed up for manslaugther, at least, and probably serve time. so where's the justice?

DR9.

sorry, i just don't think the police had the right to do this.

Quote:

sorry, i just don't think the police had the right to do this.

They did. Even in the Eurowussy land light known as Australia.

In the US, it wouldnt have even been questioned.

djrbfm wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 6:19pm:

the ONLY time i would support the use of a firearm would be if the boy, in this case, had the knife directly poised at another persons vital organ, eg, the throat, eye or ear. this weapon would have to be within an inch, almost touching the intended victim. this would indicate INTENT, and still nothing else. until that knife is plunged into said victim/person, no action can legally be taken by ANYBODY, and that includes the *cough* police. if one takes action BEFORE that knife is plunged , then THEY become the criminal.

I reckon, if you had a holstered pistol, I could run 10m faster than you could unholster it and shoot me. And then I'd stab you.

Simple reflex knowledge tells me this.

I also reckon I could stab/slice you in places that aren't the throat, eye or ear and have you in a position where no doctor is ever going to be able to save you.

Simple anatomy tells me this.

Calanen wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 7:51pm:

Quote: sorry, i just don't think the police had the right to do this. They did. Even in the Eurowussy land light known as Australia. In the US, it wouldnt have even been questioned.

In North Korea or old stalinist USSR it would not be allowed to even  discuss that. Is it where Australian Victoria heading to?

Calanen wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 7:07pm:

Knives are deadly from 5 metres away from the victim, before you can get your gun out of its holster. That's a really childish and laughable thing for you to say also. Just so you know. You'd have dead victims in all cases then if the police had such ridiculous alice in wonderland rules of engagement.

I hear 6m, but that's for an average runner too.

Quote:

In North Korea or old stalinist USSR it would not be allowed to even  discuss that. Is it where Australian Victoria heading to?

All of Australia. Its only a lack of resources and disorganisation that prevents them from stopping you now.

The most humerous part (sad funny) is to watch you guys get together like some old boys club and have a mock fest at those who think the police actions were over the top.

FD owned up that he would shoot an eight year girl in that situation and I didn't even have to barter him down.
I reckon he'd easily get down to a six year old girl with a little convincing.

Oh but the eight year girl had me cornered and I couldn't even get past her with three other trained officers present....ohh so scary!  ;D

Even if it is proven that the police officer was actually "trapped", what sort of a dumbass trained policeman would let himself get cornered in that situation anyway?

Mozz tries his best to avoid the question with constant beration and rambling. I think the question is just too scary for him.
Muso sort of concedes the actions were over the top, but won't answer the question put to him.
Locutius would probably do in a three year old - they can be very destructive you know!
Calanen, well I just wouldn't expect him to be even capable of an answer.


Fact: The police force has lost some respect by some members of the community over this incident.
And so they bloody well should!

Quote:

Calanen, well I just wouldn't expect him to be even capable of an answer.

You'll find me more than capable of answering most questions. In fact, I'm paid rather a lot of money to answer questions for people. Does anyone pay for your opinion? Would anyone even want it for free?

;D

On your high horse again/still Calanen?

And the answer is?

....waiting.

Or am I right?

Stop grinding Ammad, I can't take anymore. ;D

I surrender, your brilliant arguments have convinced me, the police should not defend themselves against anyone under 76 years old.

What's your answer Mozz?

Amadd wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 9:26pm:

;D On your high horse again/still Calanen? And the answer is? ....waiting. Or am I right?

Sorry, with all the excitement - I must have dozed off.

High horse? I thought I couldn't answer questions. No sir, quantum physics, pure mathematics and equitable marshalling I can do in a jiffy - but infantile hypotheticals about 8 year old girls attacking the Police - well that just stumps me.

Carry on, we are all learning so much from your wit and wisdom. Don't let me get in the way.  

Just a simple question, but you refuse to answer.

Answer please?

Pick a number between 1 and 100, I'll go with that.

You are ignoring the fact that age is not the determining factor, level of threat is.
The police do not have guidelines which say it is OK to shoot people over, or under a certain age, so why you think you are making any point at all is beyond me.

So, I'll say 7, just to beat FD.
Happy?

Question:

An amoeba confronts officers of the law in a crowded car park, armed with the congealed skin of a rice pudding.

Officers are only armed with bug spray, amoeba spray is yet to be deployed in this region.

Is spraying the amoeba a justified use of force, even, if the bug spray might lead to collateral damage to other insects in the vicinity?  

Quote:

You are ignoring the fact that age is not the determining factor, level of threat is.

I thought the question encompassed the level of threat.
What age would you expect it to be an acceptable risk not to kll in that exact situation?

If you're honest about 7, well that's your answer.

Quote:

Question:

I'll look at it after you answer mine and not before.

Quote:

FD owned up that he would shoot an eight year girl in that situation

I'd probably let her get a meter or two closer before I pulled the trigger.

Shooting a warning shot at the ground is a stupid idea. If an armed person is approaching you, you keep your gun pointed at their chest. You give them every opportunity to back down and you don't fire until you have no other viable options. No point risking accidentally shooting someone else, or missing your mark when he rushes you. Aiming for the head is also a bad idea. It is so much more easy for them to anticipate your shot and dodge at the last second. I don't know how, but fish often seem to do that to me, especially when I'm excited or frustrated.

Why don't you answer my question Amadd. Do you think the police should ask for ID before they shoot someone?

Quote:

Why don't you answer my question Amadd. Do you think the police should ask for ID before they shoot someone?

No.
If the kid looked much older, I'd find it a bit more acceptable.
But considering there were known facts about the situation beforehand, and he hadn't actually cut anybody at any stage (as far as I know) where he had ample opportunity to do so, I'd question the intent.

Keep going ammad, pretty soon you will be able to convince yourself that he only stole the knives, so he could make sandwiches for crippled kiddies.

Well I do wonder who he wanted the knives for, if it wasn't the other shoppers or anybody else around him.

Amadd, do you think his age matters because a 15yo boy is not capable of killing someone with a knife? Do you think it takes brute strength to do that? Or is it that because he was young he was innocent by default and deserved a fair chance at stabbing the cop?

Does it matter if it's only a point of interest to me?

To make it simpler, then just imagine the same kid, same situation, same way you see it and then pick an age where you'd find the shooting unacceptable.

Quote:

Amadd, do you think his age matters because a 15yo boy is not capable of killing someone with a knife? Do you think it takes brute strength to do that? Or is it that because he was young he was innocent by default and deserved a fair chance at stabbing the cop?

It's obvious in hindsight that this boy thought he wanted to die at that moment - or needed help urgently.  He had lost control of his emotions and his intention was probably to end up stabbing himself and no doubt he was taunting the police without much thought.  How would a boy blinded by spray be a threat to 4 police?

It looks like the Victorian police are going to have to cope with a lot of rebellion in the future.  This is an incident that has upset a lot of people if this story is anything to go by.  


The family of a Melbourne teenager who was gunned down by police last week have denied their decision for an open casket at his funeral is a message to the officers responsible.

Tyler Cassidy, 15, was shot dead after he allegedly threatened to kill police with knives at a skate park in the suburb of Northcote last Thursday night.

The officers who opened fire on Cassidy are "quite shaken up" by the fatal encounter, the Herald Sun newspaper reports.

"This is not something they will recover from all that easily, if at all," a source was quoted as saying.

A crime expert has warned relations between Victoria Police and the community are at a dangerous low after the incident.

Dr Julian Bondy, a criminal justice associate professor at Melbourne's RMIT University, said police faced a long summer dealing with hostile young people angry over the death of the 15-year-old.

Dr Bondy said the community was also disillusioned with police over another fatal Melbourne shooting that killed a young man in May, and with corruption charges against senior figures Noel Ashby and Paul Mullett.

"This boy (Tyler) had a demonstrable capacity for violence, he was out of control and volatile but police deal with that all the time," Dr Bondy said.

"Four police officers found him so confronting they had no option but to shoot and it is very unfortunate timing with the busy season and this will make their job harder.

"There is a bad vibe in the community, a change taking place with younger people, partly through their attitude to each other but this will make them more confrontational."

The Northcote skate park has become a shrine to Tyler, whose funeral will be held on today. Mourners have left flowers, tributes and messages vowing revenge against police or "pigs".

And the message: "We will get them f...ers back, mamba revenge is sweet" was among many postings on Tyler's Mesopause website.

"Tyler RIP" graffiti has been spotted several kilometres away from the skate park, in neighbouring suburbs.

Local parents are also angry about the actions of police.

"I spent 10 years in the army and the lack of police skills is upsetting. I find it unbelievable they needed to keep shooting," said Northcote resident Warren Figure, who has a teenage son.

Dr Bondy said the training Victoria Police received was better than what their NSW counterparts got.

He said he doubted a coronial inquiry would uncover any wrongdoing by the officers involved, nor point to poor training.

"I don't think we'll ever know if they had any options (other than shooting). But it is premature to prejudge the formal inquiry," he said.

Tyler's funeral will be held at St John the Baptist Catholic Church in Clifton Hill on Thursday

Amadd wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 10:41pm:

Does it matter if it's only a point of interest to me? To make it simpler, then just imagine the same kid, same situation, same way you see it and then pick an age where you'd find the shooting unacceptable.

Gee, Amadd, I made my reply to this so simple that only

(a) an illiterate could miss it,
(b) a moron misunderstand it,
(c) a Liar could misrepresent it.
(d) or any combination of the above

You seem to be able to read and write so I'm actually going with (b) and (c).

You're now just boring the hell out of me because you obviously have no grasp of reality or produce any sophisticated reasoning beyond your dislike of the "MAN".

Why don't you just answer the question Amadd? I was kind enough to give you a straight answer, wasn't I? Is it too much to ask that we understand why you keep going on about the boy's age?

Amadd, do you think his age matters because a 15yo boy is not capable of killing someone with a knife? Do you think it takes brute strength to do that? Or is it that because he was young he was innocent by default and deserved a fair chance at stabbing the cop?

djrbfm wrote on Dec 17^th, 2008 at 6:19pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2008 at 5:49pm: Quote: if this is a typical outcome of this type of situation then we are ALL in trouble. Why, are you planning on stealing a couple of knives, wandering the streets threatening to stab people, trying to stab occupied cars with them, facing off against the police, ignoring the pepper spray in your eyes, then approaching an officer with a drawn weapon against his instructions? I for one am not. I don't have a death wish. Do you? If you do, then yes you are in trouble, but you certainly can't speak for everyone. I don't see it as a crime against myself. I see it is the police doing their job and protecting me from people like this. The fact that it occasionally goes bad for the person society is being protected from is not an indictment against the police. the ONLY time i would support the use of a firearm would be if the boy, in this case, had the knife directly poised at another persons vital organ, eg, the throat, eye or ear. this weapon would have to be within an inch, almost touching the intended victim. this would indicate INTENT, and still nothing else. [b]until that knife is plunged into said victim/person, no action can legally be taken by ANYBODY, and that includes the *cough* police. if one takes action BEFORE that knife is plunged , then THEY become the criminal.[/b]the "police" who killed this young man should not be allowed on the street again as serving officers. they are MURDERERS pure and simple. i hope you can understand the difference. the boy = intent only the police =  legal murder i hope you are having a nice day, and i'm sure this boy's relatives are not. and i'll bet the police are down the pub havin' a few beers, laughing about it. DR9.

This is priceless! I've actually copied this and sent it to a few mates, they think it is some warped commentry from a comic book. The voices in your head, do they sound like Mickey Rourke from Sin City? I am relieved that the chances of you passing a psyche test that would put you in a position to protect someone are probably nill.

BTW, what are your legal credentials. I have visions of Lionel Hutz wiping the courtroom floor with you while he is wearing a shirt that says " I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person ".

For the record, I don't accept that the police force are always squeaky clean on principle. I know for a fact (through a Police contact) that a great many Aboriginal deaths in WA during the 80's (and mostly around Perth) were not accidental. There was a spate of Aboriginals falling off bridges etc about that time. It was handled internally and off the record, and the 'bridge falling' suddenly stopped.

In this case, the only person who will know for sure will be the policeman who fired the shots. It sounds by all accounts as if he's been to hell and back. He's probably wondering himself if he made the right decision at the time. 20:20 rear vision is often very damning, but it doesn't help with making real time spot decisions.  

Did he make a mistake? If he did, will he learn from his mistakes? Can the rest of the police force learn from this incident?

These are the kind of questions that need to be answered honestly. There is no point in trying to cover it up if he made a huge blunder. It could happen again. If he acted in good faith and it can be shown that he did the right thing, then we should all move on.

In our society there is a tremendous sentimentality associated with 'kids'. It's a luxury that we seem to have in the West, but kids are just valued like any other human being in other countries.  

Age of attackers doesnt matter, only the propensity to be a threat, whatever the age. You just have to eliminate the threat in a manner that is reasonable.

Rushing at officers with knives, is always reasonable. All attackers unless you are Bruce Lee, can get in at least one hit. One unarmed hit is no big deal, one hit from a knife or any sharp object can be fatal. Both arms with knives is incredibly dangerous, as you can try to disarm one while the other is brought to bear to stab.

All the Pollyanna people have never been in a real fight. I support the cops, I dont want cops or the public stabbed because they have to hesitate to defend themselves or someone else because they are worried about the attacker being injured.

As Nietsche said 'Common sense is not very common.'  

locutius wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 8:36am:

... (b) a moron misunderstand it, (c) a Liar could misrepresent it. ...

Sounds like victorian pigs  8-)

mantra wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 6:56am:

Quote: Amadd, do you think his age matters because a 15yo boy is not capable of killing someone with a knife? Do you think it takes brute strength to do that? Or is it that because he was young he was innocent by default and deserved a fair chance at stabbing the cop? It's obvious in hindsight that this boy thought he wanted to die at that moment - or needed help urgently.  He had lost control of his emotions and his intention was probably to end up stabbing himself and no doubt he was taunting the police without much thought.  How would a boy blinded by spray be a threat to 4 police? It looks like the Victorian police are going to have to cope with a lot of rebellion in the future.  This is an incident that has upset a lot of people if this story is anything to go by.   The family of a Melbourne teenager who was gunned down by police last week have denied their decision for an open casket at his funeral is a message to the officers responsible. Tyler Cassidy, 15, was shot dead after he allegedly threatened to kill police with knives at a skate park in the suburb of Northcote last Thursday night. The officers who opened fire on Cassidy are "quite shaken up" by the fatal encounter, the Herald Sun newspaper reports. "This is not something they will recover from all that easily, if at all," a source was quoted as saying. A crime expert has warned relations between Victoria Police and the community are at a dangerous low after the incident. Dr Julian Bondy, a criminal justice associate professor at Melbourne's RMIT University, said police faced a long summer dealing with hostile young people angry over the death of the 15-year-old. Dr Bondy said the community was also disillusioned with police over another fatal Melbourne shooting that killed a young man in May, and with corruption charges against senior figures Noel Ashby and Paul Mullett. "This boy (Tyler) had a demonstrable capacity for violence, he was out of control and volatile but police deal with that all the time," Dr Bondy said. "Four police officers found him so confronting they had no option but to shoot and it is very unfortunate timing with the busy season and this will make their job harder. "There is a bad vibe in the community, a change taking place with younger people, partly through their attitude to each other but this will make them more confrontational." The Northcote skate park has become a shrine to Tyler, whose funeral will be held on today. Mourners have left flowers, tributes and messages vowing revenge against police or "pigs". And the message: "We will get them f...ers back, mamba revenge is sweet" was among many postings on Tyler's Mesopause website. "Tyler RIP" graffiti has been spotted several kilometres away from the skate park, in neighbouring suburbs. Local parents are also angry about the actions of police. "I spent 10 years in the army and the lack of police skills is upsetting. I find it unbelievable they needed to keep shooting," said Northcote resident Warren Figure, who has a teenage son. Dr Bondy said the training Victoria Police received was better than what their NSW counterparts got. He said he doubted a coronial inquiry would uncover any wrongdoing by the officers involved, nor point to poor training. "I don't think we'll ever know if they had any options (other than shooting). But it is premature to prejudge the formal inquiry," he said. Tyler's funeral will be held at St John the Baptist Catholic Church in Clifton Hill on Thursday

I've read on certain sections of the web that Tyler had been attacked by a Lebanese gang about an hour before being brutally gunned down by the cops.  

This probably gave him the motivation to attack police, as he was agitated and had given up on the law.

The police had failed to stop the Lebanese criminals from attacking him and since they had already waged a war to 'stop another Cronulla style riot' I can't help but think that this attack on Tyler was politically motivated and a deliberate use of force by the Victorian Federal Police and a 'warning' for anyone who opposes multiculturalism.

Has anyone even read whether or not the media has mentioned the Lebanese gang who attacked him hours earlier as of yet? If not, why? How could the media miss such a large detail about the murder? Particularly when this fact is sprawled all over the internet and confirmed by the boys parents?

Well, I hope the multiculturalism crusaders of the police force, Government and media are pleased with themselves. I'm pretty sure it'll be a long time before anyone opposes multiculturalism again, as you'll just be gunned down. Certainly has shown the true colours of multicults and lengths they'll go to to preserve their ideology.


Quote:

Victorian police vow crackdown to stop 'another Cronulla' By Liam Houlihan Sunday Herald Sun November 23, 2008 02:39am POLICE will use roadblocks, mounted coast patrols and fines for swearing to protect Melbourne beaches from a Cronulla-style anti-immigrant gang. The crackdown follows boasts by the 200-strong Melbourne chapter of the Southern Cross Soldiers, who admit having criminals and neo-Nazis in their ranks, that they will converge on bayside beaches this summer. Police in bayside suburbs will implement Operation Beachsafe, which shares the name given to NSW police's post-Cronulla riots crackdown. Inspector Neil Patterson, of Moorabbin police, said: "There's one group in particular that has indicated they intend to hold parties on beach locations. "The message is if you're coming to the beach areas . . . to drink or cause problems, we're going to be there ready to target you." Melbourne SCS co-leader Adds said members included criminals and self-described neo-Nazi skinheads, and some had relatives in the Hell's Angels. "All these people that are coming over to our country that aren't Aussies are trying to take it over," Adds said. "We're just trying to put the word out that we don't like it." The radical police plan to protect beaches from December to March includes: ROADBLOCKS and car checks to stop troublemakers heading to the beach. A ZERO-TOLERANCE blitz, including on-the-spot $130 fines for swearing on the beach, to stop trouble before it starts. MOUNTED horse patrols in troublespots and undercover beach officers. PHONING parents of drunk and violent youths to pick up their children from police stations. POSSIBLE referral to the Department of Human Services if parents of young offenders cannot be contacted. Masked soldiers in the posse call themselves "SCS defenders" and "SCS enforcers" and pose in front of patriotic paraphernalia wearing matching hoodies and wielding weapons including a machete, jemmy and spanner. Videos on their websites glorify the Cronulla riots to a neo-Nazi soundtrack promising "race war". Insp Patterson said the police blitz aimed to keep beaches safe for families. "If we can stop anti-social behaviour in its starting forms, then it won't increase into forms of violence," he said.

While it may explain why the kid went off the deep end, the sugggestion that it was somehow a motivation for the cops actions is completely absurd.

Quote:

Victorian police vow crackdown to stop 'another Cronulla'

Loads of resources to shut white people down. Not to shut down the others. They carry guns, scary baddy bad bad.

Taking down unarmed neonazis and surfies - that's easy peasy. Taking down random people of no particular colour or religion who happen to have guns...thats hard. No we wont do that thanks.

Quote:

Amadd, do you think his age matters because a 15yo boy is not capable of killing someone with a knife? Do you think it takes brute strength to do that? Or is it that because he was young he was innocent by default and deserved a fair chance at stabbing the cop?

I've answered that question many times during this thread.
Yes I do think that age matters (among other factors) a lot in this situation.
A two year old is capable of weilding a knife and causing serious injury or death. To say that there is no point of age at which the police should've restrained from shooting in that particular situation sounds to me like you've been watching too many "Chuckie" movies - to throw one back at you.
There's certain situations where I'd expect the police to show a certain amount of bravery, and if their options were exhausted by sheer stupidity and lack of planning, then this was one of them.


Quote:

This probably gave him the motivation to attack police, as he was agitated and had given up on the law.

I would think that the way that the police handled the situation heightened his agitated state to the point at where it ended when he was "surrounded and hunted down".


Quote:

Has anyone even read whether or not the media has mentioned the Lebanese gang who attacked him hours earlier as of yet? If not, why? How could the media miss such a large detail about the murder? Particularly when this fact is sprawled all over the internet and confirmed by the boys parents?

I haven't heard anything about an earlier Lebanese gang attack reported in the media. Do you have any links about this?
Initial reports said that he had tried to take knives from his home kitchen but was stopped. He then went to the K-Mart store to steal some.
This is why I was wondering what he wanted the knives for, as he'd had ample opportunity to stab members of the public if that was his intention.
Apparently, he also tried to steal a car, so his motive being a revenge attack or threat to the Lebos (?) makes sense.
These were known facts at the time of the incident, not hindsight analysis, so if this is true, then the cowardice police actions are under further suspicion IMO.i

Quote:

These were known facts at the time of the incident, not hindsight analysis, so if this is true, then the cowardice police actions are under further suspicion IMO.

What would you know about bravery you muppet. Those police have got more balls going to work each day than you have ever had to show in your whole miserable life. You were trying to say how oppressed you were because you had to be a witness in a court case - boo fricking hoo - and then you want to call cops who face armed attackers and defended themselves LAWFULLY are cowards. Man each one of those cops would bitch slap you so hard you'd be screaming for mama.

Thanks for your input Calanen.

Calanen wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 10:09pm:

Quote: These were known facts at the time of the incident, not hindsight analysis, so if this is true, then the cowardice police actions are under further suspicion IMO. What would you know about bravery you muppet. Those police have got more balls going to work each day than you have ever had to show in your whole miserable life. You were trying to say how oppressed you were because you had to be a witness in a court case - boo fricking hoo - and then you want to call cops who face armed attackers and defended themselves LAWFULLY are cowards. Man each one of those cops would bitch slap you so hard you'd be screaming for mama.

where do you get off making such assumptions about other people?

you know nothing about Amadd's life yet you assume you know everything

cowardice takes many forms- it doesn't just mean he is saying the police were afraid of the kid

personally as I wasn't there to see what was happening I can't judge what the police did. but it's not ridiculous to say that police often make mistakes and errors in judgement. I would hope that they only fired upon the boy if it was absolutely necessary, but I don't know if it was or wasn't

Gaybriel, can't you see, it's the anti-Muslim version of Lestat! It's like they were separated at birth! Somewhere in here he even told us about how smart he was and how he can do quantum physicals and pure mathematics or something.

And he writes about people who have never shot handguns in their lives and whatever.

I'm telling you, it's Lestat in non Muslim form.

Quote:

I've answered that question many times during this thread. Yes I do think that age matters (among other factors) a lot in this situation.

But I didn'y you whether you thought age mattered. You've already made that clear. I asked you why you think age mattered in this case. You haven;t answered that, and bringing up a two year old hardly clarifies it. Here, I'll repeat the question for you again:

Amadd, do you think his age matters because a 15yo boy is not capable of killing someone with a knife? Do you think it takes brute strength to do that? Or is it that because he was young he was innocent by default and deserved a fair chance at stabbing the cop?

Calanen wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 10:09pm:

Quote: These were known facts at the time of the incident, not hindsight analysis, so if this is true, then the cowardice police actions are under further suspicion IMO. What would you know about bravery you muppet. Those police have got more balls going to work each day than you have ever had to show in your whole miserable life. You were trying to say how oppressed you were because you had to be a witness in a court case - boo fricking hoo - and then you want to call cops who face armed attackers and defended themselves LAWFULLY are cowards. Man each one of those cops would bitch slap you so hard you'd be screaming for mama.

I'm surprised by someone who claims to work in the legal profession, that you back the police up. You of all people I would assume would know how corrupt and criminal a large percentage of them are.

A lot of them would have to be brave. There are many cops out there with death wishes and on lists.

You don't have to be too brave to walk the street with weaponry amongst a mostly unarmed population.

Cops! Extraordinary crime fighters! Because it interferes with their own business!


Quote:

TWO police officers have been charged with allegedly supplying steroids and the prohibited painkiller Oxycontin - commonly known as hillbilly heroin. The male and female senior constables were arrested this morning at Tamworth police station. The male cop was charged with supply of steroids, two counts of possession of steroids, unauthorised possession of ammunition, forge or alter prescription and two counts of supply of prohibited drug. The female officer was charged with two counts of possession of steroids and one count of forge or alter prescription. They were bailed to appear at Armidale Local Court next February.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24819073-5001021,00.html

Todays news.

I respect police as a rule- unless they prove unworthy of respect through their conduct

Once again we are arguing about something that cannot be definitively answered.

Those who berate the police, are assuming that they had wilful disregard for this boy's life, and chose to shoot him dead rather than try and subdue him with non-lethal force, for reasons of cowardice, or indifference, or meanness, or corruptness, or evilness, or whatever you can think of.

Others who are supporting the police, are saying that we trust that they felt they had no other choice, which would not have put themselves, and the general public in life threatening risk.

We weren't there, we cannot read the minds of the officers involved, but we can take comfort that we live in an open society, that will have a full and thorough examination of the events, and if any blame is to be apportioned to anyone other than the boy who instigated the unfortunate events, the enquiry will determine.

Making rash statements about the officers involved before this process takes place, is unfair, and I think all of us would like to think we can be fair.

Does anubody have statistics about how many cops being killed by people and how many people get killed by cops?

Quote:

Amadd, do you think his age matters because a 15yo boy is not capable of killing someone with a knife? Do you think it takes brute strength to do that? Or is it that because he was young he was innocent by default and deserved a fair chance at stabbing the cop?

Nomatter what you say about not knowing what you'd do in that situation  ...etc.etc., I do know for sure that I would've given him a shot at stabbing me before even shooting. Liability or not.
The age matters greatly IMO, because a kid's body or brain is not fully developed. That's why there's an age limit which is a general distinction between children and adults where they can make decisions for themselves.
"Do the adult crime, do the adult time" I don't believe in.
It's an adult's responsibility to put a child's safety ahaed of their own IMO.
I see the cops in this situation like somebody who would stand on the riverbank and watch a child drown because the current looked a bit strong.

So you're not saying his age meant that there was no risk to the officers, but that the officers should have been more willing to put their life at risk because of his age?


Quote:

Nomatter what you say about not knowing what you'd do in that situation  ...etc.etc.,

I certainly didn't say that. If the capsicum spray didn't work and he refused to put the knife down and instead approached me with it, I'd shoot him. I wouldn't mess around with warning shots or kung fu. I'd give him every opportunity to back down, but once he got too close I'd pull the trigger. I wouldn't care how young or how innocent he is. Better him than me. I don't expect cops to be heroes either. I expect them to do the job. You can't ask someone to do something that you aren't prepared to do yourself. So far everyone I have seen who thinks they should put their life at risk as a matter of course is one of those people who aren't prepared to do it themselves.

Quote:

So far everyone I have seen who thinks they should put their life at risk as a matter of course is one of those people who aren't prepared to do it themselves.

That is a pretty fair point.

When I was a lifesaver, a clubmate gained some notoriety, for paddling out to rescue a guy being attacked by a shark.

Something like that happening, makes you question what you would do in similiar circumstances, and the answer is that we truly do not know until it happens.

Quote:

So you're not saying his age meant that there was no risk to the officers, but that the officers should have been more willing to put their life at risk because of his age?

I'm saying that his age and size was a factor in lessening the risk of not being able to easily avoid shooting to kill.
His own family was able to disarm him of two knives only an hour or so previously - so the story goes.



Quote:

So far everyone I have seen who thinks they should put their life at risk as a matter of course is one of those people who aren't prepared to do it themselves.

To do what? Become a police officer? I think that the average Joe Bloggs citizen would be prepared to take a far greater risk than the police officers did here.
That's not real good for the community.


Quote:

When I was a lifesaver, a clubmate gained some notoriety, for paddling out to rescue a guy being attacked by a shark.

That's a good point.
Maybe the police force should look at recruiting from areas where people will voluntarily accept some risk of the job instead of being a melting pot for those in some desperate need for power and control.
However, if you were honest when you said that you would've "shot to kill" a seven year old girl in that situation Mozz, then I doubt that you would've waded out beyond 2ft of water to save one.
I suspect that you weren't being honest there, and you would've been prepared to take a certain amount of risk.

Amadd wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 10:07pm:

Quote: Amadd, do you think his age matters because a 15yo boy is not capable of killing someone with a knife? Do you think it takes brute strength to do that? Or is it that because he was young he was innocent by default and deserved a fair chance at stabbing the cop? I've answered that question many times during this thread. Yes I do think that age matters (among other factors) a lot in this situation. A two year old is capable of weilding a knife and causing serious injury or death. To say that there is no point of age at which the police should've restrained from shooting in that particular situation sounds to me like you've been watching too many "Chuckie" movies - to throw one back at you. There's certain situations where I'd expect the police to show a certain amount of bravery, and if their options were exhausted by sheer stupidity and lack of planning, then this was one of them. [quote]This probably gave him the motivation to attack police, as he was agitated and had given up on the law.

I would think that the way that the police handled the situation heightened his agitated state to the point at where it ended when he was "surrounded and hunted down".


Quote:

Has anyone even read whether or not the media has mentioned the Lebanese gang who attacked him hours earlier as of yet? If not, why? How could the media miss such a large detail about the murder? Particularly when this fact is sprawled all over the internet and confirmed by the boys parents?

I haven't heard anything about an earlier Lebanese gang attack reported in the media. Do you have any links about this?
Initial reports said that he had tried to take knives from his home kitchen but was stopped. He then went to the K-Mart store to steal some.
This is why I was wondering what he wanted the knives for, as he'd had ample opportunity to stab members of the public if that was his intention.
Apparently, he also tried to steal a car, so his motive being a revenge attack or threat to the Lebos (?) makes sense.
These were known facts at the time of the incident, not hindsight analysis, so if this is true, then the cowardice police actions are under further suspicion IMO.
[/quote]

Other sites are making the claims (Including both Anti-wacist and wacist sites), but it is further backed up by the quote in this article.


Quote:

Bruised and scratched, and with his shirt torn, Tyler arrived home at 8pm without his backpack, which he'd lost in the fracas aboard a Hurstbridge line train. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24792274-2862,00.html Source: Herald Scum, December 13, 2008 12:00am

The reason the cops and media are being so 'hush hush' about this incident and not revealing the details in full, is because they don't want public opinion to turn against the 'glories of multiculturalism and Lebanese gangs.'

The police had a political agenda (Anti-racist/multiculturalism) against all members of the SCS. As the article I posted earlier outlines, they had 'ZERO TOLERANCE.'
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24693072-421,00.html
Source: Spews.com November 23, 2008 02:39am

I'm sure at least some under-skilled/anti-wacist/moronic police would misinterpret 'zero-tolerance' as 'shoot to kill.'

Family made a statement saying, "The Northcote police were notified 30 minutes prior to the killing and briefed completely on what had happened including what he was wearing and to look out for Tyler."
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24789743-2862,00.html
Source: Herald Scum, December 12, 2008 02:50pm

They knew it was Tyler they were going after, they knew he was part of the SCS and they went in with the mindset, 'ZERO TOLERANCE.'


This murder was certainly motivated by political ideology within the police force, media and Government.

How low does someone need to be to use this youths death, to promote their own racist agenda?

PFL

Donald, you could walk under a snake without ducking.

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 1:13pm:

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't know if they have a shoot to wound policy, but he had the cop cornered anyway. we cannot expect the police to put themselves in even greater danger in these situations.

The boy should never have been  shot..

These people are trained to restrain and subdue pple who are aggravated in this way...shooting is surely the last resort?

A 15 yr old boy who says "kill me or I'll kill you"..is clearly not in his right mind.

They could have used capsicum spray..a net, tazer ,tanquiliser dart, or anything rather than shoot.

Cops get off on pathetic technicalities all the time and because they are the law.. they corrupt their own laws and get away with it.

Its wrong to gun down anyone ,and the only exception to that rule would be if the offender also had a gun.

They are child killers/murderers. How tough do you have to be to have 4 cops fire on a 15 yr old boy who is clearly in trouble.??  how sad this is.


Is it any wonder some pple dont have ANY respect for the law.?

mozzaok wrote on Dec 20^th, 2008 at 7:35pm:

How low does someone need to be to use this youths death, to promote their own racist agenda? PFL Donald, you could walk under a snake without ducking.

good one mozz..

mozzaok wrote on Dec 20^th, 2008 at 7:35pm:

How low does someone need to be to use this youths death, to promote their own racist agenda? PFL Donald, you could walk under a snake without ducking.

I can't believe you just read through all that, Mozzaok, and you still believe that I'm the one with the so-called 'agenda.'
http://trekkingtorah.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/three-wise-monkeys-c11765657.jpeg

Honestly, do you think it was some accident that the media left out the fact that he was attacked by a Lebanese gang?

And I guess you had no problems with anti-wacists using the death of this man to forward their 'agenda?'

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2006/january11/gifs/mlk.jpg

What an outrage! Using this man's death to promote their anti-waaaaaaaacist agenda! They should be ashamed of themselves. Right Mozzaok?  ::)

Quote:

I can't believe you just read through all that, Mozzaok, and you still believe that I'm the one with the so-called 'agenda.'

That's called psychology 1.01 DT.
They throw out the initial report to form images and opinions where the majority of the public will do their darndest to back up their initial opiion so that they can say that they were right all along.
They appeal to the ego, and even a rational and objective person like Mozz will fall for it.
When we lose people like him, we are completely stuffed and left totally alone in a dictatorial regime which flouts the common law of values to the nth degree.
They do it all the time as a matter of course. If the public hasn't woken up yet to the political and media charade of false protection through the Iraq war, Afghan. war..etc.etc., then they are destined to always be controlled by their own self-assessed godliness.

Poor Donald, the misunderstood xenophobe.

As far as the issue of Tyler's death is concerned, their is no reason to believe the police had any racial motive for shooting Tyler, as opposed to Martin Luther King, a black, civil rights leader, assassinated while in the middle of the world's biggest ever civil rights campaign, I would think even somewhat as ill equipped to follow logical reasoning, as yourself, could spot the difference there.

Your trying to make the point that his reported altercation earlier that day, contributed to his agitated state of mind, which almost certainly, made him a far greater threat.

So it is worth noting the incident, but until further information is available, it is hard to make a balanced judgement of where, and how much blame, gets attached to the incident.


Now Ammad, I have always agreed that this was a tragedy, and I would have far preferred to see the police having been able to safely subdue him.
I have always thought that serious questions needed to be asked about how they came to use such a high degree of force, but I also felt that to prejudge them, which is what you did, was grossly unfair.

If, after an enquiry, and all the facts come to light, any blame is apportioned the police, then would be the right time to make criticisms of them.

I certainly think the idea of attaching malevolent intent to their actions is the most unfair aspect of criticism of them.

Ultimately, we must accept that the boy did threaten people, police and citizens, with death threats, he was armed, and he resisted violently, when non lethal means were tried to subdue him.

Even if the police are found not to have used perfect judgement, Tyler's actions are the ones that precipitated this unfortunate tragedy.

Quote:

If the public hasn't woken up yet to the political and media charade of false protection through the Iraq war, Afghan. war..etc.etc., then they are destined to always be controlled by their own self-assessed godliness.

What does this mean? Please explain.

I think he means the sociopaths who run the show appeal to your emotional/human integrity in order to get support for their insane actions, and mislead and manipulate the population to meet these ends.

Quote:

I have always thought that serious questions needed to be asked about how they came to use such a high degree of force, but I also felt that to prejudge them, which is what you did, was grossly unfair. If, after an enquiry, and all the facts come to light, any blame is apportioned the police, then would be the right time to make criticisms of them.

I'll usually consider them to be guilty until proven otherwise, and I doubt that any inquest by the system would want to discourage their lackies too much either.

I see that a Palm Island inquest is being re-opened ...to free their man?


Quote:

Even if the police are found not to have used perfect judgement, Tyler's actions are the ones that precipitated this unfortunate tragedy.

I agree that it's his uncontrolled actions which landed him in the shite, but I can understand the rage that can be felt sometimes, especially as a kid growing up when you're out on the streets quite a bit.
One time, as a kid, another kid came up behind me and held a knife to my throat just for the power trip.
Another time, in what used to be the "city square", a Lebo tiger pulled a knife on me and demanded money.
And I could on with other instances where I've felt like going back with a gun or something just to say "how the bugger do you like it?" But I didn't.

The point I'm making, is that if it had've initially been reported differently, you may have had a different picture of the situation.
I think the the picture painted was that of a far more pschologically unstable person than what he probably was. But the initial impression is usually the one which sticks.

Quote:

I think he means the sociopaths who run the show appeal to your emotional/human integrity in order to get support for their insane actions, and mislead and manipulate the population to meet these ends.

Yes.
I've done it myself, where I supported the Iraq war if the WMD's were found.
They weren't found, but I found myself defending the actions by saying that the Iraqis needed to be freed, Saddam was a monster..etc.

Amadd wrote on Dec 21^st, 2008 at 9:58pm:

Quote: I have always thought that serious questions needed to be asked about how they came to use such a high degree of force, but I also felt that to prejudge them, which is what you did, was grossly unfair. If, after an enquiry, and all the facts come to light, any blame is apportioned the police, then would be the right time to make criticisms of them. I'll usually consider them to be guilty until proven otherwise, and I doubt that any inquest by the system would want to discourage their lackies too much either.

That says it all then doesn't it.

Of course it says it all.
Experience tells me that I shouldn't blindly trust the word of so called "authority" figures under any circumstance. And I also shouldn't trust media spin.
There was no use highlighting that statement, because I make no bones about it, I don't trust the system.
It's a pschological bully boy bs system IMO. They don't protect anything but their own interests.

And no, it's practically nothing to do with the story that I mentioned earlier. It's much more to do with a time a few years back when I was set up for a ridiculous bs "failing to indicate" fare and I decided to have my one and only "day in court". There I witnessed a police officer give false testimony and it was this that caused me to reflect on all of the times that I was put in personal danger at the hands of the police and the system. And it made me wonder why somebody like me, with a squeaky clean criminal record, has to part with so much money without harming a single soul or putting anybody in danger at their every command. It also made me wonder how many other people constantly get shafted and just choose to bow to "the man".

Before that point, I let it all slide and continued to trust that I was just unlucky to come across a few bad apples. But luck has nothing to do with much at all IMO, it's just the way things are.
You may say that their value to me is indirect, but I know for certain that they don't give a rat's rosy ringhole about individual rights, they care about control, power and money, nomatter what their phony outward appearance says.


“… Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadow about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes. They will submit to any indignity, perform any vile act, do anything to achieve power. … Every government is a parliament of whores. [We pay them to get screwed?] The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us.” – P. J. O’Rourkei

The Agonies of an Accidental Anarchist.

And all over a failure-to-indicate infringement.... A humorous take on the butterfly effect.

Now that’s what comedy is made of.  ;D

Maybe you didn't read it correctly, but it was the lying under oath for a petty charge which was bs in the first place that I was so taken aback by.

Lucky for you Helian, mummy kept you safe and sound indoors and you never got to see anything with your own eyes.

Quote:

And no, it's practically nothing to do with the story that I mentioned earlier. It's much more to do with a time a few years back when I was set up for a ridiculous bs "failing to indicate" fare and I decided to have my one and only "day in court". There I witnessed a police officer give false testimony and it was this that caused me to reflect on all of the times that I was put in personal danger at the hands of the police and the system. And it made me wonder why somebody like me, with a squeaky clean criminal record, has to part with so much money without harming a single soul or putting anybody in danger at their every command. It also made me wonder how many other people constantly get shafted and just choose to bow to "the man".

You hear a lot of stories like yours Amadd and the problem seems to be that you're far too honest.  You've got to be cunning, confident and indignant and beat them at their own game.  Too many people give up and surrender to the penalties inflicted on them, but next time if you find yourself in a similar situation - immediately take the offensive.

Although it's a hassle going to Court - if you convince yourself the story you have prepared is right and believe it - the magistrate will believe you too.  This works for males as easily as it does for females - you just have to be strong,  exude sincerity and call their bluff.  Too many people haven't got their story down pat when they go to Court, or they're nervous and don't believe in their own righteousness and that's when they pay the price.

It's pathetic and it shouldn't have to be like this, but this is how the system works - on lies.  

Sometimes you have to tell little white lies under oath.

I'm sure I could be a very good liar if I put my mind to it.

Amadd wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2008 at 9:04pm:

Maybe you didn't read it correctly, but it was the lying under oath for a petty charge which was bs in the first place that I was so taken aback by. Lucky for you Helian, mummy kept you safe and sound indoors and you never got to see anything with your own eyes.

Hmm... I thought you were the squeaky clean one...

I've seen corrupt cops in action in my time, but I know they're in the minority. You appear to have decided all cops are dirty because one cop bullshitted to uphold a pissant charge... You shouldda got a lawyer if you wanted to screw around with them in court.

Quote:

Hmm... I thought you were the squeaky clean one... I've seen corrupt cops in action in my time, but I know they're in the minority. You appear to have decided all cops are dirty because one cop bullshitted to uphold a pissant charge... You shouldda got a lawyer if you wanted to screw around with them in court.

That's just ridiculous Helian. I'm talking about a squeaky clean "criminal" record. I have no "criminal" record at all.
Check out the records of politicians some time.

Get a lawyer for a "day in court'?? WTF?

And I don't need to bring up every other instance throughout my life where I've found cops to be less than useless to me, but they are a plenty.

The following are all Mozzaok Quotes:



Quote:

As far as the issue of Tyler's death is concerned, their is no reason to believe the police had any racial motive for shooting Tyler, as opposed to Martin Luther King, a black, civil rights leader, assassinated while in the middle of the world's biggest ever civil rights campaign, I would think even somewhat as ill equipped to follow logical reasoning, as yourself, could spot the difference there.

Who says King's assasination was racially motivated, Mozzaok?  ::) Ooooo, because he was black and the assassin was white? My word, Mozzaok, did you figure that one out all by yourself?  ;D

The anti-racists used MLK's death to forward their agenda, Mozzaok. And this trend continues to this day. With so many *ahem* sheep eating it up and so many pieces of filth promoting it. There isn't much difference between the two, Mozzaok, aside from the grand scale of it, as the media is playing it down, unlike back in the 1960's, where the media was less centralized/monopolized and less agenda driven.



Quote:

So it is worth noting the incident, but until further information is available, it is hard to make a balanced judgement of where, and how much blame, gets attached to the incident. I have always thought that serious questions needed to be asked about how they came to use such a high degree of force, but I also felt that to prejudge them, which is what you did, was grossly unfair. If, after an enquiry, and all the facts come to light, any blame is apportioned the police, then would be the right time to make criticisms of them.

What a crock. Has that ever stopped the media before? They usually jump onto a story as soon as they can get the quotes. 'Fact-checking' my eye. They have the tendency to report whatever comes out of the families mouth. It's all over the internet in both anti-racist and racist circles that he was attacked by a Lebanese gang.

The media just reported that the Government reestablished Australia's multicultural policy and that it would get tougher on wacists in Melbourne. Targetting them with "ZERO TOLERANCE." Is it really that hard to believe that the media and Government are in it together on this one? They realise that this incident could undo two years worth of multiculturalism propaganda since the Cronulla protests.

Quote:

Is it really that hard to believe that the media and Government are in it together on this one?

The media and the government have always worked hand in hand. That's why Labor always used to get the left hand side of the page until they succumbed to corporate pressure and we now pretty much have two major right wing parties.

And I might add Mozz's intial comments which went like this:

Quote:

On tonight's news, they reported that he subscribed to a white supremicist group, and that he had threatened others with the knifes before the police arrived, and also that he shouted that he wanted to die. Now if I was faced with a crazy person with a knife, who says they want to die, then I would certainly be prepared to shoot them if I felt I was in imminent danger. That is the call that the police made, and if the reports are correct, it does seem justified.

It doesn't really matter about further reports that the police knew about in the first place. This is the very same argument which he has stuck with.
The kid was psychotic, waving knives, threating to kill and wanting to die, he deserved to die.
That's all the public needs to know, now move on.....says Mozz.

I've stood in smelly stuff with more sense than you Donald, you are truly..(fill in your own description that will equate to ignorant, self absorbed, and not too bright), an oxygen thief.

And as Ammad says, I have remained consistent on this matter, as if that was the wrong thing to do.
Has new information come to light to warrant a change of view?

I still say, unless information comes to light that the police acted improperly, and so far absolutely none has, then no-one has the right to maliciously attack them, as some here did.

So it stands with an unfortunate and tragic death, of a very troubled, armed youth, being shot, when he violently resisted any attempt to subdue him.

That still sounds justifiable.

Mozzaok quotes:


Quote:

I've stood in smelly stuff with more sense than you Donald, you are truly..(fill in your own description that will equate to ignorant, self absorbed, and not too bright), an oxygen thief.

Oh... poor Mozzaok... what's the matter? Upset that your arguments are ineffective?  ::) (Note: I use the term 'arguments' very loosely, as most are just insults)   

Why'd you stop talking about MLK so suddenly, Mozzaok? Where was the 'racial motivation' you so desperately tried to link with the MLK shooting?  ;D (Note: I only brought up MLK to defend myself against your insults and all anti-wacists delusions that anti-wacists 'never' use unfortunate deaths to forward their own political agenda).


Quote:

And as Ammad says, I have remained consistent on this matter, as if that was the wrong thing to do. Has new information come to light to warrant a change of view?

Yes. A Lebanese gang attacked Tyler a few hours before the multicultural controlled police murdered him.

Yet, the (Multicultural) media have somehow avoided that SMALL detail in this article. Preferring to focus on the fact that he was 'erratic,' 'DANGEROUS' and 'out of control.'


Quote:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24805590-661,00.html TYLER Cassidy looked as though he'd been to a war zone, according to a bus driver who dropped the teenager near his home shortly before he was shot dead by police. "His shirt was all dirty around his stomach. It looked like he'd been in some sort of fight, so I thought I'd better help him out.

It's amazing what little coverage the media has given this little detail isn't it, Mozzaok?

Why don't you contact mediawatch and ask them why they didn't go more in depth on the subject???  ;D

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/

Apparantly, they think late night 'racist' callers to David Oldfield are a more important issue than this.  ::) ;D

Mozzaok, open your eyes and smell the sh1t. This is dirty work by the media. It's an attempt to destroy this group (SCS) by Government and media. The multiculturalist elites do not want competition.

They do not want people to think that this boys views were somehow justified by his death. As Lebanese youths would be directly linked with this crime committed by Tyler.


Quote:

I still say, unless information comes to light that the police acted improperly, and so far absolutely none has, then no-one has the right to maliciously attack them, as some here did.

I still say, you've got an unhealthy trust in authority, Mozzaok. I still say, this whole situation stinks. The cops keep changing their story. "Oh yeah, by the way, we did try shooting at their legs... blah dee blah blah."

They WON'T admit they screwed up, EVEN if they did.

You act like he's a killer and that he was out control. That the cops couldn't 'control him.' Bullsh1t. Several witnesses said that he was not out of control.


There were 4 armed cops against 1 fifteen year old kid holding two knives. Wow. Difficult to control. The police were notified half an hour before the incident of what the situation was and what the kid looked like. They were warned that he was acting erratic, but they shot him dead. WHY? Because of this sh1t:


Quote:

Victorian police vow crackdown to stop 'another Cronulla' POLICE will use roadblocks, mounted coast patrols and fines for swearing to protect Melbourne beaches from a Cronulla-style anti-immigrant gang. The crackdown follows boasts by the 200-strong Melbourne chapter of the Southern Cross Soldiers, who admit having criminals and neo-Nazis in their ranks (OH NO!!! NOT THE BIG SCARY WACISTS!!! ANYTHING BUT THAT!!!), that they will converge on bayside beaches this summer. The radical police plan to protect beaches from December to March includes: ROADBLOCKS and car checks to stop troublemakers heading to the beach. A ZERO-TOLERANCE blitz, including on-the-spot $130 fines for swearing on the beach, to stop trouble before it starts. MOUNTED horse patrols in troublespots and undercover beach officers. PHONING parents of drunk and violent youths to pick up their children from police stations. SHOOTING anyone who opposes multiculturalism now, it seems.

The police, Government and media are collectively responsible for Tyler's death. Why you can't see this, Mozzaok, I don't know.



Quote:

So it stands with an unfortunate and tragic death, of a very troubled, armed youth, being shot, when he violently resisted any attempt to subdue him. That still sounds justifiable.

God help your puny, anti-wacist brain.  [smiley=thumbdown.gif] How do you sleep at night?

Amadd wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2008 at 4:37pm:

“… Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadow about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes. They will submit to any indignity, perform any vile act, do anything to achieve power. … Every government is a parliament of whores. [We pay them to get screwed?] The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us.” – P. J. O’Rourke

So? Just because I agree with that statement dosen't change or sway what I have said in this topic based on the story that was presented. I am unable to fathom an agenda that profits from shooting 15 year old knife weilding adolesents other than to discourage 15 year old knife wielding adolescents. Which I happen to find a sufficient enough reason.


Quote:

... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy. Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New ALEX CAREY

That is one of my favourite quotes and reflects my distrust in many things corporate and government and media. That does not effect my ability to make a value judgement concerning situational events. You made this an issue of rights and courage and age. I saw it tactically and objectively and pragmatically.

I didn't need to be wronged by the system to distrust it, I was a student of history. Just because you have been wronged does not make you right, even though you seem to think that everyone that disagrees with you are idiots. I educate people about the media, corporations and government. That said, I would hardly use your nonsensical, emotionally driven, knee jerk response to the story as an example of good critical reasoning.

Amadd wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2008 at 9:50pm:

Quote: Hmm... I thought you were the squeaky clean one... I've seen corrupt cops in action in my time, but I know they're in the minority. You appear to have decided all cops are dirty because one cop bullshitted to uphold a pissant charge... You shouldda got a lawyer if you wanted to screw around with them in court. That's just ridiculous Helian. I'm talking about a squeaky clean "criminal" record. I have no "criminal" record at all. Check out the records of politicians some time. Get a lawyer for a "day in court'?? WTF? And I don't need to bring up every other instance throughout my life where I've found cops to be less than useless to me, but they are a plenty.

Maybe not a real lawyer.... just a crumple suit from legal aid... just to give cross-examination a bit of pathos.

Agonies of an Accidental Anarchist... it has a cinematic ring to it... something loosely based on David Hicks....

The opening scene : The protagonist, the accidental anarchist, wakes up in Gitmo chained to an Islamic zealot, who's arse up, yodelling like an old testament prophet... and the story line works its way through Afghanistan back to the failure-to-indicate affair.

Quote:

Maybe not a real lawyer.... just a crumple suit from legal aid... just to give cross-examination a bit of pathos.

Even if I wanted to waste my time trying, do you honestly think that legal aid would come to court in such a case?
They wouldn't even give me advice.

The only reason I  bothered with it in the first place was to bring to light the complaint so alarm bells may possibly ring if it had been a common occurence in the past, or if it was to be in the future.
I was working afternoon shift at the time, so it was sort of convenient.
Most times it's just too much of a hassle to contest anything. It's far more convenient to just part with the extortion fee and move on to the next extortion fee.
But maybe I would've done well to have you by my side, and you could've used mockery as admissable evidence.

Quote:

Has new information come to light to warrant a change of view?

Yes there has been a lot of information, as DT said. I haven't been able to find the part about the Lebanese gangs just yet (maybe internet filtering is up and running already?), but it's obvious that his previous beating and robbing sparked the rage. I'd think he would've been consolable if the right method was used - Not pepper spraying.

"The police according to our witnesses chased him, cornered him at the skate park in Northcote, he was surrounded and gunned down by four officers firing at least six or seven shots.


"Ms Stewart said there were a number of shoppers around at the time. It was dark and no-one knew what was happening.

She said that she thought it was "outrageous" that he was shot by police.

"I mean he was terrifying, don't get me wrong, and I'm not easily scared, but he was just a kid. I think it's outrageous.

"I was pretty scared, I guess, and actually just alarmed that the police might be actually shooting someone."

She said that there appeared to have been enough police cars rushing to the scene and there appeared to be no justification for the boy's death. "


Our eyewitness confirmed that Tyler patted her dog, was confronted by the police and sprayed with capsicum foam, then pursued to the skate park, surrounded and hunted down."


"Meanwhile, a woman who saw Tyler minutes before he was gunned down, has used a letter to The Age to deny the boy was aggressive before his death.

The woman, who asked not to be named, said she and her partner were confronted by Tyler after he left the KMart.

She said they felt "nervous maybe, but not threatened".

"I did not encounter someone 'violent and irrational' or 'angry'," the woman wrote.

"I cannot comment on his behaviour before when he was in the shopping centre, or after when he was with the police, but I can remark on our short encounter with him minutes before he was shot.

"He patted our dog on his way to the skate park."

The woman said Tyler was "a kid who needed to sit down and talk".

So now it looks like he was either psychotic or on stimulants (probably not stims, post mortem would have been done by now and it would be through the papers if he was). Either way he would not be of sound mind in either case.

OR

OR

He was a dominant type of personality, the type thugs will target in groups when they are alone in order to make themselves feel more powerful, as often these people will have conditioned fear when seeing the same people again, and was trying to reclaim his former state of mind and was out hunting them down. If that was the case, I see no problem with this kid. The law never works in favour of the victims.

He might have been in the state of mind where he decided "I am not going to be anyone's bitch" and pumped himself up.

If he was walking towards the police, and not rushing them, then clearly he was reasonably composed, either thinking that if I remain calm I can get closer to kill, or that I just want to make them afraid of me, or none of the above.

We do not know if the words he is alleged to have said are true or if the police are lying, which they are TRAINED to do in some cases.

Aren't police supposed to be trained in basic psychology? And this is really basic stuff. However not being there, I don't know the situation. I do know that I know enough to never trust official police reports.

Once a cop always a cop. Remember that, even ex cops who appear to be anti police, get involved with criminals and drugs, are always cops. Might just be undercover, drug squad, and pretending to be a traitor to their original team.

Either way, no cop is going to risk their career and gaol time by telling the truth, if the truth is likely to get them in trouble. If they were prepared to break the law, then obviously they are prepared to lie about it also.

Well I guess it is no surprise that the people who have been "gunning" for the police, will not accept their reporting of the facts anyway, so they do not need to wait for an enquiry, they have already made up their minds.

Because they don't trust any authority figures, they have these officers already condemned as murderers.

How can you even discuss it with people whose minds are already made up?

I don't know if the cops did the right thing or not.

I do know that there are too many criminals (in the sense they are hypocritical and dishonest, morally etc) in the police force.

They might have done the right thing, or they might be lying. None of us know.

The initial reports smacked of spin.

I'm much more inclined to believe the word of eyewitnesses over the police, who have a lot to lose.
If they did shoot at the legs, well there's a slight bit of a positive, even though this was argued earlier and poo pooed.
Blind trust is also being prejudiced.

The kid was a bugger. Being shot was the best thing that ever happened to him.

Quote:

The kid was a bugger. Being shot was the best thing that ever happened to him.

That's a surprise comment Phil.  He was allegedly a white supremist - I thought you had respect for those blokes.

mantra wrote on Dec 26^th, 2008 at 10:05pm:

Quote: The kid was a bugger. Being shot was the best thing that ever happened to him. That's a surprise comment Phil.  He was allegedly a white supremist - I thought you had respect for those blokes.

Not for skinheads.

The police shot a woman last week in Sydney who claims she was the victim not the perpetrator.  She says she was beaten up by a kickboxer, although he claims she poked him with a cocktail fork.  When police arrived at the scene - they sprayed both of them - then shot the woman after she allegedly advanced towards them. She got a bullet to the spine and chest.

Could the police have made a mistake - or was this middle aged woman a serious threat, blinded with capsicum spray and brandishing her cocktail fork?



Susie Bandera, 48, claims she was initially relieved when she saw officers had been called out to the North Parramatta address where a man was allegedly assaulting her in the early hours of December 21.

"I believe he would have killed me," she said. "I was in the foetal position where he was eye-gouging me and ear-gouging me. Then I saw the police torches coming and I thought, 'Oh good, I'm safe.' "

Instead, the mother of two has a bullet wound to the chest and another police bullet lodged in her spine after it passed through her liver. Doctors have told Ms Bandera it might be too dangerous to remove the bullet.

"My right leg is gone, I can't feel it," she said. "How [the bullet] missed my vital organs, I don't know."

Friends said Ms Bandera was "upset and angry" at police and would be seeking compensation and "probably an apology" from the officers involved.

Police alleged Ms Bandera threatened officers with a knife and refused to surrender the weapon after they arrived at the Iron Street units after neighbours reported a disturbance. When Ms Bandera lunged at police, they alleged, a junior female officer fired two shots.

Ms Bandera claims she wasn't armed with a knife but a cocktail fork she had taken as protection as she walked an elderly, vision-impaired neighbour home after watching carols on television.

On her way back, Ms Bandera had encountered a 23-year-old champion kick boxer arguing on a public phone. She said he demanded to know what she was looking at. He said he followed her to ask her why she had poked him with a fork.

Anne McCabe, 73, a resident who had just returned home from a Christmas party, said she heard a commotion on the drive leading to the units. She went out to her balcony and claims that she saw the man kicking Ms Bandera in the stomach and groin before Ms Bandera sought refuge in her foyer.

"He was kicking the hell out of her," she said. "Neighbours were yelling at him to stop. He was choking, strangling her and I am standing over them yelling and yelling."

The kick boxer has denied he had assaulted Ms Bandera and has said in the media he was trying to subdue her and that he had her under control when police arrived and sprayed them both with capsicum spray.

"When I saw the police I ran towards them for help, to help me," Ms Bandera said. "And as I ran towards them she shot me, point blank."

Ms Bandera said she first thought she had been hit by a stun gun but realised she had been shot when she saw the bullet casing next to her on the ground. "I thought he'd shot me. I didn't think it was the coppers," she said.

Under observation in Westmead Hospital, Ms Bandera said she had been told her attacker had since gone to Queensland without charge, while she has been depicted as a "knife-wielding maniac" by police.

"They didn't even get a DNA sample from him, they got one from me," she said.

A police spokesman said no comment would be made until the critical incident team finished its investigations into the shooting.

But for Mrs McCabe, who said she was the prime witness and her unit the crime scene, the case was simple. In her view, when the police officer opened fire in her tiny foyer - with a bullet ricocheting into her unit to miss her by inches - she shot the wrong person.

"A woman shouted out and I could hear her shouting out, 'You shot the bloody victim,"' she said.

"And that's in my formal statement. The policewoman obviously shot in panic, she shot the wrong person."

[sarc] There's probably a good explanation because our police force are professionally trained and they do as they are trained to do.

The police force attracts only citizens of pure and noble intent who gladly put their lives on the line every day for the society that they believe in.

If they needed to kill a seven year old girl holding a particularly nasty looking doll, then they get my full support [/sarc]

DT:


Quote:

The cops keep changing their story. "Oh yeah, by the way, we did try shooting at their legs... blah dee blah blah."

Where did they say that?


Quote:

You act like he's a killer and that he was out control. That the cops couldn't 'control him.' Bullsh1t. Several witnesses said that he was not out of control.

Witnesses who didn't see everything, like him getting pepper sprayed and it not stopping him. If that's not out of control, I don't know what is.


Quote:

There were 4 armed cops against 1 fifteen year old kid holding two knives. Wow. Difficult to control.

Not difficult at all. They followed procedure and got the situation under control. It was Tyler who raised the stakes so high.


Quote:

The police, Government and media are collectively responsible for Tyler's death. Why you can't see this, Mozzaok, I don't know.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Do you cry 'society is to blame' everytime someone does the wrong thing?


Quote:

Who says King's assasination was racially motivated, Mozzaok?   Ooooo, because he was black and the assassin was white? My word, Mozzaok, did you figure that one out all by yourself?

I think you are leaving out a few very obvious clues there DT.

Oceans:


Quote:

These people are trained to restrain and subdue pple who are aggravated in this way...shooting is surely the last resort?

Not if they are armed Oceans. They are trained to subdue them with pepper spray, then if that doesn't work, to subdue them with lethal force.


Quote:

They could have used capsicum spray..a net, tazer ,tanquiliser dart, or anything rather than shoot.

They did try CS. It didn't work.

Amadd:


Quote:

I'll usually consider them to be guilty until proven otherwise, and I doubt that any inquest by the system would want to discourage their lackies too much either.

Why guilty until proven innocent?


Quote:

I think the the picture painted was that of a far more pschologically unstable person than what he probably was.

If you fail to stop when you get CS sprayed in your face, then you have serious issues.

Mozz:


Quote:

I've stood in smelly stuff with more sense than you Donald, you are truly..(fill in your own description that will equate to ignorant, self absorbed, and not too bright), an oxygen thief.

Leave out the insults please Mozz.