Man shot on Tube

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:07 pm

I am pondering the concept of Australian philosophy even as I don't read that other thread. If a kangaroo dies in the bush, does it stink if there are no Bushmen around to smell it?

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:16 pm

The Weekenders wrote:I am pondering the concept of Australian philosophy even as I don't read that other thread. If a kangaroo dies in the bush, does it stink if there are no Bushmen around to smell it?

I don't like your chances as a philosopher Weeks, but you clearly have exactly what it takes to edit an Australian literary review.

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:17 pm

Hey, don't worry, I am interviewing to be your boss next week!

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:28 pm

The Weekenders wrote:Hey, don't worry, I am interviewing to be your boss next week!

What do you mean don't worry.

Seriously, no matter how much philosophy you know, you couldn't be less well-equipped than some of the guys further up the food chain.

I.D.10-t · Post by **I.D.10-t** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:33 pm

Wombat wrote:I'm also aware of systemic corruption in the New South Wales Police force—it's been publically exposed and several officers convicted—and several cases in Melbourne in which police shot to kill when maiming might well have done the job.

Does the UK have the “fleeing felon” doctrine or the
“defense of life” doctrine, or something different?

http://www.iejs.com/glossary/Glossary_F.htm

Fleeing Felon Rule. (also Doctrine). Police practice of using deadly force against a fleeing suspect; made illegal in Tennessee v. Garner (1985), except when there is a clear and present danger to the public.

“Defense of life” doctrine usually states that to use deadly force (in other words a fire arm) it needs to be to prevent the taking of another life.

Shooting to maim would not seem to fit this description. But I could be wrong.

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:44 pm

I.D.10-t wrote:
Wombat wrote:I'm also aware of systemic corruption in the New South Wales Police force—it's been publically exposed and several officers convicted—and several cases in Melbourne in which police shot to kill when maiming might well have done the job.
Does the UK have the “fleeing felon” doctrine or the
“defense of life” doctrine, or something different?

http://www.iejs.com/glossary/Glossary_F.htm

Fleeing Felon Rule. (also Doctrine). Police practice of using deadly force against a fleeing suspect; made illegal in Tennessee v. Garner (1985), except when there is a clear and present danger to the public.

“Defense of life” doctrine usually states that to use deadly force (in other words a fire arm) it needs to be to prevent the taking of another life.

Shooting to maim would not seem to fit this description. But I could be wrong.

I can't speak for the U.K. (Remember, most U.K. police don't carry guns.)

The incident in Melbourne I'm spcecifically thinking of is a cases in which a psychiatric patient brandishing a knife had been cornered by police. Although not within stabbing range, police shot the man dead. Surely he could have been disarmed by shooting at the shoulder or even the leg rather than the chest.

missy · Post by **missy** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:51 pm

"Shooting to maim would not seem to fit this description. But I could be wrong."

That's why our local officers carry tazers, besides their sidearm. If they are trying to stop someone, or prevent harm, etc. - they use the tazer. If they are trying to stop deadly force, they use deadly force. If you shoot (with a bullet), you shoot to kill, not to maime.

As to there being bad cops - sure there are. Just as there are bad teachers, and doctors and every other job out there. There are a lot more good ones - you just don't hear or read about them. Unfortunately, in the case of a police officer, if he or she guesses "wrong" or hesitates, someone - either the cop or the perp - winds up dead.

SteveShaw · Post by **SteveShaw** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:48 pm

susnfx wrote: The comment "and I don't think the guys who pumped the bullets should feel too good about it either" was amazingly callous - as if policemen truly enjoy having the chance to kill somebody. I know a policeman who had to shoot someone and even though the person was in the act of committing a crime, the cop was devastated.

The nitpicking about who said what and yes, the guy was wearing a coat, no he wasn't, yes he jumped the turnstile, no he didn't, is just silly. The fact is that none of us were there and none of us knows what the policemen saw or what they believed was happening. Something happened that made the policemen believe this man was a threat - a very real threat. None of us had to make the decision about whether to shoot or not.

This unfortunate incident is over. I vote we let it go.

Susan

Callous is a word I would reserve for a person who would fire a bullet into the head of another human being, unknown to him, because he was following orders. I hope the cop is devastated. He won't be as bloody devastated as the family of the innocent Brazilian guy. It's a free country here and you don't have to be a gun-wielding policeman if you don't want. And even if you are one, no-one will hold a gun to your head to make you fire. Please do not call me callous, Susan. I have the greatest respect for all humanity as anyone who knows me could attest, and I think my posts on this topic are testament to that, no matter how misguided or naive you may think I am. So there. And as for letting it go - do me a favour. "Unfortunate?" Innocent man gunned down in cold blood and you want to let it go. Gimme strength!

Steve

susnfx · Post by **susnfx** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:44 pm

I meant let it go as far as this board is concerned--I meant the futile discussing back and forth about what happened when not one of us will ever know.

Susan

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:52 pm

SteveShaw wrote: Callous is a word I would reserve for a person who would fire a bullet into the head of another human being, unknown to him, because he was following orders. I hope the cop is devastated. He won't be as bloody devastated as the family of the innocent Brazilian guy. It's a free country here and you don't have to be a gun-wielding policeman if you don't want. And even if you are one, no-one will hold a gun to your head to make you fire. Please do not call me callous, Susan. I have the greatest respect for all humanity as anyone who knows me could attest, and I think my posts on this topic are testament to that, no matter how misguided or naive you may think I am. So there. And as for letting it go - do me a favour. "Unfortunate?" Innocent man gunned down in cold blood and you want to let it go. Gimme strength!

Steve

If you have the greatest respect for humanity, extend some to the cop, who is working in an unprecedented atmosphere of fear, death and uncertainty created by the bombings. Surely there is more to the story than a cold-blooded execution, which is, frankly the impression I am getting from your description, Steve.

If that particular cop had a history of gunning down innocent people and getting away with it, then a context would be created that could engender some outrage. It seems more likely that the cops were afraid of a detonation to do what they have done.

I just don't see it and I know damn well that cops begin their careers wanting to do right by all of society. I do know that they get hardened by associating with the assholes of the world who make life miserable for everyone else. How you can invoke free will to deny that respect THEN CONDEMN someone for making that life choice, as though the world could get by without cops, is beyond me. I just find it way too convenient to brand cops who use guns as out of the human family. This is what happened when our soldiers returned from Vietnam. Very good men were shunned and traumatised by those who might have "hoped they were devastated" because public opinion had turned against their cause.

I can't imagine that the British justice system will not put this one through the rigors of investigation and possibly make the shooter a scapegoat for a tragic error.

I read the various press accounts. It just sounded like out-of-control chaos. I would like to think that our local police would somehow have a better outcome, but who really knows?

I would severely limit sanctimony lest it reflect an assumption of perfection or near-perfection by the accusers.

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:15 pm

missy wrote:"Shooting to maim would not seem to fit this description. But I could be wrong."

That's why our local officers carry tazers, besides their sidearm. If they are trying to stop someone, or prevent harm, etc. - they use the tazer. If they are trying to stop deadly force, they use deadly force. If you shoot (with a bullet), you shoot to kill, not to maime.

You're right. 'Maim' implies permanent injury and I didn't mean that. I just meant 'inflict no more damage than is necessary to defuse the situation.

missy wrote: As to there being bad cops - sure there are. Just as there are bad teachers, and doctors and every other job out there. There are a lot more good ones - you just don't hear or read about them. Unfortunately, in the case of a police officer, if he or she guesses "wrong" or hesitates, someone - either the cop or the perp - winds up dead.

Pretty much my point, really. I singled out Victoria as having a bad firearms record and, in doing so, suggested that other Australian states were doing much better. My major big concern is with the difficulty of bringing about reform when corruption becomes systemic, as it clearly is in my own state, and the good cops are complicit, as they have to be to keep their jobs. Even here I would guess that it is still only a minority initiating the corruption.

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:42 pm

Law enforcement officers can vary widely from city to city, state to state, and country to country. In some cities, Police Departments are very stand-offish. Other cities, the chief walks the streets and talks to everyone he meets. In some countries, law enforcement is very trustworthy. Other countries, it can't be trusted at all.

There's a myth that police departments are to be left alone to set their own internal policies. That's dangerous. There needs to be accountability. In some cities here in the US, there is a contract with the local county Sheriff's Dept. to supervise all drug raids and drug arrests because of the possibility certain city officers will not turn in all the drugs, or will not arrest certain suppliers.

There's an article in the LA Times about a system being used to screen potential bad cops out of the LAPD.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/07/26/lapd ... tchdog.ap/

SteveShaw · Post by **SteveShaw** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:24 am

The Weekenders wrote:If you have the greatest respect for humanity, extend some to the cop, who is working in an unprecedented atmosphere of fear, death and uncertainty created by the bombings. Surely there is more to the story than a cold-blooded execution, which is, frankly the impression I am getting from your description, Steve.

If that particular cop had a history of gunning down innocent people and getting away with it, then a context would be created that could engender some outrage. It seems more likely that the cops were afraid of a detonation to do what they have done.

I just don't see it and I know damn well that cops begin their careers wanting to do right by all of society. I do know that they get hardened by associating with the assholes of the world who make life miserable for everyone else. How you can invoke free will to deny that respect THEN CONDEMN someone for making that life choice, as though the world could get by without cops, is beyond me. I just find it way too convenient to brand cops who use guns as out of the human family. This is what happened when our soldiers returned from Vietnam. Very good men were shunned and traumatised by those who might have "hoped they were devastated" because public opinion had turned against their cause.

I can't imagine that the British justice system will not put this one through the rigors of investigation and possibly make the shooter a scapegoat for a tragic error.

I read the various press accounts. It just sounded like out-of-control chaos. I would like to think that our local police would somehow have a better outcome, but who really knows?

I would severely limit sanctimony lest it reflect an assumption of perfection or near-perfection by the accusers.

An innocent man is slaughtered by an armed policeman. That is an incontrovertible fact and it is the surrounding details that are subject to speculation. After the three enquiries which exonerated our government of any blame over the faulty intelligence that led us into an unjustified war I have little confidence that we will get the truth about this incident. About that copper: let's put it this way. He'd damn well better be feeling bad about it and not shrugging this off. Otherwise it's he who is voting himself outside the human family. I can't believe that anyone anywhere wants killer policemen to be protected from feeling lousy about what they've done because that just makes it all too easy to do again. I didn't condemn all gun-toting cops. I want the state to protect me and my family and every citizen against harm in the best way that can be mustered (including by minding our own bloody business when it comes to the affairs of other nations). I'm not the best judge of how that should be done, but I do know that I want cops and an army. He was not working at that moment in an unprecedented atmosphere of fear, death and uncertainty, in fact there was a bit too much damned "certainty" about the whole thing for my liking. I'm not sactimonious: I'm revolted by the whole bloody thing and I'm giving you my gut reaction. If you didn't react the same way for whatever reason I respect you fully for that. And to suggest that someone you happen to disagree with is putting themselves on a pedestal of near-perfection is just demeaning and you should reconsider that remark.

Steve

missy · Post by **missy** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:42 am

Steve wrote:
"An innocent man is slaughtered by an armed policeman. "

Steve - these cases are never that cut and dry - I wish to God they were. Do a web search on Cincinnati and Timothy Thomas and you'll see how even at this late date, after numerous local, federal, and private inquireries the "case" is still not totally settled to everyone's satisfaction.

A person may have made wrong moves. An officer may have made a bad call. An officer may have thought he was taking out one to save others. And we may never know the "real" truth.

The Weekenders · Post by **The Weekenders** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:45 am

Fair enough, Steve. Let me just rephrase it and say, that to quickly condemn someone else for their actions in a position you will never be in, should be done very gingerly and slowly. And I think that police and soldiers are often condemned too quickly because many of us have the luxury, if you will, of never having to make life and death decisions.

The inquiry has yet to be made, after all. And I don't see the linkage between the decision to go to Iraq and an domestic police matter, vis-a-vis whether justice will prevail. Is it not a whole separate body of authorities? Give it some time. That's all from here and best wishes to you.