15 year old boy killed by cops in Australia

by thamas Sat Dec 13, 2008 08:24

Here in Australia there is not much hype about the teenager that died but a lot of media about whether the police should get taser guns as it is touted as more humane than shooting. I am infuriated that this is going on without reason. I can not believe that many police can not contain one child no matter how aggressive he is. Taser guns are a torture weapon yet they are big business. We have never needed them before. The Greeks are at present rioting instigated by a teenager being shot. We are asleep and allowing our freedoms to disappear forever. Some lucky country!

by OZ Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:51

It would be helpful if you told us what state this occured in. Australia is a federation of six Brtish colonies and there are some differences (eg. laws on drugs, gays, indigeneous) from state to state. A general rule is that the most corrupt cops come from the cities that began as convict settlements (Brisbane/ Moreton Bay, Sydney/Botany Bay, Perth/Frermantle) but for some reason the cops of free setled Victoria are the most trigger happy in the annual stats.

"Southern Cross" sounds like a reference to the flag of the Eureka Rebellion on the goldfields in the 1800's This rebellion is claimed by both the extreme left (Mostly Maoists now defunct CPAML and the BUilders Laborers Federation) and extreme right groups (even bikies) as a basis of national identitiy, national liberation etc But recently the anarchists have also referenced it...see this link http://www.flickr.com/photos/takver/sets/72157610651922601/

I would say the extreme right are more numerous and organised than the extreme left....my first hunch would be this victim would be on the fringes of that scene. (See Russel Crowe's "Romper Stomper") The Southern Cross flag is also referenced by mainstream capitalists looking for a national identity tinge, backpackers. Australian nationalism is pretty confused most evident in teh mainstream embrace and celebration of cop killer Ned Kelly and ruthless treatment of dissidents and contemporary outsiders......even on this occasion what sounds like white yooof.

by Dave Sat Dec 13, 2008 16:07

A person armed with a knife automatically negates any advantage an opponent has in terms of size, strength and martial arts skills.
An attempt by an older, larger, physically stronger policeman to subdue a smaller teenager armed with a knife could easily result in the death or serious injury of the officer.
Armed police in most countries are usually issued with handguns.
Most lethal shots in combat situations with handguns are at ranges of less than 50 feet.
A teenager armed with a knife could cover that distance in a matter of seconds and deliver a fatal wound to an armed police officer before he could draw his sidearm.
A violent suspect, especially a deranged person wielding a knife, can sustain multiple bullet wounds before they are incapacitated.
Only a direct hit to the brain or heart will immediately stop a violent individual.
A suspect with a fatal wound can still wield a knife and kill or injure before collapsing and expiring of blood loss.

The unfortunate teenager in this situation was a lethal danger and confront the police with a knife.
He failed to respond to warnings and he was shot.

It's tragic but the police were given no alternative.

by lulu Sat Dec 13, 2008 20:23

is to shoot to immobilise without killing. Another would be tranquiliser darts for public menaces; they work on rhinos & bears...

by Gruffalo Sun Dec 14, 2008 01:35

"It's tragic but the police were given no alternative."

Dave were you actually there? I doubt it but you still manage to find some justification for murdering a young man. How about shooting him in the leg so that he cannot run at you? If there was a need to shoot him at all.

I think you have watched too many Tarantino movies

by OldObserver Sun Dec 14, 2008 16:41

Correct, none of us were there, so none of are qualified to judge on what happened. That goes for both sides of the argument!
As for the "shoot him in the leg or use tranquilizer darts" brigade, I will assume you have not idea what you are talking about.

In a high pressure situation or during/ after physical exertion or when adrenaline is pumping, a marksman's accuracy goes down as much as 80%. Thats the reality of the situation, this is something which is not under dispute. So it is wholly unrealistic to say someone should or indeed can shoot someone in the leg or arm. They would in the vast majority of cases simply miss (almost universally with a moving target).

This is why police/ military marksmen aim for the largest visible target, specifically the torso, simply because it means they have the highest likelihood of hitting their target. Its nothing to do with "shoot to kill" and everything to do with "shoot to hit".
If an officer has no realistic chance of hitting their target, there is no point shooting.

Another reason the torso is the best place to shoot at, is because all the major organs are there, its most likely to lead to an incapacitating shot, but also unfortunately a fatal shot.

It is wholly unrealistic to expect officers to NOT draw their firearm when confronted with someone with a knife (or indeed crowbar, hatchet, petrol bomb etc). An officer has does not have enough time to draw a gun in time if someone with a knife within 20m charges for them. The officer will get stabbed. Its nobodies job to get stabbed. This is the same reason a tranquilizer would be inappropriate,... they are simply not fast acting or reliable enough. A gunman for example would still have plenty of time to fire and continue firing until rendered unconscious. A knife wielder would easily close any reasonable distance in time to do damage.

So its really down to an officers perception of actual danger at the time, its very hard to second guess that. It is tragic that a young man has lost his life and even a bigger shame that people use his death for political point scoring.
It will be up to those officers to explain their actions and they will have to live with that for the rest of their lives, justified or not.

by intrested oberver Sun Dec 14, 2008 16:46

while i feel sorry for all involved, i just want to say i have been trained in the use of modern firearms and with the best will in the world it is very difficult to hit a limb of a person who is moving even slowly. So of the people commenting seem to think that the cop wanted to kill the boy. while i was not there i cannot believe that any cop wants to kill somebody. most cops have kids of their own. oh course there should be a full and open investigation of anytime a police officer discharges a firearm, but we, society, give cops guns to protect wider society. was this youth presenting a danger to another, i dont know, tasers, dogs, beanbag rounds all possible ways to reply. if the cop tasered the kid and the kid had a heart defect and died, this board would be complaining about police over reaction. if a cop fought the kid and tried to grap the knife from him and (a) got killed in the struggle or (b) killed the kid in the struggle then what would you say, yes i am a cop and no i have never shot anybody (never had to thankfully) The situtation is Greece seems a complete over reaction by the cop involved, this case in Oz SEEMS differerent. Time and a full investigation will tell. Most modern police forces require a cop to surrender his firearm following a shooting for testing but to also take the gun away from him least he decides the guilt of taking a human life is too much to bear even if he shot an armed robber who was shooting at him. Just some thoughts on the subject

by Dave Sun Dec 14, 2008 16:47

A limb is quite a narrow difficult target to strike and a wound in the leg will not garantee that a dangerous person will fall to the ground.
Police officers are trained to shoot at the torso and head when faced with a suspect armed with a gun or a knife.
If the suspect is still able to operate their arm and hand which is clutching the weapon, it does not matter if they have a leg wound.

Contrary to popular myth police officers are not trained to shoot guns or knives out of armed suspects hands or to shoot them in leg.

When John Carty was shot in Abbeylara, Longford in 2000 he was hit in both legs and a third time in the back (the bullet exited his scrotum) but was able to continue walking forward with a loaded shotgun toward a cordon of unarmed Gardai. It was only when he was shot through the heart and killed that he fell to the ground.

In a infamous incident in Miami, Florida, two armed suspects shot dead several FBI officers after themselves sustaining dozens of bullet wounds before they expired from blood loss.
Neither man was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

This young boy armed with a knife was a lethal danger to those around him and especially to the arresting officers who opened fire when the suspect refused to put down his weapon and surrender.
Had they not opened fire and taken him down he could well have killed or injured somebody.

by Fuller Report Wed Dec 17, 2008 13:09

Vic Cops do have a higher rate of shooting people than other state poice forces inAustralia....

http://perth.indymedia.org/?action=newswire&parentview=...35659

by observer Thu Jun 03, 2010 05:49

firstly, for those who are presenting past events about men with guns- i'm afraid that that is completely different and a failure of an attempt to prove your point. If this teenager had been carrying a gun, it would have been a different story- the fact is that a man with a gun does not need use of his legs, while a man with a knife does. How do you think they can reach their target??...with the use of legs- its called walking. so if you take out his legs, hes most likely to be immobile. yes, it is not 100 percent that the boy wouldve stopped advancing, but it is most likely that he would.

Also- someone in an above post commented that "the cops werent aiming to kill the boy", but then completely contradicted himself by later saying "cops are trained to aim for the internal organs as it incapacitates the person but is unfortunately a fatal shot" ???????? .......

Policemen are there to keep order, to intimidate so that people are obligated to abide by the law, now, if a bunch of cops can't do anything to detain a 15 year old boy than to shoot him down and kill him, what does that say about the Victorian police force??