Police admit shooting innocent 17-year-old

[Skyryder]

I see it as damned if they shoot and damned if they don't too. No problems with the police being held accountable for their actions... but keep in mind their actions were essential, taken under urgency in a remarkably dynamic situation where there's no time to form a consensuis on the best outcome.

Damned if they shoot... and damned if they don't.

I'm not in disagreement with you here but I believe that this is for a jury to decide as they are our 'representitives' in respect to the law.

Skyryder

[SixPackBack]

You claim that the cop doing the U-turn was an error of judgment and that this is different from shooting an innocent person. Both are errors of judgment. One judged the road safe to perform a U-turn, the other judged the innocent person to be the perpetrator. There is no difference other than the event.

Your suggestion the police being dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t suggests to me that you believe that the police should be able to perform their duties in any manner they see fit with no consequences should the public be injured or killed in the performance of their duties. If this is indeed you opinion then you need to seriously rethink the role of the police in today’s society.


Skyryder

You have a valid point. It would seem we are collectively guilty of applying double standards.

[Skyryder]

[QUOTE=Skyryder;1916056]

I see it as damned if they shoot and damned if they don't too. No problems with the police being held accountable for their actions... but keep in mind their actions were essential, taken under urgency in a remarkably dynamic situation where there's no time to form a consensuis on the best outcome.

Damned if they shoot... and damned if they don't.[/QUOTI

I'm not in disagreement with you here but I believe that this is for a jury to decide as they are our 'representitives' in respect to the law. Correction. In respect of guilt or innocence.

Skyryder

[Ixion]

Surely, it comes down to the doctrine of reasonable care?

I may distinguish the two cases. The U turning cop, there was no real reason why he could not have waited until a safer place to do his U turn. At worst , the delay might have meant he could not hand out a ticket. Hardly major.And doing the U turn wherere he did, a reasonable person could have predicted that there was a significant danger inherent in it. He did not care. He undertook a dangerous (to others) procedure without need. So , he failed to exercise reasonable care. He did something that any reasonable person would say was dangerous to others , and he didn't need to

The shooting? Well, he had MUCH less option to wait. If all the AoS guys had stood back and waited , odds are that the nutter would have shot someone, and hijacked their vehicle. And firing at the criminal, a reasonable person would say "Well, there is some danger involved to innocent people. But, what are the odds that a trained marksman will miss badly enough to hit a bystander. And even if that should happen , what are the odds of it being fatal. Remote indeed. " . He could not ,unlike the U-turner afford (in the public interest) to say "I will wait. In 10 minutes or so there will be a better option". The AOS needed to take the nutter out, as fast as possible.

Of course, as we all know, million to one chances come up nine times out of ten. Even so, he did only what common sense suggests was necessary and essential in the circumstances, and in circumstances where the likelihood of danger to others was remote. I suggest that he did exercise reasonable care. Not enough , tragically, but reasonable care is not equivalent to certainty.

Sometimes, people in such fraught situations must take a calculated chance. That is what they are trained to do , that is what they are paid for. If it sometimes goes horribly wrong, that does not mean that their actions were unreasonable

The U turning cops carelessness was unreasonable
The AOS shooters calculated chance was not.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Surely, it comes down to the doctrine of reasonable care?

I may distinguish the two cases. The U turning cop, there was no real reason why he could not have waited until a safer place to do his U turn. At worst , the delay might have meant he could not hand out a ticket. Hardly major.And doing the U turn wherere he did, a reasonable person could have predicted that there was a significant danger inherent in it. He did not care. He undertook a dangerous (to others) procedure without need. So , he failed to exercise reasonable care. He did something that any reasonable person would say was dangerous to others , and he didn't need to

The shooting? Well, he had MUCH less option to wait. If all the AoS guys had stood back and waited , odds are that the nutter would have shot someone, and hijacked their vehicle. And firing at the criminal, a reasonable person would say "Well, there is some danger involved to innocent people. But, what are the odds that a trained marksman will miss badly enough to hit a bystander. And even if that should happen , what are the odds of it being fatal. Remote indeed. " . He could not ,unlike the U-turner afford (in the public interest) to say "I will wait. In 10 minutes or so there will be a better option". The AOS needed to take the nutter out, as fast as possible.

Of course, as we all know, million to one chances come up nine times out of ten. Even so, he did only what common sense suggests was necessary and essential in the circumstances, and in circumstances where the likelihood of danger to others was remote. I suggest that he did exercise reasonable care. Not enough , tragically, but reasonable care is not equivalent to certainty.

Sometimes, people in such fraught situations must take a calculated chance. That is what they are trained to do , that is what they are paid for. If it sometimes goes horribly wrong, that does not mean that their actions were unreasonable

The U turning cops carelessness was unreasonable
The AOS shooters calculated chance was not.

May it please your Honour, I concur with my learned friend, the prosecution rests.

[Robbo]

So how does your personal criticism of me validate your arguement.

Skyryder

You appear to be rather sensitive tonight. That was Not a personal criticism but a question for you as you seem to be quite happy to assume that you know what i am thinking when in fact you are miles off track. You also appear to be rather anti police when it comes to your criticism of anyones support for them.
Would you rather they just disbanded the entire police force and let the scumbags do what they want whenever they want?
I know i would'nt and i don't believe you would either so just take a chill pill and relax.

[SixPackBack]

Surely, it comes down to the doctrine of reasonable care?

I may distinguish the two cases. The U turning cop, there was no real reason why he could not have waited until a safer place to do his U turn. At worst , the delay might have meant he could not hand out a ticket. Hardly major.And doing the U turn wherere he did, a reasonable person could have predicted that there was a significant danger inherent in it. He did not care. He undertook a dangerous (to others) procedure without need. So , he failed to exercise reasonable care. He did something that any reasonable person would say was dangerous to others , and he didn't need to

The shooting? Well, he had MUCH less option to wait. If all the AoS guys had stood back and waited , odds are that the nutter would have shot someone, and hijacked their vehicle. And firing at the criminal, a reasonable person would say "Well, there is some danger involved to innocent people. But, what are the odds that a trained marksman will miss badly enough to hit a bystander. And even if that should happen , what are the odds of it being fatal. Remote indeed. " . He could not ,unlike the U-turner afford (in the public interest) to say "I will wait. In 10 minutes or so there will be a better option". The AOS needed to take the nutter out, as fast as possible.

Of course, as we all know, million to one chances come up nine times out of ten. Even so, he did only what common sense suggests was necessary and essential in the circumstances, and in circumstances where the likelihood of danger to others was remote. I suggest that he did exercise reasonable care. Not enough , tragically, but reasonable care is not equivalent to certainty.

Sometimes, people in such fraught situations must take a calculated chance. That is what they are trained to do , that is what they are paid for. If it sometimes goes horribly wrong, that does not mean that their actions were unreasonable

The U turning cops carelessness was unreasonable
The AOS shooters calculated chance was not.

Semantics. They both took a calculated risk, they both lost.

[Skyryder]

Semantics. They both took a calculated risk, they both lost.

The simplicity of truth.

Skyryder.

[Swoop]

Surely, it comes down to the doctrine of reasonable care?

The shooting? He could not ,unlike the U-turner afford (in the public interest) to say "I will wait. In 10 minutes or so there will be a better option". The AOS needed to take the nutter out, as fast as possible.

The U turning cops carelessness was unreasonable
The AOS shooters calculated chance was not.

The AOS had used reasonable care and their actions were prompted by the offender opening fire. Up to that stage they were following along and (presumably) waiting for the person to go into a safe area where they could negotiate a peaceful surrender, which is their normal practice.
The offender opening fire prompted the AOS response, of defending an innocent person sitting in his truck.

[Ixion]

Semantics. They both took a calculated risk, they both lost.

So they did, but what of that. Everyone takes calculated risks every day. We both take a calculated risk every time we over take. But, not a careless one, I'm sure. The heart surgeon takes a calculated risk when he decides to operate on old Mrs Smith. But I'm sure he is very careful, both in calculating the risk and in operating. A bomb disposal dude defusing a bomb is VERY careful, but takes huge calculated risks.

There is nothing wrong with a calculated risk, and sometimes, by definition, the bad event (the risk) will turn up. Sometimes Lady Luck throws you aces and eights.

The issue is whether the calculation was reasonable or not. The heart surgeon's risk is reasonable. Mrs Smith MAY die on the operating table. But the risk is acceptable, assessed against the need for the operation.

If anyone who took a calculated risk were to be condemned if it turned out badly, no matter how reasonable the calculation, then nothing would ever get done. There is very little in life that affords total certainty. Nor would we want it so.

In the two cases posited , the AoS guy's risk calculation was reasonable. The need was great the risk small. The U turning cops calculated risk was not reasonable. His need was small, the risk great.

[jrandom]

Semantics. They both took a calculated risk, they both lost.

Qualitative differences in situations are not 'semantics'. The facts of each situation need to be acknowledged.

A traffic officer performing a dangerous U-turn to catch someone and ticket them is not in the same ballpark as an AOS officer shooting at someone who's already opened fire on civilians. It's not even the same fucking game.

Y'know, I don't enjoy reading criticism of police on this forum that I know is motivated by an annoyance about traffic tickets that's being projected onto everything the cops do.

The AOS's actions were reasonable in these circumstances, and the outcome was tragic. Attempting to conceptually link that to some traffic officer's ill-considered U-turn is fallacious and manipulative.

In the two cases posited , the AoS guy's risk calculation was reasonable. The need was great the risk small. The U turning cops calculated risk was not reasonable. His need was small, the risk great.

Yeah, wot 'e sed.

[Skyryder]

So they did, but what of that. Everyone takes calculated risks every day. We both take a calculated risk every time we over take. But, not a careless one, I'm sure. The heart surgeon takes a calculated risk when he decides to operate on old Mrs Smith. But I'm sure he is very careful, both in calculating the risk and in operating. A bomb disposal dude defusing a bomb is VERY careful, but takes huge calculated risks.

There is nothing wrong with a calculated risk, and sometimes, by definition, the bad event (the risk) will turn up. Sometimes Lady Luck throws you aces and eights.

The issue is whether the calculation was reasonable or not. The heart surgeon's risk is reasonable. Mrs Smith MAY die on the operating table. But the risk is acceptable, assessed against the need for the operation.

If anyone who took a calculated risk were to be condemned if it turned out badly, no matter how reasonable the calculation, then nothing would ever get done. There is very little in life that affords total certainty. Nor would we want it so.

In the two cases posited , the AoS guy's risk calculation was reasonable. The need was great the risk small. The U turning cops calculated risk was not reasonable. His need was small, the risk great.

The surgeon does not perform a ‘calculated risk’ without informing the patient of these risks and it is patient or his next of kin who has the final say. So your analogy of the difference between careful and calculated is erroneous. As is the bomb disposal expert as it is his life that is at risk and not in normal circumstances others. This is also true when we overtake. There is always the possibility that something may occur that puts us at risk but this in no way suggests that 'all' overtaking is calculated. The very nature of calculation is where there are two possible outcomes. One weighed in favour of the risk as against.

You are attempting to define the differences between calculated and careful in a context that has no bearing on this fatality. The officer as you say may have taken a calculated risk but was he was not careful in doing so and shot the wrong person.

This is not to suggest that the officer did not have the best of intentions. Perhaps if this line was deeveloped further by those that support the officer there may have been less criticism of his actions………..but surprisingly it has not.

Skyryder

[Hoon]

Once you are authorised to take such a shot, this risk has already been assessed and deemed acceptable given the situation. It's a tough decision to have to make with dire consequences if it goes wrong and I do not envy these guys at all.

The Rules of engagement for civil police are similar to the military....As soon as the offender pointed his rifle at the truck driver, the AOS guys are authorised to use deadly force. The imminent threat of the driver being shot outweighs the possible threat of someone nearby being hurt. Yes it may sound harsh but tough that's how it works.

There is a level of risk involved with taking this course of action and always a chance that innocents will be hurt and unfortunately this is one of those times. But taking no action is not an option. As long as armed crims are running amok endangering the public we will always need an armed response to meet this threat.

[ghost]

No means to an end justifies the killing of a bystander. Even if the only way to defend your life or the lives of others mean to take a shot at someone, you make sure that you ID the target and make it a good shot. No excuse of stress or urgency to put the guy down justifies shooting the wrong guy. Simple. Five shots fired, the guy should have been in a body bag, not arrested and sent to hospital. That in inself speaks volume's. Either the training or the equipment is not up to standard to do the job it was asked to do. And if it seems like I'm putting the boot in, I'm not. To me its simple, no excuse of expectations, or thats the job they do, thats what they take the pay for (probably not enough). No free ride on fuck ups...... and shooting civies is a fuck up.

[Hoon]

Simple. Five shots fired, the guy should have been in a body bag, not arrested and sent to hospital. That in inself speaks volume's. Either the training or the equipment is not up to standard to do the job it was asked to do.

Not really. Even if they trained 365 days a year there is still the chance that they will miss. More training may reduce the risk but it will never eliminate it.

Yes I do agree that more training/equipment will lessen the risk of this happening again but until I see facts that state otherwise, I do not support your claim that the officer that fired the shot was under-trained. Even Willie Apiata (and two mates) can miss the target on a bad day.