Apparently there are circumstances in which it is reasonable conduct for 3 well armed police officers to shoot to kill a 15 year old boy armed with two knives. At least, that’s what the Victorian coroner seems to believe.
In an act of cynicism insulting not only to the dead boy’s family, but the intelligence of the general community, the police went even further and tried to argue “suicide by cop”: that the boy had in effect forced them to shoot him dead.
Bullshit, you lying scum. You recklessly killed a 15 year old child who clearly needed medical care.
I suspect the main reason for the police refusing to admit any culpability or even negligence is to avoid both civil and criminal liability. A deeply ingrained police culture of refusing to admit mistakes in almost any circumstance exacerbates the problem.
Some 15 year olds are (physically) almost men, but Tyler Cassidy wasn’t. Look at his picture. He was a boy, not a man.
He was waving a couple of big knives about and allegedly challenging the police to shoot him. I’m sure the police lawyer eagerly seized upon that. Well, if he TOLD the police to shoot him or he’d kill them, I guess they must have had no choice.
Four ADULT officers, armed with batons, capsicum spray and guns couldn’t disarm and subdue a 15 year old boy armed with two knives? Admittedly two of them were women, so at the risk of appearing sexist, maybe they were out of their depth physically (which begs the question as to why they were present).
How about the two male officers surrounding him, then one belts his forearm with an extendable baton, while another belts him across the back of the knee? I thought the police were trained in basic martial arts. They were apparently able to spray him with capsicum and avoid the “need” to shoot him for a period of more than one minute.
Even if the police really had to shoot, what possible justification is there in 3 officers pumping 5 shots, all aimed to kill into a teenage boy? Couldn’t one of them have just shot him in the thigh or the bum?
The coroner had the hide to say the police “acted within the limitations of their training”. Well, that’s OK then. If they aren’t trained to deal with such a situation, blast away.
Tyler Cassidy wasn’t a 200 pound, hardened criminal. He was a drunken, emotionally disturbed child. What “professional training” do you need to understand there were ways to resolve the situation other than shooting him five times?
How about common sense, empathy and a bit of guts?
Speaking of guts, do any of you have the courage to actually protect the community and go after some professional criminals? If there are no adverse findings for shooting a teenage boy, I’m sure you can justify shooting a few members of “Middle Eastern crime gangs” or “terrorism suspects” who “resist arrest”. Apparently it’s OK for them to shoot the police, so why not earn some real respect and get them first?
If the public felt like the police saw themselves as members of the community and saw them going after real threats, rather than soft targets, maybe we’d respect you and support your pay rise claims.
No comments:
Post a Comment