Australian Policeman paralysed - culprit fined

[Kevin_Lowe]

Depends. Police are allowed to use force, up to deadly force, if they fear for their life or safety.

So am I, and so is any man or woman. (With the caveat that the fear must be reasonable).

Police just have the additional power to use force even when they don't fear for their life or safety, if it is necessary to make an arrest.

The behavior of the father, from the filmclip, seemed to justify the use of taser. I mean, the father was hardly a bystander. Anyone attacking a police officer exercising his duty or defending himself should not be able to make that claim.

Obviously the jury saw it differently, but this says more about Western Australia than anything else.

Certainly. The tasering was justified, because the police did not know he had a heart condition. The headbutt was (arguably) justified, because the man's son did know he had a heart condition.

Justification hinges on what is reasonable given the information available to the actor at the moment they act. It's perfectly possible that both the officer and the son were justified, given what they knew at the time.

 

[gumboot]

Actually if the police officer is carrying out a legal action you cannot invoke the self defense argument in attacking said police officer. I am sure it doesn't take much to appreciate the ramifications of allowing that...

Imagine a police officer is preparing to shoot an armed gunman. You see the gunman as in mortal danger, so you shoot the police officer in order to save the gunman's life. Legal? Obviously not.

The only very shaky grounds on which you could EVER invoke self defense in attacking a police officer is if the police officer's actions were illegal.

I cannot see any logical reason why the attack on the police officer should be seen as self defense or defense of another, and the fact that the jury ruled that way is frankly mind-boggling.

It's pretty blatantly clear from the video that the persons involved were all assaulting police officers. Frankly the POS are lucky none of them got shot.

 

[gumboot]

Certainly. The tasering was justified, because the police did not know he had a heart condition.

Are you saying if they had known it wouldn't have been justified? They guy twice attacked police officers. He's lucky he wasn't shot.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually if the police officer is carrying out a legal action you cannot invoke the self defense argument in attacking said police officer. I am sure it doesn't take much to appreciate the ramifications of allowing that...

Imagine a police officer is preparing to shoot an armed gunman. You see the gunman as in mortal danger, so you shoot the police officer in order to save the gunman's life. Legal? Obviously not.

The only very shaky grounds on which you could EVER invoke self defense in attacking a police officer is if the police officer's actions were illegal.

That's a perfect analogy, except that the man tasered was not an armed gunman.

If the policeman is about to do something legal, possibly even well-intentioned, that is going to kill someone, and the person about to be killed is not themselves threatening to kill anyone, and force is the only way to stop the police officer, then to me it's moot whether or not it's legal.

You would be justified in stopping the police officer with force even if it wasn't legal. Of course it should be legal but that's neither here nor there.

I cannot see any logical reason why the attack on the police officer should be seen as self defense or defense of another, and the fact that the jury ruled that way is frankly mind-boggling.

It's pretty blatantly clear from the video that the persons involved were all assaulting police officers. Frankly the POS are lucky none of them got shot.

You and Fuelair can go start a keyboard commando club and fantasise about that.

In the meantime I'll go on living in the real world where police don't use lethal force to deal with unarmed troublemakers.

Are you saying if they had known it wouldn't have been justified?

I'm absolutely saying that.

Bear in mind that the person tasered did have a heart attack so you'd be banging your head on the unforgiving wall of plain fact if you tried to argue that this wasn't a foreseeable consequence.

I suspect you've fallen victim to the same line of erroneous thinking that led to idiocy like high-speed police chases.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If the policeman is about to do something legal, possibly even well-intentioned, that is going to kill someone, and the person about to be killed is not themselves threatening to kill anyone, and force is the only way to stop the police officer, then to me it's moot whether or not it's legal.

You would be justified in stopping the police officer with force even if it wasn't legal. Of course it should be legal but that's neither here nor there.

My guess would be that that's exactly how the jury saw it.

 

[FlamingMoe]

I suspect you've fallen victim to the same line of erroneous thinking that led to idiocy like high-speed police chases.

And with this comment you've gone ahead and relieved yourself of the burden of keeping company with rational folk.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And with this comment you've gone ahead and relieved yourself of the burden of keeping company with rational folk.

Would you care to explain that assertion?

Are you aware that high speed chases have now gone out of fashion?

EDIT: I just saw your avatar. Forget it. I have been trolled. You got me.

 

[lionking]

Why didn't the McLeods just stop fighting the police? And even if the son was justified in trying to protect his father, why didn't he just grab Constable Butcher from behind rather than the cowardly and disproportionate "flying headbutt"?

But this did start to make sense when I saw that the defence barrister was Con Heliotis, defender of the most vile criminal scum walking the streets in Australia. Does a good job Con.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why didn't the McLeods just stop fighting the police?

Up until the point where the taser was used, I would say that the answer is "because they are dangerous idiots who deserve to be convicted of something".

At the point where the taser was used a defensible response becomes "because they did not believe that just stopping fighting was the fastest way to stop their father being tasered to death".

I did notice that the escalation from wrestling and pushing to really serious assault was very rapid when the taser was used. Up until that point it didn't look to me like the McLeods were trying to hurt anyone seriously. I'm not defending their actions up until that point, but there's evidence there that the guy who hit the police officer only started using real force when his father's life was in jeopardy, and the officer targeted was just the one doing the tasering.

And even if the son was justified in trying to protect his father, why didn't he just grab Constable Butcher from behind rather than the cowardly and disproportionate "flying headbutt"?

For the same reason that police, confronted with armed criminals in the process of killing someone, don't "just grab them from behind", especially if the person they might like to "just grab from behind" has four friends right there.

 

[gumboot]

That's a perfect analogy, except that the man tasered was not an armed gunman.

Right, and the person in this case didn't shot the policeman. What's your point?

If the policeman is about to do something legal, possibly even well-intentioned, that is going to kill someone, and the person about to be killed is not themselves threatening to kill anyone, and force is the only way to stop the police officer, then to me it's moot whether or not it's legal.

You would be justified in stopping the police officer with force even if it wasn't legal. Of course it should be legal but that's neither here nor there.

I'm glad I don't live in Australia then.

You and Fuelair can go start a keyboard commando club and fantasise about that.

In the meantime I'll go on living in the real world where police don't use lethal force to deal with unarmed troublemakers.

Unarmed troublemakers? I saw a group of about half a dozen (at least) adult men violently attacking a smaller group of police. One of those officers could easily have ended up dead. Or do you base your "real world" on the TV fantasy that "fisty cuffs" can't result in fatal injuries?

Bear in mind that the person tasered did have a heart attack so you'd be banging your head on the unforgiving wall of plain fact if you tried to argue that this wasn't a foreseeable consequence.

Who cares if it was a foreseeable consequence? Getting tasered is a pretty damn foreseeable consequence of violently assaulting multiple police officers.

I suspect you've fallen victim to the same line of erroneous thinking that led to idiocy like high-speed police chases.

Huh?

 

[gumboot]

I did notice that the escalation from wrestling and pushing to really serious assault was very rapid when the taser was used. Up until that point it didn't look to me like the McLeods were trying to hurt anyone seriously.

Are you sure you actually watched the same video? It sure doesn't read like you did.

 

[rjh01]

Were the jury competent to work out what the defendants were guilt of? They are just random 12 people, less certain groups of people. Sometimes by pure chance you get mostly idiots in the jury. This is one possibility in this case.

 

[lionking]

Were the jury competent to work out what the defendants were guilt of? They are just random 12 people, less certain groups of people. Sometimes by pure chance you get mostly idiots in the jury. This is one possibility in this case.

And most likely easily influenced by a very highly paid QC.

I once worked in the Victorian Law Department (as it was then) and saw first hand how this can happen. I also once gave evidence and even though I was sure of what I was talking about and feel that I am reasonably articulate (okay that's arguable) the defence barrister had me blabbering like an idiot.

 

[WildCat]

Did the OJ jury move to WA?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Right, and the person in this case didn't shot the policeman. What's your point?



I'm glad I don't live in Australia then.

Get back to me when you have an actual point you can express intelligently.

Unarmed troublemakers? I saw a group of about half a dozen (at least) adult men violently attacking a smaller group of police. One of those officers could easily have ended up dead. Or do you base your "real world" on the TV fantasy that "fisty cuffs" can't result in fatal injuries?

Violence and the academic study of it something I've been interested in a long time, as well as following the MMA scene to some extent and training in BJJ for several years.

If you thought you saw real violence in the early parts of the video you don't know what it looks like. Nobody was going to end up dead. They were pushing and wrestling, not punching or kicking. The odds of anyone falling over and getting a fatal head injury from that sort of roughhousing are not serious.

It's common for authoritarians to wildly exaggerate the danger police are in, and I think that's what you are doing here.

That doesn't mean they didn't all deserve a night in the lockup and criminal charges - in my opinion they all did. However you are now trying to paint this as a scenario requiring the use of lethal force, which is idiotic.

Who cares if it was a foreseeable consequence? Getting tasered is a pretty damn foreseeable consequence of violently assaulting multiple police officers.

Come back when you have an argument, not a non sequitur.

 

[Megalodon]

Violence and the academic study of it something I've been interested in a long time, as well as following the MMA scene to some extent and training in BJJ for several years.

This is a very weak attempt to appeal to authority...

If you thought you saw real violence in the early parts of the video you don't know what it looks like. Nobody was going to end up dead. They were pushing and wrestling, not punching or kicking.

There were punches thrown in the beginning of the video. The officers then tried to wrestle the attackers. The video then shows the injured officer trying to wrestle someone obviously stronger then him and pulling out the taser. And then the attack from behind.

The taser was an appropriate response, the flying headbutt was not. He could have held the police, shouted that his father has a heart condition, put himself in front of the taser, etc, etc... He chose a dangerous attack that paralyzed a man.

The jury was out of their rockers letting them go like this. If the police force gets the impression that deadly force can be used against them without consequences, what happens next?

It's common for authoritarians to wildly exaggerate the danger police are in, and I think that's what you are doing here.

It's common for braindead anarchists to try to cull the authority of the police, and that's what you're doing here... See, Ad-homs are fun, easy and a waste of time. You're better than this Kevin... focus and try again.

 

[gumboot]

They were pushing and wrestling, not punching or kicking. The odds of anyone falling over and getting a fatal head injury from that sort of roughhousing are not serious.

I saw punching. Are you sure you watched the video? People have died from less.

 

[lionking]

I saw punching. Are you sure you watched the video? People have died from less.

Maybe not MMA type punching rolleyes, but punching it was. I've been up close and personal in a few bar brawls (unfortunately) and it is the short, inside punches which do the damage, not the haymakers.

 

[gumboot]

Maybe not MMA type punching rolleyes, but punching it was. I've been up close and personal in a few bar brawls (unfortunately) and it is the short, inside punches which do the damage, not the haymakers.

Few years back a guy here died after receiving a single fairly soft punch to the head during a road-rage incident after a near accident. Single half-hearted punch was enough to knock him down, where he hit his head. Bam. Dead.

You simply cannot afford to dismiss any physical violence as harmless. Particularly not if you're being exposed to it on a daily basis. All it takes is one unlucky blow and it's all over.

I find it quite disturbing that people are attempting to dismiss this violence against the police as of no consequence. That's a sure sign that your society has a major issue with violence. Once it's okay to bash Police officers, it becomes okay to bash anyone.

 

[gumboot]

Violence and the academic study of it something I've been interested in a long time, as well as following the MMA scene to some extent and training in BJJ for several years.

Er... are you trying to equate contact martial arts with actual violence? A street brawl is infinitely more dangerous than any martial arts. Situations can escalate incredibly rapidly, out of control. Police are trained with this in mind.

It's common for authoritarians to wildly exaggerate the danger police are in, and I think that's what you are doing here.

That doesn't mean they didn't all deserve a night in the lockup and criminal charges - in my opinion they all did. However you are now trying to paint this as a scenario requiring the use of lethal force, which is idiotic.

What criminal charges, exactly? Assault?