Police finally given 'shoot to kill' powers to take out terrorists on the spot - New South Wales is uncucked

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ce-given-shoot-kill-powers-combat-terror.html

The New South Wales police force will be given the power to shoot dead suspected terrorists in the wake of the London terror attack.

Under current legislation, officers who use lethal force in hostage situations can be charged with murder.

The state government will introduce legislation within a fortnight to give officers 'shoot to kill' powers to combat the threat of terrorism.

Premier Gladys Berejiklian said the government 'accepted and supported' all 45 recommendations made by Coroner Michael Barnes in May following the inquest into the Lindt Cafe siege of December 2014.

'As we have seen as recently as this week in Melbourne, and on the weekend with the cowardly, evil acts in London, we need to be ever-vigilant to the emerging and evolving risks of terrorism,' Ms Berejiklian said in a statement.

Cafe manager Tori Johnson and Sydney barrister Katrina Dawson were killed as the Martin Place stand-off came to an horrific end in the early hours of December 16 2014.

Gunman Man Haron Monis was shot by specialist police who stormed the stronghold 17 hours after he walked into the building with a shotgun.

Mr Barnes found snipers had a 10-minute window during which they could have taken a 'kill shot' at terrorist Monis but they doubted their legal power to use lethal force as well as having concerns a visible head belonged to the gunman.

The coroner recommended the police minister consider whether police power laws should be amended to ensure officers 'have sufficient legal protection to respond to terrorist incidents'.

The announcement comes after it was revealed riot squad officers will be handed military-style assault rifles to patrol Sydney's streets in the wake of a series of terror attacks across Europe.

Up to 100 police officers will be given semi-automatic Colt M4 Carbine weapons to use in the event of a 'probable' terrorist attack.

The provision of the US military's weapon of choice was expected to be announced on Thursday, The Daily Telegraph reported.

Police Commissioner Mick Fuller is reportedly pressuring the government for members of the Public Order and Riot Squad to be armed with the assault rifle following a series of terror attacks in Europe.

'The NSW Police Force has identified an appropriate firearm and advice has been forwarded to government,' Mr Fuller told The Daily Telegraph.

'In this increasingly dangerous and rapidly changing environment, I recognise the need to adapt our response model to be able to dispatch tactical police from multiple locations across Sydney.'

Mr Fuller said fully armed officers proactively patrol Sydney's streets instead of waiting to be called from their base.

'All NSW first responders are armed, unlike in the UK where they rely on rapid response teams,' he said.

More than 11,000 police officers have completed specialised training to tackle terror related incidents such as the Lindt Siege, the newspaper reported.

Premier Gladys Berejiklian said community safety is her 'absolute priority' after the Police Association called for the issue of longarm weapons.

'I am committed to giving police the equipment they need to do their jobs, and keep people safe,' she said.

The M4 Carbine has been described by Colt as a reliable lightweight weapon with 'potent firepower capability'.

Australia's terror threat level remains at 'probable' - indicating individuals or groups have the intention and capability to perform an attack.

 

[Ineedahero]

Good.

 

[repentance]

Coroner's report for those who want more context to the recommendations.

http://www.lindtinquest.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/findings-and-recommendations.pdf

 

[heathercho]

Coroner's report for those who want more context to the recommendations.

http://www.lindtinquest.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/findings-and-recommendations.pdf

I like to call this "The reality of living with muslims". Sad coz Sydney cops pride themselves on strong negotiation and not filling hostagetakers full of lead, realistic coz you can't negotiate with muslims.

Now if only we can cull the Melbourne Jungle of its tribal afroexpolsion...

 

[friedshrimp]

Expect virtue-signalers to rant about this.

 

[Captain_Asshole]

Well, as long as they are adequately competent in evaluating situations and confirming their targets, this can be good.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

Every day the Aussies make me feel better and better about moving there.

 

[autism420]

Giving police the right to be judge, jury and executioner of suspected terrorists is a dangerous thing. Where is the line drawn exactly? Can all middle eastern people be killed legally now if the offending officer states they looked like a terrorist?

Also a Colt M4 is not semi-automatic, it has burst fire as well. If they are modifying them to only be semi, then by definition they are not assault rifles. Just goes to show that these people making these laws know little about what they are actually talking about.

 

[Captain_Asshole]

Giving police the right to be judge, jury and executioner of suspected terrorists is a dangerous thing. Where is the line drawn exactly? Can all middle eastern people be killed legally now if the offending officer states they looked like a terrorist?

Also a Colt M4 is not semi-automatic, it has burst fire as well. If they are modifying them to only be semi, then by definition they are not assault rifles. Just goes to show that these people making these laws know little about what they are actually talking about.

I was under the impression that the ''suspect'' has to commit something violent and dangerous to the public in order to be susceptible to lethal force. You raise a good point though, would be nice to learn more details.

 

[AnOminous]

Giving police the right to be judge, jury and executioner of suspected terrorists is a dangerous thing.

Not allowing police to take down an active shooter is a dangerous thing!

 

[repentance]

Giving police the right to be judge, jury and executioner of suspected terrorists is a dangerous thing. Where is the line drawn exactly? Can all middle eastern people be killed legally now if the offending officer states they looked like a terrorist?

Nice strawman.

Our police already had the ability to use lethal force to prevent imminent harm, but the policy was to contain and negotiate in siege/hostage situations. That policy was changed very soon after the Lindt Cafe siege but the change of policy wasn't put into action because there was uncertainty about the legality of shooting someone who didn't have a gun to the head/knife to the throat of hostage.

The vast majority of our hostage/siege situations are related to personal grudges against those being held captive. It was that way before the Lindt Cafe siege and it's remained that way since the Lindt cafe siege. A siege does not become "terrorism" merely because the perpetrator is Middle Eastern or Asian and the "contain and negotiate" policy will continue to apply to the majority of hostage situations.

But in the future when someone takes a bunch of strangers hostage, displays an IS flag, and during the siege makes clear that their motives are political, there will no longer be uncertainty about the police (or other authorities) having the legal authority to take a kill shot to end the siege.

I was under the impression that the ''suspect'' has to commit something violent and dangerous to the public in order to be susceptible to lethal force. You raise a good point though, would be nice to learn more details.

They do. The Coroner's report explains why there was uncertainty in this particular situation (it was literally our first terrorist siege). All deaths in the course of a police operation are subject to an inquest and the reports are all publicly available.

There have been times in the past where it's been found that the use of lethal force was not justified and the coroner has referred the police for prosecution, and will no doubt be again.

Context matters. Even in non-terrorism situations hostages sometimes die because the police are reluctant to use lethal force or as a consequence of police using lethal force against the perpetrator - in this case, it was both. The decision to use lethal force or not can only be judged as right or wrong it hindsight. We judge it based on the outcome and the outcome cannot be known in the moment.

 

[Butta Face Lopez]

Giving police the right to be judge, jury and executioner of suspected terrorists is a dangerous thing. Where is the line drawn exactly? Can all middle eastern people be killed legally now if the offending officer states they looked like a terrorist?

Inshallah

 

[autism420]

Not allowing police to take down an active shooter is a dangerous thing!

The New South Wales police force will be given the power to shoot dead suspected terrorists

Obviously cops should be able to shoot bad guys that are shooting others. But if a guy in a turban reaches in to his pocket for a piece of gum, is a cop going to be legally able to shoot him?

Nice strawman.

That's not what strawman means but OK lol

 

[Darndirty]

This is adorable. You'll get shot for getting out of the car to quick here.

 

[repentance]

Obviously cops should be able to shoot bad guys that are shooting others. But if a guy in a turban reaches in to his pocket for a piece of gum, is a cop going to be legally able to shoot him?

If you'd bothered to read any of the reports, you'd know that this relates to very specific situations. Police can already shoot you if they think you're drawing a weapon and people have been shot by police in that situation in the past.

This isn't about whether police can shoot random people on the street for no reason. It's about whether they can use snipers to kill people who are holding others hostage and threatening to kill them (this guy was saying he had a bomb and he was on bail for charges relating to the murder of his ex-wife - there was no reason to believe he would not harm the hostages).

It doesn't increase or decrease the likelihood of an agitated person on the street being shot. It does increase the likelihood of known extremists being shot if they take hostages, and I'm OK with that even knowing that there may be no bomb or that the perpetrator's weapons may prove to be fake.

Believe it or not, the rooftops of our cities aren't lined with snipers waiting to shoot people who look suspicious.

 

[Zarkov]

Finally an example of anti-terrorism legislation done right.

 

[repentance]

Also a Colt M4 is not semi-automatic, it has burst fire as well. If they are modifying them to only be semi, then by definition they are not assault rifles. Just goes to show that these people making these laws know little about what they are actually talking about.

It wasn't the police who described them as such, it was the media. There's been a great deal of discussion about the appropriateness of the weapons available to police during the siege (and whether it should have been escalated to a military response or not) and which branches of law enforcement should have access to what weapons and why. The choice isn't even based solely on local recommendations by multiple agencies. It's informed by overseas experience as well.

 

[Honeybunny]

Going by what the article says the police are allowed to use deadly force in the event of a terrorist attack, not just because someone seemed suspicious - if someone however did try the excuse that the person they shot seemed suspicious as the reason they shot them down it's obviously gonna have a problem, but as it looks the legislation does not allow police to just do whatever they want but rather gives them the ability to use deadly force in an actual attack - bogging ourselves down in hypotheticals is just gonna lead to petty debates because in the end dickheads will be dickheads no matter what the law says

Also a Colt M4 is not semi-automatic, it has burst fire as well. If they are modifying them to only be semi, then by definition they are not assault rifles.

The M4 is not an assault rifle in the first place, it's a carbine

 

[Ineedahero]

It wasn't the police who described them as such, it was the media. There's been a great deal of discussion about the appropriateness of the weapons available to police during the siege (and whether it should have been escalated to a military response or not) and which branches of law enforcement should have access to what weapons and why. The choice isn't even based solely on local recommendations by multiple agencies. It's informed by overseas experience as well.

Dude why are you engaging, he's either trolling or too retarded to ever get what you are talking about.

 

[repentance]

Dude why are you engaging, he's either trolling or too exceptional to ever get what you are talking about.

You're right.