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.

 

[AnOminous]

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.

The policy in the U.S., called "qualified immunity," protects law enforcement if they act reasonably and in good faith. They cannot be held liable unless they've either acted in bad faith or unreasonably, in violating a clearly established right. Arguably, this is too lenient and has allowed police to become completely trigger-happy. However, it still strikes me as a better balance than having the people supposedly protecting us hesitating and either getting themselves or innocent victims shot because they're afraid of being prosecuted for doing their jobs.

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 -

Even the more deferential U.S. standards wouldn't protect that kind of behavior because it wouldn't be "reasonable."

 

[autism420]

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

lol kill yourself kid

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

A carbine is still a rifle, and a magazine fed selective fire rifle is by definition an assault rifle.

 

[repentance]

The policy in the U.S., called "qualified immunity," protects law enforcement if they act reasonably and in good faith. They cannot be held liable unless they've either acted in bad faith or unreasonably, in violating a clearly established right. Arguably, this is too lenient and has allowed police to become completely trigger-happy. However, it still strikes me as a better balance than having the people supposedly protecting us hesitating and either getting themselves or innocent victims shot because they're afraid of being prosecuted for doing their jobs.

It wasn't the only reason the sniper didn't take the shot, and I seriously doubt that any jury would have convicted him if he had. His career would have probably been ruined, though - especially if there was "collateral damage" (as there was from the eventual, unquestionably legal, breach).

 

[Club Sandwich]

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?

that isn't what was even remotely implied.

Also a Colt M4 is not semi-automatic, it has burst fire as well.

Colt has not made the M4 in decades. what the Australians are purchasing is the LE6921 with a few R0977 carbines thrown in. the LE6921 appears very similar to a US military M4A1 - which is where many in the media and the less informed confuse it with an actual M4A1, but it lacks any select fire capability. as Colt owns the trademark for "M4" the carbine is marked "M4 Carbine". i am a Colt dealer and have some 1st hand knowledge of their purchase.

there are over 900 models of Colt firearms, in the M16/M4 family alone there's about 100 different ones which look similar to each other and might even function similarly.

A carbine is still a rifle, and a magazine fed selective fire rifle is by definition an assault rifle.

the military definition for an assault rifle is any rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge with select fire capability and is fed from an external magazine.

the confusion lies in the legal definition of an assault weapon, which many people confuse for an assault rifle but it is distinct. an assault weapon is generally defined as any weapon that mimics the appearance, if not function, of an actual assault rifle (or similar weapon with an added select-fire capability).

the media and many people continuously confuse the two, however the Australians are purchasing carbines that lack the select-fire capability. the LE6921 to be precise, which has only Safe and Semi functions. the LE6920, 6921, R0977, LE6940, et c are all marked "M4 Carbine" by Colt as they are part of that family of weapons. note that of those listed only the R0977 has select-fire and is marked "M4 Carbine" like any other in the product line.

the vast majority of police agencies that i work with and supply arms for issue legally defined machineguns to their special situation teams; their patrol carbines are often short barreled carbines that have no select fire.

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.

i'm honestly surprised they don't authorize Warwick Firearms to domestically produce M4-patterned carbines for them.