BOO HOO

Bill Crews is a 26 year old policeman - or rather, he was. The unfortunate fellow got shot it the head during a drug raid in Towelhead-land just south west of Sydney city.

Immediately it was assumed that one of said Towelheads, or should I say, alleged drug possession/dealing Towelheads was responsible.

And just as immediately talkback radio, television et al jumped at the chance to voice horror and outrage (woe is me, waste of a young officer's life, how dare they shoot at a police officer?...and here I'll digress for a moment. Police officers, and soldiers too in fact, have a weapon - several weapons in fact. And they're trained to use them, that is to say, the use of deadly force to protect or apprehend. I don't enjoy such security, so they are charged with its provision. I ask you, exactly whom else should be shot at? Me? You?).

And boy, did they milk it. A newspaper editor was stood down over daring to suggest that the death would shift more copy. Remember TV, radio, and the very medium in question, newspapers were all running this story as a headline. Just bear that in mind.

Cut to several days after the shooting, post post mortem as it were. It transpires that the bullet that killed poor Bill (that actually struck him in the neck, not the head as earlier reported - not that it matters a whole lot...) came from none other than a senior constable (a senior constable in the keystone cops it seems). The family of Bill have since told this SC that they don't hold him responsible. How nice. Apparently the SC went to the same target practice school as the bunch of cretins who took ten shots to bring down a 14 year old a few years back (see earlier post).

So there y'go. More sterling work from the Boys in Blue. Australia's finest.

***************************

Another example has also occurred lately; the case of a soldier killed during a firefight in Afghanistan, in which a claimed 30-odd insurgents were killed. More hand-wringing and woe is me (regarding the dead soldier - not the Taliban insurgents obviously). As alluded to above, but more so, if anyone is trained in the use of weapons it's a professional soldier; likewise said soldier is expected to use his weapon to kill the enemy.
Furthermore, this isn't World War One or Two. Conscription no longer exists in the western world. No-one held a gun to this fellows head. He joined the army of his own accord. Why, only he knows but one thing's for sure, once that first round whizzed past his head, he had (as defined in the ROE - rules of engagement) full authorization to return fire with the sole intent of killing the enemy - an enemy with a family, a mother, father, sisters and brothers perhaps.
If he was too slow/hadn't enough cover or was simply a poor shot then that's just bad luck. It's war. It isn't pretty. And whilst I empathize with his immediate family and friends over their loss of a loved one, I think we need to remember that in life, in certain occupations, the risk of death and/or serious injury is clear and present.



Prior to this piece, Washington State executed a rapist/torturor/murderer by lethal injection. So it would seem that human life isn't actually sacrosanct when it suits us. How wonderfully civilized, yes?