Violence Against our Police Force - A Dangerous Precedent

Yesterday, Perth was rocked with the news that the 3 thugs who viciously and brutally bashed a police officer on the call of duty was set scot free by a jury. Australia has a very bad reputation of being soft on crime but this takes it a step further. White collar crime is punished more severely than violent crimes in Australia and I think the people are fed up with the bull shit. Heck you can bash and kill a guy and get 3 years or 1.5 years for time spent waiting trial and for being a good boy while in prison. You write several bad checks or fill your tax forms wrongly and you could end up in jail for up to 10 years.

Anyway getting back to what happend in Perth with these three thugs. It was the father and his two sons drinking in a pub in the northern suburbs of Perth. According to the news reports they were alledgedly trying to keep the peace inside the pub during a ruckus and when things adjourned in the open air outside the pub these keepers of the peace were not acting very peaceful themselves (this is what alcohol does to you). Police were called and they were greeted with a chaotic scene not unlike a free for all on the football field. Not knowing who were the good guys (if there were any in such a case) and who were the baddies, the police obviously tried to ensure calm and order. Part of their job involved restraining the loudest and most aggresive person whom confronted them, the father. Not being very cooperative, the police tasered him and restrained one of the sons. The son having seen his father being tasered, broke free from the clutches of the police and ran towards the cop who had his back facing him and head butted the police officer with such force that it lifted him several feet off the ground and knocked him out cold. The public prosecutor described it as the most sickening incident he's witness in so many years in the business. This left the police officer blind on one eye and permanently paralysed on the left side of his body. His left arm and leg will be rendered useless and he would be in a wheel chair for the rest of his life not to mention that phychologically, the trauma this policeman went through would have been unimaginable, all for doing his job.

When the verdict came as 'not guilty' the police union and even the prime minister were in disgust. Several police officers resigned from the force in disgust. How could this happen? According to the defence lawyer, the police did not act in accordance with the law and used excessive force during the night in question and obviously the jury bought this argument. The defence claimed that the father had a heart condition and the son was only acting in self defence as he thought his dad would die while being tasered.

Now this sounds like a plausible line of defence especially in light of the recent cases of police brutality. However, when we look at things with some clarity, the jury should not have bought into this line of defence. Reasons being:

- Police brutality is an exception and not the norm. The very rare cases of police brutality are broadcasted world wide and this makes the occurence usually more prominent and frequent than it usually is. The police force in Australia generally are very professional and do their job well.
- Police have a legal right to use tasers especially when they think there is a physical danger to themselves. Any form of physical obstruction disallowing the police to carry out their jobs is deemed illegal. So what the son did cannot be justified as the police were only using their discretion to do their jobs.
- The son head butted the police officer which is illegal and excessive in nature, no matter what his argument to do so was.
- From the video, I can only see violent drunks and police acting professionally by trying their best to restore calm and order. If the police were using excessive force, would one of the sons be able to break from their clutches and attack the police officer? Were the jury seeing another video from what I saw.
- If the defendants cooperated with the police there would neither be a need for the police to use their taser nor any force that may be alledged to be 'excessive'.

So the official explanation was that the police used excessive force and the retaliation was justifiable. However, there is a fine line between not enough force and excessive force especially when it comes to drunk thugs. Do the police not have a right to ensure their safety too when carrying out their duty? I've seen how thugs like these abuse and spit at police while the law says that the police cannot touch these guys. How ridiculous is that? Surely there is a fine balance in the law and common sense should prevail, during deliberation of such cases. How about the 70 year old geezer who shot an intruder after warning the intruder he had a gun and being physically attacked by the intruder. He was almost charged but in this case, common sense prevailed. Good on this old geezer, I say. If the law does not protect the keepers of the law, then who will?

The thug and his sons will go on to bash another day, while this policeman who was only doing his job is left with the physical and emotional scars for the rest of his life. I echo what his wife said after the verdict was announced. "Next time let these animals fight amongst themselves and the police should not bother". If this is the case, the community were the losers of the week.