Latest / The Slippery Slope / Responding to the Critics of Hard To Justify

Transcript

Responding to the Critics of Hard To Justify · The Slippery Slope

• 0:00
  OK, so welcome back to the slippery slope.
• 0:02
  So today I'm going to respond to some of the negative negative
• 0:07
  comments that came in after the hard to justify episode,
• 0:12
  specifically some of the shorts that came across on Facebook,
• 0:17
  because Facebook seems to be where I get a lot more comments
• 0:21
  and look, I'm not surprised. OK, so whenever you question
• 0:25
  police culture in Australia, especially in Queensland, people
• 0:29
  react emotionally. They don't engage with the
• 0:33
  argument, they defend the institution.
• 0:37
  But the comments themselves reveal I I believe they reveal
• 0:42
  something a little deeper, A mindset that excuses anything
• 0:48
  done in uniform simply because the job is hard.
• 0:55
  So let's talk about it. download.
• 1:07
  OK, so the first first comment, OK, is basically get out from
• 1:12
  behind your keyboard and face what police face.
• 1:15
  So this is one of the most it's one of the most common
• 1:18
  reactions. It is emotional and it's not
• 1:21
  logical. It assumes that police police
• 1:24
  stress justifies misconduct and it It also assumes that
• 1:30
  difficulty of the job excuses bad decisions and that civilians
• 1:36
  have no right to question public servants.
• 1:40
  But here's the truth, OK? Stress does not.
• 1:43
  It does not erase accountability.
• 1:47
  Danger does not erase responsibility.
• 1:50
  And the uniform does not erase truth.
• 1:55
  And I'm not speaking, I'm not speaking from ignorance.
• 1:58
  I'm speaking as someone who has faced unknown, has faced unknown
• 2:04
  threats and who has made split second decisions and who still
• 2:10
  says even under pressure, you are responsible for your
• 2:15
  actions. That's not keyboard commentary,
• 2:19
  That's lived my lived experience.
• 2:22
  So the the second comment is you don't know what it's like.
• 2:27
  This one's to me, this one's ironic because I do not know
• 2:32
  what it's like. But even if I didn't, the
• 2:35
  argument still fails. We don't, we don't apply this
• 2:39
  logic anywhere else. OK, you can criticise A
• 2:43
  politician without being a politician.
• 2:46
  You can criticise a doctor without being a doctor.
• 2:50
  You can criticise a pilot without flying a plane.
• 2:55
  Public roles come with public accountability and police are
• 3:00
  not a protected species, a protected priesthood.
• 3:04
  The next comment is they feared. Feared for their safety.
• 3:10
  Fear is real, but fear cannot be the sole justification for force
• 3:16
  all the time. It can be some of the time, but
• 3:20
  it cannot be the sole justification all the time.
• 3:23
  If fear alone justifies actions, then every every mistake is
• 3:30
  excusable. Every overreaction is
• 3:34
  understandable and every excessive use of force is
• 3:39
  defensible. Fear.
• 3:44
  Fear must be balanced with training, discipline, and truth.
• 3:50
  It has to be. Fear is something that you need
• 3:54
  to overcome, and it's not something to hide behind.
• 4:01
  The the next comments I need to talk about is that seeming to
• 4:05
  assume that I'm anti police. Classic deflection.
• 4:11
  For one, I'm not anti police. I am I'm disappointed in the
• 4:16
  pathway that specifically QPS has taken.
• 4:20
  I'm very disappointed in their recruitment practises and I, and
• 4:24
  I've been saying this for quite a while now, I'm of the firm
• 4:27
  belief that their, the recruitment practises that they
• 4:31
  have employed over the last, what was it now 26, the last,
• 4:36
  the best part of a decade that these practises will affect
• 4:42
  policing in Queensland. And I think we are paying, the
• 4:44
  public has been paying the price for the recruitment practises
• 4:49
  that they have employed over the last decade.
• 4:51
  I am not anti police and this rhetoric is classic deflection.
• 4:57
  It's criticising misconduct. Criticising misconduct is not
• 5:02
  anti police, demanding accountability is not anti
• 5:06
  police and expecting truth is not anti police.
• 5:11
  In fact, the people who defend misconduct, they are the ones
• 5:16
  harming policing because they protect corruption instead of
• 5:21
  integrity. Remember Isaiah?
• 5:25
  Isaiah warns about leaders who call evil good and good evil.
• 5:29
  That's exactly what happens when people defend wrongdoing simply
• 5:33
  because it was done in uniform. Now I want to look at what the
• 5:38
  PPRA actually requires, not what commentators assume.
• 5:44
  So this is where the emotional arguments collapse in my
• 5:48
  opinion. So the PPRA is the Police Powers
• 5:51
  and Responsibilities Act of 2000.
• 5:53
  PPRA is very clear about how officers need to behave when
• 6:00
  facing a potential threat, especially especially in a built
• 6:05
  up suburban environment. The PPRA requires reasonable
• 6:11
  suspicion, not fear. Officers must have observed
• 6:16
  observable facts, lawful grounds.
• 6:20
  Reasonable suspicion and fear is not reasonable suspicion.
• 6:26
  The PPRA requires proportionality.
• 6:29
  The ACT preserves necessity, Proportionality.
• 6:34
  Reasonableness. In suburban settings,
• 6:37
  proportionality is even more critical because civilians are
• 6:43
  nearby. Everyone seems to have forgotten
• 6:47
  this little fact. Civilians literally driving past
• 6:51
  when you're looking at the episode that I'm talking about.
• 6:53
  Hard to justify in that scenario.
• 6:56
  Civilians literally driving by as shots are being fired, homes
• 7:02
  in the background, people standing around.
• 7:05
  Proportionality children may be present and cross line crossfire
• 7:12
  risks were very real. The PRA requires discipline and
• 7:19
  training, discipline and training, not just act out of
• 7:25
  fear and start shooting recklessly.
• 7:27
  The ACT assumes that officers control adrenaline and they
• 7:32
  assess threats. You need to have a set a threat
• 7:35
  assessment. It's hard to see just going by
• 7:40
  the actions, just going by the outcome.
• 7:42
  I don't believe, I assume OK, just my assumption that there
• 7:48
  was no threat assessment conducted.
• 7:50
  You need to act lawfully and you need to apply training.
• 7:54
  If an officer reacts like an untrained civilian, they are not
• 7:59
  complying with the PPRA. The PPRA requires environmental
• 8:04
  awareness in suburban areas. Officers must consider your
• 8:09
  neighbours, bystanders, containment options, tactical
• 8:14
  withdrawal and communication options.
• 8:17
  The PPRA does not justify shoot first because it's scary.
• 8:23
  Fear is human. Fear is real.
• 8:26
  But fear, fear alone, is not not always a legal justification.
• 8:35
  The real issue behind these comments, I believe the comments
• 8:40
  reveal A cultural problem. It it shows blind loyalty,
• 8:47
  emotional defence of authority, fear of questioning
• 8:53
  institutions, belief that the public must submit rather than
• 8:59
  scrutinise. This is how accountability dies.
• 9:03
  This is how corruption grows and this is how trust collapses.
• 9:08
  And that is why episodes like Hard to Justify really matter.
• 9:14
  So to everyone who commented emotionally, I, I get it.
• 9:21
  I do get it. You, you want to believe the
• 9:24
  police are always right. If you're a police officer, you
• 9:27
  don't like being scrutinised, you don't like seeing your
• 9:32
  fellow officer come under this extreme pressure.
• 9:35
  I get it, you want to believe that the uniform guarantees
• 9:40
  integrity. But truth doesn't work that way.
• 9:45
  Accountability is not optional. Scrutiny is not disrespect.
• 9:52
  I'm not trying to disrespect the people in that situation.
• 9:56
  I can't acknowledge. I do acknowledge it was a
• 9:58
  stressful situation. But scrutiny is not disrespect
• 10:03
  and justice is not a feeling, it's a standard.
• 10:09
  You need to remember that an innocent bystander also had a
• 10:14
  bullet lodged in her body from the police.
• 10:20
  People seem to have forgotten that altogether.
• 10:24
  And these comments about, well, what would you do?
• 10:27
  What if, what if he was running at you?
• 10:29
  What if he was doing this? Let's not deal in the what ifs.
• 10:33
  Let's deal with what was actually happening.
• 10:37
  As a police officer, that's what we're supposed to be doing,
• 10:41
  dealing with the facts on the ground, not the what ifs.
• 10:49
  As always, this is just my opinion.
• 10:53
  I'm Jay Fallon and thanks for listening to the Slippery Slope
• 10:56
  podcast. They just fuel.