Victorian Police Can Now Shoot Hostile Drivers. Let's Explain

Image: Getty Images

An update in the Victorian Police Manual has given police officers the power to shoot and kill any drivers who are deliberately or recklessly risking the lives of others. It's the first state in Australia to grant these powers to officers in emergency situations. Here's what you need to know.

Phone-Detecting Cameras: What NSW Drivers Need To Know

The NSW Government recently announced it was introducing mobile phone detection cameras, which would be rolled out from late 2019 across the state. It's part of a plan to reduce fatalities by 30 per cent in two years and its trial has already been pretty effective. Here's what drivers in NSW - and other states - need to know.

Read more

Why can Victorian police now shoot to kill?

According to Sydney Morning Herald, drivers deliberately aiming to cause harm on members of the public by driving through pedestrian-only footpaths may be shot and killed thanks to a new order added in to the Victoria Police Manual (VPM).

But before a shoot to kill order can be undertaken, officers will first need to employ stationary blockades by using police cars or commandeering heavy commercial vehicles such as garbage trucks or any other object, such as road sticks or police spikes, in order to stop an attack or the threat of one.

Victorian police will now be trained online from mid-December and then shown ramming techniques to employ in these sorts of situations after 1 January 2020. Previously, only the Special Operations Group and Critical Incident Response Team were trained to use ramming techniques in these situations.

Importantly, the Crimes Act 1958 has been updated, according to comments made by Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton in a press conference, to give police the power to act with lethal force to prevent an attack from happening. That's before any public harm is done.

Lifehacker Australia has asked Victorian Police for access to the VPM but it would not supply it to us without paying a fee or having us visit the Victorian State Library.

Why now?

Victoria has seen a number of high profile hostile vehicle attacks in recent years. In January 2017, a driver intentionally drove on footpaths in Melbourne's CBD, leaving six people killed and a further 27 injured. In a separate attack later that year in December, another driver deliberately ran a red light and hit crossing pedestrians on Flinders Street. This attack left one dead and 18 others injured.

While bollards have been installed in many of high volume pedestrian areas in Melbourne and elsewhere, like Sydney's Martin Place, these changes are in response to bolstered efforts to prevent further attempts.

What's considered 'deliberate' or 'reckless'?

This part is not clear without referring to the VPM but Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton said in a press release, the new policy is referring to "when a person, in the circumstances, is deemed to be deliberately or recklessly going to use that vehicle, or threaten to use that vehicle, to kill people or seriously injure them."

According to Sydney Morning Herald, the manual identifies three primary risk groups: terrorists mounting single or multi-vehicle attacks in crowded areas, mentally-ill offenders and criminals attempting to flee a scene, putting others at risk.

While the first risk group is obvious, it's the second and third risk group that seems less clear. How police will determine whether someone is a mentally-ill offender or whether a fleeing criminal is putting the public at risk remains to be seen.

Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton told The Age the new policy gives Victorian officers the power to act appropriately to violent attacks.

"We will not wait for offenders to plough into people. The instructions are that you must do something, that you must stop these attacks and that the response must be proportionate and justified," Patton said to The Age.

Lifehacker Australia has reached out to Victoria Police to confirm what's specified within the VPM.

Who does this new policy really affect?

Like any new law, it only really affects drivers doing an illegal action. But while the policy might be more clear cut against someone committing an act of terror and deliberately aiming to harm many people, it seems to be a bit more murky regarding opportunist carjackers or other lesser offences. Those acts are illegal in themselves but whether they would fall under the new hostile vehicle policy is an important question to raise. A teenager going for a joyride, without intentionally trying to harm anyone, might be dangerous, but do they deserve to be shot and killed by the police too?

How Much Do Police Earn in Australia?

Our state and territory police officers do one of the most challenging and dangerous jobs there is. One each shift, they don't know what they are going to face and they often work long hours on a rotating shift system. Do they earn a salary commensurate with those conditions? Here's a look at the salaries for police across the country.

Read more

[Via Sydney Morning Herald]


Comments

    Realistically they can't judge the intentions of state of the offender in the time required to take action. So they're only going to be able to look at the ongoing activity of the offender. Any assessment of the motives or mental state will be after the fact.

    Realistically it's a power that's going to be available in a tiny, tiny number of instances. Because you need an armed officer on the spot. But it might have been helpful in a couple situations.

    As for the car-jackings and joy riding teens... that's a tough question. I think if a person is driving in such a way that they risk killing other people then it doesn't matter whether they're a drunk teen or a rampaging terrorist. Either way they're an active threat and I'd rather see them shot and killed than see an innocent bystander killed.

    Take this instance: https://7news.com.au/news/qld/teen-14-killed-after-stolen-car-crashes-into-traffic-lights-c-139091

    Fortunately the only fatality in this instance was the thief (sadly a kid) but it hit another car with a mum and four kids. That family could easily have been killed.

    Where it's really problematic though, is that a lot of the joy-riding teens do so with a bunch of passengers, and the passengers are often kids. It's depressingly common to see reports of a stolen car being stopped and the police round up a 15 year old driver, their 12 year brother and a couple 14 year old friends.

    Maybe this is being viewed at least partially as deterrent? Up til now Police chases are pretty much dialled back so for a car thief there is incentive to actually try to get away. If they know Police may pursue and actually shoot them it *might* put some would be car thieves off. I say *might* because I suspect most just don't even think about the risk. Especially when they're kids :(

    Why not shoot to wound? As in a shot to the leg or foot.

      Just to confirm, you are asking if they should aim for the leg or foot of the driver of a car?

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now