I agree that this statement was in poor taste.

The problem we're seeing on this forum is that the two sides seem to be displaying the issue in black and white. While it's unfortunate that the teenager was killed, at the same time the police were doing their jobs; that is, upholding the law and protecting the law-abiding from the lawbreaker. If there were no shots fired, and the hostage were ultimately killed, we'd all probably be singing a different tune right now. Law enforcement, despite all their training, are still human and prone to lapses in judgement, particularly when a hostage is at stake. Heroes? Probably not. But we shouldn't characterize them as villains.

I don't think the dispute is whether or not police were doing their jobs, obviously they were, but rather that heroism should not be associated with the taking of life. The young man in question was committing an offence, for what reason we will never know, he can no longer expliain himself or his actions, but his life still was important... important to someone, a mother and father who loved him, brothers and sisters who loved him... perhaps a girlfriend who loved him.  So for this reason, and others, his shooting death is a tragic and sad thing... and to attach heroism to something so profoundly sad, well it seems so wrong.

As for the cops, well I wouldn't be in their shoes for quids.  Sure they were doing their jobs, but they will have to live with the event for years to come, and while they will be comforted by people saying things like "you were just doing your job" in their minds the question will always be there: "Did I have a choice, could I have ended the situation without bloodshed?"  By definition of the term, a true hero would have no such doubt and would have no need to question his/her actions, thus we should not attribute these officers with hero status, they would not want it, not under those circumstances.

This is why some people call them heroes. They do the job that most of us would rather go hungry than do; they kill people, are haunted by the memory, and still pull themselves out of bed and do their job.

The idea of a man able to never ask the question "Did I have a choice" implies a man devoid of thought. Even when one does his best to avoid physical violence, and has to resort to it anyways, the question is always there, unless the person is amoral or incapable of intelligent thought.

Cap'n....I was referring to the PO, not to what you related. Sorry I didn't make that clear enough. The OP provides no details of the "mechanics" of the situation. I also agree that abuses happen and that they (the perpetrators) should be treated as the violators they are. 

That is a totally uncalled for response.

okay, i think i can voice my opinion now

first off, im not talkin about what could have happened, or what did happen that shouldnt have etc. Honestly, i prefer the dead attacker to the dead hostage.

All im saying, is that the term hero is thrown around too liberally... if i had a gun, and shot a rabid dog trying to attack me and my girlfriend walking in the street, am i a Hero? or if i had Special Forces training and a rifle, and shot some drunk trying to rob a shop or something, am i a hero? Imagine this. Arnold Schwarzanegger (at least one of the hero's he plays in movies) vs. some drunk rolling a kid for $20... is Arnie a "Hero"? Or some brave citizen who does not follow the societal norm of turning a blind eye to problems...

i realise in English there is no word for someone who commits a heroic deed (such as killing a hostage taker) but still...

The point im making, is that by this reasoning, ANYONE who went through Law Enforcement or Military or Medical Training, is automatically a hero... and i dont think that is right. In my opinion a Hero who goes above and beyond... i mean, why dont we hear everytime a soldier in Iraq shoots a taliban soldier? are they not heroes? As a great Australian once said: "No one panics when things go acording to plan. Threaten to blow up a drug dealer or a truck of soldiers, and no one gets worried, but one little mayor, and everyone gets CRAZY" (Heath Ledger in Batman the Dark Knight) okay, so? shooting some kid when you have guns and training and numbers and backup... thats doing your job, its Humans vs. an Ant. Yeah, its great, im glad for the hostage, but i dont think this qualifies as a 'Hero' situation...

Go ahead, 'bust me', you neanderthal. Read carefully and you will understand. Two men killing an attacker and saving a hostage would be hero's, because they went above and beyond. They had no guns, no training, etc. But two POLICE OFFICERS with training and weapons and whatnot... its not being a hero, its shootign a kid when he made a mistake. Well done to the cops for saving the hostage, but you are not heroes, you did your jobs, and you are going to get some hazard pay in return, but i wouldnt call you Heroes.

thankyou

This too is very relative. If someone shoots a maniac who is invading a school shooting kids, then he's a hero in my book. If someone repeatedly goes through the line of fire to kill a terrorist who had murdered out entire villages, he's a hero in my book.

I think the term "hero" also relates to the risk one needs to take to perform an action. A soldier heading into enemy terriroty to resque civilians is defnitily a hero to me, a fighter pilot shooting a rocket from 400 miles away to clear out a machine gun nest in the same enemy territory is not.

Is a man who resques a drowning baby from a pool a hero? I don't think so (though certainly he should be thanked for his actions). Is a man who during a flood leaves the safe area of a roof to resque another person who got caught up in the brutal forces of the water a hero? Yes.

Then ofcourse, like said before, your standpoint is relevant. A lot of people don't think cops are heroes, because they are just doint their jobs. However, when they themselves would stand face to face with a hostage taker having to make that choice they would probably swing a perfect 180 degrees on that opinion. It's so easy to judge from a distance. I never see any civilian walking in and trying to talk that hostage taker down...

No need to thank me, Rez!  Your opinion is as valid here as anyone elses, and the suggestion of violence towards you for voicing it was wrong and needed to be addressed.  Violence should be deplored, and if more of us did, we'd have no need of 'heroes' with guns to protect us... our streets would be safer to walk.  Furthermore, it needed to be pointed out, particularly with an attitude like that, how easy it can be to get on the wrong side of the law.

Some years ago I unintentionally ended up on the wrong side of the law... intervened in a violent situation that saw my sister (who'd recently had a hip replacement) being knocked to the ground and have her walking stick broken accross her back by her ex-husband.  When I arrived she was on all fours and he was about to kick her in the stomach, so I instinctively reacted in her defence.... knocked him out cold.  A few hours later I was being arrested at gunpoint... it was just one punch, but 4 officers turned up, guns drawn and (most likely) ready to fire.

Now had I been a bit beligerent in standing my ground, and one of the cops had a hair-trigger finger, I may well have been lying in a pool of blood like that teenager.  Question is, would those cops have been heroes?  Sure, I put my ex-brother-in-law in hospital with severe facial injuries, but the reason why, that it was a split-second response in defence of my sister, would not have made it into the media.  No, the cops would have been portrayed as heroes and viewers/readers would have perceived me to be the bastard/criminal.

Thing is, when the cops arrived at my sister's house, I immediately put up my hands and surrendered, thus avoiding the potential for further conflict, but it may not have been so clear cut for the young man in Sydney. He may just have found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, felt he was backed into a corner and panicked. Taking a hostage wasn't the sensible thing to do, nor was it right, but sometimes socialising in the wrong circles (particularly criminal ones) can lead to poor decisions... and sometimes, as I found in the past, our friends pick us.  More to the point, his brothers are criminals (birds of a feather... influence), and he couldn't pick his family.  Sorta put things in a different light, doesn't it?  In any event it is tragic his life ended that way... somebody loved him and is now grieving.

A suggestion that was/could still be made is that I was a hero for defending my sister and saving her from sustaining greater injuries or worse.  No, no way!  For one: I'm a pacifist and deplore violence. Two; I didn't have time to think, so it was an instictive/kind of involuntary reaction... and as one person put it, a hero os somebody who knowingly puts themself in harms way to save/help another.  I don't necessarily agree with this statement, not if it means blood being spilled and/or killing, and as such, I do not want to be considered a hero for something I did to cause harm to another.

thankyou anyway, but yeah, this is exactly the kind of thing i was hoping waas coming across in the subtext of what i was saying

i agree. on the same note, SWAT forces use the policy of arresting everyone at a crime scene/drug bust/wherever they operate, because they dont know who is a threat and who is not. for the same reason, in your situation, the cops came around, saw you on your feet, a crippled (no offense) woman on the ground and another man on the ground bleeding, its logical to assume you are the bad guy. now, if the cops HAD shot you, they would have been praised as heros for a day or so, then, when your sister came out and said the cops shot you, her protector, in error, those cops would be thrown to the hounds faster than *snap*

So yeah, back to the original point, these two cops, yes, they saved a hostage, but like i said before, its like a tank vs a car... the police's numerical superiortiy, equal or superior weapons, superior training (as opposed to none) and mental and physical maturity just so totally outbalances the contest that it would have been hard for the police NOT to win...

let me put it this way:

Two firemen at a burning building.

One is outside, hosing the building from a safe (relatively speaking) distance.

One is inside looking for trapped people

The one inside saves a person/people/pets.

Who is the hero?

Another situation:

Three firemen at a burning building.

One is outside, hosing the building from a safe (relatively speaking) distance.

Two are inside looking for trapped people

They both save a person each.

The chief outside gives the order to fall back because the building is coming down.

One fireman disobey's orders and goes back inside to rescue one more person.

Who is/are the hero(es)?

While tempting to call the one going back a hero, I would not. Sure he will be when he saves another person, but those chances are slim. He could however end up dead himself, or worse.. get in trouble himself so other firemen have to put their own lives in danger again to save him. He's a selfish dumbass in that case and if he and/or a collegue dies because of him then only more people will suffer. The chief isn't standing outside because he is lazy or because he stumbed his toe yesterday, he's there because he has the experience and oversight to decide if the building is safe, from a standpoint that the men inside don't have. Trust me if there's a reasonable chance that the men inside can save another life the chief will let them. If there's a reasonable chance one of his men might die then he will call them out and the men inside better f****** listen. Going back doesn't make you a hero, it makes you a major idiot.

okay, let me be a bit more specific first

1. the FF (firefigher) that goes back does in fact rescue another person with no problems like becoming trapped himself

2. i was not talking about the chief being the one outside on the hose or just outside in general, but rather, another random FF

now, while i agree that there is risk that you get trapped yourself while trying to rescue another person if you dont, what sane person isnt going to call you a hero? thats what alot of people are saying, if you put all others ahead of yourself, to the detriment of your health (as in, you sacrifice yourself to save/protect others), then you are a hero

if you are Mr John Citizen, following orders, you could fight a million fires and save thousands of people, but the lucky schmuck who went against orders and saved that one last person, gets called a hero.

Fair? Accurate? Deserving? i dont think so

They qualify as a hero only if during the course of those duties they do what I said, put themselves in harms way to save the life of another.  Otherwise, they are just doing their jobs, just like basketball players and other sports players who people call heroes, it is not earned unless they meet those guidelines.

The cops didn't arrive until about 3 hours later, by which time it he was in hospital and my sister was resting, though sore after her ordeal.  In other words, it was not an ongoing situation... so it beats me why the cops felt it necessary to arrive with pistols drawn.  Maybe my ex-borother-in-law described me as the Incredible Hulk or something, but it soon became evident that I would not pose them a problem and the guns were quickly holstered.

Incidentally, while I was charged with assault occasioning bodily harm, the judge dismissed the whole thing as a 'domestic' that had gotten out of hand and I got a 2 year good behaviour bond for my involvement.... and the one good thing to come out of it was that years of physical and mental abuse ended.