"Good faith" defence

[Aussie]

So....a Copper wants to argue that there is a latent common law (????) right to a defence of acting in good faith as a Plod, in addition to all the usual statutory defences available to all. Full Court of the NT says he can. NT Prosecutor goes off to the High Court asking for a 'nah' ruling. High Court (single Judge decision) says .....'Okay Mr Prosecutor, we will hear that one argued in full in the High Court later.'

Good. There should be no special exemptions like 'good faith' for Coppers.

Link.

[Texan]

I'm having trouble with the jargon but what are the circumstances of the alleged murder? No good faith defense will give "coppers" a good reason to not protect others.

[Aussie]

I'm having trouble with the jargon but what are the circumstances of the alleged murder? No good faith defense will give "coppers" a good reason to not protect others.

There is no such thing existing on Statutes here of a 'good faith' defence just for Coppers/Plod/Police. I am not aware of the circumstances of the incident.

Coppers get the same legal protections everyone gets, no more. There is no special protective compartment for them.

And....there may well be a sinister racial undertone to this, which also worries me, but my radar might be way off there.

[Super Nova]

I agree, the cops shouldn't get special treatment.

I would be interested in the "good faith' argument though. What do they mean. What is their argument they are taking up high for a ruling.

OK, as a cop, I go to arrest someone and they just don't lie down and make it easy, so I was acting in good faith that he will comply... he didn't so killed him. His fault, i was acting in good faith.

WTF could the the argument re good faith I wonder.

[Texan]

We can run away from trouble. I carry a gun, but I have no desire or responsibility to confront an armed criminal. My gun is for my protection when necessary. I'm held responsible for every bullet that leaves my gun. A cop doesn't have that luxury. His job is to deal with criminals and protect others. In these situations, split second decisions are made and sometimes mistakes are made. Since the public hired a cop to confront criminals, they can share SOME of the responsibility for some of those mistakes.

I don't mean forgive racial profiling or corruption or some moral decision. I'm talking about bad aim in a public shootout. Losing their job should be the first punishment instead of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The cop was forced into the situation.

[Super Nova]

We can run away from trouble. I carry a gun, but I have no desire or responsibility to confront an armed criminal. My gun is for my protection when necessary. I'm held responsible for every bullet that leaves my gun. A cop doesn't have that luxury. His job is to deal with criminals and protect others. In these situations, split second decisions are made and sometimes mistakes are made. Since the public hired a cop to confront criminals, they can share SOME of the responsibility for some of those mistakes.

I don't mean forgive racial profiling or corruption or some moral decision. I'm talking about bad aim in a public shootout. Losing their job should be the first punishment instead of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The cop was forced into the situation.

I think the cops (a good cop) has a crap job.

Any defense should be, I was under threat and I met violence intent with appropriate force.

"Good Faith" in the context of a cop I don't understand. Cops have been doing this for a long time, they have laws, precedents and rules/codes of conduct done to death over the years. What gap in all of this that a "Good Faith" defense can stand.

I quite like the laws in Texas, when I was there it felt very safe even though I saw people with guns on their hip. (not canceled).
If you have a culture where everyone (nearly) can carry, you need clear rules.