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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.