Having been in the service in a not to distant past life:
- The IPCA have the luxury of months to investigate decisions that officers often have seconds to make. Unless you have lived it it's hard to explain
People constantly prattle on with this point but it's irrelevant. In deciding whether the conduct involved is defensible, the IPCA investigators explicitly take into account the urgency and nature of the situation. Whether the force used was reasonable is determined by whether a postulated objective, intelligent person who is generally aware of society's expectations and the training of the cops, assessing based on the facts as the cops involved knew at the time, would consider the force used to be proportionate to the threat posed by the arrestee. This actually mirrors exactly the self-defence/defence of other provision in the Crimes Act. Unless you have a problem with the police being made to follow the laws of the land, it's simply implausible and ignorant to the extreme to be taking the pot shot that you did.
I thought that was a perfectly reasonable statement for anyone to make. I really struggle to see how you could call it a 'pot shot'. It was just stating the obvious.
I work in an industry where if there is a incident or accident a similar thing applies. The investigators have the benefit of time to analyse what happened and determine if anyone stuffed up. In extreme cases the main protagonists are no longer with us to tell their versions of the events nor are they able to defend their actions.
Dynamic situations call for an immediate action. Not always is the best course of action taken in the heat of the moment, it may take too long to think of or implement. In hind sight if given a second chance at the same situation they may choose another option.
I struggle to see what your issue is.