[AI Thoughts...] 'Bang, Bang, Bang' Gwangju Shooting: Was It Self-Defense?

Police Fire Handgun in Response to Knife Attack, Sparking Death Controversy
AI: "It Was Self-Protection, but Firing Three Live Rounds Is Excessive"
Should Korean Police Reconsider Firearm Use Standards?
"Necessary Action" vs. "Excessive Response" ? Divided Opinions

Reporter: "Gwangju Police Shooting Incident, Was It Self-Defense?"

ChatGPT: "It was a response to protect lives, but firing three live rounds is open to controversy."

"Bang! Bang! Bang!"

Gunshots rang out on the street at dawn. In Gwangju, a police officer fired a handgun at a suspect wielding a weapon, resulting in the suspect's death. In the early morning of the 26th of last month, a police officer conducting a checkpoint on Geumnam-ro in Dong-gu, Gwangju, was suddenly attacked with a weapon. When the taser failed to subdue the suspect, one blank round and three live rounds were fired. The suspect died at the scene, and the police officer was also injured and is receiving treatment.

The incident has sparked controversy over the use of firearms. While the police claim it was 'self-defense,' some argue it was an 'excessive response.' Since the use of firearms by Korean police is strictly limited, this case is likely to trigger a societal debate over response standards and procedures. How does AI interpret this?

At around 3:10 a.m. on the 26th of last month, Officer A was stabbed and collapsed after being attacked with a weapon by Mr. B, a man in his 50s, in an alley in Geumnamro, Donggu, Gwangju. Photo by Yonhap News

◇ Was the Use of Firearms Inevitable? The Key Issue

Generative AI ChatGPT analyzed, "The police's use of firearms was likely inevitable to protect lives," and added, "If the taser was ineffective and there was a direct threat, it could be recognized as self-defense."

However, it pointed out that "the number of shots fired could be a point of contention," and "the legal interpretation may differ between firing one or two rounds and firing three or more." While the police maintain it was self-defense, the AI stated, "Even if the use of firearms was unavoidable, whether firing three rounds was excessive needs to be examined."

The use of firearms by police is strictly regulated by law. According to the Police Officers’ Duties Execution Act, police may only use firearms to ▲ protect their own or others’ lives and bodies ▲ prevent obstruction of official duties ▲ or when there is a risk of escape.

The AI cited the following as key factors in determining whether the use of firearms was excessive: whether the taser and blank round were ineffective, whether firing live rounds was the minimum necessary action, and whether other responses were possible.

ChatGPT said, "If the taser was ineffective, further action would have been inevitable," but also noted, "Since the use of firearms must be minimized, whether firing three live rounds was appropriate needs review." It added, "The justification should be evaluated by comparing with past cases of police firearm use."

Police officers are covering their ears in front of the speakers at the anti-impeachment rally for President Yoon Seokyeol held last month on the 28th in front of Sungkyunkwan University in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

◇ Comparison with Overseas Police Responses

The AI highlighted differences in standards for police firearm use between Korea and other countries. ChatGPT explained, "In the United States, police can immediately use live ammunition when a threat arises, but some European countries prioritize non-lethal weapons," and "Although Korean police use of firearms is limited, the response approach is changing due to the increase in violent crimes."

Firearm use by Korean police is rare. According to the National Police Agency, there have been about 20 cases per year on average in the past five years, most involving only blank rounds.

ChatGPT stated, "This incident could serve as an opportunity to revisit the standards for police firearm use," and "Regardless of whether it was self-defense or excessive response, a social consensus is needed."

◇ Legal Controversy... Will Self-Defense Be Recognized?

Court decisions on self-defense consider the intensity of the attack, the degree of threat, and whether the response was excessive.

Looking at past cases, self-defense was mostly recognized when police used firearms in the process of apprehending a suspect. However, in the 2016 Gangnam Station stabbing incident, police arrested the suspect without using lethal force, leading to controversy over whether police were too hesitant to use firearms.

ChatGPT predicted, "Given the circumstances, it is highly likely to be recognized as self-defense, but the number of shots fired and the situation at the time will be key issues," and "This incident will prompt a renewed discussion on whether the standards for police firearm use are appropriate."

◇ Public Response

Public opinion on the incident is divided. Some said, "Is it really a problem for the police to use firearms when attacked with a weapon?" and "If the taser didn't work, live rounds had to be used."

On the other hand, there were also cautious opinions such as, "Three shots were excessive," and "The priority should have been to subdue, not to kill." One citizen commented, "Clear standards are needed so police can respond without hesitation."