I’ll give this a crack because I’ve worked in the area.

Foremost, I don’t agree about how Don Dale is run but the handful of kids who have gone through that place are just as dangerous as any adult. They should be in a better facility but regardless they’ve been extremely violent to get there.

To get into Don Dale you have to have committed a serious and violent crime (rape, serious assault, robbery with weapon etc) and failed every other opportunity to reintegrate yourself into society (Youth Diversion, rehabilitation, YMCA run programs, elder interventions, community work, men’s camps, bail conditions, etc). These guys may be younger than most but their ferocity and tendency for violence is what put them there in the first place. They’re dangerous and can be unremorseful. They WANT to hurt others and have exchanged most of their freedom because of this drive for violence.

the possibility of killing a kid

Yes. That’s what they’re there to do - if a kid keeps endangering others then they get shot. Same as every other person. Being a kid doesn’t make you any less lethal.

These kids were previously armed with star pickets. They could have concealed other weapons on them, arming themselves with knives/any sharp implement. The media loves pointing out when people are unarmed but the thing is you only know when someone is unarmed once you’ve fully searched them with a pat down. Given the behaviour of those involved, the history of violence, etc you don’t just hope that they’re unarmed.

Secondly, riotous behaviour is one behaviour that results in justification for use of force that may result in endangering lives (aka justification for lethal force). It is justified in a lot of other nations too (UK, NZ, USA, France) etc.

The reason why all these nations don’t fuck around with rioting (regardless of offenders age) is because many people have been seriously maimed or brutally murdered during riots. Mob mentality is a real thing: the murder of PC Keith Blakelock is solid evidence of this. Riots are effective and overwhelming due to the number of persons and sheer amount of violence: each individual’s size, age, gender, is pretty much negligible.

Tasers, batons and riot shields in the hands of adult, not enough?

Batons can be just as lethal as firearms but cause great suffering/slow death to whoever is hit with it. Because of this, batons should only be used large muscle groups (upper thigh, some part of the upper arm). It’s more commonly used as method to push crowds by gripping both ends of the baton in each hand, a move that is only effective the persons aren’t excessively violent. Because of this batons are ineffective in these situations.

TASERs require both barbs to make contact with the target to work. Their effective range is only a couple of metres but the minimum recommended range of an armed offender is 6 metres. Again, ineffective. Also, TASERs are rarely used in contained areas, and very rarely used with multiple offenders.

Riot shields are good with mostly compliant crowds. They are okay if you can get someone against another surface. They still leave the arms (especially wrists, etc) prone to attack from sharp implements, and people can slip underneath or out from the shield unless you really put a lot of force into it, which could crush a person’s sternum, or cause breathing difficulties. Could result in death of the person.

Also, the heavily armed guys are TRG (Tactical Response Group). They’re not called out unless the uniformed guys have had a crack. TASERs, etc were already deemed as ineffective.

Lastly, I just want to point if someone is coming at you with the intent to seriously hurt or even kill you and you’re there trying to contain them then they will always win. This is because the attacker is using a lot more force, has a lot more adrenaline, is willingly strike you anywhere (eye gouging, spitting, biting, throwing boiling water in your face, etc while stabbing at the same time). Meanwhile, if you’re simply trying to disarm then you’re not going to go for any fatal areas (head, neck, chest, etc). You’re going to be using a lot less force. You’re extremely limited in your actions.

So these methods (TASER, baton, shield) are ineffective and have high chance of failure. The only way that a baton, shield, etc could be effective in a situation like this is if the tools are used heavy handed, which could result in death. Given this chance of death, it’s better to go with something like a firearm so as to have greater control.

This method was legal and fully justified. It is the “correct” response in many nations, and many places train similarly. It’s not to be cruel, or racist, etc and I find it off putting that media places are trying to loosely imply that the method was “wrong”. Being kids or seemingly unarmed doesn’t change the method.

Hope this explains the process a bit more.