From P Sundramoorthy
For decades in Malaysia, fatal police shootings have remained a recurring flashpoint of controversy. Whenever suspects are killed during enforcement operations, the police leadership almost invariably issues a familiar explanation: the officers acted in self-defence after being threatened with armed aggression.
This standard narrative often gains traction among segments of the public who believe hardened criminals deserve little sympathy and society is safer with “one less criminal on the street.”
Yet this perspective, while emotionally understandable, runs parallel to strong objections from the families of the deceased, human rights lawyers and civil society organisations who argue that the pattern of explanations and the nature of many incidents raise profound questions about whether these are justified killings or extrajudicial executions.
From a criminological viewpoint, this tension warrants deeper analysis because it relates directly to state power, police legitimacy, public trust and the boundaries of lawful force.
Criminology recognises that police are entrusted with exceptional authority: the power to detain, arrest and, in extreme situations, use lethal force. However, such powers are not absolute; they must be exercised within strict legal boundaries and guided by the principle of proportionality.
At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the safety of police officers is of paramount importance. Officers often operate in unpredictable and high-risk environments, and any framework for accountability must equally ensure that they are adequately protected, properly equipped and supported when confronting genuine threats to their lives.
The central criminological problem emerges when fatal police encounters show a consistent pattern of one-sided narratives: suspects are always armed, always shoot first and officers always kill in self-defence.
This statistical improbability naturally invites scrutiny. For a functioning justice system, it is not enough for the police to merely claim self-defence; the claim must withstand forensic, procedural and evidentiary examination.
The question then shifts from whether the police can use force. Obviously, they can, but are they using it justifiably, proportionately and transparently?
Historically, Malaysia has witnessed a disproportionately high number of deaths through police shootings compared to many countries with similar crime profiles.
Human rights groups such as Suara Rakyat Malaysia, Lawyers for Liberty and international observers have long flagged patterns that resemble “execution-style” incidents, where suspects are killed at close range, often with multiple shots and with no surviving witnesses other than the police officers involved.
This raises the criminological red flag of “closed-information asymmetry”: the possibilities of narrative manipulation, reconstruction of events or defensive institutional framing increase when only one party survives to tell the story.
The difficulty for families and lawyers is compounded by investigative processes that frequently lack transparency, especially when the police investigate themselves.
Another relevant framework is the “use-of-force continuum”. In most advanced policing models, officers are trained to escalate force gradually, exhausting non-lethal options whenever possible.
The use of firearms is meant to be the last resort. Yet publicised Malaysian cases often suggest immediate escalation to lethal force, with little clarity on whether alternatives could have been applied.
While officers undeniably face real threats in the field, especially from violent criminals, not every confrontation necessitates shooting to kill.
In many incidents reported in past decades, suspects were found with no injuries consistent with firing a weapon at officers, leading forensic experts and criminologists to question the fidelity of official narratives.
Criminology emphasises the role of police culture: the shared norms, informal practices and operational assumptions that shape decision-making.
In some policing environments, a “crime control” culture dominates, where officers view certain suspects as inherently dangerous and unworthy of legal due process.
This can create implicit bias, where lethal force becomes rationalised as an efficient method of neutralising “problematic individuals.”
When society applauds such outcomes, it reinforces a punitive culture that sees arrest, investigation and trial as unnecessary obstacles. Such a culture erodes the fundamental doctrine that even the most notorious criminals are entitled to justice and that guilt must be determined by the courts, not by bullets.
From a criminal justice standpoint, extrajudicial killings also subvert the integrity of investigations.
When suspects are killed rather than arrested, opportunities to dismantle wider criminal networks diminish. Dead suspects cannot provide intelligence, testify against syndicate leaders or participate in plea-bargaining arrangements.
Therefore, while some may view fatal shootings as a shortcut to public safety, they may paradoxically hinder long-term crime prevention by eliminating avenues for intelligence gathering.
Criminological research consistently shows that the dismantling of organised crime depends heavily on investigation, interrogation and the flipping of insiders; all processes impossible once suspects are dead.
The legal ambiguity surrounding police shootings further compounds public opinion. Inquests into deaths in police encounters, although provided for under the law, are not always conducted, or proceed with limited public attention. Families of victims face financial, emotional and procedural barriers in seeking accountability.
When cases do proceed, coroners often struggle with incomplete evidence, delayed reports or missing forensic details. This results in many inquests returning “open verdicts”, leaving families without closure and allowing suspicions of police misconduct to persist.
The long-term criminological consequence is damage to police legitimacy. Trust in law enforcement is not solely derived from crime-fighting performance but from perceptions of fairness, restraint and adherence to the rule of law.
When communities, especially marginalised groups, believe police are capable of acting as judge, jury and executioner, cooperation with law enforcement declines.
This creates a vicious cycle: diminished community trust leads to reduced information flow to the police, which in turn makes policing more difficult, potentially increasing reliance on force.
For Malaysia to break this cycle, systemic reforms are essential. Independent oversight mechanisms, not internal police reviews must take the lead in investigating police shootings.
Body cameras, dashboard cameras, mandatory public inquests, independent forensic reviews and strict adherence to international standards on use of force can help restore confidence.
These reforms are not anti-police; they are pro-accountability and essential for professional policing in a modern society.
Ultimately, the debate over whether fatal police shootings are justified deaths or extrajudicial killings is not merely legal or procedural, but it is fundamentally about the role of the state, the meaning of justice and the boundaries of lawful authority.
A democratic society cannot accept unexplained or weakly justified killings as an inevitable feature of policing. As criminologists emphasise, the legitimacy of the justice system depends on restraint, due process and transparency.
Public safety must never come at the cost of abandoning these principles.
P Sundramoorthy is a criminologist at the Centre for Policy Research at Universiti Sains Malaysia and an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.