SYDNEY, Australia. — Former New South Wales police officer Beau Lamarre-Condon defended his tactical decision during cross-examination, stating that firing the initial shot at Jesse Baird’s shoulder was "the right move." The defense argued the action was protective, not lethal, during the second day of the double murder trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Lamarre-Condon, who pleaded not guilty to murdering Baird and his partner, Luke Davies, testified that he faced an imminent threat. The incident occurred on February 19, 2024, inside Baird’s Paddington home. Prosecutors are challenging the officer’s assertion of immediate danger, suggesting the timeline of events contradicts the claim of a sudden, life-threatening confrontation that necessitated lethal force.

The witness stated he did not intend to kill Baird when he discharged his service weapon. However, forensic evidence indicates that the bullet sustained by Baird was one of several fired in the chaotic scene. Davies, who was present during the altercation, was also fatally wounded. Legal experts note that the distinction between a warning shot and an intent to harm is a central pillar of the prosecution’s case against the former officer.

Key Takeaways

• Lamarre-Condon maintains that the first shot was a non-lethal defensive measure.
• Prosecutors dispute the necessity of the force used against two victims.
• The trial hinges on the timeline of the February 2024 confrontation.

Cross-examination brought scrutiny to Lamarre-Condon’s pre-incident communications with police dispatch. Records show he called for backup 30 minutes before the incident, citing domestic concerns rather than an immediate armed threat. The defense seeks to establish that the situation escalated rapidly, leaving little time for de-escalation. The court is awaiting further evidence regarding the physical positioning of all parties during the fatal exchange.

The jury heard that Lamarre-Condon, a veteran of the force, utilized standard issue equipment during the event. His legal team emphasizes his training in use-of-force protocols, arguing that his actions aligned with departmental guidelines for high-risk calls. Conversely, the prosecution points to inconsistencies in his initial statements made to responding officers shortly after the shooting, which differ from his current testimony.

The trial is expected to continue for several weeks, with additional officers and forensic experts scheduled to provide testimony. The outcome will likely set a significant precedent regarding the accountability of law enforcement officers in domestic dispute scenarios. Public interest remains high, reflecting broader societal debates on police authority and the legal thresholds for using lethal force in civilian environments.