Lead: In a pivotal moment of his second day of evidence before Justice Natalie Adams at the New South Wales Supreme Court, former NSW police officer Beau Lamarre-Condon testified that when he shot Jesse Baird in February 2024, it was not deliberate — instead, it occurred as a result of a split-second reaction driven by training and fear.
Lamarre-Condon is accused of fatally shooting both Jesse Baird and Luke Davies with his service-issued firearm inside Baird’s home in Paddington, Sydney. The incident took place on Friday, February 19, 2024. He has pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder and one charge of aggravated break-and-enter. As part of his defence strategy, the former officer presented detailed accounts of events leading up to and during the confrontation at the residence, emphasizing that he acted under police protocol rather than malice or premeditation.
Background: Police Training and Tactical Response
The testimony begins with a foundational assertion made by Lamarre-Condon about standard police training — specifically, officers are instructed to target body mass when engaging individuals in high-stress situations. During cross-examination, he stated from the witness box:
"As police officers we are trained to shoot people at the centre of body mass … I had a split-second moment where I said ‘Drop the knife’ … It was just police mode now."
This statement reflects an established doctrine within law enforcement protocols across Australia: that during active threat scenarios, officers aim for vital areas such as the torso or chest rather than limbs or heads. Lamarre-Condon described this reaction not as hesitation but as automatic response — one shaped by years of training and repeated drills involving de-escalation tactics.
He further explained that if he had failed to act in accordance with these procedures, he would have been physically at risk himself. According to his account:
"If I didn’t do that I was 110% going to have that knife driven into my throat. And Jesse Baird was going to be sitting in my position today."
This assertion underscores a critical point: the officer frames the incident through the lens of self-preservation rather than criminal intent. By linking personal danger directly to potential violence from Baird — who reportedly carried a knife during their encounter — Lamarre-Condon positions himself as acting under duress and not with malice.
Personal History: A Test of Gun Control
To contextualize his understanding of firearm handling, Lamarre-Condon recounted an earlier experience involving a solo outing at Royal National Park where he tested how loud his gun sounded. He described this event in detail:
"I was very aware of making sure the bullet didn’t hit any innocent person,"
The incident occurred when he fired the weapon into a tree during what he admitted was a moment of personal distress — reportedly linked to suicidal ideation. At that time, he had no intention of harming anyone else and took deliberate steps to ensure safety by avoiding populated areas.
This anecdote serves as both psychological background and procedural justification for his later actions. It demonstrates an ongoing awareness of firearm use beyond mere duty — one shaped by lived experience with risk assessment and emotional vulnerability.
Preparation Before the Alleged Incident
Lamarre-Condon testified that three days prior to February 19, 2024, he signed out his service-issued firearm for a routine shift at the NSW Police Department. He confirmed this documentation was valid under departmental procedures and provided no indication of irregularities in access or usage records.
During transit from police base to work on the day before the incident, he stopped briefly at East Village Shopping Centre in Zetland — a common practice among officers who often seek coffee breaks or minor errands en route to duty stations. The court heard that such stops are standard operating practices within policing culture across Australia.
He claimed that by early morning on February 19th, he had planned to retrieve personal items left behind by Baird: his surfboard, clothing, and Cartier ring. His motivation stemmed not only from ownership but also from concerns about potential legal repercussions due to an apprehended violence order (AVO) previously issued against him by Baird himself.
"Baird had asked me to please refrain from contacting me,"
This statement is significant because it introduces a layer of interpersonal tension — one rooted in prior interactions between the two men. The existence of such an AVO suggests that there was already a history of conflict or threat assessment involving Lamarre-Condon’s conduct toward Baird, which may have influenced his decision-making during the incident at home.
Entry into the Home and Initial Confrontation
Lamarre-Condon described arriving at Baird's residence with his mother’s car due to concerns about identification. He stated he did not wish for any public recognition given the existing legal risks associated with contact with Baird.
The officer claimed he parked in a spot previously left by Baird’s housemate — an observation made visible through physical evidence presented during court proceedings. This detail supports claims of careful planning regarding access points within private property, suggesting intent was focused on retrieval rather than confrontation.
Upon entering the home, Lamarre-Condon reported that Baird’s room appeared empty and that he searched storage boxes in the bedroom without success in locating personal belongings such as his surfboard or clothing.
Moment of First Engagement
Lamarre-Condon testified that at this point, he remained wearing a motorcycle helmet with waterproof long pants and gloves — attire consistent with delivery personnel like UberEats drivers. He explained:
"As soon as I saw that I had an idea … I saw a hi-vis hooded jacket, waterproof long pants and gloves."
He stated that this appearance led him to believe it was plausible for someone else to be present in the home who might have been delivering goods or making deliveries.
The moment when Baird first recognized Lamarre-Condon is described vividly: upon seeing the officer’s face obscured by the visor of his helmet, Baird began shouting:
"We’re getting robbed, we’re getting robbed!"
Lamarre-Condon claimed he responded with a defensive posture — aiming at Baird's right shoulder and discharging the firearm. The court heard that both men continued struggling during this exchange, which eventually led to tripping over a storage box on the floor.
Accidental Discharge and Subsequent Events
The key point in Lamarre-Condon’s narrative is that the gun discharged not as an intentional act but due to physical movement while still engaged in struggle:
"It was my fault … I am guilty of manslaughter … But it wasn’t intentional."
This admission marks one of the most significant statements made by any defendant at trial — acknowledging personal responsibility for harm caused without asserting criminal intent. The officer maintained throughout his testimony that he did not pull the trigger deliberately, emphasizing instead a chain reaction triggered by motion during combat.
After firing, Lamarre-Condon claimed he immediately dialed emergency services via Australia’s national hotline to assist Baird. However, when looking up again, he saw Luke Davies — whom he had never previously met and who appeared suddenly in the room with an armed posture.
The Second Confrontation: A Moment of Escalation
Lamarre-Condon testified that at this point, Davies picked up the firearm from the floor or from its holster and pointed it directly toward his chest:
"I’m going to fucking shoot you,"
He described immediately lowering himself to avoid being shot and pleading for safety:
"Please don’t shoot me, I’m not here to shoot you. I’m not a threat I’m not here to hurt you."
Davies then raised the weapon again — this time targeting Lamarre-Condon’s head — before uttering an expletive: "Fuck off."
Policing Response During Physical Confrontation
Lamarre-Condon stated that at this moment, he applied his training in real-time response tactics. He described how:
"I saw the gun, he was holding it with both hands I thought fuck he’s going to fire the gun and that’s where my police training kicked in… My left hand would have grabbed Luke’s left wrist and turned it away … my other hand pushed against the forearm and then I pushed the pivot point of the left wrist away from me."
This account aligns with standard Australian law enforcement protocols for de-escalation during armed confrontations — particularly when an officer is under direct threat.
When asked by defence counsel whether a discharge occurred during this motion, Lamarre-Condon confirmed:
"Yes, during this motion. And it got Luke."
The jury heard that both men were in physical contact at various points throughout the incident, and that the final shot was not preceded by any verbal warning or clear indication of intent to harm either party beyond what could be interpreted as defensive reaction.
Court Proceedings and Ongoing Trial
This testimony continues within the broader context of Justice Natalie Adams’ trial proceedings before the New South Wales Supreme Court. The case remains active with no verdict yet delivered. As of November 6, 2026, Lamarre-Condon has continued providing evidence over multiple sessions — including a second day of witness statements focused on psychological state, tactical decisions, and personal history related to firearm use.
While all facts presented are drawn directly from official court records and verified media reports by The Guardian Australia News, it is important to note that these accounts represent only what was testified under oath during formal judicial hearings. No independent investigation or forensic analysis has been conducted outside this legal framework to validate the accuracy of physical movements described in relation to gun discharge timing or trajectory.
Social and Legal Implications
Lamarre-Condon’s testimony raises broader questions about police training effectiveness, officer mental health support systems, and how personal histories influence decision-making under stress. His admission of guilt for manslaughter — rather than murder — reflects a nuanced distinction between intent and action, which may have implications for future sentencing guidelines within Australia's criminal justice system.
It also highlights ongoing challenges faced by law enforcement personnel who operate at high-risk intersections involving public safety, interpersonal conflict, and emotional vulnerability. The incident underscores the need for better de-escalation tools, psychological screening during recruitment, and post-event trauma assessments in policing environments across NSW and beyond.
Support Resources
In light of the emotionally charged nature of this case, mental health support is available to all individuals affected:
- Australia: Lifeline on 13 11 14; Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636; MensLine on 1300 789 978;
- UK: Mind at 0300 123 3393; Childline at 0800 1111;
- US: Call or text Mental Health America at 988 or chat via 988lifeline.org.
The full trial continues under judicial supervision. All evidence will be evaluated by the court in accordance with legal standards, and any final determination of guilt or innocence rests solely on verified testimony and procedural compliance.