The Law Lindt Cafe Siege - Inquest Findings

Remove this Banner Ad

shellyg said:
Ask the snipers & they would tell you that it was that easy. To their credit and discredit of command.
Click to expand...
Really? The sniper I know who has actually been part of tests firing bullets through glass windows to see the effect it has on trajectory tells me the bullet could end up ******* anywhere.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

And apart from that it's not actually legal to shoot someone in the head just in case they might be going to hurt someone later on maybe.
 
shellyg said:
err yes it is if you're a cop and actually yes it is an act of self defence
Click to expand...
err no it isn't just cos you're a cop and this case would not have been an act of self defense to shoot him through a window from a safe hiding place some distance away.
 
Illinois Nazi said:
Really? The sniper I know who has actually been part of tests firing bullets through glass windows to see the effect it has on trajectory tells me the bullet could end up ******* anywhere.
Click to expand...
Stop with this. We all know why Monis wasn't taken out. It came down to the legalities of popping one into his skull.
 
RustyHawk said:
"
The issue lies with the lack of leadership in adequately dealing with the crisis swiftly enough, before it escalated to the point that it did.....On many occasions prior, police marksmen had many clear shots in which to take this nutter out with no harm caused to others....Whosoever hesitated to act in that regards, is to blame for all other deaths ( other than Monis), that transpired after the fact."


Your argument is they should have killed a man when they had no legal justification to do so for threating to harm some people......
(up until 02:03am the next morning )
That is why we have laws to stop that very sort of thing going on.
You do not want Police to be
Judge
Jury
&
Executioner​
Click to expand...

Well if you trust your police more than you trust the other members of the public - maybe we want a police state?
Maybe make threat to kill with bomb and taking hostages an offence where police can be executioner... Would make rational nutjobs think twice, and the truly mentally ill who make the same threats will be removed (terminally) which is a little sad, but they also cause community disruption...

It's all about what type of society we want.
 
2Knights said:
And if it did go to trial, no jury would convict.
Click to expand...

Unless they missed/ hurt/ killed other hostages while trying to take out Monis, of if Monis reflex action in death caused shots to go into hostages, we'd have complaints that the snipers/ police exceeded their authority.
 
Procrastinator35 said:
Stop talking s**t.
Click to expand...
It's not me talking s**t in here. I'm surprised we haven't had the old favourite "why didn't they shoot the gun out of his hand" yet.

Anyway, I'm done, but I'd like to thank you and shelly for reminding me why I stopped wasting my time on this board full of ignorant dickheads.
 
Illinois Nazi said:
It's not me talking s**t in here. I'm surprised we haven't had the old favourite "why didn't they shoot the gun out of his hand" yet.

Anyway, I'm done, but I'd like to thank you and shelly for reminding me why I stopped wasting my time on this board full of ignorant dickheads.
Click to expand...

You'll be missed.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Crankyhawk said:
Unless they missed/ hurt/ killed other hostages while trying to take out Monis, of if Monis reflex action in death caused shots to go into hostages, we'd have complaints that the snipers/ police exceeded their authority.
Click to expand...

Are you serious with this?

They did kill/hurt maim other hostages because of the indecision & idiocy from the top.....FFS.
 
Serious question, if the police did in fact shot Monis in the hours immediately after the siege started and they found he had no such explosive device on him, would the police be criticized for not having thoroughly attempted to bring a peaceful end to the siege through negotiation?

Tbh it's a rhetorical question because I already know the answer to this.
 
_Swoon said:
Serious question, if the police did in fact shot Monis in the hours immediately after the siege started and they found he had no such explosive device on him, would the police be criticized for not having thoroughly attempted to bring a peaceful end to the siege through negotiation?

Tbh it's a rhetorical question because I already know the answer to this.
Click to expand...

There'd be 2 more innocent people alive today if they did....He was brandishing a firearm & threatening to kill hostages, so I'm not sure what kind of alibi inquest would follow given his known history.....Nice attempt but.
 
Freo Big Fella said:
The fact the snipers had no legal cover if they did shoot him was repeatedly pointed out during the inquest and is a significant deficiency in the NSW criminal code that needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...

I missed that, sorry. Assume had the SAS taken over as a military operation they would be covered by a different code?
 
Procrastinator35 said:
Are you serious with this?

They did kill/hurt maim other hostages because of the indecision & idiocy from the top.....FFS.
Click to expand...
Pointing out that complaints will occur not matter which way is all. Yes I would have liked to see monis get taken out but if a hostage was hurt as result people would still be critical.
 
Crankyhawk said:
Pointing out that complaints will occur not matter which way is all. Yes I would have liked to see monis get taken out but if a hostage was hurt as result people would still be critical.
Click to expand...

Lets just stick to what did transpire, as opposed to what ought to have.

3 are dead, when only 1 need be....That is always the only stat that matters.

This inquest involves that +2 & it's accountability....Or in this instance....lack thereof.
 
Procrastinator35 said:
There'd be 2 more innocent people alive today if they did....
Click to expand...
That's a bullshit claim and you know it. There's just as much chance a sniper would have missed, resulting even more hostages being shot and suggesting otherwise is so dishonest it's sickening.

Procrastinator35 said:
He was brandishing a firearm & threatening to kill hostages, so I'm not sure what kind of alibi inquest would follow given his known history.....Nice attempt but.
Click to expand...
Refer to the inquest into the shooting of Tyler Cassidy.
 
shellyg said:
Seems bizarre to me that a citizen can cite self defence in Australia protecting another but so much time was wasted debating whether the cops were covered
Click to expand...
Because the actions of police and the actions of civilians are upheld to two different standards in Australia and you'd have to have your head a foot up your arse to think any differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top