The Law Australian Police brutality thread.

[Gethelred]

I'm trying to understand what your issue is. I am comfortable believing a boy who was threatening his peers, asking for materials to make a bomb, showing ISIS beheading videos, and wanting to join ISIS should be under investigation. I criticize how it seems to have been done.

I mean...

When I was around 14, my cousins gave me access to their Kindle library, and in it was the Anarchist's Cookbook. I had mates who blew s**t up in their spare time, and they absolutely showed me some of the footage coming out of Saddam's Iraq; shootings, hangings from soccer goals. I was also far more left wing revolutionary then than I am now. As for the threatening peers, once on the way home from school in a school bus I had a little turd tell his older brother I had a knife in my bag after he threw the insides of a mandarin at the book I was reading; if that got reported, I'd have been in all sorts of s**t even though I didn't and wouldn't have even thought of doing it; couple this with my history of lashing out at bullies physically, and it paints a terrible picture.

So if you're asking me whether I'm comfortable with the police investigating a child for this sort of thing, no I'm not. It's excessive and - frankly - there is every chance that it is racially (culturally) motivated.

Right now - this very moment - there will be children in QLD sitting round with an aerosol can making ad hoc flamethrowers because they're bored.

For every adult that made it that far, there is a stupid kid who did any number of stupid s**t that could very well have seen them in jail.

 

[Jazny]

So if you're asking me whether I'm comfortable with the police investigating a child for this sort of thing, no I'm not. It's excessive and - frankly - there is every chance that it is racially (culturally) motivated.

Your position is irresponsible for his and other students safety. His own parents contacted the police.

What if he was white, expressed admiration for the KKK, posted admiration for Anders Breivik, threatened peers by showing them school shooting victims, asked his parents for bomb making material?

 

[Gethelred]

Your position is irresponsible for his and other students safety.

I have several ways to respond to this. The first of them would be pretty blunt: how dare you?

You've snipped the entire reasoning I provided by way of anecdote for why I hold the position I hold, in order to depersonalise it. You telling me you'd have me investigated as a child, Jazny?

Your position is irredeemably damaging to children. How dare you.

The second would be: your position would see one child in every three investigated for terrorism. The government cannot support this financially, and if they did it would result in increased criminalisation of minors for extremely mild to low level incidents, which would then result in the hardening which occurs when you institutionalise anyone (let alone minors).

Kids'd go in as kids and come out as crims. That's what happens in prisons.

Third, when was the last time you stepped into a school, Jazny? Because any given student's safety in school - if this is the bar - is violated almost every time they enter school grounds.

Seriously, this is who can it be now stuff.

What if he was white, expressed admiration for the KKK, posted admiration for Anders Breivik, threatened peers by showing them school shooting victims, asked his parents for bomb making material?

Then it should be dealt with by his parents, his teachers and his school. You know, because he is 12.

 

[Jazny]

I have several ways to respond to this. The first of them would be pretty blunt: how dare you?

You've snipped the entire reasoning I provided by way of anecdote for why I hold the position I hold, in order to depersonalise it. You telling me you'd have me investigated as a child, Jazny?

Your experience wasn't analoguos. It's more like:

If you were reading the anarchist cookbook AND professed admiration for the unibomber AND were making efforts get bomb materials WHILE making obscene credible threats to fellow students. Then absolutely you should have been investigated.

Your position is irredeemably damaging to children. How dare you.

No, it's really not. That's why his own parents contacted the police about his behaviour. That's why any child psychologist would report that behaviour to the police. It is responsible not to. How dare you care more about any supposed harmful effects of a legally carried out investigation compared to the overwhelming grief caused by perpetrators of terrorism, school shootings and murders.

The second would be: your position would see one child in every three investigated for terrorism. The government cannot support this financially, and if they did it would result in increased criminalisation of minors for extremely mild to low level incidents, which would then result in the hardening which occurs when you institutionalise anyone (let alone minors).

Kids'd go in as kids and come out as crims. That's what happens in prisons.

We are talking about an investigation. If the investigation finds that he isn't a criminal or a danger, he doesn't go to prison. If he is a dangerous criminal then its safer for him and the public if he is in some kind of detention.

Third, when was the last time you stepped into a school, Jazny? Because any given student's safety in school - if this is the bar - is violated almost every time they enter school grounds.

It's not a bar I have set, it is a bar that Australian law enforcement has set and it seems that not 1 in 3 kids are being investigated. So obviously your reasoning isn't correct here. I don't know when you went to school, but when I was in school I didn't hear one positive thing said about ISIS or terrorists, or anyone showing ISIS beheading videos to other students at all - and definitely not as a threat, and heard nobody express interest in making a bomb or being a martyr.

Then it should be dealt with by his parents, his teachers and his school. You know, because he is 12.

13. And the school being responsible, who do you think they would be contacting? The police? Or do you think schools are equipped to assess how credible a threat a student is, what kind of weapons they might have access to, who in their network might be encouraging this behaviour etc?

 

[Cmarsh]

I mean...

When I was around 14, my cousins gave me access to their Kindle library, and in it was the Anarchist's Cookbook. I had mates who blew s**t up in their spare time, and they absolutely showed me some of the footage coming out of Saddam's Iraq; shootings, hangings from soccer goals. I was also far more left wing revolutionary then than I am now. As for the threatening peers, once on the way home from school in a school bus I had a little turd tell his older brother I had a knife in my bag after he threw the insides of a mandarin at the book I was reading; if that got reported, I'd have been in all sorts of s**t even though I didn't and wouldn't have even thought of doing it; couple this with my history of lashing out at bullies physically, and it paints a terrible picture.

So if you're asking me whether I'm comfortable with the police investigating a child for this sort of thing, no I'm not. It's excessive and - frankly - there is every chance that it is racially (culturally) motivated.

Right now - this very moment - there will be children in QLD sitting round with an aerosol can making ad hoc flamethrowers because they're bored.

For every adult that made it that far, there is a stupid kid who did any number of stupid s**t that could very well have seen them in jail.

Police would be within their rights to investigate if kids are illegally using explosives and in fact would be derelict of duty not to.

We are also talking about the investigation of this kid's concerning behaviours in the context of stating sympathies for a known terrorist organisation.

You only have to look at the amount of child soldiers in various parts of the globe with links to terrorist organisations and display very real and dangerous behaviour to see how influenced children can be.

Which of the historical behaviours you list had links to a known terrorist organisation?

 

[Chief]

13. And the school being responsible, who do you think they would be contacting? The police? Or do you think schools are equipped to assess how credible a threat a student is, what kind of weapons they might have access to, who in their network might be encouraging this behaviour etc?

The Vic police were already involved in helping him.

What would the AFP be needed for if it was being dealt with? I still haven't seen anything that says they needed to double up like this.

The suspicion aired in the senate committee was that they did it mainly because it added a number to their stats.

 

[Jazny]

The Vic police were already involved in helping him.

What would the AFP be needed for if it was being dealt with? I still haven't seen anything that says they needed to double up like this.

The suspicion aired in the senate committee was that they did it mainly because it added a number to their stats.

I don't think we have enough information to know exactly why the AFP were involved also. Are you against the principle of him being investigated?

 

[Cmarsh]

No specialist cops. Everyone does a year of policing based on random^ lottery draws. If investigations need an individual to stay in the job for over a year it gets reviewed. (So it doesn't have to be a year, maybe a three year stint once in everyone's life and the sthree year stints are staggered.

Its based on this idea:

Among the Mandan, Arikara policing appeared to be the exclusive prerogative of the Black Mouth society, but among the Crow, nine different societies took turns as police.

(The quote is from the bottom of P7 in that document.)

But we'd also need a parliament or review system where laws are evaluated regularly and thrown out when not necessary.

^Maybe not random. Maybe some weighting toward people who are traditionally over policed.

So force a whole heap of people, majority whom may be unsuited in terms of capability and even less an interest in being a police officer.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Gethelred]

Your experience wasn't analoguos.

It's 'analogous'.

It's more like:

If you were reading the anarchist cookbook AND professed admiration for the unibomber AND were making efforts get bomb materials WHILE making obscene credible threats to fellow students. Then absolutely you should have been investigated.

Cool.

Your opinion is therefore completely unworthy of consideration.

No, it's really not. That's why his own parents contacted the police about his behaviour. That's why any child psychologist would report that behaviour to the police. It is responsible not to.

A child psychologist would be discussing their conduct with parents not police, because compulsory reporting of threats refers to adults.

You know, because he was a child.

How dare you care more about any supposed harmful effects of a legally carried out investigation compared to the overwhelming grief caused by perpetrators of terrorism, school shootings and murders.

...

This is a totally legit response to the actions of a child.

Yep.

I reckon we're done. Hope you are never anywhere near any child I've had anything to do with; you'll probably be inspecting them for hidden knives and judo flip them for looking at you funny.

Police would be within their rights to investigate if kids are illegally using explosives and in fact would be derelict of duty not to.

Sure.

Just, if they investigated every use of explosives/flamables by children, they'd be awfully busy.

We are also talking about the investigation of this kid's concerning behaviours in the context of stating sympathies for a known terrorist organisation.

... a known terrorist organisation that he's more than a continent away from, whose parents control his internet access and housing, whose society can provide mental health support and education.

* me. Some are easily terrified.

You only have to look at the amount of child soldiers in various parts of the globe with links to terrorist organisations and display very real and dangerous behaviour to see how influenced children can be.

... is this a joke?

I too can compare a pear with an assault rifle.

Which of the historical behaviours you list had links to a known terrorist organisation?

... this is stupid.

I'm out.

 

[Cmarsh]

It's 'analogous'.

Cool.

Your opinion is therefore completely unworthy of consideration.

A child psychologist would be discussing their conduct with parents not police, because compulsory reporting of threats refers to adults.

You know, because he was a child.

...

This is a totally legit response to the actions of a child.

Yep.

I reckon we're done. Hope you are never anywhere near any child I've had anything to do with; you'll probably be inspecting them for hidden knives and judo flip them for looking at you funny.

Sure.

Just, if they investigated every use of explosives/flamables by children, they'd be awfully busy.

... a known terrorist organisation that he's more than a continent away from, whose parents control his internet access and housing, whose society can provide mental health support and education.

* me. Some are easily terrified.

... is this a joke?

I too can compare a pear with an assault rifle.

... this is stupid.

I'm out.

Didn't realise it was job of a mental health counsellor to convince them away from terrorist ideology.

 

[Gethelred]

Didn't realise it was job of a mental health counsellor to convince them away from terrorist ideology.

Tell you what.

Under normal circumstances when someone says something to the effect of 'I'm leaving the thread' or 'I'm done with this conversation' and someone tags them back in, I'd delete the post and/or maybe post asking that person to not tag them back in. But - seeing as it's me you decided to ignore - I'm going to give you a choice.

Do you want to treat this as byegones be bygone, easy as you go, let's leave as friends, or would you really, truly like to pull me back in here when we're already off topic and I'm already accomodating your idiocy further than I'd like?

 

[Jazny]

A child psychologist would be discussing their conduct with parents not police, because compulsory reporting of threats refers to adults.

Wrong. It is mandatory to report if they are a danger to self or others. Things like making threats to fellow students and expressing a desire to commit terrorism and acquiring bomb ingredients would fall under that quite easily.

It's very funny to me when people scramble for fake moral high ground which they absolutely don't have. Your view on this is completely irresponsible. You think it's like a real cool position to think young teenagers should at the very least have an unrealistically high bar before they can be investigated by police, yet teenagers have committed school shootings and terrorism, which is far worse for victims and their families than any investigation would ever be on a radicalised teenager.

 

[ferball]

So force a whole heap of people, majority whom may be unsuited in terms of capability and even less an interest in being a police officer.

What could possibly go wrong?

Do you know corrupt police forces are now? i would suggest that whatever could go wrong already has.

There was that fire in the old warehouses in Newtown in Sydney in the 90s in one of the biggest chop shops Australia has ever sen. Was covered up and cleaned up in a day. Coked up coppers shooting tourists on Sydney Beaches. the way the ongoing helicoptor raiods always seem to feature bud free "fully mature" cannabis plants. Prostitution for people trafficking, the Fixated persons unit scandals.

All those precusrsor chemicals that came into Victoria. Something like 3/4 of all complaints to IBAC relate to police corruption. Lawyer X. Faking breath tests. Dani Laidley having photos leaked.

LOL @ Qld...

etc etc

 

[Gethelred]

Wrong. It is mandatory to report if they are a danger to self or others. Things like making threats to fellow students and expressing a desire to commit terrorism and acquiring bomb ingredients would fall under that quite easily.

It's very funny to me when people scramble for fake moral high ground which they absolutely don't have. Your view on this is completely irresponsible. You think it's like a real cool position to think young teenagers should at the very least have an unrealistically high bar before they can be investigated by police, yet teenagers have committed school shootings and terrorism, which is far worse for victims and their families than any investigation would ever be on a radicalised teenager.

And you've ignored my comment that I was done.

Bye now.

 

[Chief]

I don't think we have enough information to know exactly why the AFP were involved also. Are you against the principle of him being investigated?

Why was he being investigated when he was already in a program?

A 13 year old.

Why wasn't he taken into custody in a mental health program if he was a danger to others? Why sit there poking and prodding him in this "investigation"? Ho wmuch money went to the AFP to do this crime instead of to the health system which might have helped him?

Guess if he had caused harm in the meantime they would have said "Yes we were investigating him but he went off before we could stop him".

 

[ferball]

I don't think we have enough information to know exactly why the AFP were involved also. Are you against the principle of him being investigated?

If the Vic Coppers were already involved and the Feds got involved then maybe it was simply a demarcation dispute between them.

 

[Number37]

Yes. Attacks on civilians is terrorism. Attacks on military and security forces and other government agencies and installations is insurgency.

I am not arguing that ISIS isn't a terrorist organization or that what they do isn't terrorism.

I am saying that some people choose to believe what ISIS and Monis say when it suits them, other times they are the first ones to tell people not to believe what they say.


If Monis had said he took hostages because he had a beef with how he was treated by the courts, people like Jazny would not so readily believe what he says and would definitely not be using what he says in a discussion on an internet forum to justify their own BS.

Terrorism has a definition.
Acts can only be defined as terrorism when they meet the definition of terrorism.

Like the example I gave you in an earlier post, if I wash the dishes and say it is an act of terrorism....it isn't an act of terrorism just because I call it terrorism.
If a terrorist organization washes the dishes it also doesn't automatically qualify as terrorism just because they are a terrorist organization.
Terrorism has a definition.

He said he did it in the name of ISIS and ISIS said they support him...doesn't in any way change whether it is, or isn't, terrorism.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I am not arguing that ISIS isn't a terrorist organization or that what they do isn't terrorism.

I am saying that some people choose to believe what ISIS and Monis say when it suits them, other times they are the first ones to tell people not to believe what they say.

True. People will of course move the goalposts to suit their own viewpoint in an argument. I try not to but I'm sure I've been guilty of this myself at times.

If Monis had said he took hostages because he had a beef with how he was treated by the courts, people like Jazny would not so readily believe what he says and would definitely not be using what he says in a discussion on an internet forum to justify their own BS.

Terrorism has a definition.
Acts can only be defined as terrorism when they meet the definition of terrorism.

Keep in mind that "terrorism" describes the status of the target and the cause for which the act is done, not the legitimacy of the action. Monis occupied a cafe. A civilian target. As far as I know there were no politicians in the cafe, nor off-duty cops nor workers from the nearby ch 7 studios. Locationwise, the cafe was on Martin Place, Sydney. As I said, right near a TV studio.

Civilian target near a TV studio. Monis' intention was maximum exposure. He may have been only name-dropping ISIS (think Die Hard and Hans Gruber demanding the release of all their international 'brothers in arms' to disguise the fact they were just committing a heist for financial gain) but still.. it was a civilian target full of civilians. Monis did it for a cause outside himself.

Here's some background. The whole article is worth a read

How authorities underestimated siege gunman Monis

The architect of the deadly Lindt Cafe siege had a long and documented history of dangerous behaviour.

www.abc.net.au

May 22 2017

...Monis was using his Sheikh Haron Facebook page to publish dozens of offensive and bizarre posts, some of which were taken down in response to complaints. Days before he entered the Lindt Cafe, Monis paid $131 to Facebook for 20 advertisements to promote his site. Many of his posts referred to former prime minister Tony Abbott’s comment that, “everyone has got to be on Team Australia”, made during the 2014 announcement of tougher counter-terrorism laws.

Monis used these posts to claim he had been tortured, and called himself a victim of “barbaric” Australian authorities. In one post, Monis wrote “ALLAHU AKBAR — ALLAHU AKBAR Team Islam Against Oppression — Terrorism of Team Australia”. In another, which attracted more than 11,000 views he wrote: “Shame on those racist and terrorist Australians who support the governments of America and its allies including Australia.”

Final days

In the days leading up to the Lindt Cafe siege, the National Security Hotline received 18 calls and emails alerting authorities to Monis’ Facebook posts. The tip-offs were referred to ASIO and to the Federal Police. Some were also sent to NSW Police for assessment. ASIO investigated the Facebook comments but according to the Commonwealth review, decided “they do not indicate a desire or intent to engage in terrorism”.

The authorities made this final assessment on December 13, 2014 — two days before Monis walked across Martin Place, with a shotgun in his backpack and entered the Lindt Cafe.

After holding hostages for over 16 hours in the Lindt Cafe, culminating in the deaths of Tori Johnson and Katrina Dawson, Monis was shot and killed by police.

The coronial inquest that followed revealed the full extent of Monis’ bizarre, violent history and the numerous occasions when his dangerous behaviour was brought to the attention of the authorities.

In an era when lone-wolf style terror attacks challenge security forces worldwide, the question arising from the inquest is whether Australia’s police and intelligence services are now better equipped to identify the potential of damaged, complex individuals like Man Haron Monis.

Like the example I gave you in an earlier post, if I wash the dishes and say it is an act of terrorism....it isn't an act of terrorism just because I call it terrorism.
If a terrorist organization washes the dishes it also doesn't automatically qualify as terrorism just because they are a terrorist organization.
Terrorism has a definition.

He said he did it in the name of ISIS and ISIS said they support him...doesn't in any way change whether it is, or isn't, terrorism.

Who is harmed by washing the dishes? Even if you killed civilians while in the act of washing the dishes, unless you killed the people for a cause outside yourself it would be a 'simpler' case of homicide/murder rather than terrorism. It's two factors remember - attacking civilian targets, and doing it for a cause outside yourself.

The Lindt Cafe siege qualifies as both.




EDIT The wiki entry for the event

Lindt Cafe siege - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

has some good arguments in the

Debate on status as a terrorist event​

section. It's a toughie. His past criminality does point to a troubled mind and a man on the edge mentally. Something to consider in fairness.

 

[Number37]

True. People will of course move the goalposts to suit their own viewpoint in an argument. I try not to but I'm sure I've been guilty of this myself at times.


Keep in mind that "terrorism" describes the status of the target and the cause for which the act is done, not the legitimacy of the action. Monis occupied a cafe. A civilian target. As far as I know there were no politicians in the cafe, nor off-duty cops nor workers from the nearby ch 7 studios. Locationwise, the cafe was on Martin Place, Sydney. As I said, right near a TV studio.

Civilian target near a TV studio. Monis' intention was maximum exposure. He may have been only name-dropping ISIS (think Die Hard and Hans Gruber demanding the release of all their international 'brothers in arms' to disguise the fact they were just committing a heist for financial gain) but still.. it was a civilian target full of civilians. Monis did it for a cause outside himself.

Here's some background. The whole article is worth a read






Who is harmed by washing the dishes? Even if you killed civilians while in the act of washing the dishes, unless you killed the people for a cause outside yourself it would be a 'simpler' case of homicide/murder rather than terrorism. It's two factors remember - attacking civilian targets, and doing it for a cause outside yourself.

The Lindt Cafe siege qualifies as both.




EDIT The wiki entry for the event

Lindt Cafe siege - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

has some good arguments in the

Debate on status as a terrorist event​

section. It's a toughie. His past criminality does point to a troubled mind and a man on the edge mentally. Something to consider in fairness.

Monis had a long history of being on the wrong end of court proceedings.
His beef was with the justice system.
His only cause was himself.
He was attention whoring.
What better way to attention whore than to shout 'terrorist attack'.
Shouting terrorist attack is a surefire way to get noticed.
Otherwise he is just a run-of-the-mill murderer.

There are plenty of people who go to jail for 'targeting civilians' who aren't labelled terrorists.

There was a dude in the 90's who shot his wife 5 times (killing her) on the steps of the family court building in Parramatta.
When he shot her he shouted 'Allahu Akbar'.
Terrorist attack?

 

[Jazny]

Why was he being investigated when he was already in a program?

A 13 year old.

Why wasn't he taken into custody in a mental health program if he was a danger to others? Why sit there poking and prodding him in this "investigation"? Ho wmuch money went to the AFP to do this crime instead of to the health system which might have helped him?

Guess if he had caused harm in the meantime they would have said "Yes we were investigating him but he went off before we could stop him".

I dont think we have enough information. I think there will be an inquiry into it and maybe we will know more. It's possible someone thought he was a credible enough threat to his own or others safety for the AFP to be involved.

If the Vic Coppers were already involved and the Feds got involved then maybe it was simply a demarcation dispute between them.

Maybe we will know more soon. At the moment it's just speculation I think.

Monis had a long history of being on the wrong end of court proceedings.
His beef was with the justice system.
His only cause was himself.
He was attention whoring.
What better way to attention whore than to shout 'terrorist attack'.
Shouting terrorist attack is a surefire way to get noticed.
Otherwise he is just a run-of-the-mill murderer.

There are plenty of people who go to jail for 'targeting civilians' who aren't labelled terrorists.

There was a dude in the 90's who shot his wife 5 times (killing her) on the steps of the family court building in Parramatta.
When he shot her he shouted 'Allahu Akbar'.
Terrorist attack?

37, nobody is saying he is a terrorist only because he said it was an attack on Australia on behalf of ISIL. To be considered a terrorist by the standard definition, you need to carry out violence and intimidation against civilains in the pursuit of political aims .

The "dude" who shot his wife and shout allahu akbar is just a murderer by the sounds of it. He had no political aims. Monis ticks every box for terrorism. He claimed his motivations were as an attack on Australia on behalf of ISIL, he demanded an on air debate with the prime minister, he wanted an ISIL flag, and if you read the coroner's report, he was extremely politically active leading up to the terrorist attack. He was critical of Australia's involvement in the middle east, he even wrote disgusting letters to the families of fallen Australian soldiers in the 2000s. He definitely had a cause, he even wrote about his cause on his own website, fighting against what he called American terrorism etc just the day before he did the Lindt terrorist attack.

I am so sorry, but he was pretty clearly a terrorist.

I dont know why people are obsessed with arguing this boring point.

 

[Number37]

I dont think we have enough information. I think there will be an inquiry into it and maybe we will know more. It's possible someone thought he was a credible enough threat to his own or others safety for the AFP to be involved.

Maybe we will know more soon. At the moment it's just speculation I think.

37, nobody is saying he is a terrorist only because he said it was an attack on Australia on behalf of ISIL. To be considered a terrorist by the standard definition, you need to carry out violence and intimidation against civilains in the pursuit of political aims .

The "dude" who shot his wife and shout allahu akbar is just a murderer by the sounds of it. He had no political aims. Monis ticks every box for terrorism. He claimed his motivations were as an attack on Australia on behalf of ISIL, he demanded an on air debate with the prime minister, he wanted an ISIL flag, and if you read the coroner's report, he was extremely politically active leading up to the terrorist attack. He was critical of Australia's involvement in the middle east, he even wrote disgusting letters to the families of fallen Australian soldiers in the 2000s. He definitely had a cause, he even wrote about his cause on his own website, fighting against what he called American terrorism etc just the day before he did the Lindt terrorist attack.

I am so sorry, but he was pretty clearly a terrorist.

I dont know why people are obsessed with arguing this boring point.

The Law - Australian Police brutality thread.

We were talking about the Lindt Terrorist. It is boring semantics to try and argue he wasn't a terrorist. He said it was an attack on Australia by ISIL. He wanted an ISIL flag as part of his demands. He was engaged in terrorism.

Perhaps you would like to reread the Coroners findings you quoted in another post.
The finding that relates specifically to 'was it a terrorist incident' specifically said all that ISIL stuff had no bearing on whether it was a terrorist incident.
So your post that I called a load of crap, was, and still is, a load of crap because the ISIL stuff had no bearing on whether it was a terrorist incident.

This isn't a semantic argument. This was just you writing a load of crap then pretending you didn't write a load of crap.

 

[Jazny]

The Law - Australian Police brutality thread.



Perhaps you would like to reread the Coroners findings you quoted in another post.
The finding that relates specifically to 'was it a terrorist incident' specifically said all that ISIL stuff had no bearing on whether it was a terrorist incident.

Actually if you read the coroners report, not just the conclusion below, his words about ISIL and his actions being an attack on Australia inform the coroners conclusion that it was a terrorist incident.


This is what the coroner made of the "the court troubles" argument:





Everything you post is just wrong. It was a terrorist incident. All the arguments saying it wasn't are just bad and wrong. Read the report for yourself:

https://www.lindtinquest.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/findings-and-recommendations.pdf

 

[Number37]

Actually if you read the coroners report, not just the conclusion below, his words about ISIL and his actions being an attack on Australia inform the coroners conclusion that it was a terrorist incident.
View attachment 1903913

This is what the coroner made of the "the court troubles" argument:




View attachment 1903917
Everything you post is just wrong. It was a terrorist incident. All the arguments saying it wasn't are just bad and wrong. Read the report for yourself:

https://www.lindtinquest.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/findings-and-recommendations.pdf

You posted a load of crap.
You tried to claim that the ISIS stuff made him a terrorist and it a terrorist incident.
The Coroner found that all the ISIS stuff had no bearing on whether it was a terrorist incident.
Stop writing crap.

 

[Jazny]

You posted a load of crap.
You tried to claim that the ISIS stuff made him a terrorist and it a terrorist incident.
The Coroner found that all the ISIS stuff had no bearing on whether it was a terrorist incident.
Stop writing crap.

Can you quote the coroner saying that? Also what did the coroner find that Monis was again? Oh right, a terrorist. I am not sure what any of this has to do with the thread topic though.

 

[Gralin]

Great to see the big * you from the AFP deputy commissioner maybe people who always say it's just one or two bad apples might perhaps have another think?

AFP officer tells Senate he would repeat undercover operation on autistic teenager

Deputy commissioner Ian McCartney defends controversial counter-terror decision that was criticised by a magistrate

www.theguardian.com