The Law Australian Police brutality thread.

[Jazny]

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

Absolutely agree with decision if all the reasons he gave were true:

“He’d expressed a desire to carry out a violent act. He had expressed a desire to carry out a school shooting. He was researching material on how to build a bomb. He was engaging with likeminded individuals"

Would be unbelieveably negligent not to investigate. I can't even begin to imagine why someone would think such a case shouldn't be investigated by the AFP when the Vic Police team determined their strategy wasn't working. Obviously the operative seems to have not handled the case well, and that should and is being reviewed.


This part answers Chief's question about why the AFP investigated if there was a Vic Police intervention going on:

“There was a concerted three and half month focus on the CVE [countering violent extremism] strategy, however – a really important point – by late July the decision had been made this … was not working. The decision made by that [Victoria police] team was that it wasn’t being effective. He was becoming more and more radicalised.”
McCartney said this was when the case was referred to the joint counter-terror team.

So it seems the Victorian police strategy didn't work and thats why the AFP were involved and launched an investigation.

 

[Gralin]

Absolutely agree with decision if all the reasons he gave were true:

“He’d expressed a desire to carry out a violent act. He had expressed a desire to carry out a school shooting. He was researching material on how to build a bomb. He was engaging with likeminded individuals"

Would be unbelieveably negligent not to investigate. I can't even begin to imagine why someone would think such a case shouldn't be investigated by the AFP when the Vic Police team determined their strategy wasn't working.



This part answers Chief's question about why the AFP investigated if there was a Vic Police intervention going on:

“There was a concerted three and half month focus on the CVE [countering violent extremism] strategy, however – a really important point – by late July the decision had been made this … was not working. The decision made by that [Victoria police] team was that it wasn’t being effective. He was becoming more and more radicalised.”
McCartney said this was when the case was referred to the joint counter-terror team.

So it seems the Victorian police strategy didn't work and thats why the AFP were involved and launched an investigation.

Ok maybe someone other than you might think, hey the judge could be right on this point of law and the AFP behaved terribly.

Would be nice if you maybe interrogated why you think the best response to a disabled 13 year old with issues is the cops further radixialising them so they can lock them up instead of, you know, helping

 

[Jazny]

Ok maybe someone other than you might think, hey the judge could be right on this point of law and the AFP behaved terribly.

Nobody is defending the undercover AFP operative's actions. He or she seems to have crossed a line and handled his case terribly. There have been people in here arguing the AFP should never ever investigate such a case at all, which is a crazy position to have imo.

 

[Chief]

There have been people in here arguing the AFP should never ever investigate such a case at all, which is a crazy position to have imo.

I haven't seen that.

 

[Gralin]

Nobody is defending the undercover AFP operative's actions. He or she seems to have crossed a line and handled his case terribly. There have been people in here arguing the AFP should never ever investigate such a case at all, which is a crazy position to have imo.

They never should have done what they did, a judge said it and the deputy commissioner of the AFP has said they'd do it again.

And you're in here agreeing with him so yeah

 

[Gralin]

I haven't seen that.

I'll say it now. They started this after the intervention has already begun.
They never should have done this "investigation" which amounted to a cop trying to radicalise a child that needed help

 

[Jazny]

I haven't seen that.

Top of the previous page. I wont quote or tag the person.

I'll say it now. They started this after the intervention has already begun.
They never should have done this "investigation" which amounted to a cop trying to radicalise a child that needed help

The Vic Police who were doing the intervention said it wasn't working according to the head of the AFP and invited the AFP to investigate as he was just becoming more radicalised.

 

[Chief]

I'll say it now. They started this after the intervention has already begun.
They never should have done this "investigation" which amounted to a cop trying to radicalise a child that needed help

I don't have a problem with them investigating - at least from the point of view of finding out who is in touch with the child and where they are visiting online.

Otherwise this is a mental health issue far as I can see.

Imagine if they had spent the money on mental health care for him instead of paying cops to make him worse?

 

[Gralin]

I don't have a problem with them investigating - at least from the point of view of finding out who is in touch with the child and where they are visiting online.

Otherwise this is a mental health issue far as I can see.

Imagine if they had spent the money on mental health care for him instead of paying cops to make him worse?

but they weren't, they were trying to push him further towards doing something

we're talking about a child here being led along by the feds, a child with disabilities, after the childs parents asked for help

the end result is the AFP trying to up their case numbers

There is no world in which this behaviour should be considered good, this whole people dont have rights because of terrorism crap that we've had since 9/11

what the * have they ever actually stopped compared to the damage they've done in the name of stopping it

Top of the previous page. I wont quote or tag the person.

The Vic Police who were doing the intervention said it wasn't working according to the head of the AFP and invited the AFP to investigate as he was just becoming more radicalised.

so we're back to you support and defend their actions then

Nobody is defending the undercover AFP operative's actions. He or she seems to have crossed a line and handled his case terribly. There have been people in here arguing the AFP should never ever investigate such a case at all, which is a crazy position to have imo.

huh guess this post is just your usual bullshit where you pretend you aren't doing exactly what you are doing


crazy

 

[Gralin]

of course as usual though my original point was that this isn't some cop in the AFP doing the wrong thing without approval from those up the chain

this is the AFP operating as designed, as they want to, so the just a few bad cops argument, an issue in isolation, a mistake

well that all goes out the window when the deputy commissioner says he'd do it again

that points to a structural problem at the AFP and if that guy keeps his job that says the Government is happy with that behaviour

so yeah

 

[Chief]

but they weren't, they were trying to push him further towards doing something

we're talking about a child here being led along by the feds, a child with disabilities, after the childs parents asked for help

the end result is the AFP trying to up their case numbers

There is no world in which this behaviour should be considered good, this whole people dont have rights because of terrorism crap that we've had since 9/11

Jazny's claim was that people were saying "such a case should never ever be investigated".

Nobody thinks that the boy's behaviour should have been ignored. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Jazny]

I don't have a problem with them investigating - at least from the point of view of finding out who is in touch with the child and where they are visiting online.

Otherwise this is a mental health issue far as I can see.

Yes, find out who he is talking to, why circles he is in that is making him feel this way. But also to assess the level of threat that he is, because at the point where he is talking about school shootings and sourcing bomb materials, it's no longer just a mental health issue, but surely also a public safety issue. And the boy's own safety too. I don't know why some people don't see this. The issue is HOW they conducted the investigation, not that they did it imo.

so we're back to you support and defend their actions then


huh guess this post is just your usual bullshit where you pretend you aren't doing exactly what you are doing


crazy

Why are you so angry? I am only defending that they investigated him at all. Correct decision by the AFP I am not defending the way they conducted the investigation. The judge found that the undercover operative was encouraging him when he was talking about comitting terrorist acts. Not cool

 

[Gralin]

I think calling it an investigation is really glossing over the reality of what they did

I think the fact that they're saying point blank they'd do it again under the exact same circumstances is pretty telling also.

Like believe these campaigners when they tell you who they are

 

[Gralin]

Yes, find out who he is talking to, why circles he is in that is making him feel this way. But also to assess the level of threat that he is, because at the point where he is talking about school shootings and sourcing bomb materials, it's no longer just a mental health issue, but surely also a public safety issue. And the boy's own safety too. I don't know why some people don't see this. The issue is HOW they conducted the investigation, not that they did it imo.

Why are you so angry? I am only defending that they investigated him at all. Correct decision by the AFP I am not defending the way they conducted the investigation. The judge found that the undercover operative was encouraging him when he was talking about comitting terrorist acts. Not cool

yeah and the AFP response to that is we'll do it again ffs

 

[Jazny]

of course as usual though my original point was that this isn't some cop in the AFP doing the wrong thing without approval from those up the chain

this is the AFP operating as designed, as they want to, so the just a few bad cops argument, an issue in isolation, a mistake

well that all goes out the window when the deputy commissioner says he'd do it again

that points to a structural problem at the AFP and if that guy keeps his job that says the Government is happy with that behaviour

so yeah

The commissioner said he would make the decision to do the investigation again. He didn't say they would conduct it in the same way. That case is under review for how it was conducted, and it also got thrown out of court based on the way it was conducted, so it doesn't seem the commisioner is saying they would do it the same way again.

 

[Gralin]

The commissioner said he would make the decision to do the investigation again. He didn't say they would conduct it in the same way. That case is under review for how it was conducted, and it also got thrown out of court based on the way it was conducted, so it doesn't seem the commisioner is saying they would do it the same way again.

nah how do you think they "investigate" this stuff he's saying point blank he doesn't give a s**t what the courts think this is how he operates and how he will continue to operate

he made no qualification about the methods used he said he'd authorise the operation again

 

[Jazny]

nah how do you think they "investigate" this stuff he's saying point blank he doesn't give a s**t what the courts think this is how he operates and how he will continue to operate

he made no qualification about the methods used he said he'd authorise the operation again

"if I had the same set of circumstances, I would sign that [authorisation] again”.

That is different to "we would conduct the operation in exactly the same way again".

He said in the article that after the court decision they launched a review on their handling of the case. That review will inform among other things "how to handle similar cases in the future". I think it is extremely unfair to characterise Ian McCarthy's words to mean that they would handle the cases in exactly the same way again. Do you really believe that's what he is saying?

 

[Gralin]

"if I had the same set of circumstances, I would sign that [authorisation] again”.

That is different to "we would conduct the operation in exactly the same way again".

He said in the article that after the court decision they launched a review on their handling of the case. That review will inform among other things "how to handle similar cases in the future". I think it is extremely unfair to characterise Ian McCarthy's words to mean that they would handle the cases in exactly the same way again. Do you really believe that's what he is saying?

Yes and they'll do it again because they think the idea of charging a disabled child with terrorism is a win
Like they got to the point of charging a child with terrorism after they instigated the situation.
More than one person thought what they did was a good idea and not just a good idea but a good enough one to go to court with.

Ah they are saying is what do we need to change in our reporting to not get in trouble next time

 

[Jazny]

Yes and they'll do it again because they think the idea of charging a disabled child with terrorism is a win
Like they got to the point of charging a child with terrorism after they instigated the situation.
More than one person thought what they did was a good idea and not just a good idea but a good enough one to go to court with.

Ah they are saying is what do we need to change in our reporting to not get in trouble next time

That's your take on what he is saying, I don't think you could actually support that take without ignoring his words or reading things into them that aren't there.

 

[Gralin]

That's your take on what he is saying, I don't think you could actually support that take without ignoring his words or reading things into them that aren't there.

That's my take based on decades of behaviour of cops

anyway you're about as rabidly pro cop as I am anti cop so I don't really see any point continuing this conversation

 

[Gethelred]

Top of the previous page. I wont quote or tag the person.

I rather dislike being strawmanned in my absence, Jazny.

 

[Jazny]

I rather dislike being strawmanned in my absence, Jazny.

How can I state your position fairly then? You criticised me for believing the AFP should have been investigating him so I asked you directly if you think he should have been investigated at all. You answered

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.

 

[Carringbush2010]

"if I had the same set of circumstances, I would sign that [authorisation] again”.

That is different to "we would conduct the operation in exactly the same way again".

He said in the article that after the court decision they launched a review on their handling of the case. That review will inform among other things "how to handle similar cases in the future". I think it is extremely unfair to characterise Ian McCarthy's words to mean that they would handle the cases in exactly the same way again. Do you really believe that's what he is saying?

It's a conspiracy I tells ya!

 

[Number37]

That's your take on what he is saying, I don't think you could actually support that take without ignoring his words or reading things into them that aren't there.

I, like most people, would be keen to learn of this non-shitty way of entrapping a disabled 13 year old with terrorism charges.
Care to enlighten us??

 

[Jazny]

I, like most people, would be keen to learn of this non-shitty way of entrapping a disabled 13 year old with terrorism charges.
Care to enlighten us??

Do everything they did except the parts where the undercover agent encouraged his terrorist plans and conducted the illegal search. It's not entrapment.

Are you another who believes the AFP shouldn't investigate such cases?