The Law Lindt Cafe Siege - Inquest Findings

[Procrastinator35]

Seems bizarre to me that a citizen can cite self defense in Australia protecting another but so much time was wasted debating whether the cops were covered

Strikes me as a post ad hoc rationalization defense.....Just ante up & admit they ****ed-up here right royally, & then I'd STFU about it.

They failed in their duty to protect the public....And fart-arsed around for 17 hours before making an even worse decision.....End of story.

This was nothing other than a gigantic cluster-* of monumental proportions.....Incompetent doesn't even begin to summarize what took place here.

 

[Kurve]

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.

There's always going to be an examination of events when someone gets killed, by citizen or cop. But I don't recall the last time a cop went to prison for killing someone while on duty in Australia.

 

[Procrastinator35]

There's always going to be an examination of events when someone gets killed, by citizen or cop. But I don't recall the last time a cop went to prison for killing someone while on duty in Australia.

I'm not entirely sure that the irony still hasn't set-in, that what so many in here are attempting to defend actually happened.....A hostage was killed by police gun-fire.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

There's always going to be an examination of events when someone gets killed, by citizen or cop.

Police shootings aren't black and white cases and subtle differences in circumstance can cause inquests to drag on for months or years. Some police won't return to work in that time. Some police will never return to work again.

Therefore...

But I don't recall the last time a cop went to prison for killing someone while on duty in Australia.

is irrelevant.

It's silly to pretend that police do not have to consider their choice of actions far more carefully than the average citizen, which they should have because they are trained professionals and not civilians.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

I'm not entirely sure that the irony still hasn't set-in, that what so many in here are attempting to defend actually happened.....A hostage was killed by police gun-fire.

Or the irony that you're saying if police should have avoided taking a risky action by taking a risky action much earlier.

You seem to think police snipers are miracle workers, bullets never miss or that the moment somebody is shot, they pose no further risk to anybody around them no matter where that shot might have landed. It's the sort of inane, baseless argument I'd expect from a 12 year old Call of Duty expert when arguing about which gun is the best.

So if that's not you, I guess you just really hate cops.

 

[Kurve]

Therefore... is irrelevant.

We disagree. If much of the inquest was taken up in examining debate on whether the cops were covered legally of course it's relevant.

It's silly to pretend that police do not have to consider their choice of actions far more carefully than the average citizen, which they should have because they are trained professionals and not civilians.

No blame here for the "cops" who followed orders in a situation under management, imo it was leadership that failed and their choice of expert advice taken not from uniformed members

 

[Crankyhawk]

I'm not entirely sure that the irony still hasn't set-in, that what so many in here are attempting to defend actually happened.....A hostage was killed by police gun-fire.

So what consequences would you impose on the leadership that you see to be at fault? Because I can't see that what was done or not done was an obvious error.

 

[Kurve]

So what consequences would you impose on the leadership that you see to be at fault? Because I can't see that what was done or not done was an obvious error.

Excuse me for butting in, imo that incompetent schmuck the Attorney General George Brandis should be sacked. For a start.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Excuse me for butting in, imo that incompetent schmuck the Attorney General George Brandis should be sacked. For a start.

OK, sure, no argument here. Probs say that about any politician at any point in time though.

 

[Snake_Baker]

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.

Who would ever find out?

They cover up their stuff ups on a daily basis. They are masters at it.

 

[Snake_Baker]

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.

This is true. Not "anywhere", but certainly missing the target and risking the lives of others.

Conclusions

The one obvious conclusion to be drawn from the results of these tests is that firing through glass is inaccurate and relatively ineffective. However, there are conditions under which an officer would be justified in shooting through glass ,and consequently our conclusions can be outlined as follows: (1) When firing at long range (25 to 75 yards) through glass located at or near the firing point, the accuracy is greatly reduced. Further, where the glass concerned is thick (plate or safety) and lead bullets are used, the deformation and energy loss is so great that subsequent puncture of such material as auto body steel would be unlikely. Thus, under these conditions, one concludes that fire is ineffective.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2834&context=jclc

 

[Kurve]

OK, sure, no argument here. Probs say that about any politician at any point in time though.

We could say that about any politician but he isn't just any politician. There's no requirement for the Attorney General to be a member of the Federal Cabinet. People have died and he's responsible for the maintenance and improvement of Australia's system of law and justice, its national security and emergency management systems.

 

[CM86]

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.

You think they're bad? You haven't had to deal with my ignorance yet!!!

 

[HairyO]

We could say that about any politician but he isn't just any politician. There's no requirement for the Attorney General to be a member of the Federal Cabinet. People have died and he's responsible for the maintenance and improvement of Australia's system of law and justice, its national security and emergency management systems.

It may come as a surprise but the Coalition have been trying to toughen Immigration laws for years but get blocked at every opportunity.

Personally I would have thought the bulk of the blame is with the Magistrate who gave him bail, despite his violent history and the charges which had been laid.

I do love the hindsight champions though. Had the police tried to shoot him, missed, and he set off a bomb killing a heap of hostages all the complaints would have been about our gung-ho police force murdering innocent people because they refused to negotiate.

 

[Kurve]

It may come as a surprise but the Coalition have been trying to toughen Immigration laws for years but get blocked at every opportunity.

Personally I would have thought the bulk of the blame is with the Magistrate who gave him bail, despite his violent history and the charges which had been laid.

I do love the hindsight champions though. Had the police tried to shoot him, missed, and he set off a bomb killing a heap of hostages all the complaints would have been about our gung-ho police force murdering innocent people because they refused to negotiate.

Seeing you mentioned it ... Monis came in under John Howard who served three terms as PM.

 

[HairyO]

Seeing you mentioned it ... Monis came in under John Howard who served three terms as PM.

Before Islam decided to go crazy ape bonkers on a global scale.

Any response to the Judiciary letting him free despite the huge number of serious charges?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Before Islam decided to go crazy ape bonkers on a global scale.

Any response to the Judiciary letting him free despite the huge number of serious charges?

Not helpful.....The Sunni/Shia war division has been inaugurated by U.S/NATO/Israeli foreign policy for self-serving purposes.

Lets not forget the old cause/effect before making ill-informed statements.

Monis was just a nutbag looking for attention.....and he got it.

 

[Kurve]

Before Islam decided to go crazy ape bonkers on a global scale.

Any response to the Judiciary letting him free despite the huge number of serious charges?

Addressed a couple of pages back, was unwilling to repeat it again but of course he shouldn't have been given bail. Accessory to a horribly cruel murder and numerous serious sexual assaults, a narcissist with a very bleak future and not a lot left to lose if anything, the most dangerous of all. Goes to my point he had no intentions of walking out of Lindt Cafe.

EDIT: And to my view that the boss of law, the chief, George Brandis needs to be sacked.

 

[HairyO]

Addressed a couple of pages back, was unwilling to repeat it again but of course he shouldn't have been given bail. Accessory to a horribly cruel murder and numerous serious sexual assaults, a narcissist with a very bleak future and not a lot left to lose if anything, the most dangerous of all. Goes to my point he had no intentions of walking out of Lindt Cafe.

EDIT: And to my view that the boss of law, the chief, George Brandis needs to be sacked.

Him being guilty of:
Allowing him in to the country?
Providing him his refugee status?
Allowing him out on bail?
Not storming the building earlier?
Not punishing State controlled NSW police sooner?

Or maybe it is his fault ASIO screwed up? In the same way Health Ministers are to blame when doctors screw up?

 

[Kurve]

Him being guilty of:
Allowing him in to the country?
Providing him his refugee status?
Allowing him out on bail?
Not storming the building earlier?
Not punishing State controlled NSW police sooner?

Or maybe it is his fault ASIO screwed up? In the same way Health Ministers are to blame when doctors screw up?

There is the little matter of Monis contacting the Attorney General personally, he was jumping up and down basically screaming "Look at me! Look at me!" and useless George, after playing his role in exploiting the terror angle for political points and ramping up the fear, couldn't even pass the letter on.

Are you suggesting that we ignore this like stupid George ignored the letter?

 

[HairyO]

There is the little matter of Monis contacting the Attorney General personally, he was jumping up and down basically screaming "Look at me! Look at me!" and useless George, after playing his role in exploiting the terror angle for political points and ramping up the fear, couldn't even pass the letter on.

Are you suggesting that we ignore this like stupid George ignored the letter?

Before having an opinion, how many letters does the Attorney General receive each year and how many do they personally read and how many are then passed on to the police?

In this case Monis asked whether it is illegal to contact ISIS. His department said that ISIS are a terrorist organisation but the Attorney General's department csnt provide legal advice.

What should they then have done? Does everyone who saw the letter deserve to lose their job? Or just Brandis?

What could the AFP have done even if the letter was passed on? He was already accused of actual violent crimes which werent enough to have him locked up.

You seem to be keen to have someone punished because you dont like him for other reasons - and this is convenient.

 

[Kurve]

Before having an opinion, how many letters does the Attorney General receive each year and how many do they personally read and how many are then passed on to the police?

How about before having an opinion on here you go back and read all the posts where most of your ridiculous questions have already been answered.

How many letters mention ISIS? How many are from guy who's on bail for serious charges, who tried to take over the Channel 7 studios, who's PUBLIC facebook is pro ISIS? #SACKBRANDIS

Cya, have a nice day ranting to yourself.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

We disagree. If much of the inquest was taken up in examining debate on whether the cops were covered legally of course it's relevant.

I don't see what you're getting at. An inquest follows regardless of whether jail time is potentially involved or not, so why does "examining debate" on the legal ramifications of police actions have any relevance to the possibility of incarceration once the findings are handed down? It's a natural human tendency to avoid questionable actions altogether where possible, regardless of whether or not it is likely they will be found guilty. How many drivers do you observe slowing to well under the speed limit when they go through an intersection with a traffic camera? Same instinct.

No blame here for the "cops" who followed orders in a situation under management, imo it was leadership that failed and their choice of expert advice taken not from uniformed members

Aside from a questionable choice of behavioral experts, in what way did the leadership fail?

Everybody is pretending the inquest is a damning indictment of the NSW Police force but it isn't. You can read the recommendations here, and they aren't sweeping by any means.

 

[Kurve]

Aside from a questionable choice of behavioral experts, in what way did the leadership fail?

That effective management of the siege was hindered by questions of legalities is enough for me to be of the opinion that leadership failed from the very top down, there should have been no questions and the law clear.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

That effective management of the siege was hindered by questions of legalities is enough for me to be of the opinion that leadership failed from the very top down, there should have been no questions and the law clear.

If the law was clear then the legal profession wouldn't exist. People may think that laws are black and white but they aren't, they are quite subjective, highly dependent on circumstance and open to interpretation. What you're suggesting should have happened is not possible.