*Mad Dog Loguancio Siege over suspect believed to be dead - updated 03/03/2013 19:00*

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

The bit I find most curious is that he had a partner. Either she failed to do the standard Google check, or she really likes living on the edge...

Off topic for a second.... I've been married for over 20 years, so I'm totally out of the game.

But "standard Google check." Seriously?
 
Off topic for a second.... I've been married for over 20 years, so I'm totally out of the game.

But "standard Google check." Seriously?

Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it's common practice for employers to do it to potential employees these days. Wouldn't be surprised if plenty of people do it on potential partners, and in my experience, it can be very useful...
 
Why is it always the poor western suburbs where this stuff happens?

Why not "Mad Dog is holed up in a mansion in Toorak"?

:D

Did anyone else have a chuckle when Mad Dogs mate Mick said "He's not a monster" on the news tonight ?

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/siege-man-not-a-monster-mate-20130302-2fcrf.html

Clearly Mick isn't playing with a full deck

Chuckle is one way of putting it...

Myself I wanted to scream and put my fist thru the TV. That guy is a ****ing moron.

Wonder if he would feel the same way about him had "Mad Dog" done those crimes against his mother, significant other or daughter? :rolleyes:
 
not a monster? yeah right lol so Mick thinks it's ok to attack and rape

Don't think he even hinted that rape was ok...but let's take things wildly out of context because of emotional reactions.

I do think this is a waste of police resources, this siege. If he is believed to be armed, then obviously don't risk the cops by sending them in there all sirens blazing, but I read that this is "peaceful", why not make a well-executed, well-planned charge on the building and get him before he can harm/kill himself, and he can go back to his prison cell where he belongs.
 
", why not make a well-executed, well-planned charge on the building and get him before he can harm/kill himself, and he can go back to his prison cell where he belongs.

Why on earth should the cops make a well planned charge simply so he does not harm/kill himself. He's had multiple chances to hand himself in and no police officer should be risking life just to save this bloke from self harm.

It's their duty to make sure the community's safe and while he's trapped in a hole that's the case. Their next responsibility is to make sure their safe. There is no cause to be responsible to stopping this bloke harming himself.

The best option might be him saying he's coming out with no weapons and going to court but that doesn't look likely so to be frank, the next best option for the safety of all concerned is probably a self inflicted bullet to the head. Than no one doing there job gets hurt.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Makes you wonder what is the point of the SOG, they dress up in their quasi military uniforms and run around the streets but never actually fire a shot, must frustrate the hell out of those guys, all bluff and bluster.
 
Why on earth should the cops make a well planned charge simply so he does not harm/kill himself..

Duty of care to people with mental health issues? I would be very surprised if this Mad Dog guy didn't have legitimate mental illnesses...

Either way doesn't matter now.
 
Duty of care to people with mental health issues? I would be very surprised if this Mad Dog guy didn't have legitimate mental illnesses...

Either way doesn't matter now.

Does that duty of care go past what VicPol would call as a order "safety first principles apply". It's a a standard there sometimes ordered to cross but I doubt they would have been here, that only tends to happen if someone is in the line of fire or harms way from natural circumstances. Not if there dealing with a violent offender. Not an ideal circumstance but until the facts of the siege are known jumping on the police for failing when no one else got hurt seems to be jumping the gun.
 
Does that duty of care go past what VicPol would call as a order "safety first principles apply". It's a a standard there sometimes ordered to cross but I doubt they would have been here, that only tends to happen if someone is in the line of fire or harms way from natural circumstances. Not if there dealing with a violent offender. Not an ideal circumstance but until the facts of the siege are known jumping on the police for failing when no one else got hurt seems to be jumping the gun.

I did put in my original post that obviously if this guy is likely to be armed, then don't send the cops in. I thought I read that it was mostly 'peaceful', hence likely the guy didn't have guns etc. Don't know if that is/was the case, but I was only speculating.

And I haven't jumped on the police for failing at all.
 
Duty of care to people with mental health issues? I would be very surprised if this Mad Dog guy didn't have legitimate mental illnesses...

Either way doesn't matter now.
I'll give you your duty of care, champ. I care for his victims, their families and everyone who has been affected by this sack of s***. I hope he suffered incredibly pain as he burnt to death, and one thing I don't care about is your pathetic defense of this animal.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top