Discussion Random Discussion

[StFly]

I stand by my comments.
2 hostages is unacceptable in that situation.
The police failed to act until one had been shot.
1 guy with a shotgun.
If they'd burst in guns blazing 15 minutes after the siege started they probably would have had a similar outcome. But that would have then been their fault.
Instead they waited......until someone died. Verifying my previous comment that they were covering their arses.

Again, there were threats of an IED of some description being in the area, which could not be verified since you know, hostages and backpack concealing. If you are wrong and you open fire you have close to 15 dead hostages, 1 perp, and however many his "brothers" could then have taken out. If you are right, you have the possibility of a dead terrorist (since I don't know if the police at that time had adequate weaponry to break the glass and one shot kill the bloke).

You willing to make that choice to shoot him? Because I made it long ago, dismissed it as too bloody risky and thought of the hostages.

If I am in the sheiks position, possibly caught on the street, ducking into a cafe to force a stand off by taking hostages, a place with multiple exits and one would assume an entire glass front facing the street, if I have a backpack I know contains nothing, I'm telling people to back the hell up because I will kill hostages and blow shit up to prolong my stay on this Earth so I cna think of some other way out of the mess I'm in or stay on point and get my message out before shit hits the fan. The hostages will believe I have a bomb, but I have a shotgun in the face telling them to sit there, shut up and be human shields. Anyone who escapes will be fearful they will say I have a bomb, the police will have been informed I had a backpack, the backpack is still in the cafe, and this lie I have created becomes truth. Then we grow it a little, I have 2 in this backpack, behind this counter where you can't see my hands I placed one, one on my person, one in the premises should you storm the place and I'll take a few of you with me.

And you sit there and tell me you are surprised why it took him shooting someone in cold blood for the police to act.

As someone who failed the physical for joining the force, you generally want to do that job because you give a shit about the welfare of others, not piss it into the wind because it turns out in hindsight the bloke didn't have a bomb and just had a short range shotgun and hostages.

Instead, he had a gun at hostages I want to save, telling me he had a bomb; the dude had a bomb and I'm not going to dispute that until I am 100% sure he does not and if I call him on it, I can act before he does. I couldn't, so I wait, I talk, I prepare, I hear a gunshot and my heart sinks because I wasn't good enough to save them all. 30 odd seconds later this is confirmed by bodies, all of this slightly delayed on TV because operational safety.

So you'll also forgive me for not criticising the police forces in the area for not popping a cap in his arse.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Think you should read his comments again, maybe the police office who got shot in face wasn't thinking, because he was worry about covering his arse, and i really don't need to chill I don't get upset over stupid comments

I didn't say the individuals weren't brave ( though grazed in the face by a shotty pellet isn't exactly being shot in the face ).

I repeat what was the "waiting strategy" supposed to achieve. Because what it actually did was drive the hostages to a desperation that ultimately caused 2 to be killed.
Did some psychologist think the guy would get tired and go home?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Again, there were threats of an IED of some description being in the area, which could not be verified since you know, hostages and backpack concealing. If you are wrong and you open fire you have close to 15 dead hostages, 1 perp, and however many his "brothers" could then have taken out. If you are right, you have the possibility of a dead terrorist (since I don't know if the police at that time had adequate weaponry to break the glass and one shot kill the bloke).

You willing to make that choice to shoot him? Because I made it long ago, dismissed it as too bloody risky and thought of the hostages.

If I am in the sheiks position, possibly caught on the street, ducking into a cafe to force a stand off by taking hostages, a place with multiple exits and one would assume an entire glass front facing the street, if I have a backpack I know contains nothing, I'm telling people to back the hell up because I will kill hostages and blow shit up to prolong my stay on this Earth so I cna think of some other way out of the mess I'm in or stay on point and get my message out before shit hits the fan. The hostages will believe I have a bomb, but I have a shotgun in the face telling them to sit there, shut up and be human shields. Anyone who escapes will be fearful they will say I have a bomb, the police will have been informed I had a backpack, the backpack is still in the cafe, and this lie I have created becomes truth. Then we grow it a little, I have 2 in this backpack, behind this counter where you can't see my hands I placed one, one on my person, one in the premises should you storm the place and I'll take a few of you with me.

And you sit there and tell me you are surprised why it took him shooting someone in cold blood for the police to act.

As someone who failed the physical for joining the force, you generally want to do that job because you give a shit about the welfare of others, not piss it into the wind because it turns out in hindsight the bloke didn't have a bomb and just had a short range shotgun and hostages.

Instead, he had a gun at hostages I want to save, telling me he had a bomb; the dude had a bomb and I'm not going to dispute that until I am 100% sure he does not and if I call him on it, I can act before he does. I couldn't, so I wait, I talk, I prepare, I hear a gunshot and my heart sinks because I wasn't good enough to save them all. 30 odd seconds later this is confirmed by bodies, all of this slightly delayed on TV because operational safety.

So you'll also forgive me for not criticising the police forces in the area for not popping a cap in his arse.

If he'd had a bomb it would have blown up at 2AM and taken all the hostages with it.

 

[hayes]

The real issue is why was this guy out on the street in the first place with all the serious charges he was facing?

 

[StFly]

If he'd had a bomb it would have blown up at 2AM and taken all the hostages with it.

And you only found this out at 2am. If you check this part of your post;

If they'd burst in guns blazing 15 minutes after the siege started they probably would have had a similar outcome. But that would have then been their fault.

You effectively stated if the police went in at 10 to 10 (or 10am to be generous) and killed him, there'd be no kaboom or other variable to fudge up the call of duty hero and a similar scenario of death. When, back then, there was the assumption of multiple kabooms.

I repeat what was the "waiting strategy" supposed to achieve. Because what it actually did was drive the hostages to a desperation that ultimately caused 2 to be killed.
Did some psychologist think the guy would get tired and go home?

Negotiation, the term is negotiation.

The intent is for the negotiators to ensure that of the 100% of people impacted by the life threatening situation, 100% continue to remain alive, to either live their life or face justice and be judged for their actions. That this ended how it did, they got 16 hours and failed.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

And you only found this out at 2am. If you check this part of your post;



You effectively stated if the police went in at 10 to 10 (or 10am to be generous) and killed him, there'd be no kaboom or other variable to fudge up the call of duty hero and a similar scenario of death. When, back then, there was the assumption of multiple kabooms.



Negotiation, the term is negotiation.

The intent is for the negotiators to ensure that of the 100% of people impacted by the life threatening situation, 100% continue to remain alive, to either live their life or face justice and be judged for their actions. That this ended how it did, they got 16 hours and failed.

So their strategy failed thank you that was my point.
I wasn't suggesting that they should have stormed the building at 10am, I was suggesting that the no-brain action would have resulted in a similar outcome to what actually happened.
After the first 5 hostages had escaped, it seems likely that the police would have had some level of "inside information".
Later on the gunman would not have been maintaining his previous high levels of alertness.

The bomb theory was completely unfounded. Should we assume that anyone in a siege situation may have his finger on a nuclear detonator that will explode the planet? The 5 escaped hostages should have been able to help clarify any such rumors.

I found a commentary on the strategy , fair enough I guess but.
a) The Lindt Cafe had several windows where the gunman was visible from time to time. ( presenting a target, not always visible in a Siege ).
b) These strategies may be devised in countries where automatic weapons are available. A shotgun welder is far easier to overpower than 1 or more gunmen with automatic weapons. ( ie the risk of hostage deaths would magnify enormously with the automatic ).

My problem is that a guy died before the police did anything. Yeah the police followed a procedure, but was it the right one.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Security expert Paul Jordan, a former SAS soldier, told Daily Mail Australia that police used a common siege tactic to wear the hostage taker down.
They waited before storming the building because none of the hostages had been hurt.
'It's a common tactic. It’s a smart thing to do, the trick is to wear this guy down,’ Mr Jordan said.
‘If he'd been a fundamentalist he wouldn’t have gone in alone. He’s got about 20 hostages, how he is going to control and maintain those guys?’ Mr Jordan asked.
He explained that police ‘waited him out until he’s got worn down and incredibly tired.’
Mr Jordan said that when Man Haron Monis first entered the café at 9.45am his ‘stress levels would have been through the roof’.
‘So when it all settled he would have gone into a slump. Police would have waited… just before the sun comes up is when people really tire.’
Mr Jordan said that as soon as police arrived on the scene they would have developed an emergency response or action plan.
‘If he started killing hostages straight away they would attack the stronghold from multiple points but that’s not ideal. That is the emergency plan if they are being shot.
‘The other plan is a deliberate assault plan, where they carefully map out the plan for entry into the stronghold. They shock the hostage taker so he's got no idea, he's shocked and distracted with grenades being thrown in.’
Mr Jordan said police ‘did exactly what they should have done’.
And he believes that it was a ‘do or die’ situation for Monis.
‘I don’t think he intended to get arrested. He wanted to go in a blaze of glory


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-prompted-police-make-move.html#ixzz3M3DEBW3G
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Rors]

I didn't say the individuals weren't brave ( though grazed in the face by a shotty pellet isn't exactly being shot in the face ).

I repeat what was the "waiting strategy" supposed to achieve. Because what it actually did was drive the hostages to a desperation that ultimately caused 2 to be killed.
Did some psychologist think the guy would get tired and go home?

Thank god there's someone out there that has the same opinion as me....

 

[Defacto]

I stand by my comments.
2 hostages is unacceptable in that situation.
The police failed to act until one had been shot.
1 guy with a shotgun.
If they'd burst in guns blazing 15 minutes after the siege started they probably would have had a similar outcome. But that would have then been their fault.
Instead they waited......until someone died. Verifying my previous comment that they were covering their arses.

I think the cops were playing the long game that got shunted by one of the victims going for the gun when the crazy bloke started to drift off

Can't blame the cops they were doing the right thing IMO

 

[Defacto]

The real issue is why was this guy out on the street in the first place with all the serious charges he was facing?

+1

 

[Rors]

84 dead in school siege in Pakistan, reports suggest most are children... Taliban claiming responsibility...

****ing cowards... I'm just speechless, makes me sick

 

[SaintsSeptember]

David Hicks' mates.

 

[Periphery]

The real issue is why was this guy out on the street in the first place with all the serious charges he was facing?

Unless you know the full extent of the charges he was facing and knew everything the court knows then worrying about if he should have been on the streets is pretty pointless imo. It will be reviewed and people who know what they are talking about will decided if the right call was made and where things can be improved. Reactionary changes by politicians based on ignorant public hysteria very rarely end in good outcomes.

No system is perfect and no matter what we do someone who is out on bail will commit a crime at some point. The real systematic failure here is with our mental health systems. Improve those and people get picked up and helped before they get to a point where shit like this happens. Obviously, some unlucky people will still slip through but anything else is just trying to apply band-aides quicker than the cuts appear and is doomed to failure. Reduce the number of people the justice systems need to deal with and we will get a better result for the unfortunate people that do reach the worst case scenario.

 

[Periphery]

What were they waiting for? Did they think he would give up and go home? Did they think the hostages wouldn't get ever more desperate?
As an operation I can't see why it wasn't a total failure.

1 guy with a shotgun. If a redneck in a flackjacket had burst through the door with a machine gun. how many hostages would the perp have reasonably shot before he died?
The whole drawn out operation ended up with pretty much the same outcome as the no brain solution in the previous sentence. The media got a head shot. why couldn't a police sniper?

Exactly. If they'd ordered in a sniper to take a head shot, they would have done it.
It would have been safer for the police the hostages and all.
The waiting game? I'd very much like to know what outcome they were waiting for. All the scenario's I can think of end up with the same risk to hostages as what they had.

As it stands the hostages came very close to freeing themselves ( some of them did ), but tragically failed.

This reads like some Tom Clancy level fan fiction crap. Unless you have extensive experience in this field people should just leave any talk of tactics and what should/could have happened alone. We have neither the situational awareness or the training to know what should or could have been done.

Go play CoD if you want to pretend to be some hot shot SEAL team 6 member.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

This reads like some Tom Clancy level fan fiction crap. Unless you have extensive experience in this field people should just leave any talk of tactics and what should/could have happened alone. We have neither the situational awareness or the training to know what should or could have been done.

Go play CoD if you want to pretend to be some hot shot SEAL team 6 member.

Bullshit. People who KNOW how to shoot guns can kill a guy when they get a headshot.
The fact is the tactics they used failed and 2 people died.

 

[Periphery]

Bullshit. People who KNOW how to shoot guns can kill a guy when they get a headshot.
The fact is the tactics they used failed and 2 people died.

What. No shit a bullet to the brain will kill someone. But you have no idea if that was ever a viable option in this situation and even then killing someone is always a last resort.

The real fact here is that you have no idea what you are talking about and are in no position to judge what happened in any real way.

 

[Keg on legs]

Let me tell you, the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

imagine if they had forced the issue and, God forbid, they didn't drop the guy or that he did indeed detonate an explosive device. Then we have an even bigger tragedy on our hands.

The police follow tried and tested strategies, many of which you guys will never be aware of. And I'm not going to go into them here. The fact is it is not helpful to anyone to hypothesise about how some fanciful Hollywood plot could have played out.

I don't begrudge people who have never been in this situation having an opinion. You're all entitled to it. But, for the sake of all, most of all the deceased, let's not assume you can second guess the experts. There are reasons they did what they did, when they did it.

Believe me, I know.

 

[Persevering Saint]

I was recently talking to the father of a cop who had to kill somebody in his work. It is not a decision that is taken lightly by our police force, nor should it be. I am loath to judge the police officers involved in Martin Place - it was a bloody hard situation. They have to make the bloody hard decisions so the rest of us don't have to.

 

[Rors]

My issue is that had they dropped the guy with a headshot at 6pm Monday afternoon, or let the actual events play out like they did, had the perp been strapped with genuine explosives, hostages would have been killed regardless of whether it was 6pm or 2am when the police TOU moved in. The actions of the hostages forced the police into action. At that time when the hostages made the decision to 'make a move', there was no worry of bombs from the Tactical Ops Unit men & women as they rushed in. Thus, I can see SaintsSeptember's frustration. If the guy is strapped with explosives & a sniper takes a headshot at 6pm, there is obviously going to be hostage casualties. Yet, when the TOU stormed the building at 2am, if the perp is strapped with explosives, there would have also been both police TOU officers & hostage casualties then as well.

I hate the fact that 2 innocent people were killed in the siege. Personally, I think the poilce TOU could have done a lot better. To me, it appears there was too much focus on using time to wear down the perp, while seemingly failing to identify the exponential increase in anxiety & fear with every passing second for the hostages. The hostages had no idea what the police were trying to achieve & would have been growing more & more scared & frustrated at why nothing appeared to be happening.

If an elite marksman can make a headshot from 1.5km away, I'm pretty certain that the TOU bloke with the sniper rifle across the road in the channel 7 building just 40m away could have put one between the perp's eyes & 2 lives would have been saved.

 

[Keg on legs]

My issue is that had they dropped the guy with a headshot at 6pm Monday afternoon, or let the actual events play out like they did, had the perp been strapped with genuine explosives, hostages would have been killed regardless of whether it was 6pm or 2am when the police TOU moved in. The actions of the hostages forced the police into action. At that time when the hostages made the decision to 'make a move', there was no worry of bombs from the Tactical Ops Unit men & women as they rushed in. Thus, I can see SaintsSeptember's frustration. If the guy is strapped with explosives & a sniper takes a headshot at 6pm, there is obviously going to be hostage casualties. Yet, when the TOU stormed the building at 2am, if the perp is strapped with explosives, there would have also been both police TOU officers & hostage casualties then as well.

I hate the fact that 2 innocent people were killed in the siege. Personally, I think the poilce TOU could have done a lot better. To me, it appears there was too much focus on using time to wear down the perp, while seemingly failing to identify the exponential increase in anxiety & fear with every passing second for the hostages. The hostages had no idea what the police were trying to achieve & would have been growing more & more scared & frustrated at why nothing appeared to be happening.

If an elite marksman can make a headshot from 1.5km away, I'm pretty certain that the TOU bloke with the sniper rifle across the road in the channel 7 building just 40m away could have put one between the perp's eyes & 2 lives would have been saved.

Your argument is mounted through the benefit of hindsight, which the people on the ground don't have.

Yes, in hindsight he didn't have explosives. But what if he did?

Would you be here praising the police actions if their early intervention resulted in the death of all 17 hostages? What if one of those hostages was a member of your family?

Sorry to be confronting, but they were all members of families.

Or what if he had an acomplice who, in seeing him be shot, goes on a rampage or detonates explosives elsewhere resulting in even greater loss of life? Would you be rejoicing in their decisiveness then?

None of this was known to the coppers at the scene, but I guarantee they would have been considered.

What was known that, for 17 hours, he hadn't (physically at least) harmed anyone. So why the rush?

If the guy had fallen asleep(sleep always wins in the end) police may well have been able to resolve the issue without anyone being hurt at all. that would have been infinitely better than even one person being killed, right?

And to argue that if they charged earlier the result would have been the same is rubbish. At any point in the time the action would lead to a different result dependant on many factors like fatigue, heightened anxiety levels of the hostage taker etc.

I'm not going to sit here for one minute and second guess the actions of any of the hostages out of respect for them.

Every single decision the cops made will be picked apart and analysed. They know that even at the time. Let's see what comes of that

 

[Rors]

Your argument is mounted through the benefit of hindsight, which the people on the ground don't have.

Yes, in hindsight he didn't have explosives. But what if he did?

Would you be here praising the police actions if their early intervention resulted in the death of all 17 hostages? What if one of those hostages was a member of your family?

Sorry to be confronting, but they were all members of families.

Or what if he had an acomplice who, in seeing him be shot, goes on a rampage or detonates explosives elsewhere resulting in even greater loss of life? Would you be rejoicing in their decisiveness then?

None of this was known to the coppers at the scene, but I guarantee they would have been considered.

What was known that, for 17 hours, he hadn't (physically at least) harmed anyone. So why the rush?

If the guy had fallen asleep(sleep always wins in the end) police may well have been able to resolve the issue without anyone being hurt at all. that would have been infinitely better than even one person being killed, right?

And to argue that if they charged earlier the result would have been the same is rubbish. At any point in the time the action would lead to a different result dependant on many factors like fatigue, heightened anxiety levels of the hostage taker etc.

I'm not going to sit here for one minute and second guess the actions of any of the hostages out of respect for them.

Every single decision the cops made will be picked apart and analysed. They know that even at the time. Let's see what comes of that

I understand your view, as its exactly the same view as my wife & we've been over it a million times ourselves. We both have different opinions & we can accept that. No need to be sorry for being confronting, it just my opinion. I thought they could have handled it differently & had a better outcome with no deaths other than that of the perp.

Also, I by no mean blame the hostages if that what you are alluding to in your line above that i've bolded & underlined. They, for mine, are the bravest people in this whole awful situation. To do what they did, not knowing their fate at the hands of the perp; not knowing what the police were trying to achieve; & with an unimaginable fear & anxiety pumping through their entire bodies for a period of 17 gutwrenching, frustrating, fearful & macabre hours, they are courage personified.

 

[Keg on legs]

I understand your view, as its exactly the same view as my wife & we've been over it a million times ourselves. We both have different opinions & we can accept that. No need to be sorry for being confronting, it just my opinion. I thought they could have handled it differently & had a better outcome with no deaths other than that of the perp.

Also, I by no mean blame the hostages if that what you are alluding to in your line above that i've bolded & underlined. They, for mine, are the bravest people in this whole awful situation. To do what they did, not knowing their fate at the hands of the perp; not knowing what the police were trying to achieve; & with an unimaginable fear & anxiety pumping through their entire bodies for a period of 17 gutwrenching, frustrating, fearful & macabre hours, they are courage personified.

And I respect your right to have your opinion, even though we don't agree.

As a cop myself, I see things a bit differently to you, but that's fine. There's nothing wrong with healthy debate.

 

[Rors]

And I respect your right to have your opinion, even though we don't agree.

As a cop myself, I see things a bit differently to you, but that's fine. There's nothing wrong with healthy debate.

My cousin is a returned serviceman from Afghanistan, & while he completely understands the police tactics, he has seen first-hand the horror & terror these people bring to the world. He stated to me that in the 17 hours it took to get a resolution, he could have driven to Sydney (from Melbourne) himself, set up his rifle, popped the guy, driven back to Melbourne & been fast asleep in his own bed.... And although he is a trigger happy nut who shoots clay targets in competition & goes hunting in Gippsland every 2nd weekend from April-October, I can see his point.

I guess my main question is, why was there no worry of bombs, or accomplices that may trigger other bombs, when the police TOU stormed the cafe at 2am? Was it because they already suspected there had been loss of life upon hearing the perp fire his gun? Or would just the firing of the gun been enough for the police to swing into action? Were they confident that there were no accomplices? How did they know that the alleged bomb he had strapped to himself was in fact a fake? I'm not asking to be facetious, I would like to know what you think.

If the 'bomb' that was strapped to him had been real, & the police still intervened the way they did at 2am, we would be mourning the loss of many many more people, hostages & police included.

 

[Keg on legs]

My cousin is a returned serviceman from Afghanistan, & while he completely understands the police tactics, he has seen first-hand the horror & terror these people bring to the world. He stated to me that in the 17 hours it took to get a resolution, he could have driven to Sydney (from Melbourne) himself, set up his rifle, popped the guy, driven back to Melbourne & been fast asleep in his own bed.... And although he is a trigger happy nut who shoots clay targets in competition & goes hunting in Gippsland every 2nd weekend from April-October, I can see his point.

I guess my main question is, why was there no worry of bombs, or accomplices that may trigger other bombs, when the police TOU stormed the cafe at 2am? Was it because they already suspected there had been loss of life upon hearing the perp fire his gun? Or would just the firing of the gun been enough for the police to swing into action? Were they confident that there were no accomplices? How did they know that the alleged bomb he had strapped to himself was in fact a fake? I'm not asking to be facetious, I would like to know what you think.

If the 'bomb' that was strapped to him had been real, & the police still intervened the way they did at 2am, we would be mourning the loss of many many more people, hostages & police included.

I think the best way to explain it is this:

Once that first shot was fired, the cops simply had to act. They couldn't stand back and allow him to kill anyone else.

The coppers would have made the judgement that the scene was outside their control as such, and they had to act. Until that time they would have felt the scene was relatively contained in that he wasn't showing any immediate obvious intention to harm anyone (notwithstanding the stress being imposed on the hostages)

The safety of the hostages would have been their # 1 consideration. As long as they weren't being injured the cops would have been happy to wait it out until. Once it escalated it became imperative to act decisively.

As for the potential for explosives being detonated and everyone being injured or worse, the members would have entered fully aware that they could die in there. As coppers occasionally we have to face that reality. We get paid to do the job though, and accept the risks.

But, on balance, they decided at that time it was better for them to charge in, knowing the risks, than to sit back and watch him execute every hostage without at least trying to save a few of them

I hope that makes some sense?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I understand your view, as its exactly the same view as my wife & we've been over it a million times ourselves. We both have different opinions & we can accept that. No need to be sorry for being confronting, it just my opinion. I thought they could have handled it differently & had a better outcome with no deaths other than that of the perp.

Also, I by no mean blame the hostages if that what you are alluding to in your line above that i've bolded & underlined. They, for mine, are the bravest people in this whole awful situation. To do what they did, not knowing their fate at the hands of the perp; not knowing what the police were trying to achieve; & with an unimaginable fear & anxiety pumping through their entire bodies for a period of 17 gutwrenching, frustrating, fearful & macabre hours, they are courage personified.

To me they've chosen a strategy that would be more in line with an organised terror attack, and failed to recognize that it was actually a lone dickhead. This fact seemed to become apparent part way through the day. Especially when they interviewed the escaped hostages.
The risk of bombs, the need for "support facilities in Hyde park" was all part of a pre-prepared "terror training".

If multiple terrorists had captured 50 people, 2 casualties would have been a terrific result.

But thats not what they needed in this case. They just needed to take the ****wit out.

 

[Sunshine Saint]

A terrible situation and heart goes out to both fatalities, their families, all hostages, police and associated agencies involved in this. This will be a long term issue for many of them to deal with and overcome.

One of my sister in laws has coffee at that cafe every morning. On the morning of attack she had a meeting there at 9.00 which was to go for at least an hour. On the way in to her office, she phoned the woman she was meeting, to ask if she could postpone it by 20 minutes, as she had a few things to do in her nearby office first. The other woman couldn't meet with a delayed start, as she had other commitments at 10.00, so they rescheduled the meeting at the cafe, for later in the afternoon. They were both incredibly lucky not to be there. But even they are affected by this. My sister in law and her husband are already now discussing selling up from Sydney and moving to somewhere a lot more remote. Whether they do this or not, is to be seen, but they have booked a flight and are now going after Xmas to look at possible properties, lifestyle, services etc. The actions of this terrorist have ramifications throughout society and affect so many people, in so many ways.

As to the police response, they handled this in a text book fashion. Most sieges are resolved through negotiation and not storming the building. They had kept a dialogue going with the gun man and would have been hopeful of resolving this without loss of life. They would have had a team of people examining his actions, communications and assessing the risk factors, of the situation at all times. As was shown in the horrific school massacre in Pakistan, this doesn't always work, as those terrorists, were not there to negotiate, but to inflict the maximum numbers of deaths and casualties, before they would be martyred.

All of us watching this unfold on television and seeing footage of the gun man, would have had the thought of a police sniper, attempting to cleanly take him out, but would also have realised, that police would have considered this and had at that stage ruled that out, as they pursued negotiations deemed to be of a far lower risk.