Siege in Martin Place, Sydney

[tandino]

And fund election campaigns through the tax payer at large?

The formula for the allocation of those funds would be interesting.

God that was a good laugh a few years back when they tried to put up that idea.

 

[Northalives]

God that was a good laugh a few years back when they tried to put up that idea.

In theory, it's a good idea, that is, if it's truly "Government of the people, by the people, for the people", to borrow a saying from Lincoln and that's all it is, a saying, 'cause it doesn't happen in America, but if we are to accept that ideal, then let the people pay for it too.

The problem is, what's the formula for allocation of taxpayer funds?

We are off subject now and in an attempt to get back onto the subject, I would argue that the less scrutiny on political donations, the bigger the threat of "mistakes"/(corruption) and the more that Ministers of the Crown abrogate their responsibilities in the belief that if the s**t hits the fan, it's not their fault, then the worse off is our democracy.

 

[tandino]

In theory, it's a good idea, that is, if it's truly "Government of the people, by the people, for the people", to borrow a saying from Lincoln and that's all it is, a saying, 'cause it doesn't happen in America, but if we are to accept that ideal, then let the people pay for it too.

The problem is, what's the formula for allocation of taxpayer funds?

We are off subject now and in an attempt to get back onto the subject, I would argue that the less scrutiny on political donations, the bigger the threat of "mistakes"/(corruption) and the more that Ministers of the Crown abrogate their responsibilities in the belief that if the s**t hits the fan, it's not their fault, then the worse off is our democracy.

You are never going to eliminate influence. So the way I see it, as long as everything is transparent, let them go for it.

 

[Northalives]

You are never going to eliminate influence. So the way I see it, as long as everything is transparent, let them go for it.

So long as everything is transparent, let them go for it.

 

[CM86]

how about out of their own pocket?

I trust you pay your own expenses to get a job? I trust entrepreneurs bank roll their own opportunities at the start?

why not get wannabe politicians to put their money where their mouth is?

What?

Are you joking?

 

[Power Raid]

What?

Are you joking?

do you like lobby groups running the nations agenda?

 

[CM86]

do you like lobby groups running the nations agenda?

I can't think of a better way to make it as corrupt as possible, than your idea...

 

[Power Raid]

I can't think of a better way to make it as corrupt as possible, than your idea...

May be I am missing something but I would have thought getting rid of lobby groups was a positive

 

[CM86]

how about out of their own pocket?

I trust you pay your own expenses to get a job? I trust entrepreneurs bank roll their own opportunities at the start?

why not get wannabe politicians to put their money where their mouth is?

OK. So, you're advocating for the rich to be the only people with the ability to govern Australia.
Or, for people to invest a huge amount of money into a job that should not be done for personal gain.

I trust entrepreneurs will get into to make as much money as possible...

It will get rid of lobby groups, because it won't need that middle man anymore, it can just deal directly with whatever.

You'll give me $1mil? Ok no problem, you get the Government construction contracts for the next two years...

 

[Power Raid]

OK. So, you're advocating for the rich to be the only people with the ability to govern Australia.
Or, for people to invest a huge amount of money into a job that should not be done for personal gain.

I trust entrepreneurs will get into to make as much money as possible...

It will get rid of lobby groups, because it won't need that middle man anymore, it can just deal directly with whatever.

You'll give me $1mil? Ok no problem, you get the Government construction contracts for the next two years...

that's a very strange extrapolation

 

[CM86]

that's a very strange extrapolation

How?

 

[skilts]

How?

Are you an American Indian?

 

[NSWCROW]

I still can't believe that Monis was allowed to roam the streets with what was known about him.

http://bernardgaynor.com.au/the-extent-of-the-failure/



Yet John Robertson STILL the only person to lose their job so far......

 

[Lester Burnham]

The inquest has been going for about 18 months. Early on there were questions raised about whether Monis should have been at large. He was on bail for three separate offences. He had complied with the earlier bail terms but prosecutors for the third offence had not known of Monis's earlier offences. Some of the details of that were suppressed but there are possibly lessons to be learned.

Now we are finally getting into the decisions made at the time of the siege. Such as - should Monis have been shot earlier during the siege before he killed anyone? Could snipers have taken him out, or a siege commenced earlier? It was a complex situation as it was believed Monis had a bomb.

But, for me, another aspect stood out. Why did the police think they did not have the authority to kill Monis?

From 9 June.

Evidence presented at the inquest on Thursday included a communication between the sniper and the deputy tactical commander during the siege.

“He told me he had an observation of the POI (person of interest) ... and could take a shot if required,” the deputy tactical commander recorded, according to evidence read out by counsel assisting the inquest, Sophie Callan.

But the officer in charge of tactics during the Sydney siege told the inquest he did not believe the sniper would have had the legal authority to take the shot, because he would have had to have established someone was about to be killed, or seriously injured.
​

From 19 June.

Ms Bashir put it to the officer that his primary mission was to secure the safe release of the hostages, rather than be overly concerned about the welfare of Monis. “I can’t ignore Man Monis as an individual, he had the same rights as anyone else,” he (the police officer) replied.

At that point Ms Connellan and Mr Johnson rose from their seats to leave. Looking at the police officer with a parting turn, Ms Connellan shouted: “You’re an absolute disgrace.”

The inquest heard evidence that police commanders cannot order a sniper to kill a hostage-taker, and each officer must make his or her own assessment of whether a shot is justified.​

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...p/news-story/15f028cade05dd35afd31782e4d20339


I really hope the inquest comes to the conclusion that someone holding 18 hostages at gun point, with a possible bomb that will kill them all, has surrendered all his rights - and the authorities should not question their right to summarily execute him. A review should be held as to why a police commander would believe otherwise.

 

[Power Raid]

I respect the police officer stating his position but a condition of employment should be a simple question "are you prepared to kill someone if required". Unfortunately that to is part of the job.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately) a police officer cannot just shoot someone who might be going to do something. They can only use deadly force to protect someone in immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm. It can of course be argued whether Monis was an immediate threat or not, ultimately the decision must be made by whoever has his finger on the trigger. No police officer can (or should) be ordered by another to shoot someone. And there is no such things as "surrendering all your rights" through your actions.

One thing is certain - had a police sniper acted earlier and shot Monis dead before any hostages were harmed, there would be people calling for that officer's head on the grounds that "Monis was never really going to hurt anybody he was a harmless loony".

Sadly in a situation like this there is no time the police can intervene - no matter when they do it they will be either too early or too late.

 

[Moshie The Mook]

The police have their hands tied. You can't shoot a muslim in Sydney.

I'd suggest Messers Connellan and Johnson take time to reflect on the crime and reflect on a system that is woefully negligent and apologetic in nature, instead of being reactionary scumbags looking for scapegoats.

 

[tandino]

One thing is certain - had a police sniper acted earlier and shot Monis dead before any hostages were harmed, there would be people calling for that officer's head on the grounds that "Monis was never really going to hurt anybody he was a harmless loony".

Harmless loonies don't carry around loaded sawn-off shotguns, as a general rule.

Sieges are a common occurrence, and I'd hate to get to a situation where the go-to response is just to shoot the person dead. But I think if he had been shot that day, the vast majority of people would think it was a job well done. And if it was someone on the inside who managed to MacGyver a solution that saw him dead, they'd never have to buy a beer again.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately) a police officer cannot just shoot someone who might be going to do something. They can only use deadly force to protect someone in immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm. It can of course be argued whether Monis was an immediate threat or not

This wasn't an armed robbery gone wrong or a domestic situation that escalated. Monis deliberately took 18 hostages, held them at gunpoint and was believed to have a bomb. He made several threats to kill the hostages and requested a flag from a terrorist organisation. I can understand the tactical side of decisions around a sniper attempting to shoot him or when to storm the building. But the legal and moral side should be clear. There was an immediate threat to the lives of the hostages and killing him would have been justified.

ultimately the decision must be made by whoever has his finger on the trigger. No police officer can (or should) be ordered by another to shoot someone.

The guy with his finger on the trigger might not have all the information available. The decision to shoot, or storm the building, is for the commander of the operation. The commander would not have ordered a sniper to shoot, he would have authorised it.

 

[LanceRomance]

Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately) a police officer cannot just shoot someone who might be going to do something. They can only use deadly force to protect someone in immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm. It can of course be argued whether Monis was an immediate threat or not, ultimately the decision must be made by whoever has his finger on the trigger. No police officer can (or should) be ordered by another to shoot someone. And there is no such things as "surrendering all your rights" through your actions.

One thing is certain - had a police sniper acted earlier and shot Monis dead before any hostages were harmed, there would be people calling for that officer's head on the grounds that "Monis was never really going to hurt anybody he was a harmless loony".

Sadly in a situation like this there is no time the police can intervene - no matter when they do it they will be either too early or too late.

think you hit the nail on the head and that is the response you would get from a police officer

 

[Power Raid]

Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately) a police officer cannot just shoot someone who might be going to do something. They can only use deadly force to protect someone in immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm. It can of course be argued whether Monis was an immediate threat or not, ultimately the decision must be made by whoever has his finger on the trigger. No police officer can (or should) be ordered by another to shoot someone. And there is no such things as "surrendering all your rights" through your actions.

One thing is certain - had a police sniper acted earlier and shot Monis dead before any hostages were harmed, there would be people calling for that officer's head on the grounds that "Monis was never really going to hurt anybody he was a harmless loony".

Sadly in a situation like this there is no time the police can intervene - no matter when they do it they will be either too early or too late.

younger captains on RAN ships would hand out geneva convention cards and explain the rules of engagement.
1) do not engage until they are on the ship
2) call three verbal warnings
3) warning shots with intermittent warning shots
4) then engage to kill
The reality is if you followed the cards instruction, in the case of emergency, one would be dead and others put at risk.

older captains would hand the card over and say "dead witnesses, make bad witnesses" "if vessel approaches the ship at sea with the intention of boarding or threat to the ship, do not let them set foot on the deck" "engage and kill everyone in the vessel and keep firing until the vessel sinks" "if someone does step on the deck, kill them and keep shooting until the body goes overboard" "dead witnesses make bad witnesses".

neither position outright is correct but I'd rather serve under a captain that empowers the individual to use common sense. Common sense is a dangerous risk hurdle but the RAN did have some safeguards. The Bosuns (gun rates) weren't allowed to carry weapons as they were to much a risk to misuse the power. Instead they were second response and only called in once discretion was no longer required.

 

[Gough]

I know that no amount of planning can ready people for something like this, but reading the reports of this enquiry, the Sydney police seem to have been a bit ham fisted in their response to this.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

TagEAST probably would have taken the shot, and probably should have been used instead of the jacks.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

TagEAST probably would have taken the shot, and probably should have been used instead of the jacks.

Sure, and then we'd be listening to the "why are the army involved in a domestic situation, that's the police's job, the police have negotiators who could have ended it peacefully OMG we're living in a military dictatorship" crowd.

However it was done, there were going to be some people unhappy.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Harmless loonies don't carry around loaded sawn-off shotguns, as a general rule.

Sieges are a common occurrence, and I'd hate to get to a situation where the go-to response is just to shoot the person dead. But I think if he had been shot that day, the vast majority of people would think it was a job well done. And if it was someone on the inside who managed to MacGyver a solution that saw him dead, they'd never have to buy a beer again.

This wasn't an armed robbery gone wrong or a domestic situation that escalated. Monis deliberately took 18 hostages, held them at gunpoint and was believed to have a bomb. He made several threats to kill the hostages and requested a flag from a terrorist organisation. I can understand the tactical side of decisions around a sniper attempting to shoot him or when to storm the building. But the legal and moral side should be clear. There was an immediate threat to the lives of the hostages and killing him would have been justified.



The guy with his finger on the trigger might not have all the information available. The decision to shoot, or storm the building, is for the commander of the operation. The commander would not have ordered a sniper to shoot, he would have authorised it.

younger captains on RAN ships would hand out geneva convention cards and explain the rules of engagement.
1) do not engage until they are on the ship
2) call three verbal warnings
3) warning shots with intermittent warning shots
4) then engage to kill
The reality is if you followed the cards instruction, in the case of emergency, one would be dead and others put at risk.

older captains would hand the card over and say "dead witnesses, make bad witnesses" "if vessel approaches the ship at sea with the intention of boarding or threat to the ship, do not let them set foot on the deck" "engage and kill everyone in the vessel and keep firing until the vessel sinks" "if someone does step on the deck, kill them and keep shooting until the body goes overboard" "dead witnesses make bad witnesses".

neither position outright is correct but I'd rather serve under a captain that empowers the individual to use common sense. Common sense is a dangerous risk hurdle but the RAN did have some safeguards. The Bosuns (gun rates) weren't allowed to carry weapons as they were to much a risk to misuse the power. Instead they were second response and only called in once discretion was no longer required.

Don't disagree with any of this, but the reality is the police at the scene still have to act within the law, not the Geneva convention. And the law doesn't really allow for pre-emptive kill shots.