Another shocker in Melbourne CBD

[Andy01]

Getting ready to leave my studio in the CBD after a busy day and hear choppers everywhere.
That’s never good, go online and it seems that another horrible incident involving a car and 16 pedestrians has happened- on a crossing I use twice daily- way to close to home... feel so sorry for those affected, hope the little girl pulls through ok :(
Gee there’s some sick b#stards out there...

[Wavytone]

Barbaric acts deserve a barbaric deterrent. Our present justice system is far too soft IMHO.

There’s a reason why a sense of civic behaviour was instilled into the English over several centuries - the punishments meted out for crimes were draconian and included public flaying or being slowly drawn and quartered - live - with the head placed on a pike to remain on view for several months as a reminder of the fate that awaits others should they be caught.

Hanging or executions were relatively mild in comparison to what the English justice system once dished out.

Should be brought back IMHO where there is no doubt who the culprit was; Martin Bryant for example.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Matt
Not sure yet but the morning news is saying there was only the driver in the car ( drug addict with mental probs, so he will probably get off ), and he was "detained" by the bystanders.
The other person caught at the train station appears to have just been "in the area" with a bag full of illegal objects.
Makes you wonder what else is out there.
Andrew

[Kunama]

Quite true Andrew (went to edit my post but made it disappear instead)

Unfortunately until we rid the system of pathetic judges and incompetent magistrates these people will continue to be out on bail and the carnage will continue....
There really is no deterrent value in the Australia justice system...... I think we need to start thinking about discouraging crime by making the life inside prisons rather more unpleasant....

Edited: Apparently Colombian procedures dealing with the cowardly scum like this have changed..... pity

[Octane]

The guy with the illegal objects was apparently a chef.

H

[strongmanmike]

Hmm?.. wonder what they would have done to this chef in old England or Colombia.... :question:

Mike

[The_bluester]

Have to agree with your sentiment Mike. What happened yesterday is absolutely terrible (Keeping to family friendly language) but as to the calls for bush justice...

Taking the apparent chef as an example. It is bloody hard to un-execute someone when you find out you made the wrong call. It is also pretty difficult to question someone and establish what led up to an action if the first response is to shoot them dead, again, if it was the wrong call it takes summary execution and changes it into state sanctioned murder.


I am going to leave this at my sympathy for the family and friends of all affected by this and leave the justice to those who's job that is.

[FlashDrive]

100% + 1

[julianh72]

And the second guy as well, who was detained originally, but now seems to have not been involved.

I guess that the occasional extra-judicial execution of innocent bystanders or small-time crooks (as is happening right now in the Philippines, for example) is OK under their system of "justice", all in the name of the "greater good"?

[graham.hobart]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Sh ooting_2

While my heart goes out to those involved (and my Wife and mother in law were there just a few days ago), sentiments expressed should remember that security forces are not infallible and also tread a thin line between action and restraint in these situations. I don't envy them at all.
Perhaps some security dollars could be better spent on improving mental health services which are pretty dire nationally.
G:shrug:

[Boozlefoot]

Can't comment. sorry. Political Correctness seems to have too much sway in these matters. But we all know where this is leading. Once upom a time in law enforcement I was told by the bosses, "We don't want to see you malingering around the courthouse". B stands for bail, it also stands for bull#$%^. CCTV evidence?

[Boozlefoot]

Mandatory sentencing, thank you, and in the old NT days, being drunk or under the influence of illicit substances brings a harsher penalty - NO EXCUSE!

:mad2:

[AussieTrooper]

It was a terrorist act over the "treatment of muslims." Give him what he wants. Apply shariah law to him.

[xelasnave]

This is indeed a sad event.

I really have a problem with calling crimes "terrorist" events.

To do so gives folk who commit these acts some sort of lime light that they crave.

They are then recognised by their group as somewhat heroic and the population frightened by their actions.
They commit a crime it is that simple as to why they commit the crime I dont need to know.

By calling these things acts of terror you create the terror and the goal they seek is immediately achieved.


We dont need it.
ALex

[AussieTrooper]

So you pretend it doesn't exist and hope it goes away.

This refusal to acknowledge reality, prevented the police handing over the Lindt café terrorist attack to those better suited to handle it. The result was not a good one.

You can never prevent something unless you acknowledge and understand what led to it. They've already achieved what they wanted regardless of what you decide to call it.

[JA]

In this particular Melb CBD case, it's unclear as to the motives or support that this criminal/terrorist had, beyond some "utterances to police"; however: Extremist and Terrorist events would be far more rare if we took away their oxygen- publicity. Publicity is their conduit to public fear. Terrorists don't own TV networks, we let them use them for free "publicity" I'll come out of right field and say .......

DON'T PUBLICISE SUCH EVENTS AT ALL. In any way. Make it illegal to disclose such to the public. By all means the governments/police and other agencies should share such intelligence, but not publically..... if you want to stop this that is. The governments of the world should simply warn people to be vigilant on these and other criminal matters, unless there is a specific threat of an impending event.

On the other hand.... The cynic in me says that those in control like to remain so, so .........

Best
JA

[AndrewJ]

Gday JA


And what gets censored next?????
There are already enough euphemisms used to block current news, ( esp suicide by train/etc and the content of cases in courts ), and after all, it will simply pop up on social media these days in its raw form
Better still, we should allow it to be publicised but control the "sensationalist" bent and apply some journalistic analysis if reqd.
As you note, its not going to happen, as the media always wants a feeding frenzy, and the locals with cameras will simply post on twitter etc, but i for one would rather be told the truth in a sensible manner, than fed propaganda.

All good Totalitarian/Fascist govts start up by deciding what people can know, and to me, the fact many Melbournians ran to help vs run away indicates the people can handle the truth .

Andrew

[xelasnave]

You make a large leap to say I pretend it does not exist and hope it goes away. I dont know why you need say that other than you wish to avoid considering the merit of taking away the prime tool of a terrorist which must be the publicity of their cause.

They break the law so treat them as a common criminal and remove their opportunity to make headline news.

I simply suggest that you play into the terrorist hands by giving them any recognition. Is there is any doubt that they act to gain publicity for their cause and to be recognised within their group as some kind of hero.

Treat them as the criminals they are and deny them their claim to fame by ignoring why.

Do we get front page news when a drunk runs down inoccent folk ...a situation up here a chap killed three people whilst disqualified from driving and under the influence of drugs, do you know to what I refer...of course not he is a criminal now serving time. And such is not issolated it happens far to regularly and far more than terrorist acts.

No one wanted to hear that the drug affected disqualified driver had a poor childhood or he lost his job or whatever stupid reason he may present for driving to endanger and kill.

But if he said he did it for a political cause he would be showered with recognition both good and bad.

His world view was not and need not be mentioned, but no doubt if it was there would be folk who would say they could see he had a problem because he lost his job and was driven to drugs...whatever...who cares he committed a crime his reasons are irrelevant.. His problem is irrelevant and the cause of the terrorist should be treated as irrelevant...

Why do you think these folk do these terrible things and if you cant think why let me suggest it is simply for the attention they know terrorism gets over drunken drivers.

I know it is an emotive issue and all I suggest is what seems to me a sensible way to steal their thunder.

As to calling in a swat team I dont think it turns upon the question of is this a terrorist attack or not, nor does it need to as clearly there are situations that call for swat type teams and their need to be called in presumably could be determined by any police officer as I assume they would receive direction as to the circumstances to call in a swat team.

I really believe that a would be terrorist may think twice about doing anything if his cause will not get publicity.

And so many of these terrorists are obviously nutters so take away their opportunity to claim their cause is behind their action and I bet they would see their action as unproductive and faced with getting no more recognition than that of a mere criminal perhaps would abandon their plans because they are not going to get the publicity.

Certainly my approach would minimise copy cat attacks.
Each attack receives publicity and I suspect it probably would encourage others who see gaining publicity in this way the way to go.

Do you not think that there is any merit in my approach?

Alex

[xelasnave]

I agree in principle with what you say however there is no need to make it illegal it is no more a matter than changing public attitude.

All it would take is each time we have an event is for the politicians to simply say. We are not concerned with the defendants political views or his distorted reality or any reason he seeks to justify his actions..He has commited a criminal act and will be charged and tried for same.

Of course the politicians wont jump at that idea because strangely they love promoting the "us and them" mentality and ready to demonise for their political gain. Take the politics out of crime.

Tell me that is an unreasonable prospect.

Alex

[xelasnave]

Stop going overboard. It is not that complex nor is there any need to make it so.

Free speech is not at risk.

Please be rational and think about the prospect of a potential to take away the terrorist thunder.

The fact you are so emotive tells me they have won but only because you let them... as suggested cut off their oxygen.

alex

[AndrewJ]

Gday Alex



I think my reply was quite rational
I agree you dont sensationalise it, but you dont censor it either

Andrew

[xelasnave]

I think your reply well considered and rational and I hope I did not give any impression otherwise.

alex

[Tropo-Bob]

Drawn and quartered was mainly for treason and grievous offences against the Crown. In this day and age, it probably would have happened to Murdock for bugging and reporting the mobile phone conversations of Prince Charles and his mistress. Hmmm.

There were other non-English punishments in this league: Crucifictions for example or simply impaling on a sharpened stick/post and left to die in agony over several days.

The general, English Public used to have a taste for barbaric executions, but after seeing too many, sympathy arose and juries in England started to find people not-guilty of crimes simply because they viewed the punishment as being too harsh. Could You imagine an Australian Jury finding the pretty, drug-runner Corby guilty in Australia, if the punished was as harsh as the Indonesian judicial system?

In this day and age, it was alarming to see how many people on Death Row were released in the USA when the wonders on DNA proved their innocence. In previous centuries, how many innocent "Witches" were drowned or burnt alive.

So yeah, a bit of caution still needs to apply here.

[AussieTrooper]

You said that you had trouble calling it a terrorist attack, when that is clearly what it is. You seem not to want to publicise, nor name it, and it is a fair assumption that you don't want it to happen again. If that's not "ignoring it and hoping it will go away", I'm not sure what is.

The key is the intent, and he has made his intent clear. The drunk driver analogy is not a good one. Drunk driving accidents are just that. Accidents.
This is why our law differentiates between murder and manslaughter.

You cannot solve a problem without acknowledging it. For years the fact that there was a growing radical islamic portion of our society that would inevitably lead to terrorism was not acknowledged. Those daring to even suggest it were howled down. Well, it's a bit late now.

Not shining light on the facts of any incident just leads to others doing so instead, usually with their own political spin to it. If the media doesn't cover it properly, someone else inevitably will. You'd be attempting to hide the motivations of someone who tried to kill people on Melbourne's streets, and you wouldn't even succeed.

So, no. I do not think there is merit in your approach.

[AussieTrooper]

I wonder how often the AFP allows drug runners to be picked up in Asia rather than here, knowing the slap on the wrist they'd get in Australia, compared to the rather more severe punishment they get in Asia.
Asian police LOVE parading around foreigners that have been caught with drugs. Criminal get's proper jail time, international co-operation goes well, lower cost to imprison in Asia, local police force and politician get good PR.
(Sorry for off topic post)

[csb]

Severe mental illness has been around for ages. But in the past it was not common for people with severe mental illness to commit these type of crimes.

So why are people with mental illness randomly attacking and killing?

1) There is an upsurge in anti-social behaviour and violent crimes against strangers with many incidents not related to mental illness. So I think these people with a mental illness feel free to commit outrageous acts of violence and then use their schizophrenia (or insert relevant diagnosis) as the reason for committing the violence. Surely it is easy to hide behind a diagnosed mental illness. So really these people have committed a crime.

Or

2) People are being afflicted by mental illness that is much more debilitating and disorienting than in the past. This is certainly a possibility with the prevalence of drug abuse which itself directly causes mental illness. Also society has changed so much in the last century. Has society come to a point that it exacerbates mental health issues or even causes it?

[Wavytone]

Or

3) they are not mentally ill at all, and are gaming the system - ie claiming mental illness - with the aim of avoiding the consequences that would normally follow.

Personally however imho a person who commits this kind of act is not sane - certainly not rational.

However in circumstances where it’s quite clear what they have done and there is no doubt about guilt I just don’t see the point in incarcerating them at public expense and capital punishment should be applied.

[clive milne]

Maybe if NATO and it's allies stopped bombing muslim countries, stopped destabilising their economies and stopped arming and training fundamentalist terrorist organisation across the middle east (and elsewhere) ... you know those guys we label freedom fighters... maybe, just maybe, they might stop being angry at us.

fwiw) The US, acting on behalf of multinational corporations (and banks) has killed somewhere between 20 to 50 million innocent civilians in its (mostly) illegal wars since the end of WW2. (Would you like me to list them?)


Just one example... see if you can rationalise this:
The second gulf war is now proven to be based on deliberate lies. There was no justification for it... somewhere between 1/2 and 1 million children died.. The only chemical weapons Iraq possessed were the ones we sold to them... In response we drop 10's of tonnes of radioactive waste (in the form of depleted uranium) in to their streets, their fields and their water ways. We destroy their social infrastructure, their sanitation, their hospitals, their electricity grid, their roads and their bridges. We let the multinational wolves steal their natural resources and crush them with punitive sanctions that result in the deaths of millions (mostly children).
We then fund and train wahibi jihadis and set them loose in the region.

And this is just one out of dozens, we in the west from our ivory tower of faux morality have chosen to bomb back to the stone-age ~for profit~... there is not even a fig leaf of legitimacy to our actions.

So tell me again who the real terrorists are?

Hypocrites!

[AndrewJ]

Gday Craig
Whilst not valid in all cases, a lot of these sorts of people were locked away in the old days. Also, it would be interesting to see any evidence of how much of this is also brought on by how the cheap but potent drugs now on the streets can affect their minds????

I suspect others are gaming the system as well ( but for profit ), so its a symbiotic relationship.
ie re the nutter from Bourke St.
The judge cracked the sads a week back because (its reported) the psychiatrists/psychologists/whoever else, can't make up their minds on if hes fit to stand, and the police are holding back because they only have 900 witnesses and 6500 pages of evidence.
If the latest reports are correct, the prosecution has over 1100 pages of medical info to analyse on whether he is fit to plead.
Gimme a break

He was filmed doing it and captured at the site.

All it takes is one page with one line on it
a) Hes a nutter and needs to be locked up
b) Hes fit to stand, get on with it.

Who is making a profit writing all this fluff in the background??????

Andrew


Andrew

[xelasnave]

Well thanks Ben for at least considering my suggestion.

I still reject your notion that somehow what I suggest is ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away.
I would have thought a suggestion to take the thunder away from these folk in itself recognised that there is a problem. and certainly an attempt to do something to counter the terrorist.


I am well aware of the difference between manslaughter and murder and certainly the key issue is intent. You want to beat a murder conviction simply say when arrested "I did not mean to kill him" and if you stick to that the prosecution really does have their work ahead of them.

I recall a old case, evidenced by the fact in went to the Privy COuncil on appeal where a chap turned up at the victims door and shot the victim dead.
He nearly beat the murder charge by insisting he was only there to frighten the victim and the gun went off by mistake.
What nailed him was that he threw the gun over board on the Manley Ferry which supported the prosecutions case that it was not an accident.

What difference does the public knowing intent make?
It can only do what I suggest. Giving publicity and putting copy cat ideas into the head of another nutter.

I still see no reason to present that intent anywhere but in court in support of the prosecution seeking a murder verdict.

I dont seek not to acknowledge the problem, far from it my attempt is to come up with some approach that as I said takes away their motivation to commit acts presumably designed to get attention.

That is the issue.

I am not suggesting we ignore the problem, although if you disagree with my approach I can understand that could be your first conclusion.

In my view much more needs to be done as what that should be I am not sure but I do feel that by simply removing or playing down the political aspect it must have the effect of having these folk see that random acts of violence will not be of any help in promoting their cause.


My arguement need not be compared to the "inaction" you probably rightfuly suggest, and inaction is somewhat at the heart of the problem.

Too little too late maybe, but in truth I dont know enough about what the police and the Government could have done, should have done or if they did in fact ignore the trends, to offer comment.

But if one who is familiar with the goings on in the Middle East did not expect some form of push back that would be damning of who ever is supposed to manage our security.

But I agree that implementing my idea would not be easy but as I said it would be a matter for our leaders to guide the response and really they can do that you know.

Not shining a light on a situation has more chance of others not following suit I would think, whereas how many other nutters now think what a great idea it is to commit a terrorist act to make the head lines.

But as you observe it would not be easy to hide motivation but again change can happen. Folk will be less interested in a criminal act than a terrorist act.
The whole point of terror attack is to cause fear and again starving them of oxygen would seem most reasonable.

Anyways thanks for discussing this with me and thanks for remaining most civil. And dont mistake me for one of those folk who look for reasons to minimise sentencing as I would support the death penalty if it came up for a vote... for all crimes I would cure or cull.


Anyways give him a fair trial then hang him.

alex

[xelasnave]

One more thing.

I dont notice any other trials where the motive comes out in the news.
And there is good reason for that.

Can you imagine the lawyer for the accused asking.

Where did you hear about this matter.
on the news.

what did you hear?
I heard the accussed was a terrorist and ran down people.

Lawyer. And what do you think about terrorists.

I bet that answer would have the lawyer seeking the removal of that person from the panel.

alex

[AndrewJ]

Gday Alex
Part of me agrees with this bit, but only in the time between being charged until the trial starts. ie, you apparently can report on the motive "during" the trial, if it was brought up and answered in the trial.
You only have to listen to the likes of Faine/Epstein/Mitchell forensically interrogating witnesses down here when something happens, then going quiet once charged. ie Once charged eveyone has to forget anything they heard and once convicted/found innocent, its fair game again, but the damage has already beeen done, as google doesnt forget.
Perhaps its time to get rid of jury trials as the current social media phenomenon has completely bypassed the way the justice system works.
I always wondered why everyone but the judiciary has had to "move with the times" to get around the disruption of new technology.

Andrew