Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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
