Melbourne incident

[AndrewJ]

It was similar in the Lindt cafe siege. The police snipers could have taken him out

I thought in the inquest that the snipers actually said they had no idea how thick the glass was and how it "might" deflect their shots, or affect their true line of sight ( refraction etc ).

Andrew

[The_bluester (Paul)]

They did, however it did not stop all of the facebook firearms experts from confidently saying he should have been shot with a 50 cal.


I personally hope after Friday that he is tried, convicted and has a long and uninteresting life without liberty.

Execution IMO is simply state sanctioned murder and continues to beg the question, where do you stop? All you need to do it sit on Facebook for a day or two to see a photo calling for pedophiles to be executed (Still heinous) but where does it stop? What degree of culpability leads to execution? If killing someone for killing is OK, is it OK to beat someone for stealing? Cut their hand off? where does it stop when the most severe possible retribution becomes an answer?

[AndrewJ]

Gday Paul
I have (personally) never suggested execution, just allow the police to deal with someone like this before it gets more dangerous, and have a legal system that backs up the coppers, not the criminals.
Lets play different what ifs
What if the Bail justice hadnt let him go.
What if the police, knowing he had been using ice, was violent at his mums place, stabbed his brother and chucked his girlfriend out on the bolte bridge, had stopped him before he could get into the city.
Life isnt simple, but recently, too many nutters ( many who arent being chased ) go on to kill innocent people.
Sorry but in this case, a nutter in a car should be taken out at the first possibility.
Andrew

[Nath2099]

I could imagine the outcry had a sniper put a bullet in him between doughnuts. No cop supervisor is going to authorize that.

Should all people on ice who commit acts of violence be summarily executed?

[AndrewJ]

Yet its OK to shoot him AFTER he has crashed and he is stopped????
No one has commented yet on how he got shot in the arm.

Andrew

[Stonius (Markus)]

The conversation always comes back to mental health...and stops dead in it's tracks right there. Like there's nothing that can be done about it and we all throw up our arms in despair. It's funny how people will discuss incidents like this ad infinitum, but no-one cares about the root cause. Surely prevention is better than cure?

Mental health funding is really important, or stuff like this happens. We either pay for it with our taxes, or with our lives.

Markus

[Nath2099]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Yet its OK to shoot him AFTER he has crashed and he is stopped????
No one has commented yet on how he got shot in the arm.

Andrew

I would imagine he was shot then crashed. But don't know. A bit different to summarily executing someone because they're doing donuts on ice, after having apparently stabbed a family member, though. That would seem a bit harsh to me.

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

[QUOTE=MortonH;1292155]

Originally Posted by The_bluester

It was similar in the Lindt cafe siege. The police snipers could have taken him out but they were worried he might have explosives that would go off and kill everyone inside.

Very different scenarios. Even if they got him, that car is still moving, not to mention the number of people nearby.

[AndrewJ]

A bit different to summarily executing someone because they're doing donuts

I never suggested summary execution, i used the words "take out"
Block or ram the car, shoot to disable the car, and as a last resort shoot the driver. Its not as if there werent enough police cars nearby to do the blocking option.

Andrew

[MortonH]

[QUOTE=AussieTrooper;1292193]

Originally Posted by MortonH

Very different scenarios. Even if they got him, that car is still moving, not to mention the number of people nearby.

My point was that 'moving in' whether by shooting, trying to grab him, etc. is fraught with danger of making things worse, hence why the police stood off him for as long as they did.

Given that this wasn't a terrorist attack, the police did what they thought was the least dangerous thing, which was not to engage him. If he hadn't been surrounded by people giving him attention by taking videos, and if the guys with the baseball bats had let the police do their job, the outcome might have been different.

[bigjoe (JOSEPH)]

Originally Posted by Larryp

News reports say he had drug and mental problems, and was well known to police. He apparently stabbed his brother in a domestic fight and took a woman hostage before driving into Melbourne-fortunately she escaped.

This just highlights Laurie , how nothing is really actually done with these problem people.
They create havoc over and over , and are just let off to wander through society, with the HOPE that they will not commit even more violent acts.

Cheers bigjoe.

[jenchris (Jennifer)]

Why not disable the car?
I know the 9mm they use now is very weak but it is still able to destroy batteries and tyres etc.
Gone are the days of 357mag grp.
Train the police to use their weapons.
They're very poor at shooting.

[The_bluester (Paul)]

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper;1292193 [QUOTE=MortonH

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_bluester http://www.iceinspace.com.au/vbiis/i...s/viewpost.gif

It was similar in the Lindt cafe siege. The police snipers could have taken him out but they were worried he might have explosives that would go off and kill everyone inside.

Very different scenarios. Even if they got him, that car is still moving, not to mention the number of people nearby.
.

Not sure why that is coming up as a quote from me. It is not from me, however I agree with you. It is about as sensible as that video of police tazering a driver of a moving van through the open window (Perth I think?) a couple of years ago. Great idea, keep the public safe by disabling the driver of a vehicle while it is moving? Then there is the fact that projectiles don't just stop because they have missed their intended target.

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Yet its OK to shoot him AFTER he has crashed and he is stopped????
No one has commented yet on how he got shot in the arm.

Andrew

I have not commented because I do not know how, where or when he was shot so I feel that I have no useful comment to make.

Originally Posted by jenchris

Why not disable the car?
I know the 9mm they use now is very weak but it is still able to destroy batteries and tyres etc.
Gone are the days of 357mag grp.
Train the police to use their weapons.
They're very poor at shooting.

I reckon that disabling the car would prove to be more of a challenge than people might think. IMO you would need to be a freakishly good shot to pop a tyre, and even then it would potentially not slow him down much. Likewise, puncturing the battery stands very little chance of stopping the car in the short term. Unless the battery shorted out the car will just keep going on the alternator.

[Tropo-Bob (Bob)]

Originally Posted by jenchris

Why not disable the car?
I know the 9mm they use now is very weak but it is still able to destroy batteries and tyres etc.
Gone are the days of 357mag grp.
Train the police to use their weapons.
They're very poor at shooting.

Oh come on, shooting at a car speeding in an area crowded with civilians is not on. Even the best markman could not control were the bullets may ricochet.

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by Tropo-Bob

Oh come on, shooting at a car speeding in an area crowded with civilians is not on. Even the best markman could not control were the bullets may ricochet.

Good thinking Bob
It's bad enough with police pursuits where there are innocent people killed going about their lawful business,by trying to apprehend someone who did not stop at a red light or other misdemeanors.
This is Melbourne Not New York city or Rio De Janeiro
Cheers

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by MortonH

No-one seems to be considering the possibility that the guys with the bat actually pushed the guy over the edge. Who knows if it had any impact on his already messed up state of mind.

Doubtless his lawyers will try that one on.
It's always someone else's fault that you were violent/drug addicted/stole/whatever. It's never the fault of the offender, so a slap on the wrist and out they go to go harm someone else again.

[MortonH]

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper

Doubtless his lawyers will try that one on.

It's always someone else's fault that you were violent/drug addicted/stole/whatever. It's never the fault of the offender, so a slap on the wrist and out they go to go harm someone else again.

My comment is being misinterpreted again. I'm not saying the guys with the bat constitute an excuse for his behaviour, I'm saying that if they hadn't attacked the car he might not have driven into those people. If you see a hornets' nest with loud angry noises coming from it, is the sensible action to walk away or hit it with a baseball bat???

However, it's largely academic as the media are now saying the police potentially had multiple occasions to stop him before he reached the CBD, including a time when he was stuck in traffic. It's not clear why they weren't able to stop him at that time. They were apparently trying to box him in, which is obviously more sensible than trying to disable the car by shooting it.

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

No misinterpretation. My comment stands with or without the quote.

Whether the baseball bat attempt had any effect (and nobody is saying that it did), we will never know.

But it is certain that his lawyers will try and use this and any other rubbish they can rake up, to try and lessen the penalty for this scumbag who should have already been in prison. There seems to be no shortage of magistrates and bail justices stupid enough to swallow it too.