1 hour ago, Biffen said:

Nutbean-

No need to ram a car.

Shoot the tyres ,then then villain.

Its bad policing and a talk fest will lead to more policy inaction.

Far better  to be damned if you do.

There are some lovely people here on Demonland that always give the benefit of the doubt to others.

We are an incredibly soft culture as a whole,and spend our time agonising over utopian ideals in a real world.

Ask yourself how long this can go on before organised crime and ice,terrorism,gangs and fraud ruins the culture built here in 200 years?

 

Tyres are a very very small target on a moving vehicle, especially when a ricochet off the road is highly likely to end up in the pedestrians. I guess it is better to be damned if you shoot an innocent person that not though. 

The only part of a car I can see being a realistic target is the radiator, it is big, it will stop the car in a matter of minutes, and it has something very big behind it and around it to massively reduce the chance of a ricochet injuring someone. 

The police here use .40 (10mm) hollow-points. You'll get through a windshield if the angle is less than 45 degrees with that round.

I know other states use 9mm, not sure about Victoria. Good luck with penetrating the engine bay or a tyre with a 9mm hollow-point.

2 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

The police here use .40 (10mm) hollow-points. 

I know others states use 9mm, not sure about Victoria. Good luck with penetrating the engine bay or a tyre with a 9mm hollow-point. 

Really?  A bullet of that caliber wouldn't penetrate either of those? So they are just there to shoot people with then?  Irony at it's finest.

I also heard that he was stationary in a dead end street in yarraville for over 2 hours, not sure of the specifics, some guy on 3AW was yammering on about it and the cops sent the chopper out and he bolted into the city.

9 hours ago, AzzKikA said:

Really?  A bullet of that caliber wouldn't penetrate either of those? So they are just there to shoot people with then?  Irony at it's finest.

I also heard that he was stationary in a dead end street in yarraville for over 2 hours, not sure of the specifics, some guy on 3AW was yammering on about it and the cops sent the chopper out and he bolted into the city.

That's the exact reason those rounds are used, to stop a person and so it doesn't continue through them and into someone or something else. 

With the amount of bystanders there were the response would be to ram and box in the offender's vehicle, not shoot at it. 

Victorian Police need a New York Police style shake up (they've already acquired their uniforms I believe).

3 hours ago, Biffen said:

 

Ask yourself how long this can go on before organised crime and ice,terrorism,gangs and fraud ruins the culture built here in 200 years?

 

ass long as there is equal representation of women, lgbtqiapk'ers, moslems, kooris and the ufu in this new order, i don't see any problem in this, biffo

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Nah Biff you can't shoot tyres when a car is in a confined space like friday. It is still driveable albeit more erratic and dangerous. Ram a front wheel and he won't go any further...

some will say hindsight. But i was yelling at the TV monitor last friday while multiple cops stood around scratching their balls waiting for god knows what to happen.

well we know what happened. It all began 2 hours previous...

a flamethrower would be pretty effective, wyl. ceertainly make the next nut think twice

38 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

a flamethrower would be pretty effective, wyl. ceertainly make the next nut think twice

Better than nothing....

Ok- taser the dirty [censored] ,then bash and repeat.

6 hours ago, Chris said:

Tyres are a very very small target on a moving vehicle, especially when a ricochet off the road is highly likely to end up in the pedestrians. I guess it is better to be damned if you shoot an innocent person that not though. 

The only part of a car I can see being a realistic target is the radiator, it is big, it will stop the car in a matter of minutes, and it has something very big behind it and around it to massively reduce the chance of a ricochet injuring someone. 

So the colateral damage was 5-7 dead,20 injured.

wake up.

17 hours ago, Biffen said:

So the colateral damage was 5-7 dead,20 injured.

wake up.

Yet the collateral damage of shooting at the car in a crowded space may well have been much worse, we will never know. Not to mention that up until he drove at people there was zero justification for shooting the car, let alone the driver and if they did shoot and kill the driver before that point then the cop would rightly be on murder charges. 

1 hour ago, Chris said:

Yet the collateral damage of shooting at the car in a crowded space may well have been much worse, we will never know. Not to mention that up until he drove at people there was zero justification for shooting the car, let alone the driver and if they did shoot and kill the driver before that point then the cop would rightly be on murder charges. 

The collateral damage would be zero as we have covered.

There was plenty of justification to arrest as we have covered.

No the police would not be charged for doing their job properly .

 

3 hours ago, Biffen said:

The collateral damage would be zero as we have covered.

There was plenty of justification to arrest as we have covered.

No the police would not be charged for doing their job properly .

 

Biffen can you please answer the following. 

If a police officer opened fire on the suspect or the car at Flinders street, or in fact in Chapel street how can you say there would be no collateral damage? can you also please provide the required justification for the police doing so at this point remembering that at this point he is threatening no one but is wanted for car theft, assault, and stabbing someone. 

If the Police did shoot him at this point and there was no justification, which there wasn't, then how would they possibly avoid charges being laid?

20 minutes ago, Chris said:

Biffen can you please answer the following. 

If a police officer opened fire on the suspect or the car at Flinders street, or in fact in Chapel street how can you say there would be no collateral damage? can you also please provide the required justification for the police doing so at this point remembering that at this point he is threatening no one but is wanted for car theft, assault, and stabbing someone. 

If the Police did shoot him at this point and there was no justification, which there wasn't, then how would they possibly avoid charges being laid?

As mentioned before, the preference would be to ram his car or block him in with a number of Police vehicles. 

Due to the nature of offences he had committed the Police would be justified in drawing their firearms to assist with the arrest. If he then drove at them or a member of the public, as the outcome of hitting them would be serious injury or death, then they would be justified in using their firearms. 

Two things, 1. I don't know why the Police didn't use their vehicles to ram or block the offender's car. 2. Why didn't the Police draw and cover with their firearms. 

The footage of the Police just standing by and watching is very hard to watch. I would have done either one of those two and easily justified my actions.

18 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

As mentioned before, the preference would be to ram his car or block him in with a number of Police vehicles. 

Due to the nature of offences he had committed the Police would be justified in drawing their firearms to assist with the arrest. If he then drove at them or a member of the public, as the outcome of hitting them would be serious injury or death, then they would be justified in using their firearms. 

Two things, 1. I don't know why the Police didn't use their vehicles to ram or block the offender's car. 2. Why didn't the Police draw and cover with their firearms. 

The footage of the Police just standing by and watching is very hard to watch. I would have done either one of those two and easily justified my actions.

The answer is fairly simple and it comes down to unpredictability and the number of people around. if you rammed him and failed where would he have ended up? If you drew your firearm and escalated the situation and he drove and the crowd and your shot missed, or you hit him and his car continues to drive then how many people does he hit? there are too many variables and unknowns. I am with you that ramming him and blocking him in seems the best option but takes some planning and time which they didn't really have. 

The whole thing really is an exersize in mitigating risk in an incredibly high risk environment. Decisions made in those circumstances are rarely perfect and hindsight is always wonderful. 

The best option to me seems to have been on Chappel street where he surely could have been blocked in in traffic at some point. this would have given him very little option as to where to go, may have only needed one police car and a couple of officers. it would have meant damage to a civilian car but that is a very small price to pay. 

2 hours ago, Chris said:

Biffen can you please answer the following. 

If a police officer opened fire on the suspect or the car at Flinders street, or in fact in Chapel street how can you say there would be no collateral damage? can you also please provide the required justification for the police doing so at this point remembering that at this point he is threatening no one but is wanted for car theft, assault, and stabbing someone. 

If the Police did shoot him at this point and there was no justification, which there wasn't, then how would they possibly avoid charges being laid?

Your question is confused as you are but I'll answer.

The villain could have been shot point blank in the chest and hopefully the bullet would lodge in his heart.

The justification is attempted triple murder,stabbing,break and enter,theft of motor vehicle and then culpable driving.

The police would not be charged with anything after these offences.

8 hours ago, Biffen said:

Your question is confused as you are but I'll answer.

The villain could have been shot point blank in the chest and hopefully the bullet would lodge in his heart.

The justification is attempted triple murder,stabbing,break and enter,theft of motor vehicle and then culpable driving.

The police would not be charged with anything after these offences.

Attempted alleged triple murder does not justify shooting him, especially when he only stabbed one person and car theft and beating someone up don't count as attempted murder.

 We do not have summary executions in this country and unless he was threatening the life of people at the moment the police shoot him then they have no justification, never have never will. That is why they would have been charged. 

Where exactly could they have shot him in the chest with such certainty that they will not have missed, while also ensuring his car stops on the spot when they do so? 

1 hour ago, Chris said:

Attempted alleged triple murder does not justify shooting him, especially when he only stabbed one person and car theft and beating someone up don't count as attempted murder.

 We do not have summary executions in this country and unless he was threatening the life of people at the moment the police shoot him then they have no justification, never have never will. That is why they would have been charged. 

Where exactly could they have shot him in the chest with such certainty that they will not have missed, while also ensuring his car stops on the spot when they do so? 

It's a wonderfully tolerant and liberal attitude you have Chris and I can only assume you have youthful and optimistic ideals behind it, or you work for a legal co operative of some sort.

I'll be arming myself ,as will others,and I predict a rise in vigilantism in the near future.

Police have the right to detain and arrest anyone after even one incident as serious as that but if these rights are eroded we are doomed.

I'm not sure your stance on this issue is a tenable or credible one in light of the ice epidemic,AJAX gangs,Bikie gangs and Lebanese crime families that have gained traction in Australia and Melbourne in particular.

"He only stabbed one person" "car theft" "beating someone up"(actually three people, two of whom were elderly and may have died from such an attack) not to mention kidnapping his estranged girlfriend and holding her hostage.The car was stolen by break and entry and threats to maim.There was then the hooning which endangers the public.I'm sure Nice and Berlin people might think I have a point.

You need a nice warm cup of concrete before you are "mugged by reality".

 

19 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

As mentioned before, the preference would be to ram his car or block him in with a number of Police vehicles. 

Due to the nature of offences he had committed the Police would be justified in drawing their firearms to assist with the arrest. If he then drove at them or a member of the public, as the outcome of hitting them would be serious injury or death, then they would be justified in using their firearms. 

Two things, 1. I don't know why the Police didn't use their vehicles to ram or block the offender's car. 2. Why didn't the Police draw and cover with their firearms. 

The footage of the Police just standing by and watching is very hard to watch. I would have done either one of those two and easily justified my actions.

Agreed totally ET

8 hours ago, Biffen said:

It's a wonderfully tolerant and liberal attitude you have Chris and I can only assume you have youthful and optimistic ideals behind it, or you work for a legal co operative of some sort.

I'll be arming myself ,as will others,and I predict a rise in vigilantism in the near future.

Police have the right to detain and arrest anyone after even one incident as serious as that but if these rights are eroded we are doomed.

I'm not sure your stance on this issue is a tenable or credible one in light of the ice epidemic,AJAX gangs,Bikie gangs and Lebanese crime families that have gained traction in Australia and Melbourne in particular.

"He only stabbed one person" "car theft" "beating someone up"(actually three people, two of whom were elderly and may have died from such an attack) not to mention kidnapping his estranged girlfriend and holding her hostage.The car was stolen by break and entry and threats to maim.There was then the hooning which endangers the public.I'm sure Nice and Berlin people might think I have a point.

You need a nice warm cup of concrete before you are "mugged by reality".

 

Good to see you can't actually answer my questions. By the way, I think he should absolutely be locked up, I think the Judiciary are crap and need to stop letting people out, I think we have some real problems and need to get tougher. What I will never agree with is the police dishing out summary executions of citizens, which is what you are calling for. 

Hindsight bias.

While it was happening, no-one had any knowledge or idea that a guy doing donuts in a city street was then about to mow down civilians in the mall.

Looking back, we always think we had information that we didn't. In fact, we're sure of it.

39 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Hindsight bias.

While it was happening, no-one had any knowledge or idea that a guy doing donuts in a city street was then about to mow down civilians in the mall.

Looking back, we always think we had information that we didn't. In fact, we're sure of it.

If those blokes who ran out on flinders st with their baseball bats to try and stop him, were actually able to do enough damage to stop him they might have found themselves in trouble.

But the police & authorities would have obviously known what he'd done prior to the donuts.  It's not as if he was a cleanskin. 

• Attempted to kill his brother with a knife earlier in the day and 5 years earlier, had bashed the same brother senseless and put him into hospital
• Has been in and out of jail for car theft and drug offences
• Had a string of dangerous driving offences (at least 20) ... google for more info on those offences
• Had caused a major disturbance at a nightclub the night before (which included threats and a large amount of damage)
• Had posted numerous threats on facebook for all the world to see ... with a number of references to ISIS ideologies
• Had a history of using potent drugs (ice included) which was also well documented beforehand
• Bashed and badly burnt a 76 year old man and stole his car (2 nights before)
• On top of all that he was extremely well known to police - they and the authorities had to know what he was capable of.

But the problem is that police powers are limited when it comes to these sorts of incidents ... plus, the bail laws are far too soft.  Crime & punishment is completely out of whack and there lies another problem - it's hard to do what he did from a jail cell.

The astonishing thing is that it's taken a week for someone (the Prime Minister) to make reference to the lack of bollards on the pedestrian walkways ... Turnbull is rightly concerned that a similar incident could easily happen again (his comments included using the word terrorism)

I'm by no means saying that the police should have shot him but there had to be a way to disable that vehicle.  I can also acknowledge those having a differing view to mine with regards to affirmative action.

 

 

 

.

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

But the police & authorities would have obviously known what he'd done prior to the donuts.  It's not as if he was a cleanskin. 

• Attempted to kill his brother with a knife earlier in the day and 5 years earlier, had bashed the same brother senseless and put him into hospital
• Has been in and out of jail for car theft and drug offences
• Had a string of dangerous driving offences (at least 20) ... google for more info on those offences
• Had caused a major disturbance at a nightclub the night before (which included threats and a large amount of damage)
• Had posted numerous threats on facebook for all the world to see ... with a number of references to ISIS ideologies
• Had a history of using potent drugs (ice included) which was also well documented beforehand
• Bashed and badly burnt a 76 year old man and stole his car (2 nights before)
• On top of all that he was extremely well known to police - they and the authorities had to know what he was capable of.

But the problem is that the police's powers are limited ... plus, the bail laws are far too soft.  Crime & punishment is completely out of whack and there lies another problem.

The astonishing thing is that it's taken a week for someone (the Prime Minister) to make reference to the lack of bollards on the pedestrian walkways ... Turnbull is rightly concerned that a similar incident could easily happen again (his comments included using the word terrorism)

I'm by no means saying that the police should have shot him but there had to be a way to disable that vehicle. 

Agree, he should not have been let out on bail, the fact he was is a joke. The police had actually done their job and arrested him only for him to be released, they must feel like pulling their hair out sometimes. 

In terms of disabling the car I think Chappel Street was the only real option. the problem is the city is too crowded so you run a big risk with guns of shooting an innocent bystander and tyre spikes or shooting tyres or engines doesn't stop a car instantly, it just makes them harder to control. The only option would be to box him in but at Flinders street they would have needed at least 8 cars all in place and working together with only a couple of minutes planning, and if it goes wrong he may well end up in the crowd. 

Bollards certainly make sense but it is nice to think that for however long the mall has been a mall we haven't actually needed them!

Just now, Chris said:

Agree, he should not have been let out on bail, the fact he was is a joke. The police had actually done their job and arrested him only for him to be released, they must feel like pulling their hair out sometimes. 

In terms of disabling the car I think Chappel Street was the only real option. the problem is the city is too crowded so you run a big risk with guns of shooting an innocent bystander and tyre spikes or shooting tyres or engines doesn't stop a car instantly, it just makes them harder to control. The only option would be to box him in but at Flinders street they would have needed at least 8 cars all in place and working together with only a couple of minutes planning, and if it goes wrong he may well end up in the crowd. 

Bollards certainly make sense but it is nice to think that for however long the mall has been a mall we haven't actually needed them!

Preventative measures has always been the best solution (even though it's not a cure-all)

In my opinion he should have either still been serving time for his string of earlier offences (over time) or in a remand centre for the more current offences. 

How he and numerous others are allowed to be freed up to commit more crime is hard to fathom. 

Our gun laws were tightened up appreciably after the Queen St, Hoddle St & Port Arthur Massacres and now it's time to come down hard on all other violent crimes.

As for the bollards, we now live in a time of terrorist type acts so we have no choice but to be ultra-careful.

8 minutes ago, Macca said:

Preventative measures has always been the best solution (even though it's not a cure-all)

Best preventive measures would have been to get him into a mental facility where the underlying cause of all his (and our) problems could have been addressed.

No-one in full command of their senses and aware of the consequence of their actions drives a car into a crowd of people, knowing that there will be deaths.