5 hours ago, bing181 said:

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.

I agree bing but myself and numerous other people that I come across have been saying what you just said for decades. 

But we more often than not don't see any real change ... cosmetic at best or nothing changes.  It takes a major incident like this to hasten major change but it's my bet that that major change will be watered down.  I hope I'm wrong.  

My personal view is a zero tolerance one and the numbers are growing (world-wide) on that stance.  

Nutbean made some very pertinent points re the drug 'ice' ... there's a chance that this low-life killer may not even remember what he has done.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited January 27, 20178 yr by Macca

Let's not forget he wasn't just on ice, he was also an ISIS sympathiser. No amount of time in a mental health facility is going to fix the mind of an extremist.

This would have been planned before taking the drug, the drug only makes it easier to execute.

Edited January 27, 20178 yr by Ethan Tremblay

No Chris might have a point.

jimmy just needed somebody to understand him.

We failed by not letting him express his true feelings and by not being there to support him.All that violence stemmed from the ignorance of those people trying to live without acknowledging his need to bash,destroy and rob.

We should arm the police with soothing music and incense and instruct them on how to empathise.

I see now he has done nothing wrong but it is us who have commited the real crime, the horrible crime of not loving enough.

Lets take all those police guns and turn them into peace pipes!

The police ,in hindsight, could have formed a circle of love to surround and soothe this poor boy.

Lets open the jails and let the poor men free !!

 

One of many things I find confusing about this incident - I seem to recall police got the girlfriend from the car hours earlier - didn't she say then that he'd been ranting about mowing down pedestrians in the city? Didn't she tell the cops? Weird that they let him drive through the city, following him, rather than getting in front and blocking him in.

 

I'm wary of bringing in the ISIS stuff - "ISIS" just seems like a label any desperate nutcase latches onto as a last-minute excuse for his own madness. My problem is that it's our own culture that has produced the madness. "Jimmy" is one of ours. Bringing in the jihadi thing just seems to risk swinging attention away from the real question, which is - what is it in our culture that produces these maniacs? The slashing of mental health services? Drugs? Inequality?  The bedrock of cruelty upon which our society is built? I dunno. Suspect they've all got a role to play. The worst thing about jumping onto the "Blame Isis" bandwagon is that it can encourage Islamaphobia. I've got so many Muslim friends and workmates who were as distressed by this incident as I was.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Biffen said:

No Chris might have a point.

jimmy just needed somebody to understand him.

We failed by not letting him express his true feelings and by not being there to support him.All that violence stemmed from the ignorance of those people trying to live without acknowledging his need to bash,destroy and rob.

We should arm the police with soothing music and incense and instruct them on how to empathise.

I see now he has done nothing wrong but it is us who have commited the real crime, the horrible crime of not loving enough.

Lets take all those police guns and turn them into peace pipes!

The police ,in hindsight, could have formed a circle of love to surround and soothe this poor boy.

Lets open the jails and let the poor men free !!

 

Biffen say what you like but you really make yourself look very silly in this last comment. I have not said anything along the lines of what you are saying and haven't even gotten close to saying that. 

You clearly can't answer my questions as you haven't tried and have now attacked the man. Well done on losing the argument. 

Edited January 27, 20178 yr by Chris

4 hours ago, Chris said:

Biffen say what you like but you really make yourself look very silly in this last comment. I have not said anything along the lines of what you are saying and haven't even gotten close to saying that. 

You clearly can't answer my questions as you haven't tried and have now attacked the man. Well done on losing the argument. 

Sorry Chris but you lost it pages ago.

Its a clear case of failure by Victoria Police and they and him are indefensible.

You have no idea what an extrajudicial execution is and judging by your rhetoric you haven't been outside of your house since the 60s.

Nothing you've said carries weight so I've parodied your mindset in an attempt to show you what the essence of your argument is.

Ok, playing devil's advocate here...

What would everyone be saying on this thread if the police had used their guns to stop this guy but in doing so (before finally killing or disabling the driver) a stray bullet hit and killed a person?  The outrage over the fact that the police had used live ammunition in a heavily populated area would be just as bad as what we have now, but instead of the police being attacked over their lack of action, they would be attacked over their actions.  Or let's say that they try to ram the driver, or to block his path, but in doing so, the driver leaves the road and plows into pedestrians with the same, or worse, result as played out in the actual event... again, the police would be attacked over their actions.

In saying all of that, I have no idea what could have been done to prevent what happened once it had gotten to the stage of a police pursuit... all I know is that for the police it is a damned if you do/damned if you don't scenario. The fact that the guy was released on bail (?) has created an impossible situation...with his history, that should NEVER have happened.

2 hours ago, Biffen said:

Sorry Chris but you lost it pages ago.

Its a clear case of failure by Victoria Police and they and him are indefensible.

You have no idea what an extrajudicial execution is and judging by your rhetoric you haven't been outside of your house since the 60s.

Nothing you've said carries weight so I've parodied your mindset in an attempt to show you what the essence of your argument is.

Problem is you didn't parody my mindset in any way shape or form Biffen. In fact you have parodied a mind set opposite of what I have actually said. Just because I don't want police shooting people at will, as you do, not to mention bashing people senseless, you seem to think I am some sort of all forgiving softy. Nuance is obviously not your strong point. 

2 hours ago, hardtack said:

Ok, playing devil's advocate here...

What would everyone be saying on this thread if the police had used their guns to stop this guy but in doing so (before finally killing or disabling the driver) a stray bullet hit and killed a person?  The outrage over the fact that the police had used live ammunition in a heavily populated area would be just as bad as what we have now, but instead of the police being attacked over their lack of action, they would be attacked over their actions.  Or let's say that they try to ram the driver, or to block his path, but in doing so, the driver leaves the road and plows into pedestrians with the same, or worse, result as played out in the actual event... again, the police would be attacked over their actions.

In saying all of that, I have no idea what could have been done to prevent what happened once it had gotten to the stage of a police pursuit... all I know is that for the police it is a damned if you do/damned if you don't scenario. The fact that the guy was released on bail (?) has created an impossible situation...with his history, that should NEVER have happened.

I agree HT that it could be a damned if you do/damned if you don't scenario. This shouldn't have stopped the police from acting though.

With people's lives at risk the Police who were present had to act. They are equipped with the tools to difuse a situation like this, at that time you conduct a quick risk assessment and go from there.  From what I saw, their actions, or lack of, were simply not good enough.

Edited January 28, 20178 yr by Ethan Tremblay

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

Ok, playing devil's advocate here...

What would everyone be saying on this thread if the police had used their guns to stop this guy but in doing so (before finally killing or disabling the driver) a stray bullet hit and killed a person?  The outrage over the fact that the police had used live ammunition in a heavily populated area would be just as bad as what we have now, but instead of the police being attacked over their lack of action, they would be attacked over their actions.  Or let's say that they try to ram the driver, or to block his path, but in doing so, the driver leaves the road and plows into pedestrians with the same, or worse, result as played out in the actual event... again, the police would be attacked over their actions.

In saying all of that, I have no idea what could have been done to prevent what happened once it had gotten to the stage of a police pursuit... all I know is that for the police it is a damned if you do/damned if you don't scenario. The fact that the guy was released on bail (?) has created an impossible situation...with his history, that should NEVER have happened.

Nice to see someone else actually gets it. Don't expect Biffen to understand though, he would just open fire and hope for the best.

5 hours ago, hardtack said:

Ok, playing devil's advocate here...

What would everyone be saying on this thread if the police had used their guns to stop this guy but in doing so (before finally killing or disabling the driver) a stray bullet hit and killed a person?  The outrage over the fact that the police had used live ammunition in a heavily populated area would be just as bad as what we have now, but instead of the police being attacked over their lack of action, they would be attacked over their actions.  Or let's say that they try to ram the driver, or to block his path, but in doing so, the driver leaves the road and plows into pedestrians with the same, or worse, result as played out in the actual event... again, the police would be attacked over their actions.

In saying all of that, I have no idea what could have been done to prevent what happened once it had gotten to the stage of a police pursuit... all I know is that for the police it is a damned if you do/damned if you don't scenario. The fact that the guy was released on bail (?) has created an impossible situation...with his history, that should NEVER have happened.

So you are satisfied that loads of Police were just standing around 

tell me please What were the Police actually waiting for?...

even the top cops must have known this was going to end badly. His brain was totally fried. 

Edited January 28, 20178 yr by Sir Why You Little

22 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

So you are satisfied that loads of Police were just standing around 

tell me please What were the Police actually waiting for?...

even the top cops must have known this was going to end badly. His brain was totally fried. 

I agree with this but what in reality could the police do once he was in the city? He should have been stopped before he got that far as the options once in the city are extremely limited.

I was just walking past Flinders street station half an hour ago. There were at least 5 police cars around the area, including 3 in front of the police station in Flinders Lane. Still puzzles me that they couldn't have at least wedged the guy in, especially since his girlfriend had said hours earlier he was going to attack pedestrians. Not that I'm criticising the cops - my god, what a job, given the number of fruit loops running round. I just reckon we have to wait until after there's a proper inquiry. Don't forget that there were 14 people killed in police chases in less than 5 years - that was why they changed the policy. 

 

One of of the many things I hate about this whole business is how many crazies we let loose behind the wheels of cars. How often do you hear about some idiot caught doing 150 in an 80 zone - and the horrific punishment meted out is that the car is impounded for a month! They should be in jail and their cars crushed after a single offence like that. I'm in the CFA, and god knows how many accidents I've been to over the years in which we have to pick up the pieces. 

13 minutes ago, Chris said:

I agree with this but what in reality could the police do once he was in the city? He should have been stopped before he got that far as the options once in the city are extremely limited.

I have already said what should have happened at Flinders Street and also what didn'nt happen there. 

Yes it was a disgrace that the police "followed" this nutter into the city. Unspeakable really...Road blocks...

Still Angry

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

So you are satisfied that loads of Police were just standing around 

tell me please What were the Police actually waiting for?...

even the top cops must have known this was going to end badly. His brain was totally fried. 

As I said, I was playing devils advocate.  If the police had acted they might have stopped the guy, but they could also have caused an equally dangerous situation.  We will never know, but I was suggesting that if they had acted and deaths had resulted, then what would have happened?  They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

14 hours ago, hardtack said:

As I said, I was playing devils advocate.  If the police had acted they might have stopped the guy, but they could also have caused an equally dangerous situation.  We will never know, but I was suggesting that if they had acted and deaths had resulted, then what would have happened?  They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

What were the Police waiting for?

they followed him for 2 hours BEFORE he reached the City

what in Hell where they waiting for?

please do not tell me that a Roadblock could not be set up and executed simply

I repeat at Flinders Street any of 3 police vehiles could have rammed that car targetting a front wheel making the steering inoperative without having to use high speed. 

But no They all stood and waited until the Car was able to enter Swanston St with no restriction. A pedestrian thoroughfare

useless

Do Police in Victoria not have stingers? 

14 hours ago, hardtack said:

As I said, I was playing devils advocate.  If the police had acted they might have stopped the guy, but they could also have caused an equally dangerous situation.  We will never know, but I was suggesting that if they had acted and deaths had resulted, then what would have happened?  They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I agree they can be stuck between a rock and a hard place. The answer though isn't to do nothing. Conduct a risk assessment and to act is the only answer, the Police can't do as they did in this situation and standby and do nothing. 

Edited January 29, 20178 yr by Ethan Tremblay

On 28 January 2017 at 5:47 PM, Chris said:

I agree with this but what in reality could the police do once he was in the city? He should have been stopped before he got that far as the options once in the city are extremely limited.

You want it both ways now?

How would you stop him ?

with a big kiss?

You are as indecisive as they are.

You stop him with whatever force is necessary .

i think john kennedy snr had the answer

9 hours ago, Biffen said:

You want it both ways now?

How would you stop him ?

with a big kiss?

You are as indecisive as they are.

You stop him with whatever force is necessary .

I don't want it both ways now Biffen, I have said this from the bloody start! It really is very simple, to stop him out of the city is far easier due to the risks involved, i.e you can do it with little risk to the public. Once you are in the city it is very very hard to stop him without significant risk to the public. See, simple!

As for how would I stop him before he got to the city, I wouldn't just shoot him on site as you seem to want (especially as there was no legal justification at that point) but the use of vehicles, spikes, roadblocks etc is all an option with out too much risk. None of these are really an option in a crowded CBD due to the risk involved, that is up until he mounts the footpath as unless you can read minds you don't know he is going to do that until he did. 

Any chance of answering my questions?

2 hours ago, Chris said:

I don't want it both ways now Biffen, I have said this from the bloody start! It really is very simple, to stop him out of the city is far easier due to the risks involved, i.e you can do it with little risk to the public. Once you are in the city it is very very hard to stop him without significant risk to the public. See, simple!

As for how would I stop him before he got to the city, I wouldn't just shoot him on site as you seem to want (especially as there was no legal justification at that point) but the use of vehicles, spikes, roadblocks etc is all an option with out too much risk. None of these are really an option in a crowded CBD due to the risk involved, that is up until he mounts the footpath as unless you can read minds you don't know he is going to do that until he did. 

Any chance of answering my questions?

Already answered them Chris.

Succinctly or so I thought.

In case you haven't been to Chapel St. Windsor, it's more crowded than the CBD but given the crimes he had done, he should have been stopped there.

It's hipster central so the odd stray bullet wouldn't have bothered me one iota.

You keep harping on about legal justification when in my view there was plenty.

When guns were eventually drawn it did the trick- yes in the most populous spot in the City but by then the hand wringing and welfare issues were rather superfluous.

 

3 hours ago, Biffen said:

Already answered them Chris.

Succinctly or so I thought.

In case you haven't been to Chapel St. Windsor, it's more crowded than the CBD but given the crimes he had done, he should have been stopped there.

It's hipster central so the odd stray bullet wouldn't have bothered me one iota.

You keep harping on about legal justification when in my view there was plenty.

When guns were eventually drawn it did the trick- yes in the most populous spot in the City but by then the hand wringing and welfare issues were rather superfluous.

 

Biffen,

Here are the questions I asked.

"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?"

You have in no way answered the first question, you just said there wouldn't be. The second is based on your assertion that they should have "blown him away", what is the justification for doing so? You have not answered this which means you haven't even come close to answering the third.

The last 10 times I have been down chapel street during the day on a week day it has actually been fairly quiet, yes there are people around but nothing like the number in Flinders Street or that can be seen on the video of this nutter. The other great advantage there is that escape routes are very limited if you time any action against him well, that is not the case at Flinders street. 

2 hours ago, Chris said:

Biffen,

Here are the questions I asked.

"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?"

You have in no way answered the first question, you just said there wouldn't be. The second is based on your assertion that they should have "blown him away", what is the justification for doing so? You have not answered this which means you haven't even come close to answering the third.

The last 10 times I have been down chapel street during the day on a week day it has actually been fairly quiet, yes there are people around but nothing like the number in Flinders Street or that can be seen on the video of this nutter. The other great advantage there is that escape routes are very limited if you time any action against him well, that is not the case at Flinders street. 

I don't ponder hypotheticals in my life.

I take action when required.

 

51 minutes ago, Biffen said:

I don't ponder hypotheticals in my life.

I take action when required.

 

Yet doing risk assessments on the spot of hypothetical is exactly what the police have to do everyday.