Lindt Cafe Siege

[Pelican]

There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
somewhat over the top.

It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
collateral damage.

[Ned Latham]

The video pf the "resolution" tells the story: a bunch of flak-jacketed
coppers crowding into a singke-width dorrway, blazing away with their
semi-automatics far too fast for all the shots to be aimed shots.
Most, of not all, of the shots fired in the first few seconds have to
ave been suppressive fire. And fuck the hostages.

And fuck the coroner's verdict too. Katrina Dawson was killed by
police carelessness and incompetence, not a tragis accident.

And those stories about a "ricochet"and a bullet "fragment"
sound to me like bullshit.

[Petzl]

The NSW police are not allowed to shoot to kill.
Pointless in even have them turn up for terrorist activities like
Moslems when they are about to kill Australians.

Abbott refused to have "our" terror squad take over which would have
taken out Monis in minutes a hint of Monis brain colour over the cafe
walls.

Still no answer who provided Monis with gun and ammunition.
--
Petzl
Don't be "sheep to the slaughter"
ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens", Derryn Hinch
*LAST*, Federal State and Council!
Or you are voting for Islam and Sharia.


For Turnbull, ‘multi-faith’ only means Islam
https://is.gd/bunwYB

[Petzl]

On Mon, 29 May 2017 06:42:29 -0500, Ned Latham
<nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:

>Pelican wrote:
>>
>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>> somewhat over the top.
>>
>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>> collateral damage.
>
>The video pf the "resolution" tells the story: a bunch of flak-jacketed
>coppers crowding into a singke-width dorrway, blazing away with their
>semi-automatics far too fast for all the shots to be aimed shots.
>Most, of not all, of the shots fired in the first few seconds have to
>ave been suppressive fire. And fuck the hostages.
>

Waiting for Monis to shoot first was too late.
The police were forced into that position by Tony Abbott's Liberal
Government.

>And fuck the coroner's verdict too. Katrina Dawson was killed by
>police carelessness and incompetence, not a tragis accident.
>
>And those stories about a "ricochet"and a bullet "fragment"
>sound to me like bullshit.

[Max]

In most normal police situations as soon as a siege gunman starts firing
his weapon that is usually the time police will storm the property.

If a man was holding his family hostage in a house and the police were
outside waiting, as soon the police heard gunfire they would be going
into the property to engage the gunman.

[Phil Allison]

Ned Latham wrote:

-----------------

>
> The video pf the "resolution" tells the story: a bunch of flak-jacketed
> coppers crowding into a singke-width dorrway, blazing away with their
> semi-automatics far too fast for all the shots to be aimed shots.
>

** You misconstrue what the vid shows.

The police first used super bright flashes to blind Monis ( who had been in low light beforehand ) while they are wore glasses the defeated the effect. So they could see him and the others while he could not see them.


( snip paranoid garbage)

> And those stories about a "ricochet"and a bullet "fragment"
> sound to me like bullshit.

** They are very likely exactly what happened.

The situation could have been handled better, but if only they know there was no bomb.



... Phil

[Ned Latham]

Petzl wrote:

> Pelican wrote:
> >
> > There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
> > Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
> > somewhat over the top.
> >
> > It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
> > the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
> > collateral damage.
>
> The NSW police are not allowed to shoot to kill.

Thast, like much else in governement and law, is a lie: the kind
lawyewrs call a "legal fiction".

Rake a look at their training and equipment. They train with
man-shaped targets, and the aiming points are the upper torso
and the head. The torso is the primary target because it's big.
The head is secondary, chosen because it's relatively still,
and selected when the torso is in cover.

They use high-energy weapons and soft-nosed ammunitiuon for
maximum impact. The soft-nosed amminiyion also reduces the
probability of a round going straight through the target
and hiitting someobe else aas well.

In the field, a hit is almost inevitably lethal. But they're
not shooting to kill; oh, no: they're shooting to disable.

----snip----

[Ned Latham]

You and Petzl hace both missed the point. The police crowded into that
doorway getting in each other's way. That's incomptetence. They fired
off about a dozen rounds between them in the few seconds; that's not
aimed fire, that's suppression fire, wholly inappropriate when
hostages are in the line of fire. If a civilian behaved that way,
he'd be looking at charges involving "callous indifference to life".

I can't get Katrina's agony out of my head: through no fault of
her own she was put through hours of terror, and then shot by
some hanfisted copper.

Her family aren't satisfied with the Coroner's verdict? Neither
am I. This foul business of covering up police incompetence,
corruption and criminality should be ended.

[Ned Latham]

Phil Allison wrote:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > The video pf the "resolution" tells the story: a bunch of flak-jacketed
> > coppers crowding into a singke-width dorrway, blazing away with their
> > semi-automatics far too fast for all the shots to be aimed shots.
>

> misconstrue what the vid shows.

I'm not as naive as yolu suppose.

> The police first used super bright flashes to blind Monis

I saw that. I also saw them shooting.

----condescending whitewash sno[[ed----

> > And those stories about a "ricochet"and a bullet "fragment"
> > sound to me like bullshit.
>

> They are very likely exactly what happened.

Crap. Soft-nosed annunition doesn't break, it splodges.

> The situation could have been handled better,

Ya think?

> but if only they know there was no bomb.

They did. The hostages who escaped were people, not molluscs.

[Phil Allison]

Ned Latham wrote:

-----------------

> > > The video pf the "resolution" tells the story: a bunch of flak-jacketed
> > > coppers crowding into a singke-width dorrway, blazing away with their
> > > semi-automatics far too fast for all the shots to be aimed shots.
> >
> > misconstrue what the vid shows.
>

> I'm not as naive as you suppose.
>

** More like 10 times more......

> > The police first used super bright flashes to blind Monis
>
> I saw that.

** But somehow managed to ignore the blindingly obvious ....



> ----condescending whitewash sno[[ed----
>


** I only snipped your rampant, paranoid garbage.

You snipped the important facts.

> > > And those stories about a "ricochet"and a bullet "fragment"
> > > sound to me like bullshit.
> >
> > They are very likely exactly what happened.
>
> Crap. Soft-nosed annunition doesn't break, it splodges.
>

** Shame about ricochets then.....

> > but if only they know there was no bomb.
>
> They did. The hostages who escaped were people, not molluscs.
>

** No response from me needed.

Rabid fucking morons like Ned are simply oxygen thieves.

You're comprehensively fucked right now - Ned.

Grow up anytime you like.




..... Phil

[Rod Speed]

"Pelican" <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote in message
news:oggvvp$a68$1...@dont-email.me...

Bet they aint that stupid.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cs1oicprpklkm5dp8...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 29 May 2017 21:20:43 +1000, Pelican
> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>
>>There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>>Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>>somewhat over the top.
>>
>>It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>>the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>>collateral damage.

> The NSW police are not allowed to shoot to kill.

That's a lie. They are allowed to and do just that.

That's why Monis ended up dead.

> Pointless in even have them turn up for terrorist activities
> like Moslems when they are about to kill Australians.

> Abbott refused to have "our" terror squad take over

He was never asked. And there is no terror squad.

> which would have taken out Monis in minutes

Not even possible. He wasn't even visible.

> a hint of Monis brain colour over the cafe walls.

No brain present, just dog shit.

> Still no answer who provided
> Monis with gun and ammunition.

Irrelevant.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:dn2oic90tged7nbt1...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 29 May 2017 06:42:29 -0500, Ned Latham
> <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
>
>>Pelican wrote:
>>>
>>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>>> somewhat over the top.
>>>
>>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>>> collateral damage.
>>
>>The video pf the "resolution" tells the story: a bunch of flak-jacketed
>>coppers crowding into a singke-width dorrway, blazing away with their
>>semi-automatics far too fast for all the shots to be aimed shots.
>>Most, of not all, of the shots fired in the first few seconds have to
>>ave been suppressive fire. And fuck the hostages.

> Waiting for Monis to shoot first was too late.

Easy to be wise after the event. It wasn't even known that he
had anything to shoot with, let alone would shoot anyone.

> The police were forced into that position
> by Tony Abbott's Liberal Government.

Even sillier than you usually manage. The
cops never even asked Abbott about anything.

[Rod Speed]

"Max" <m...@val.morgan> wrote in message news:ogh2ae$ul$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

> On 29/05/2017 9:42 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
>> Pelican wrote:
>>>
>>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>>> somewhat over the top.
>>>
>>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>>> collateral damage.
>>
>> The video pf the "resolution" tells the story: a bunch of flak-jacketed
>> coppers crowding into a singke-width dorrway, blazing away with their
>> semi-automatics far too fast for all the shots to be aimed shots.
>> Most, of not all, of the shots fired in the first few seconds have to
>> ave been suppressive fire. And fuck the hostages.
>>
>> And fuck the coroner's verdict too. Katrina Dawson was killed by
>> police carelessness and incompetence, not a tragis accident.
>>
>> And those stories about a "ricochet"and a bullet "fragment"
>> sound to me like bullshit.
>>
>
> In most normal police situations as soon as a siege gunman starts firing
> his weapon that is usually the time police will storm the property.

Even more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

> If a man was holding his family hostage in a house and the police were
> outside waiting, as soon the police heard gunfire they would be going
> into the property to engage the gunman.

Even more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

[Ned Latham]

Wod Walloper wote:
> Petzl wroye:

----snip----

> > Abbott refused to have "our" terror squad take over
>
> He was never asked. And there is no terror squad.
>
> > which would have taken out Monis in minutes
>
> Not even possible. He wasn't even visible.

False.

[Ned Latham]

Wod Walloper wote:
> Petzl wrote:

----snip----

> > Waiting for Monis to shoot first was too late.
>
> Easy to be wise after the event.

True, but waiting for the perpetrator to shoot is a virtual giarantee
that at least one hostage will ve killed.

> It wasn't even known that he
> had anything to shoot with, let alone would shoot anyone.

Bullshit, It could be seen through the window. And the escaped
hostages had that info anyway.

----snip----

[Ned Latham]

Phil Allison wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:

> > Phil Allison wrote:
>
> -----------------
>
> > > > The video pf the "resolution" tells the story: a bunch of flak-jacketed
> > > > coppers crowding into a singke-width dorrway, blazing away with their
> > > > semi-automatics far too fast for all the shots to be aimed shots.
> > >

> > > You are misconstrue what the vid shows.

> >
> > I'm not as naive as you suppose.
>

> More like 10 times more......

In your dreams, wanker.

> > > The police first used super bright flashes to blind Monis
> >
> > I saw that.
>

> somehow managed to ignore the blindingly obvious ....

Which bit? The frenzied spraying of bullets in all directions?

> > ----condescending whitewash sno[[ed----

>
> I only snipped your rampant, paranoid garbage.

You, a petulant police apologist, "call* it that. Rational people call
it observation, and analysis.

> You snipped the important facts.

What? Flash-boom and goggles? Get your idiot hand off it. What about
the 22 bullets that were fired inside the cafe? What about the fact
that only nine of them hit Monis? And that only three of those were
likely to be lethal?

> > > > And those stories about a "ricochet"and a bullet "fragment"
> > > > sound to me like bullshit.
> > >
> > > They are very likely exactly what happened.
> >
> > Crap. Soft-nosed annunition doesn't break, it splodges.
>

> Shame about ricochets then.....

Thirteen bullets missed monis entirely. One of them killed Hatrina.

Thirteen nisses out of twenty two shots? At a range of what? five
metres or less? Those men are supposed to be trained SWATers; the
adrenalin should sharpen them, not turn them into trigger-happy
idiots.

This is Oz, not seppoland.

> > > but if only they know there was no bomb.
> >
> > They did. The hostages who escaped were people, not molluscs.
>

> No response from me needed.

Yoi misspely "possible" moron.

Some *hours* before the end, one hostage escaped. She knew
what Monis had. Minutes before the six more escaped, with
Monis firing twice at them, Then another escaoed. They all
knew what Monis had, And even if they hadn't, the shotgun
blasts should have told the police that he was armed and
willing to shoot..

The snipers had eyes on him at times; they should have been
given the goahead to shoot him.

Your "[only if] they knew there was no bomb" is a very stupid
arrempt at whitewash.

> Rabid fucking morons like Ned

No they don't. As you have just demonstrated very clearly.

[Rod Speed]

Ned Latham <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote
> Rod Speed wote:

Not in minutes.

[Rod Speed]

Ned Latham <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> Petzl wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
>> > Waiting for Monis to shoot first was too late.
>>
>> Easy to be wise after the event.
>
> True, but waiting for the perpetrator to shoot is a virtual
> giarantee that at least one hostage will ve killed.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

There have been plenty of examples where no hostage
has been killed and the perp never killed anyone.

And when you don’t even know if he has a
fucking bomb that will kill them all if you
shoot him thru a heavy plate glass window...

>> It wasn't even known that he had anything
>> to shoot with, let alone would shoot anyone.

> Bullshit,

Fact.

> It could be seen through the window.

No way to know if he even had any ammo.

> And the escaped hostages had that info anyway.

Like hell they did on the ammo.

And no one knew if he had the bomb he claimed to have anyway.

[Petzl]

They took Mon Monis photo through the sites of a gun aimed at his
mouth that was capable of killing him minutes into this, the snipers
kept asking for permission to shoot, denied by police commissioners.
Turns out NSW police did not have the legal authority to shoot

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/lindt-siege-inquest-police-boss-mick-fuller-pushes-for-shoot-to-kill-clarity/news-story/04453725893bd3a581169b1e68c54d03?nk=a56e26a5bdbd4af725971a531180e829-1496103070
https://is.gd/pv1Z3G

>----snip----

Yes Paul Zanetti cartoon is about what this governments agenda is!
http://www.zanettisview.com/cartoons/getting-served/4438
Trouble is it is no joke
remember this farce
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/halal-caterers-use-strict-crockery-rules-at-prime-ministers-ramadan-feast/news-story/4193bac7e289e4cacc24812f7b108534?nk=a56e26a5bdbd4af725971a531180e829-1496102675
https://is.gd/t9oBoz

[Petzl]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:58:51 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ned Latham <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Petzl wrote:
>>
>> ----snip----
>>
>>> > Waiting for Monis to shoot first was too late.
>>>
>>> Easy to be wise after the event.
>>
>> True, but waiting for the perpetrator to shoot is a virtual
>> giarantee that at least one hostage will ve killed.
>
>Even sillier than you usually manage.
>
>There have been plenty of examples where no hostage
>has been killed and the perp never killed anyone.
>
>And when you don’t even know if he has a
>fucking bomb that will kill them all if you
>shoot him thru a heavy plate glass window...
>
Even sillier than you usually manage.

Sniper take a double shot through two different guns (if needed, but
was not needed) micro seconds apart.
first can remove a brick wall or bullet proof window

>>> It wasn't even known that he had anything
>>> to shoot with, let alone would shoot anyone.
>
>> Bullshit,
>
>Fact.

Even sillier than you usually manage.
>

>> It could be seen through the window.
>
>No way to know if he even had any ammo.
>
>> And the escaped hostages had that info anyway.
>
>Like hell they did on the ammo.
>
>And no one knew if he had the bomb he claimed to have anyway.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

The shot would of had Monis hands fly open
More casualties were probable if Monis had a bomb and he let it off
during the raid police were forced into (killing police as well)

Monis kept his head away from window after he saw it on TV.

[Petzl]

On Mon, 29 May 2017 08:35:51 -0500, Ned Latham
<nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:

>> > And fuck the coroner's verdict too. Katrina Dawson was killed by
>> > police carelessness and incompetence, not a tragis accident.
>> >
>> > And those stories about a "ricochet"and a bullet "fragment"
>> > sound to me like bullshit.
>>
>> In most normal police situations as soon as a siege gunman starts firing
>> his weapon that is usually the time police will storm the property.
>>
>> If a man was holding his family hostage in a house and the police were
>> outside waiting, as soon the police heard gunfire they would be going
>> into the property to engage the gunman.
>
>You and Petzl hace both missed the point. The police crowded into that
>doorway getting in each other's way. That's incomptetence. They fired
>off about a dozen rounds between them in the few seconds; that's not
>aimed fire, that's suppression fire, wholly inappropriate when
>hostages are in the line of fire. If a civilian behaved that way,
>he'd be looking at charges involving "callous indifference to life".
>
>I can't get Katrina's agony out of my head: through no fault of
>her own she was put through hours of terror, and then shot by
>some hanfisted copper.
>
>Her family aren't satisfied with the Coroner's verdict? Neither
>am I. This foul business of covering up police incompetence,
>corruption and criminality should be ended.

The Police "raid" was a stuff up but only on after events wisdom.

If Monis was taken out when snipers asked to, the siege would of been
over

[Petzl]

The polce had no trouble shooting a woman attacking armed with a
plastic knife? No Police Commisioners involved creating problems
instead of solutions
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-shot-dead-at-hungry-jacks-in-hoxton-park-sydney-20150210-13akep.html
https://is.gd/osD6HQ
--
Petzl
"To Be A Politician You Need Three Things. Be a Good Liar, A Great Cheat
and a Brilliant Thief." Malcolm Turnbull

Malcolm applied to be a Senator for the Lobor party
https://spectator.com.au/2017/01/turnbulls-labor-dream/

Its time for Malcolm to kick some arse....his own!!!

Australian MPs now among the highest paid in the world
http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-mps-now-among-the-highest-paid-in-the-world/story-fncynjr2-1226681596923
https://is.gd/nOyfr9

Turnbull draing the swamp!
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/cc61ccd180d35f931bae6ced5e4febaf?width=1024

ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens"

[Petzl]

No Police Commissioners drinking tea, going to bed to stuff things up!
--
Petzl
--
Petzl
what Australians think about the allegations of torture of suspected terrorists
'If hooking up one rag-head terrorist's testicles to a car battery gets the truth out of the lying little camel shagger to save just one Australian soldiers life,
then I have only three things to say;
Red is positive, Black is negative and make sure his nuts are wet!

[Petzl]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 05:50:09 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The NSW police are not allowed to shoot to kill.
>
>That's a lie. They are allowed to and do just that.
>
>That's why Monis ended up dead.
>

Not according to the Police Commissioners backed up by the Coroner
https://is.gd/Cm0p4z
"Lindt siege inquest: Police boss Mick Fuller pushes for ‘shoot to
kill’ clarity"

>> Pointless in even have them turn up for terrorist activities
>> like Moslems when they are about to kill Australians.
>
>> Abbott refused to have "our" terror squad take over
>
>He was never asked. And there is no terror squad.
>

Yes he was

>> which would have taken out Monis in minutes
>
>Not even possible. He wasn't even visible.
>

Snipers called to take shot
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lindt-cafe-siege-police-sniper-lacked-the-legal-right-to-shoot-man-haron-monis-20160706-gpzh4c.html

>> a hint of Monis brain colour over the cafe walls.
>
>No brain present, just dog shit.
>
>> Still no answer who provided
>> Monis with gun and ammunition.
>
>Irrelevant.

So no ones looking?
--
Malcolm Turnbull, Donald Trump, and Vladimir Putin all die and go to hell.
While there, they spy a red phone and ask what the phone is for.
The devil tells them it is for calling back to Earth.
Putin calls Russia and talks for 5 minutes.
When he was finished the devil informs him that the cost is a million dollars, so Putin writes him a cheque..
Next Donald Trump calls the U.S. and talks for 30 minutes.
When he's finished the devil informs him that the cost is 6 million dollars, so Trump writes him a cheque.
Finally Malcolm Turnbull gets his turn and calls Australia for 4 hours.
When he's finished, the devil informed him that there would be no charge and feel free to call Australia anytime.
Putin and Trump go ballistic and ask the devil why Malcolm Turnbull got to call Australia free.
The devil replied, “Since Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister of Australia, the Country has gone to hell, so it's a local call."

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2jdpicljas5furh0t...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 29 May 2017 15:45:19 -0500, Ned Latham
> <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
>
>>Wod Walloper wote:
>>> Petzl wrote:
>>
>>----snip----
>>
>>> > Waiting for Monis to shoot first was too late.
>>>
>>> Easy to be wise after the event.
>>
>>True, but waiting for the perpetrator to shoot is a virtual giarantee
>>that at least one hostage will ve killed.
>>
>>> It wasn't even known that he
>>> had anything to shoot with, let alone would shoot anyone.

>> Bullshit, It could be seen through the window.
>> And the escaped hostages had that info anyway.

> They took Mon Monis photo through the sites of a gun aimed
> at his mouth that was capable of killing him minutes into this,

That wasn't minutes into the siege.

> the snipers kept asking for permission to
> shoot, denied by police commissioners.

Because only a fool would attempt to shoot someone
with a fucking bomb thru a fucking plate glass window
and see everyone blown to fucking bits.

> Turns out NSW police did not have the legal authority to shoot

That is a pig ignorant lie. They have shot plenty in that situation.

> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/lindt-siege-inquest-police-boss-mick-fuller-pushes-for-shoot-to-kill-clarity/news-story/04453725893bd3a581169b1e68c54d03?nk=a56e26a5bdbd4af725971a531180e829-1496103070
> https://is.gd/pv1Z3G

Just because some fuckwit journo claims something...

> Yes Paul Zanetti cartoon is about what this governments agenda is!
> http://www.zanettisview.com/cartoons/getting-served/4438

Just because some fuckwit cartoonist claims something...

> Trouble is it is no joke
> remember this farce
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/halal-caterers-use-strict-crockery-rules-at-prime-ministers-ramadan-feast/news-story/4193bac7e289e4cacc24812f7b108534?nk=a56e26a5bdbd4af725971a531180e829-1496102675
> https://is.gd/t9oBoz

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8bepic9upfeiomsll...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:58:51 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ned Latham <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Petzl wrote:
>>>
>>> ----snip----
>>>
>>>> > Waiting for Monis to shoot first was too late.
>>>>
>>>> Easy to be wise after the event.
>>>
>>> True, but waiting for the perpetrator to shoot is a virtual
>>> giarantee that at least one hostage will ve killed.
>>
>>Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>
>>There have been plenty of examples where no hostage
>>has been killed and the perp never killed anyone.
>>
>>And when you don't even know if he has a
>>fucking bomb that will kill them all if you
>>shoot him thru a heavy plate glass window...

> Sniper take a double shot through two different guns
> (if needed, but was not needed) micro seconds apart.

Will still see the arsehole with the bomb fire it.

> first can remove a brick wall or bullet proof window

Fantasy. The cops don't have anything like that capability.

>>>> It wasn't even known that he had anything
>>>> to shoot with, let alone would shoot anyone.
>>
>>> Bullshit,
>>
>>Fact.
>>

>>> It could be seen through the window.
>>
>>No way to know if he even had any ammo.
>>
>>> And the escaped hostages had that info anyway.
>>
>>Like hell they did on the ammo.
>>
>>And no one knew if he had the bomb he claimed to have anyway.
>

> The shot would of had Monis hands fly open

Even more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

> More casualties were probable if Monis had a bomb and he let it
> off during the raid police were forced into (killing police as well)

Yes, but but then it was clear that he was shooting people.

> Monis kept his head away from window after he saw it on TV.

And only a terminal fuckwit would have allowed a
sniper to try to shoot him thru a heavy plate glass
window when he had claimed he had a fucking bomb.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:pqepic9s7rkiccda6...@4ax.com...

With everyone dead when the bomb he claimed to have went off.

It wasn't even known at that time that he was alone,
let alone whether he would have killed anyone.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:l1fpicl93f5v22l65...@4ax.com...

Yep, so your original claim that the cops arent allowed
to kill people is just plain pig ignorant shit.

> No Police Commisioners involved
> creating problems instead of solutions

There is no 'solution' possible in that Lindt situation
when he claims to have a bomb, you don't know
whether he is acting alone, has someone who can
fire the bomb remotely if you try to shoot him,
or even if he is actually going to kill anyone.

He did say that if the authoritys did what he wanted,
no one would get hurt. Only a terminal fuckwit would
have let a sniper shoot him in that situation when he
claimed to have multiple bombs around the city.

Thank christ we don't have clowns like you lot in charge.

> http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-shot-dead-at-hungry-jacks-in-hoxton-park-sydney-20150210-13akep.html
> https://is.gd/osD6HQ

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/05/2017 9:48 PM, Petzl wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2017 21:20:43 +1000, Pelican

> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>
>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>> somewhat over the top.
>>
>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>> collateral damage.
>

> The NSW police are not allowed to shoot to kill.

This is not true, but the police seem to have had a rather limited view
as to their powers, apparently believing that a hostage has to be in
imminent danger of death before lethal force can be used. This is
clearly not the law, and both the coroner and the new Police
Commissioner understand that.

Sylvia.

[Ördög]

Petzl declared

> drinking tea

...is heaps better than those countless goon bags you consume....

--
Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Booo" in the dark)
Don't argue with idiots (like Petz, Felix and Mad Ned).
They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/05/2017 9:20 PM, Pelican wrote:
> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
> somewhat over the top.
>
> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
> collateral damage.

Regardless of the course actually followed, I'm sure plenty of hindsight
will be used when analysing the police actions after the event.

However, I think one good outcome from the inquest will be that the
police will understand that they can shoot to kill a hostage taker, even
in the absence of an immediate threat to the lives of the hostages.

That would probably not have made any difference in the Lindt Cafe siege
because the coroner's findings indicate that the police never had a safe
opportunity to take Monis out, either because of issues with glass
between the snipers and the cafe, because of uncertainty about whether
it was Monis they were looking at, or because they couldn't be sure
there was no one behind him who could also be killed.

Sylvia.

[Ördög]

Petzl declared

> The NSW police are not allowed to shoot to kill.

Bullshit as usual.

But regardless the main duty of the police in OZ is not the conducting of
public executions of those people Petz hates passionately.

Lay off your goon-bag, will you Petz dear!

-

[Ördög]

Petzl declared

> So no ones looking?

At the crap you post?
Hardly anyone, that is for sure!

[Ördög]

Petzl declared


> The police were forced

Your bullshit is as usual.

[Ördög]

Petzl declared

> Yes ...

Your insanity has remained completely unchanged.

[Ördög]

Petzl declared

> Even sillier

Yep. Each successive post of yours is sillier than the preceding one.

> if Monis had a bomb...

Had none.
Idiotic conjecture!

NEXT brain-fart!

[Ördög]

Max declared

> In most normal police situations...

... this particular case obviously was not normal routine.


--
Rest assured I am not going anywhere

[Petzl]

Those guns were more than capable in one shot taking Monis out
(removing his head from neck up causing hydraulic loss hands open)
This is what the actual Lindt snipers said (Abbott denied NSW police
to shoot)
******************************
But this most tenuous option suddenly became much more promising about
7.30pm. An Islamic flag in the window had been shifted upward. Sierras
3-1 and 3-3 could both see what looked like Monis from behind.

"Our objective is to shoot the offender through the brainstem," Sierra
3-1 said in evidence on Thursday. "They literally just drop." No
chance to pull a trigger or push a button.
*******************************

[Ördög]

Petzl declared

> If Monis was taken out

or if he had not been born ...

NEXT!

--
Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Booo" in the dark)
Don't argue with idiots (like Petz, Felix and Mad Ned).

They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!

[Petzl]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 10:45:58 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> the snipers kept asking for permission to
>> shoot, denied by police commissioners.
>
>Because only a fool would attempt to shoot someone
>with a fucking bomb thru a fucking plate glass window
>and see everyone blown to fucking bits.

***************************
But this most tenuous option suddenly became much more promising about
7.30pm. An Islamic flag in the window had been shifted upward. Sierras
3-1 and 3-3 could both see what looked like Monis from behind.

"Our objective is to shoot the offender through the brainstem," Sierra
3-1 said in evidence on Thursday. "They literally just drop." No
chance to pull a trigger or push a button.

************************************

--
Petzl
"To Be A Politician You Need Three Things. Be a Good Liar, A Great Cheat
and a Brilliant Thief." Malcolm Turnbull

Malcolm applied to be a Senator for the Lobor party
https://spectator.com.au/2017/01/turnbulls-labor-dream/

Its time for Malcolm to kick some arse....his own!!!

Australian MPs now among the highest paid in the world
http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-mps-now-among-the-highest-paid-in-the-world/story-fncynjr2-1226681596923
https://is.gd/nOyfr9

Turnbull draing the swamp!
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/cc61ccd180d35f931bae6ced5e4febaf?width=1024

ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens"

[Petzl]

You are guessing wrongly Monis was known to be alone.

***************************
But this most tenuous option suddenly became much more promising about
7.30pm. An Islamic flag in the window had been shifted upward. Sierras
3-1 and 3-3 could both see what looked like Monis from behind.

"Our objective is to shoot the offender through the brainstem," Sierra
3-1 said in evidence on Thursday. "They literally just drop." No
chance to pull a trigger or push a button.
************************************
--

Malcolm Turnbull, Donald Trump, and Vladimir Putin all die and go to hell.
While there, they spy a red phone and ask what the phone is for.
The devil tells them it is for calling back to Earth.
Putin calls Russia and talks for 5 minutes.
When he was finished the devil informs him that the cost is a million dollars, so Putin writes him a cheque..
Next Donald Trump calls the U.S. and talks for 30 minutes.
When he's finished the devil informs him that the cost is 6 million dollars, so Trump writes him a cheque.
Finally Malcolm Turnbull gets his turn and calls Australia for 4 hours.
When he's finished, the devil informed him that there would be no charge and feel free to call Australia anytime.
Putin and Trump go ballistic and ask the devil why Malcolm Turnbull got to call Australia free.

The devil replied, 鉄ince Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister of Australia, the Country has gone to hell, so it's a local call."

[Petzl]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 11:07:26 +1000, "Rod Speed"

***************************
But this most tenuous option suddenly became much more promising about
7.30pm. An Islamic flag in the window had been shifted upward. Sierras
3-1 and 3-3 could both see what looked like Monis from behind.

"Our objective is to shoot the offender through the brainstem," Sierra
3-1 said in evidence on Thursday. "They literally just drop." No
chance to pull a trigger or push a button.
************************************
--

Petzl
Don't be "sheep to the slaughter"

ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens", Derryn Hinch

[Annona Muricata]

After a laxative enema Petzl relieved itself all over the keyboard:

> The polce had no trouble shooting a woman attacking armed with a plastic
> knife?

> http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-shot-dead-at-hungry-jacks-in-hoxton-
park-sydney-20150210-13akep.html
> https://is.gd/osD6HQ

In one of your recent posts you have insisted that the police is not

allowed to shoot to kill.

Are you still standing by that idiotic assertion?

[Petzl]

That is why Abbott was asked very early to put AFP in charge which was
turned down
Monis would of been dead by 7:30 pm if Abbott had ckeared it

***************************
But this most tenuous option suddenly became much more promising about
7.30pm. An Islamic flag in the window had been shifted upward. Sierras
3-1 and 3-3 could both see what looked like Monis from behind.

"Our objective is to shoot the offender through the brainstem," Sierra
3-1 said in evidence on Thursday. "They literally just drop." No
chance to pull a trigger or push a button.
************************************
--
Petzl

"To Be A Politician You Need Three Things. Be a Good Liar, A Great Cheat
and a Brilliant Thief." Malcolm Turnbull

Malcolm applied to be a Senator for the Lobor party
https://spectator.com.au/2017/01/turnbulls-labor-dream/

Its time for Malcolm to kick some arse....his own!!!

Australian MPs now among the highest paid in the world
http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-mps-now-among-the-highest-paid-in-the-world/story-fncynjr2-1226681596923
https://is.gd/nOyfr9

Turnbull draing the swamp!
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/cc61ccd180d35f931bae6ced5e4febaf?width=1024

ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens"

[Fran]

On 30/05/2017 11:54 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 29/05/2017 9:48 PM, Petzl wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 21:20:43 +1000, Pelican
>> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>>
>>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>>> somewhat over the top.
>>>
>>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>>> collateral damage.
>>
>> The NSW police are not allowed to shoot to kill.
>

> This is not true,but the police seem to have had a rather limited view

> as to their powers, apparently believing that a hostage has to be in
> imminent danger of death before lethal force can be used.

Surely it'd be a crime for the police to shoot someone unless of there
is imminent danger?

This is
> clearly not the law, and both the coroner and the new Police
> Commissioner understand that.

The law allows the shooting of someone without any sign of imminent danger?

[Pelican]

On 30/05/2017 12:05, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 29/05/2017 9:20 PM, Pelican wrote:
>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>> somewhat over the top.
>>
>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>> collateral damage.
>
> Regardless of the course actually followed, I'm sure plenty of hindsight
> will be used when analysing the police actions after the event.
>
> However, I think one good outcome from the inquest will be that the
> police will understand that they can shoot to kill a hostage taker, even
> in the absence of an immediate threat to the lives of the hostages.

I doubt if the police had any concern about that. The concern was about
other things ie but the possibility of an undesirable outcome.

> That would probably not have made any difference in the Lindt Cafe siege
> because the coroner's findings indicate that the police never had a safe
> opportunity to take Monis out, either because of issues with glass
> between the snipers and the cafe, because of uncertainty about whether
> it was Monis they were looking at, or because they couldn't be sure
> there was no one behind him who could also be killed.

Or the existence of a bomb, and so on.

[Petzl]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 12:05:01 +1000, Sylvia Else
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>That would probably not have made any difference in the Lindt Cafe siege
>because the coroner's findings indicate that the police never had a safe
>opportunity to take Monis out, either because of issues with glass
>between the snipers and the cafe, because of uncertainty about whether
>it was Monis they were looking at, or because they couldn't be sure
>there was no one behind him who could also be killed.

This is not true the Federal Government could of given authority to
shoot Mon-Monis and Abbott denied it.
The glass in the Lindt Cafe presented no problems of a clear shot to
Mon Monis's brainstem

***************************
But this most tenuous option suddenly became much more promising about
7.30pm. An Islamic flag in the window had been shifted upward. Sierras
3-1 and 3-3 could both see what looked like Monis from behind.

"Our objective is to shoot the offender through the brainstem," Sierra
3-1 said in evidence on Thursday. "They literally just drop." No
chance to pull a trigger or push a button.
************************************
--
Petzl

Don't be "sheep to the slaughter"

ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens", Derryn Hinch

[Sylvia Else]

On 30/05/2017 12:28 PM, Fran wrote:
> On 30/05/2017 11:54 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 29/05/2017 9:48 PM, Petzl wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 21:20:43 +1000, Pelican
>>> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>>>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>>>> somewhat over the top.
>>>>
>>>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>>>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>>>> collateral damage.
>>>
>>> The NSW police are not allowed to shoot to kill.
>>
>> This is not true,but the police seem to have had a rather limited view
>> as to their powers, apparently believing that a hostage has to be in
>> imminent danger of death before lethal force can be used.
>
> Surely it'd be a crime for the police to shoot someone unless of there
> is imminent danger?

The Crimes Act provides a defence:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s418.html

---------

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the
person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the
person believes the conduct is necessary:
...

(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or
her liberty or the liberty of another person, or
...

and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he
or she perceives them.
----------

Now, (2)(b) clearly applies, so the only question is whether shooting a
hostage taker is reasonable in the circumstances.

An armed hostage taker is clearly threatening to kill the hostages,
since that is the means by which the hostages are prevented from
leaving. At any point a hostage may attempt to leave, and may be killed.
It is not sensible to wait for that to happen if the alternative of
killing the hostage taker exists.

I do not believe any jury (in the unlikely event that it came to that)
would find that it was not reasonable to kill Monis at any time during
the siege.

>
> This is
>> clearly not the law, and both the coroner and the new Police
>> Commissioner understand that.
>
> The law allows the shooting of someone without any sign of imminent danger?
>

In the case of a hostage taking, yes.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 30/05/2017 12:34 PM, Pelican wrote:
> On 30/05/2017 12:05, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 29/05/2017 9:20 PM, Pelican wrote:
>>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>>> somewhat over the top.
>>>
>>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>>> collateral damage.
>>
>> Regardless of the course actually followed, I'm sure plenty of
>> hindsight will be used when analysing the police actions after the event.
>>
>> However, I think one good outcome from the inquest will be that the
>> police will understand that they can shoot to kill a hostage taker,
>> even in the absence of an immediate threat to the lives of the hostages.
>
> I doubt if the police had any concern about that. The concern was about
> other things ie but the possibility of an undesirable outcome.

In the coronial findings, conclusion number 44 is that the the police
commanders and snipers believed that they did not have lawful authority
to shoot Monis because he did not pose an imminent or immediate danger
to the hostages.

>
>> That would probably not have made any difference in the Lindt Cafe
>> siege because the coroner's findings indicate that the police never
>> had a safe opportunity to take Monis out, either because of issues
>> with glass between the snipers and the cafe, because of uncertainty
>> about whether it was Monis they were looking at, or because they
>> couldn't be sure there was no one behind him who could also be killed.
>
> Or the existence of a bomb, and so on.

Thought it appears that the hostages who escaped earlier said that they
did not believe that there was a bomb because of the way Monis handled
the backpack, and no trace of explosives have been found at Monis' home.

Sylvia.

[Pelican]

On 30/05/2017 12:57, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 30/05/2017 12:34 PM, Pelican wrote:
>> On 30/05/2017 12:05, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2017 9:20 PM, Pelican wrote:
>>>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>>>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>>>> somewhat over the top.
>>>>
>>>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>>>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>>>> collateral damage.
>>>
>>> Regardless of the course actually followed, I'm sure plenty of
>>> hindsight will be used when analysing the police actions after the
>>> event.
>>>
>>> However, I think one good outcome from the inquest will be that the
>>> police will understand that they can shoot to kill a hostage taker,
>>> even in the absence of an immediate threat to the lives of the hostages.
>>
>> I doubt if the police had any concern about that. The concern was about

>> other things ie the possibility of an undesirable outcome.

>
> In the coronial findings, conclusion number 44 is that the the police
> commanders and snipers believed that they did not have lawful authority
> to shoot Monis because he did not pose an imminent or immediate danger
> to the hostages.
>
>>
>>> That would probably not have made any difference in the Lindt Cafe
>>> siege because the coroner's findings indicate that the police never
>>> had a safe opportunity to take Monis out, either because of issues
>>> with glass between the snipers and the cafe, because of uncertainty
>>> about whether it was Monis they were looking at, or because they
>>> couldn't be sure there was no one behind him who could also be killed.
>>
>> Or the existence of a bomb, and so on.
>
> Thought it appears that the hostages who escaped earlier said that they
> did not believe that there was a bomb because of the way Monis handled
> the backpack, and no trace of explosives have been found at Monis' home.

Sure. It just indicates the uncertainty at the time.

[Petzl]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 02:19:09 -0000 (UTC), Annona Muricata
<Magno...@Annonaceae.Annona.biz.invalid> wrote:

>After a laxative enema Petzl relieved itself all over the keyboard:
>
>
>> The polce had no trouble shooting a woman attacking armed with a plastic
>> knife?

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-shot-dead-at-hungry-jacks-in-hoxton-park-sydney-20150210-13akep.html
https://is.gd/osD6HQ
>
>In one of your recent posts you have insisted that the police is not
>allowed to shoot to kill.
>
>Are you still standing by that idiotic assertion?

They were not in the Lindt Cafe incident.
This was run by pompous "police" co mmanders more interest in drinking
tea, going to bed, their salaries and pensions

***********************
Lindt siege inquest: Police boss Mick Fuller pushes for ‘shoot to
kill’ clarity
*********************
‘shoot to kill’ was overruled by Federal Government (Tony Abbott to
be exact).


This don't apply when it's a white Australian skank though?
Only applies for Moslems

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-shot-dead-at-hungry-jacks-in-hoxton-park-sydney-20150210-13akep.html
https://is.gd/osD6HQ

--
Petzl
ALL Moslems are nothing more than Trojan-Horse invaders!

"WE" need to identify Moslems as an enemy!
This video shows how it is done.
Bernard Gaynor Milatary Expert. Decorated Australian war hero. Served
in Afghanistan.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aqgooajl94nprxl/Miltary.mp4?dl=0

This Trojan horse invasion by Moslems was invented by Mohammad when he
and his marauding followers fled Mecca in AD 622 to Yathrib now called
Medina. Claiming "refugee status" Medina welcomed them as "our"
government does today!

ISIS is doing nothing that the Moslem's "Prophet" Mohammad wouldn't
do!
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/05/the_greatest_murder_machine_in_history.html

Mohammad himself was once a (claimed) refugee taken in by the Jewish
city of Medina (fleeing Mecca AD622).

Within five years, Mohammad (joining with other invading "marauding
refugees") had driven out, executed, or enslaved every Jew living in
Medina before the rise of Islam, Medina Was Originally A Jewish City..
https://www.britannica.com/place/Medina-Saudi-Arabia

Medina was more Jewish than Islamic. Talented Jews built Medina [then
called Yathrib] and made it one of the most prosperous areas in the
Arabian peninsula.

Two polytheist Arab tribes settled alongside with the Jews, who
maintained a strong presence there until Muhammad and some of his
followers killed, enslaved, robbed and/or expelled Jews.

Medina then fell under Islamic backwardness and the Saudi regime is in
the forefront in promoting the Jihad against infidels

For around 1,400 years Islam has produced the major majority of the
worlds "refugees"! Always fleeing from what they created!

Still the same today!

Time to address the fact the problem is Islam.

Always Moslems blame their murder sprees on everyone but themselves!
Like Schizophrenics, they need therapy. Not confirmation of their
delusions and as refugees made leave their delusions where they
created them.

Islam is not a religion, it is a vile, violent political process.

Moslems and Islam are of course synonymous with terror!
It was and is a CRIME to allow Moslems in. Every politician is
obligated to know the history of foreign people they bring in. If they
had done even a little bit of study they would have found a
bloodthirsty people, full of hate and terrorism.?

Mohammad invented this sort of invasion by stealth, Centuries old
still used today.
https://youtu.be/Tw9lpvjfhVk
Bill Warner, PhD: Hijra, Islamic Migration

[Phil Allison]

Stupider than anyone Else puked::

--------------------------------

>
>
> >
> > Surely it'd be a crime for the police to shoot someone unless of there
> > is imminent danger?
>
> The Crimes Act provides a defence:
>
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s418.html
>
> ---------
>
> (1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the
> person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.
>
> (2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the
> person believes the conduct is necessary:
> ...
>
> (b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or
> her liberty or the liberty of another person, or
> ...
>
> and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he
> or she perceives them.
> ----------
>
> Now, (2)(b) clearly applies, so the only question is whether shooting a
> hostage taker is reasonable in the circumstances.
>
> An armed hostage taker is clearly threatening to kill the hostages,
> since that is the means by which the hostages are prevented from
> leaving. At any point a hostage may attempt to leave, and may be killed.
> It is not sensible to wait for that to happen if the alternative of
> killing the hostage taker exists.
>
>

** Sylvia has posted this same pile of garbage before - it is purely her mad opinion.

Those who take one or more hostages do so in order to *get something* and for self protection. Killing them is counterproductive to their purpose.

"Do exactly what you are told and everything will be ok " is the usual mantra.

The section you site simply does not apply to most hostage situations.


.... Phil

[Petzl]

Eath to "Fran"
Being held by a nutter (Mon Monis) on bail over muerder charges
holding hostages with a cut off shot gun is not imminent
danger????????????

After Mohammed痴 death, Islam exploded out of Arabia in its second
migration. When Islam settles into a society, the society becomes all
Islamic (with a couple of exceptions祐pain and the Balkans). Islam
does not assimilate, but dominates. This is because of its Sharia law.

[Petzl]

There was no uncertainty!

[Ördög]

Petzl declared

> a white Australian skank

Try posting again when you've sobered up...if ever that happen.

I am afraid due to the circulating blood EtOH toxicity your brain surely
went into a "HALAL Rigor Mortis" just like those steaks you were trying
to cook tender but failed.
:P

--
Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Booo" in the dark)
Don't argue with idiots (like Petz, Felix and Mad Ned).

They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

[Annona Muricata]

After a laxative enema Petzl relieved itself all over the keyboard:

> Eath to "Fran"


Who is Eath???
Petz, go slow with that booze!

--
Ördög (Your scary shadow that says "Booo" in the dark)
Don't argue with idiots (like Petz, Felix and Mad Ned).

They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

[Sylvia Else]

The police snipers are in the same position legally as the hostages. If
a hostage spotted a chance to kill Monis, and did so, thus liberating
themselves and the other hostages, there is zero chance that they would
have been prosecuted.

Sylvia.

[Rod Speed]

Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> The NSW police are not allowed to shoot to kill.

>> That's a lie. They are allowed to and do just that.

>> That's why Monis ended up dead.

> Not according to the Police Commissioners backed up by the Coroner
> https://is.gd/Cm0p4z

> "Lindt siege inquest: Police boss Mick Fuller pushes for 'shoot to kill'
> clarity"

CLARITY isnt the same as not being allowed to kill.

There wasn't even the remotest possibility of anyone being
charged for having killed Monis after that had happened.

>>> Pointless in even have them turn up for terrorist activities
>>> like Moslems when they are about to kill Australians.

>>> Abbott refused to have "our" terror squad take over

>> He was never asked. And there is no terror squad.

> Yes he was

Like hell he was. The cops never even considered
getting the military involved in the siege itself.

>>> which would have taken out Monis in minutes

>> Not even possible. He wasn't even visible.

> Snipers called to take shot
> http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lindt-cafe-siege-police-sniper-lacked-the-legal-right-to-shoot-man-haron-monis-20160706-gpzh4c.html

That wasn't IN MINUTES.

>>> a hint of Monis brain colour over the cafe walls.

>> No brain present, just dog shit.

>>> Still no answer who provided
>>> Monis with gun and ammunition.

>> Irrelevant.

> So no ones looking?

Corse they looked but with illegal untraceable stuff like that,
its never going to be possible to always work out who he
got it from. Its not as if he had a fucking license for it and
even if he did, who he got it from is completely irrelevant.

[Phil Allison]

Stupider than anyone Else puked::

----------------------------------

> >> Now, (2)(b) clearly applies, so the only question is whether shooting a
> >> hostage taker is reasonable in the circumstances.
> >>
> >> An armed hostage taker is clearly threatening to kill the hostages,
> >> since that is the means by which the hostages are prevented from
> >> leaving. At any point a hostage may attempt to leave, and may be killed.
> >> It is not sensible to wait for that to happen if the alternative of
> >> killing the hostage taker exists.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ** Sylvia has posted this same pile of garbage before - it is purely her mad opinion.
> >
> > Those who take one or more hostages do so in order to *get something* and for self protection. Killing them is counterproductive to their purpose.
> >
> > "Do exactly what you are told and everything will be ok " is the usual mantra.
> >
> > The section you site simply does not apply to most hostage situations.
> >
> >
>

> The police snipers are in the same position legally as the hostages. If
> a hostage spotted a chance to kill Monis, and did so, thus liberating
> themselves and the other hostages, there is zero chance that they would
> have been prosecuted.
>

** Try posting something that ANSWSERS the criticism.

FYI to all:

Obviously, Sylvia has no answer.

Cos the bitch is totally nuts.




..... Phil

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:ep41n9...@mid.individual.net...

> On 29/05/2017 9:48 PM, Petzl wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 21:20:43 +1000, Pelican

>> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>>
>>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>>> somewhat over the top.
>>>
>>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>>> collateral damage.
>>

>> The NSW police are not allowed to shoot to kill.
>

> This is not true, but the police seem to have had a rather limited view as

> to their powers, apparently believing that a hostage has to be in imminent
> danger of death before lethal force can be used.

Corse they are right about that. We can't have the
cops killing anyone they decide might kill someone.

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:ep42af...@mid.individual.net...

> On 29/05/2017 9:20 PM, Pelican wrote:
>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>> somewhat over the top.
>>
>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>> collateral damage.
>

> Regardless of the course actually followed, I'm sure plenty of hindsight
> will be used when analysing the police actions after the event.
>
> However, I think one good outcome from the inquest will be that the police
> will understand that they can shoot to kill a hostage taker, even in the
> absence of an immediate threat to the lives of the hostages.
>

> That would probably not have made any difference in the Lindt Cafe siege
> because the coroner's findings indicate that the police never had a safe
> opportunity to take Monis out, either because of issues with glass between
> the snipers and the cafe, because of uncertainty about whether it was
> Monis they were looking at, or because they couldn't be sure there was no
> one behind him who could also be killed.

And given that Monis claimed to have a number of bombs
around the city and some way of exploding them, only a fool
would just shoot him dead before it became clear that Monis
wasn’t going to put his hands up if he got what he wanted
and was just pulling a stunt for maximum media coverage.

[Rod Speed]

Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Monis kept his head away from window after he saw it on TV.

>> And only a terminal fuckwit would have allowed a
>> sniper to try to shoot him thru a heavy plate glass
>> window when he had claimed he had a fucking bomb.

> Those guns were more than capable in one shot taking Monis out
> (removing his head from neck up causing hydraulic loss hands open)

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

And wouldn't do a damned thing about someone else associated
with him watching the events unfold and firing the bombs Monis
claimed he had planted around Sydney.

Only a terminal fuckwit such as yourself would
have a sniper shoot him in that situation.

> This is what the actual Lindt snipers said

They are complete fuckwits to ignore the fucking bombs.

> (Abbott denied NSW police to shoot)

Abbott never got any say what so ever on whether the cops could
shoot and they clearly did fucking shoot and kill Monis later.

> ******************************
> But this most tenuous option

Pity about that MOST TENUOUS, fuckwit.

> suddenly became much more promising about 7.30pm.

HOURS after the siege had started.

> An Islamic flag in the window had been shifted upward. Sierras
> 3-1 and 3-3 could both see what looked like Monis from behind.

But had no fucking idea if it was actually Monis at all.

> "Our objective is to shoot the offender through the brainstem,"
> Sierra 3-1 said in evidence on Thursday. "They literally just drop."

Not all of them do and that would do a damned thing about
an associate with a bomb firing mechanism anyway.

> No chance to pull a trigger or push a button.
> *******************************

Because only a terminal fuckwit would actually be
stupid enough to authorise that in the circumstances.

[Petzl]

Monis was already guilty of murder
Let out on bail because he is a Moslem.

>> This is clearly not the law, and both the coroner and the new Police
>> Commissioner understand that.
>

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:jmlpicl5agq1l6kt7...@4ax.com...

Not even possible to know that with someone outside the
fucking café observing what was going on with the firing
mechanism for the fucking bombs in his fucking hand.

[Petzl]

Still needed to be taken out regardless the idiotic storming the
citadel hours and hours and hours later did not change that just
increased friendly fire incidents plus puttting the police in danger!
These police commanders are idiots not changed since the "Cronulla
riots"!
Must be a job criteria?

After Mohammed’s death, Islam exploded out of Arabia in its second

migration. When Islam settles into a society, the society becomes all

Islamic (with a couple of exceptions—Spain and the Balkans). Islam

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:brlpic15o96fve9lo...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 30 May 2017 11:54:49 +1000, Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>>On 29/05/2017 9:48 PM, Petzl wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 21:20:43 +1000, Pelican
>>> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>>>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>>>> somewhat over the top.
>>>>
>>>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>>>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>>>> collateral damage.
>>>
>>> The NSW police are not allowed to shoot to kill.
>>
>>This is not true, but the police seem to have had a rather limited view
>>as to their powers, apparently believing that a hostage has to be in
>>imminent danger of death before lethal force can be used. This is
>>clearly not the law, and both the coroner and the new Police
>>Commissioner understand that.

> That is why Abbott was asked very early to put AFP in charge

So much for your pig ignorant lie that Abbott
decided that Monis could not be shot.

Abbott was never ever in charge of anything.

> which was turned down Monis would of been
> dead by 7:30 pm if Abbott had ckeared it

Abbott never got any say on that and was never fucking asked.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:l2npic5js2nu8tirf...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 30 May 2017 12:05:01 +1000, Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>>That would probably not have made any difference in the Lindt Cafe siege
>>because the coroner's findings indicate that the police never had a safe
>>opportunity to take Monis out, either because of issues with glass
>>between the snipers and the cafe, because of uncertainty about whether
>>it was Monis they were looking at, or because they couldn't be sure
>>there was no one behind him who could also be killed.

> This is not true the Federal Government
could of given authority to shoot Mon-Monis

Nope, they weren't running the fucking operation.

> and Abbott denied it.

He never got asked.

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:ep44si...@mid.individual.net...

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> since that is the means by which the hostages are prevented from leaving.

Doesn’t mean the hostage taker would actually kill anyone, fuckwit.

> At any point a hostage may attempt to leave, and may be killed. It is not
> sensible to wait for that to happen if the alternative of killing the
> hostage taker exists.

It is when the hostage taker has claimed to have
planted a number of bombs around the city and
to be able to explode them remotely.

> I do not believe any jury (in the unlikely event that it came to that)
> would find that it was not reasonable to kill Monis at any time during the
> siege.
>
>>
>> This is
>>> clearly not the law, and both the coroner and the new Police
>>> Commissioner understand that.
>>
>> The law allows the shooting of someone without any sign of imminent
>> danger?
>>
>
> In the case of a hostage taking, yes.

Nope.

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:ep45df...@mid.individual.net...

> On 30/05/2017 12:34 PM, Pelican wrote:
>> On 30/05/2017 12:05, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2017 9:20 PM, Pelican wrote:
>>>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>>>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>>>> somewhat over the top.
>>>>
>>>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>>>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>>>> collateral damage.
>>>
>>> Regardless of the course actually followed, I'm sure plenty of
>>> hindsight will be used when analysing the police actions after the
>>> event.
>>>
>>> However, I think one good outcome from the inquest will be that the
>>> police will understand that they can shoot to kill a hostage taker,
>>> even in the absence of an immediate threat to the lives of the hostages.
>>
>> I doubt if the police had any concern about that. The concern was about
>> other things ie but the possibility of an undesirable outcome.
>
> In the coronial findings, conclusion number 44 is that the the police
> commanders and snipers believed that they did not have lawful authority to
> shoot Monis because he did not pose an imminent or immediate danger to the
> hostages.

If you have reported the conclusion accurately, the coroner is a fool.

The snipers clearly did believe that what they asked to be allowed to do was
legal.

>>> That would probably not have made any difference in the Lindt Cafe
>>> siege because the coroner's findings indicate that the police never
>>> had a safe opportunity to take Monis out, either because of issues
>>> with glass between the snipers and the cafe, because of uncertainty
>>> about whether it was Monis they were looking at, or because they
>>> couldn't be sure there was no one behind him who could also be killed.
>>
>> Or the existence of a bomb, and so on.
>
> Thought it appears that the hostages who escaped earlier said that they
> did not believe that there was a bomb because of the way Monis handled the
> backpack, and no trace of explosives have been found at Monis' home.

But Monis had claimed that he had a number of bombs planted around
the city and no hostage would have a fucking clue about that possibility.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8jppictcl9u8o6bmg...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 30 May 2017 02:19:09 -0000 (UTC), Annona Muricata
> <Magno...@Annonaceae.Annona.biz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>After a laxative enema Petzl relieved itself all over the keyboard:
>>
>>
>>> The polce had no trouble shooting a woman attacking armed with a plastic
>>> knife?
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-shot-dead-at-hungry-jacks-in-hoxton-park-sydney-20150210-13akep.html
> https://is.gd/osD6HQ
>>
>>In one of your recent posts you have insisted that the police is not
>>allowed to shoot to kill.
>>
>>Are you still standing by that idiotic assertion?
>
> They were not in the Lindt Cafe incident.

Irrelevant to what the law allows cops to do.

<reams of your even sillier shit flushed where it belongs>

> 'shoot to kill' was overruled by Federal Government

The federal govt never had any say on that.

> (Tony Abbott to be exact).

More of your pig ignorant silly shit.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:t7rpicdg19a1gbqap...@4ax.com...

Even sillier than you usually manage. No one had any way of knowing
what Monis would have done if his demands had been complied with.

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:ep49hr...@mid.individual.net...

> The police snipers are in the same position legally as the hostages.

Pigs arse they are.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:02tpic17nu8r8nf9o...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 30 May 2017 14:15:16 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>news:ep41n9...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 29/05/2017 9:48 PM, Petzl wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 21:20:43 +1000, Pelican
>>>> <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>>>>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>>>>> somewhat over the top.
>>>>>
>>>>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect
>>>>> that
>>>>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>>>>> collateral damage.
>>>>
>>>> The NSW police are not allowed to shoot to kill.
>>>
>>> This is not true, but the police seem to have had a rather limited view
>>> as
>>> to their powers, apparently believing that a hostage has to be in
>>> imminent
>>> danger of death before lethal force can be used.
>>
>>Corse they are right about that. We can't have the
>>cops killing anyone they decide might kill someone.

> Monis was already guilty of murder

Legally he wasn't.

> Let out on bail because he is a Moslem.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:j6tpictk1grrffqr4...@4ax.com...

Only a terminal fuckwit like you would actually be that stupid.

> the idiotic storming the citadel

There was no citadel you pig ignorant drug crazed psychotic.

> hours and hours and hours later did not change that

The fact that he had started shooting did.

> just increased friendly fire incidents

Because it wasn't even possible to use a sniper by then.

> plus puttting the police in danger!

But its fine to risk him setting off his bombs, eh ?

What a terminal fuckwit you have always been.

[Petzl]

7:30 pm is when one of the snipers had a clear positive shot

>> An Islamic flag in the window had been shifted upward. Sierras
>> 3-1 and 3-3 could both see what looked like Monis from behind.
>
>But had no fucking idea if it was actually Monis at all.
>

There were four snipers Siera
************************
At 7:35pm, another sniper, Sierra 3-1, told his commanders he had a
clear view of Monis and could take a shot if the hostages were in
imminent danger.
**************
Denied by Tony Abbott

>> "Our objective is to shoot the offender through the brainstem,"
>> Sierra 3-1 said in evidence on Thursday. "They literally just drop."
>
>Not all of them do and that would do a damned thing about
>an associate with a bomb firing mechanism anyway.
>
>> No chance to pull a trigger or push a button.
>> *******************************
>
>Because only a terminal fuckwit would actually be
>stupid enough to authorise that in the circumstances.

?????????????
only a terminal fuckwit would actually wait till the only option would
be to storm the place
--
Petzl
"To Be A Politician You Need Three Things. Be a Good Liar, A Great Cheat
and a Brilliant Thief." Malcolm Turnbull

Malcolm applied to be a Senator for the Lobor party
https://spectator.com.au/2017/01/turnbulls-labor-dream/

Its time for Malcolm to kick some arse....his own!!!

Australian MPs now among the highest paid in the world
http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-mps-now-among-the-highest-paid-in-the-world/story-fncynjr2-1226681596923
https://is.gd/nOyfr9

Turnbull draing the swamp!
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/cc61ccd180d35f931bae6ced5e4febaf?width=1024

ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens"
*LAST*, Federal State and Council!
Or you are voting for Islam and Sharia.

For Turnbull, ‘multi-faith’ only means Islam
https://is.gd/bunwYB

[Petzl]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 14:29:51 +1000, "Rod Speed"

Monis was evading murder charges what would he lose
"our" police knew that
The best option was for our sniper to take him out!
***************
Lindt inquest: Police sniper tells hearing he had no legal right to
shoot Man Monis
*****************
--
Malcolm Turnbull, Donald Trump, and Vladimir Putin all die and go to hell.
While there, they spy a red phone and ask what the phone is for.
The devil tells them it is for calling back to Earth.
Putin calls Russia and talks for 5 minutes.
When he was finished the devil informs him that the cost is a million dollars, so Putin writes him a cheque..
Next Donald Trump calls the U.S. and talks for 30 minutes.
When he's finished the devil informs him that the cost is 6 million dollars, so Trump writes him a cheque.
Finally Malcolm Turnbull gets his turn and calls Australia for 4 hours.
When he's finished, the devil informed him that there would be no charge and feel free to call Australia anytime.
Putin and Trump go ballistic and ask the devil why Malcolm Turnbull got to call Australia free.
The devil replied, “Since Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister of Australia, the Country has gone to hell, so it's a local call."

[Sylvia Else]

If someone threatens to do something, and has the means to do it, then
the person threatened is entitled to take the threat at face value. They
don't have to second-guess the threatener. If the threat is conditional
on non-compliance with some condition, and the threatener has no right
to impose the condition, then the person threatened can take the threat
as if it did not contain the condition.

So the threat is real and the person threatened can defend themselves on
that basis. They don't have to wait for the threatened action to start
to take place.

Sylvia.

[Petzl]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 14:54:16 +1000, "Rod Speed"

As long as Moslems are allowed in as trojan horse invaders that is
always a outcome!

After Mohammed痴 death, Islam exploded out of Arabia in its second

migration. When Islam settles into a society, the society becomes all

Islamic (with a couple of exceptions祐pain and the Balkans). Islam

[Pelican]

On 30/05/2017 12:57, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 30/05/2017 12:34 PM, Pelican wrote:
>> On 30/05/2017 12:05, Sylvia Else wrote:

>>> On 29/05/2017 9:20 PM, Pelican wrote:
>>>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>>>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>>>> somewhat over the top.
>>>>
>>>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect that
>>>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>>>> collateral damage.
>>>
>>> Regardless of the course actually followed, I'm sure plenty of
>>> hindsight will be used when analysing the police actions after the
>>> event.
>>>
>>> However, I think one good outcome from the inquest will be that the
>>> police will understand that they can shoot to kill a hostage taker,
>>> even in the absence of an immediate threat to the lives of the hostages.
>>

>> I doubt if the police had any concern about that. The concern was about

>> other things ie but the possibility of an undesirable outcome.

>
> In the coronial findings, conclusion number 44 is that the the police
> commanders and snipers believed that they did not have lawful authority
> to shoot Monis because he did not pose an imminent or immediate danger
> to the hostages.

So far as the snipers were concerned, they were under the control of
other police. So far as the commanders were concerned, what they said
at the inquiry reflects their views at that time they gave evidence,
after the fact. I doubt if the police not involved had the same doubts
about their powers. In any event, there is no doubt now.

>>> That would probably not have made any difference in the Lindt Cafe
>>> siege because the coroner's findings indicate that the police never
>>> had a safe opportunity to take Monis out, either because of issues
>>> with glass between the snipers and the cafe, because of uncertainty
>>> about whether it was Monis they were looking at, or because they
>>> couldn't be sure there was no one behind him who could also be killed.
>>

>> Or the existence of a bomb, and so on.
>
> Thought it appears that the hostages who escaped earlier said that they
> did not believe that there was a bomb because of the way Monis handled
> the backpack, and no trace of explosives have been found at Monis' home.

It's fairly clear that the escape of the hostages changed the situation
dramatically.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:9tvpic99s6shgrgrt...@4ax.com...

So your original IN MINUTES of the siege
starting was always pig ignorant shit.

>>> An Islamic flag in the window had been shifted upward. Sierras
>>> 3-1 and 3-3 could both see what looked like Monis from behind.
>>
>>But had no fucking idea if it was actually Monis at all.
>>
> There were four snipers Siera
> ************************
> At 7:35pm, another sniper, Sierra 3-1, told his
> commanders he had a clear view of Monis

And had no idea if it was actually Monis.

> and could take a shot if the hostages were in imminent danger.

And they weren't at that time. And he had no
fucking idea what would happen bomb wise
if he had been stupidly authorised to do that.

> **************
> Denied by Tony Abbott

Abbott was never asked. He got no say what so ever on anything.

>>> "Our objective is to shoot the offender through the brainstem,"
>>> Sierra 3-1 said in evidence on Thursday. "They literally just drop."
>>
>>Not all of them do and that would do a damned thing about
>>an associate with a bomb firing mechanism anyway.
>>
>>> No chance to pull a trigger or push a button.
>>> *******************************

>>Because only a terminal fuckwit would actually be
>>stupid enough to authorise that in the circumstances.

> ?????????????
> only a terminal fuckwit would actually wait till
> the only option would be to storm the place

That was never the only option.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:na0qic1br70ikceaq...@4ax.com...

He clearly didn't choose to shoot people for hours.

> "our" police knew that

And knew that he claimed to have remote controlled
bombs planted and didn't have any way of knowing
if that was a lie or not.

> The best option was for our sniper to take him out!

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that's saying something.

> ***************
> Lindt inquest: Police sniper tells hearing he
> had no legal right to shoot Man Monis
> *****************

That fool has no fucking idea about the fucking law.

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:ep4e2a...@mid.individual.net...

He never threatened to shoot the hostages.

> and has the means to do it,

It wasn’t known at that time whether he did or not,
let alone whether that was ever more than just bluff.

> then the person threatened is entitled to take the threat at face value.

Legally that is just plain wrong.

> They don't have to second-guess the threatener.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> If the threat is conditional on non-compliance with some condition,

He didn’t even threaten to kill the hostages on that basis.

> and the threatener has no right to impose the condition,

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> then the person threatened can take the threat as if it did not contain
> the condition.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> So the threat is real

There was never any threat to kill the hostages.

> and the person threatened can defend themselves on that basis.

Not when there was never any threat to them.

> They don't have to wait for the threatened action to start to take place.

Duh.

[Rod Speed]

"Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ki0qicl8l61dkromh...@4ax.com...

They are nothing of the sort, you terminal fuckwit.

> that is always a outcome!

[Phil Allison]

Stupider than anyone Else puked::

----------------------------------


> >>>

> >>> ** Sylvia has posted this same pile of garbage before - it is purely her mad opinion.
> >>>
> >>> Those who take one or more hostages do so in order to *get something* and for self protection. Killing them is counterproductive to their purpose.
> >>>
> >>> "Do exactly what you are told and everything will be ok " is the usual mantra.
> >>>
> >>> The section you site simply does not apply to most hostage situations.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> The police snipers are in the same position legally as the hostages. If
> >> a hostage spotted a chance to kill Monis, and did so, thus liberating
> >> themselves and the other hostages, there is zero chance that they would
> >> have been prosecuted.
> >>
> >
> > ** Try posting something that ANSWSERS the criticism.
> >
> > FYI to all:
> >
> > Obviously, Sylvia has no answer.
> >
> > Cos the bitch is totally nuts.
> >
>
> If someone threatens to do something, and has the means to do it, then
> the person threatened is entitled to take the threat at face value. They
> don't have to second-guess the threatener. If the threat is conditional
> on non-compliance with some condition, and the threatener has no right
> to impose the condition, then the person threatened can take the threat
> as if it did not contain the condition.
>
>

** Sylvia imagines her mad opinions are the same as law.

Yaawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn



..... Phil

[Sylvia Else]

On 30/05/2017 3:47 PM, Pelican wrote:

> It's fairly clear that the escape of the hostages changed the situation
> dramatically.

An unnamed psychiatrist has expressed the view that had they not
escaped, Monis would have surrendered. It's only a small step to suggest
that the deaths were their fault.

How long before some bleeding-heart calls for their (that is, the
hostages') prosecution?

Sylvia.

[Pelican]

It's not their fault, but it may be that it is what led to the killing
of the manager.

[Ned Latham]

Wod Walloper wote::
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Wod Walloper wote:
> > > Petzl wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > Waiting for Monis to shoot first was too late.
> > >
> > > Easy to be wise after the event.
> >
> > True, but waiting for the perpetrator to shoot is a virtual
> > giarantee that at least one hostage will ve killed.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>
> There have been plenty of examples where no hostage
> has been killed and the perp never killed anyone.

PLenty that went the other toom guckwit.

> And when you don?t even know if he has a
> fucking bomb that will kill them all if you
> shoot him thru a heavy plate glass window.

It was obv obvious that he had bo sucj thing. The
baclpack was too lightly loaded.

> > > It wasn't even known that he had anything
> > > to shoot with, let alone would shoot anyone.
< >
> > Bullshit,
>
> Fact.

Bullshit. The first escaoer got away hours begore the end.
And surprise, surprise, she had seen him and his shotty.

> > It could be seen through the window.
>
> No way to know if he even had any ammo.

Bullshit. They had a wirness, you cretin: that ex-hostage.

> > And the escaped hostages had that info anyway.
>
> Like hell they did on the ammo.

Like hell they didn't.

> And no one knew if he had the bomb he claimed to have anyway.

Bullshit. Given what bomb-making materials are available in
Oz these days, the backpack's load was far too light, far
too small, and far too mobile within the backpack for it
to be a vomv.
>

[Ned Latham]

Wod Walloper wote: in <ep3tvi...@mid.individual.net>:
> Petzl wrote:

----snip----

> > the snipers kept asking for permission to
> > shoot, denied by police commissioners.
>
> Because only a fool would attempt to shoot someone
> with a fucking bomb thru a fucking plate glass window
> and see everyone blown to fucking bits.

He didn't have a bomb, and it was obvious from the first sight of him.

----snip----

[Ned Latham]

Petzl wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:

----snip----

> > Her family aren't satisfied with the Coroner's verdict? Neither
> > am I. This foul business of covering up police incompetence,
> > corruption and criminality should be ended.
>
> The Police "raid" was a stuff up but only on after events wisdom.

I disagree. IMO, it was mismanahed.

> If Monis was taken out when snipers asked to, the siege would of
> been over

And that's ny reason. It was obvious from the first sight of him
that the backpack didn't contain a bomb; equally, it was clear
that he was armed. There was therefore no reaspn to refrain from
shooting him.

[Ned Latham]

Wod Walloper wote:
> Petzl wrote:

----snip----

> > Monis was evading murder charges what would he lose
>
> He clearly didn't choose to shoot people for hours.

Get your habd off it, Woddy.

> > "our" police knew that
>
> And knew that he claimed to have remote controlled
> bombs planted and didn't have any way of knowing
> if that was a lie or not.

You're in fantasyland , Woddy. Put the red cordial away now,
there's a good little tosspot.

----snip----

[Ned Latham]

Wod Walloper wote: in <ep4bae...@mid.individual.net>:
> Sylvia Else wrote:

----snip----

> > An armed hostage taker is clearly threatening to kill the hostages,
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage.

Fact.

> > since that is the means by which the hostages are prevented
> > from leaving.
>

> Doesn.t mean the hostage taker would actually kill anyone, fuckwit.

Irrelevant. The threat is present; the danger is imminent.

> > At any point a hostage may attempt to leave, and may be killed.
> > It is not sensible to wait for that to happen if the alternative
> > of killing the hostage taker exists.
>
> It is when the hostage taker has claimed to have
> planted a number of bombs around the city and
> to be able to explode them remotely.

So now you're saying that Monis not only had a bomb in that
half-empty back-pack, but devices for detonating remote bombs
as well?

Anything else, Woddy? A slab of DA, perhaps?
(Halal DA, of course.)

----snip----

[Ned Latham]

Pelican wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:

----snip----

> > Thought it appears that the hostages who escaped earlier said that they
> > did not believe that there was a bomb because of the way Monis handled
> > the backpack, and no trace of explosives have been found at Monis' home.
>

> Sure. It just indicates the uncertainty at the time.

No. It indicates that the histages observed the situation more
intelligently than the police did.

[Pelican]

You really are stupid, Ned. But, being a half-glass full person, all is
not lost. I am prepared to provide fast-tracked remedial thinking
therapy for you at a reasonable price - $1,000 an hour. You will
require about 2 weeks work, full-time, to reduce your deep-seated
dumbness, and review after that. Payment in full in advance, in crisp
new $100 notes. Given the very poor quality of the subject, pretty
reasonable. And cheap! Deal?

[Rod Speed]

Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

> Pelican wrote

>> It's fairly clear that the escape of the hostages changed the situation
>> dramatically.

> An unnamed psychiatrist has expressed the view that had they not escaped,
> Monis would have surrendered.

That’s quite possible if he hadnt got anything he demanded.

> It's only a small step to suggest that the deaths were their fault.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> How long before some bleeding-heart calls for their (that is, the
> hostages') prosecution?

Taint gunna happen.

And a prosecution in spades, fuckwit.

[Max]

On 30/05/2017 12:18 PM, Petzl wrote:

> On Tue, 30 May 2017 10:50:50 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Monis kept his head away from window after he saw it on TV.
>>
>> And only a terminal fuckwit would have allowed a
>> sniper to try to shoot him thru a heavy plate glass
>> window when he had claimed he had a fucking bomb.
>
> Those guns were more than capable in one shot taking Monis out
> (removing his head from neck up causing hydraulic loss hands open)

> This is what the actual Lindt snipers said (Abbott denied NSW police
> to shoot)
> ******************************
> But this most tenuous option suddenly became much more promising about
> 7.30pm. An Islamic flag in the window had been shifted upward. Sierras

> 3-1 and 3-3 could both see what looked like Monis from behind.
>

> "Our objective is to shoot the offender through the brainstem," Sierra

> 3-1 said in evidence on Thursday. "They literally just drop." No

> chance to pull a trigger or push a button.
> *******************************
>

Where did you get that excerpt from?

[Max]

On 30/05/2017 2:01 PM, Ördög wrote:
> Petzl declared
>
>> a white Australian skank
>
> Try posting again when you've sobered up...if ever that happen.
>
> I am afraid due to the circulating blood EtOH toxicity your brain surely
> went into a "HALAL Rigor Mortis" just like those steaks you were trying
> to cook tender but failed.
> :P
>

How about his 'kale chips and beer' ?!

[felix]

On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 5:52 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "Petzl" <pet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:dn2oic90tged7nbt1...@4ax.com...

>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 06:42:29 -0500, Ned Latham
>> <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
>>
>>> Pelican wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are some things that are troubling about the inquest, and the
>>>> Coroner's findings, but the views of the families of the victims are
>>>> somewhat over the top.
>>>>
>>>> It now seems that anyone involved in a terrorist event must expect
>>>> that
>>>> the authorities will shoot first, and it's just too bad if there is
>>>> collateral damage.
>>>

>>> The video pf the "resolution" tells the story: a bunch of flak-jacketed
>>> coppers crowding into a singke-width dorrway, blazing away with their
>>> semi-automatics far too fast for all the shots to be aimed shots.
>>> Most, of not all, of the shots fired in the first few seconds have to
>>> ave been suppressive fire. And fuck the hostages.

>
>> Waiting for Monis to shoot first was too late.
>

> Easy to be wise after the event. It wasn't even known that he

> had anything to shoot with, let alone would shoot anyone.
>

they knew he had a shotgun

>> The police were forced into that position
>> by Tony Abbott's Liberal Government.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage. The
> cops never even asked Abbott about anything.
>

they were in contact with him

>>> And fuck the coroner's verdict too. Katrina Dawson was killed by
>>> police carelessness and incompetence, not a tragis accident.
>>>
>>> And those stories about a "ricochet"and a bullet "fragment"
>>> sound to me like bullshit.
>
>

--
"Multiculturanism equals white ethnocide"
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://www.barenakedislam.com/
http://www.siotw.org

[felix]

On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 6:45 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Wod Walloper wote:
>> Petzl wrote:
> ----snip----
>

>>> Waiting for Monis to shoot first was too late.
>> Easy to be wise after the event.

> True, but waiting for the perpetrator to shoot is a virtual giarantee

> that at least one hostage will be killed.

exactly

>
>> It wasn't even known that he
>> had anything to shoot with, let alone would shoot anyone.

> Bullshit, It could be seen through the window. And the escaped

> hostages had that info anyway.
>

> ----snip----

[felix]

a 50cal would have shattered the window and taken his head off on one go