ASIC AGAIN!!!

[BrendAn]

7 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Get a dog that Barks.  Nev

i have them. don't think a chiquaua and spitz maltese are very scary though they think they are.😁

i was making the point that offenders have more rights than victims.

Edited Friday at 07:55 AM by BrendAn

[BurnieM]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

 

 

Decided to delete as this is more of a rabbit hole than ASIC ...

 

Edited Friday at 08:25 AM by BurnieM

[spacesailor]

We ' have '  the police who seem to lookafter the crims first .

Who ,don't come to you , when you report a crime against you. 

But should you even accidentally hurt  the crim . They arrest you,  promptly  .

spacesailor

 

[skippydiesel]

Me thinks you are  lot of paranoid alarmists.

 

(Note: I do accept the need to have a specially trained, rapid deployment, armed police group, that can respond to those, thankfully rare, situations requiring such )

 

How often is a law abiding Australian even threatened with a machete, let alone attacked?

Seems to me that most weaponized violence is against others of a similar persuasion, rarely against ordinary Australians. 

 

A bullet is not an appropriate response, in a civilised/compassionate society, to a person suffering a mental episode - this could be you, a family member or friend.

A bullet is not an appropriate response to a  person high on drugs (including alcohol).

 

So gun happy are our general duty police they have, in my memory,  shot dead a;

• French tourist on a beach, standing in the surfe, surrounded by a half circle of trigger happy cops, no threat to anyone but himself - cold blooded murder .
• A young man, in his own home, having a psychotic episode, threatening to kill himself, murdered by a police woman, who shot him in the back - I think she got a promotion for this action.
• A demented old lady, true not by a bullet but just as deadly Taser, to a fail old woman, wielded by a delinquent clod, who should not have been allowed near so much as a toothpick, let alone a Taser - I am only surprised he didnt use his gun.
• Questionable executions of a number of Aboriginal people, for which no one seems to be appropriately held accountable.

General duty police are just run of the mill public servants doing a routine job. They are just as prone to prejudices/fear as the rest of us - they do not need & should not have a gun. If the situaton demands - call the highly trained experts.

 

Once you issue a gun, to all but the most highly trained/disciplined and carte blanche authority to use it - you legitimise murder. The holder, when faced with a real or imagined threat, will understandably turn to their most powerful response - THE GUN! rather than seek a more nuanced solution.

 

What of the young police ambushed by a small group of religious' fundamentalists? I hear you say - The police were armed - did them no good. It's possible that if the weirdos knew the police were not armed, there may have been a very diffrent outcome - we will never know.

 

It seems that ASIC is not the only political knee jerk reaction, to what was likly a one off incident:

 

"In 1894 as a result of the Bridge Street Affray, a number of Police in Sydney were injured while attempting to arrest a group of safe-breakers. Parliament subsequently passed legislation authorising the arming of all members of the NSW Police Force and all Police have carried firearms ever since."

 

😈

 

 

[BrendAn]

2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Me thinks you are  lot of paranoid alarmists.

 

(Note: I do accept the need to have a specially trained, rapid deployment, armed police group, that can respond to those, thankfully rare, situations requiring such )

 

How often is a law abiding Australian even threatened with a machete, let alone attacked?

Seems to me that most weaponized violence is against others of a similar persuasion, rarely against ordinary Australians. 

 

A bullet is not an appropriate response, in a civilised/compassionate society, to a person suffering a mental episode - this could be you, a family member or friend.

A bullet is not an appropriate response to a  person high on drugs (including alcohol).

 

So gun happy are our general duty police they have, in my memory,  shot dead a;

• French tourist on a beach, standing in the surfe, surrounded by a half circle of trigger happy cops, no threat to anyone but himself - cold blooded murder .
• A young man, in his own home, having a psychotic episode, threatening to kill himself, murdered by a police woman, who shot him in the back - I think she got a promotion for this action.
• A demented old lady, true not by a bullet but just as deadly Taser, to a fail old woman, wielded by a delinquent clod, who should not have been allowed near so much as a toothpick, let alone a Taser - I am only surprised he didnt use his gun.
• Questionable executions of a number of Aboriginal people, for which no one seems to be appropriately held accountable.

General duty police are just run of the mill public servants doing a routine job. They are just as prone to prejudices/fear as the rest of us - they do not need & should not have a gun. If the situaton demands - call the highly trained experts.

 

Once you issue a gun, to all but the most highly trained/disciplined and carte blanche authority to use it - you legitimise murder. The holder, when faced with a real or imagined threat, will understandably turn to their most powerful response - THE GUN! rather than seek a more nuanced solution.

 

What of the young police ambushed by a small group of religious' fundamentalists? I hear you say - The police were armed - did them no good. It's possible that if the weirdos knew the police were not armed, there may have been a very diffrent outcome - we will never know.

 

It seems that ASIC is not the only political knee jerk reaction, to what was likly a one off incident:

 

"In 1894 as a result of the Bridge Street Affray, a number of Police in Sydney were injured while attempting to arrest a group of safe-breakers. Parliament subsequently passed legislation authorising the arming of all members of the NSW Police Force and all Police have carried firearms ever since."

 

😈

 

 

well i can tell you there are random machete attacks every day in melbourne and people murdered with them at least weekly.

sometimes several attacks per day.  

 cops don't  just sign for a gun and walk off with it.  in reality they are highly trained in firearm use.  vicpol have their own range at our club and conduct regular training and annual refreshers.  quite a few of our members are police too.

[red750]

Our dog wakens the neighbourhood. He even barks when I wake up for a drink during the night. Last night the young guy from next door was on our front patio and Buster was barking before he got a chance to knock on the door. If a postie or courier drop a small parcel on our doormat they never knock, but we know because the dog goes berserk.

[skippydiesel]

25 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

 

".........there are random machete attacks every day in melbourne and people murdered with them at least weekly."

Odd? Our usually blood lusting media seem not to have not got wind of all that  blood running in the gutters of Malborne - Could  their lack of interest  be something to do with being "south of the border, down......."?🤣

 

 "cops don't  just sign for a gun and walk off with it.  in reality they are highly trained in firearm use."

 

Dear BrendAn -  The very fact that ALL cops are issued with a firearm, is testimony enough, to a lack of SPECIALIST SELECTION & TRAINING .  It is just not credible that every general duties cop has had sufficiently in depth initial psychological, ongoing assessment & training in alternative responses to perceived threats, so that they only resort to the gun, when ALL OTHER AVENUES OF, SUBLETHAL RESPONSE ,HAVE BEEN EXPLORED ie as a last  resort.😈

Edited Friday at 10:01 AM by skippydiesel

[BrendAn]

44 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

".........there are random machete attacks every day in melbourne and people murdered with them at least weekly."

Odd? Our usually blood lusting media seem not to have not got wind of all that  blood running in the gutters of Malborne - Could  their lack of interest  be something to do with being "south of the border, down......."?🤣

 

 "cops don't  just sign for a gun and walk off with it.  in reality they are highly trained in firearm use."

 

Dear BrendAn -  The very fact that ALL cops are issued with a firearm, is testimony enough, to a lack of SPECIALIST SELECTION & TRAINING .  It is just not credible that every general duties cop has had sufficiently in depth initial psychological, ongoing assessment & training in alternative responses to perceived threats, so that they only resort to the gun, when ALL OTHER AVENUES OF, SUBLETHAL RESPONSE ,HAVE BEEN EXPLORED ie as a last  resort.😈

you really have no idea what you are on about. https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=0003e7a4241d3e10e7ec5dde029e391abaeeb998bcdc117cfd967ac6e45defcfJmltdHM9MTc0MjUxNTIwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=3fb660a2-cc63-62fe-19da-75a5cdb663f5&psq=machete+crimes+melbourne&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuOW5ld3MuY29tLmF1L25hdGlvbmFsL3BvbGljZS1pbnZlc3RpZ2F0aW5nLWZhdGFsLW1lbGJvdXJuZS1zdGFiYmluZy9kYWJiOWM3Ny1lNDBkLTQ3NzYtYWMxZC1mZTQzOGQ4MzExMjg&ntb=1

[BrendAn]

that was near my flat last week.

google machete attacks skip.  you might see i am not talking shit as you implied above,

Edited Friday at 10:49 AM by BrendAn

[Moneybox]

I'm not totally against the police having guns however as Skippy states some of their recent shootings have been totally unnecessary and if disciplinary action is not taken against the officers responsible this sort of behaviour will continue.

 

Our police should be trained in unarmed combat so that in most cases the offender wouldn't stand a chance. Many of our police officers are obviously physically unfit and probably unfit for active duty in these situations. However if the offenders are heavily armed and the police officer is actually in danger then the use of firearms may be the best choice.

 

If these perpetrators are refugees or immigrants then they should be on the next plane back to their native country. It's a waste of time and resources to allow them to stay here where they should appreciate this country as a fresh start and behave appropriately.

 

Our politicians are not doing their job when it comes to keeping Australia protected from these criminals.

[skippydiesel]

13 hours ago, BrendAn said:

you really have no idea what you are on about. https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=0003e7a4241d3e10e7ec5dde029e391abaeeb998bcdc117cfd967ac6e45defcfJmltdHM9MTc0MjUxNTIwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=3fb660a2-cc63-62fe-19da-75a5cdb663f5&psq=machete+crimes+melbourne&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuOW5ld3MuY29tLmF1L25hdGlvbmFsL3BvbGljZS1pbnZlc3RpZ2F0aW5nLWZhdGFsLW1lbGJvdXJuZS1zdGFiYmluZy9kYWJiOWM3Ny1lNDBkLTQ3NzYtYWMxZC1mZTQzOGQ4MzExMjg&ntb=1

So  - two attacks where no "civilian" was harmed and you think this is a good reason for arming our general duties police  - I am sorry you feel so strongly about this, it seems to have clouded your judgement.

 

No police were on hand, armed or otherwise, so they could not have prevented what happened. This is the most likly scenario, when crimes are perpetrated. So arming our general duties police, is just putting the population as a whole, at risk, especially those poor mentally disturbed individuals who may come into contact with them, without a measurable increase in crime prevention. In short an ineffective  knee jerk over reaction (check out the origins of arming our police - see any similarities?).

 

Should the criminals be found, the police response is likly to be spearhead by a specially trained and armed unit - not general duties officers. This is the appropriate response to a dangerous situaton.

 

The inescapable reality is, that arming our general duties police has little effect on reducing crime, while exponentially increasing the risk of "legally" authorised gun killings/injury. Might make the paranoid amongst us feel safer  but it's just an illusion - just like ASIC but more dangerous.

 

"you really have no idea what you are on about"

 

Well actually I do - have you lived through a civil war???😈

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

9 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

So  - two attacks where no "civilian" was harmed and you think this is a good reason for arming our general duties police  - I am sorry you feel so strongly about this, it seems to have clouded your judgement.

 

No police were on hand, armed or otherwise, so they could not have prevented what happened. This is the most likly scenario, when crimes are perpetrated. So arming our general duties police, is just putting the population as a whole, at risk, especially those poor mentally disturbed individuals who may come into contact with them, without a measurable increase in crime prevention. In short an ineffective  knee jerk over reaction (check out the origins of arming our police - see any similarities?).

 

Should the criminals be found, the police response is likly to be spearhead by a specially trained and armed unit - not general duties officers. This is the appropriate response to a dangerous situaton.

 

The inescapable reality is, that arming our general duties police has little effect on reducing crime, while exponentially increasing the risk of "legally" authorised gun killings/injury. Might make the paranoid amongst us feel safer  but it's just an illusion - just like ASIC but more dangerous.

 

"you really have no idea what you are on about"

 

Well actually I do - have you lived through a civil war???😈

 

 

 

 

Brendan is trying to bring you up to date with reality; picking on a specific detail is not helpful since the situation also involves slashing more than one person to death, kids who were just going about their business, killing people on the streets and killing each other, hundreds, if not thousands of home invasions over the past 20 years where occupants in their beds are forced to give up the electronic keys to their cars and any valuables, several hundred high speed police chases where police have been injured and innocent motorists have been killed, well known "child" offenders out on bails more than 50 times and so one. We will not be letting our police go into these work situations where they are required to protect us without maximum self protection. After any shooting they are subjected to the same laws as us and have to justify their actions. I live in one of the epi-centres where every one of our local bottle shop attendants have been beaten up or slashed, every one of out fuel outlets the same, for or five Audis/Benzes etc torched to the ground. These children have been offending on bail and the Victorian Government may even fall if they can't get their frantically urgent bail laws to solve the problem.

[Blueadventures]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

So  - two attacks where no "civilian" was harmed and you think this is a good reason for arming our general duties police  - I am sorry you feel so strongly about this, it seems to have clouded your judgement.

 

No police were on hand, armed or otherwise, so they could not have prevented what happened. This is the most likly scenario, when crimes are perpetrated. So arming our general duties police, is just putting the population as a whole, at risk, especially those poor mentally disturbed individuals who may come into contact with them, without a measurable increase in crime prevention. In short an ineffective  knee jerk over reaction (check out the origins of arming our police - see any similarities?).

 

Should the criminals be found, the police response is likly to be spearhead by a specially trained and armed unit - not general duties officers. This is the appropriate response to a dangerous situaton.

 

The inescapable reality is, that arming our general duties police has little effect on reducing crime, while exponentially increasing the risk of "legally" authorised gun killings/injury. Might make the paranoid amongst us feel safer  but it's just an illusion - just like ASIC but more dangerous.

 

"you really have no idea what you are on about"

 

Well actually I do - have you lived through a civil war???😈

 

 

 

 

Your not in the real world.  Your next new neighbour could be nutters (like happen in Queensland when a helpful neighbour and police were shoot dead in an ambush situation)  Police are sworn in, trained and armed and do their best.  In the very very rare situation that an officer did the wrong thing they are investigated and they also wear body worn cameras that assist in investigations.  I reckon they don't get enough of the grubs.  Its a big decision to shoot and creates post incident trauma, I believe many would rather have not pulled the trigger; however they step up and do the task at hand.  There are many grubs that attach and assault Ambos, paramedics, nurses and doctors that need sorting as well.

Edited Saturday at 01:57 AM by Blueadventures

[skippydiesel]

Blueadventures & Turboplanner

 

Try & work through this logicly, rather than knee jerk/gut response.

 

For a general duties police officer, with/without a gun,  to prevent a crime he/she must be present at the time. I ask you how often does that happen??

 

Just remember general duties police, include highway patrol, marine, rail, pathology, crowd control, etc are unlikly to be tasked with  being at the pointy end of a  known dangerous situation.

 

So for that one in a million chance, an officer might be in the vicinity of a crime, involving armed criminals, willing to use their guns/machetes/etc on a police officer, you arm, at a guess about 100,000, for the most part ordinary people, with Glocks. No specialist training and to be blunt very low physiological pre entry & ongoing screening.

 

History is against you;

Just a few months ago a NSW cop used his Glock on his  ex lover  and new mate ???

WA & Qld have very poor reputations in this area - not to suggest that the other States/Territory are squeaky clean - they are not 

 

For the most part these are ordinary people doing an ordinary, often tedious, job - you expect them to react appropriately, to that once in a career threat, when they may use their weapon - you must be joking - the shear numbers are against you.

 

If you want guns - Arm a small, highly trained, rapid response group. They already exist, so what's the point in all those Glocks?? They just end up killing/injuring someone, who most likly could have been apprehended, without the use of lethal force.

 

The supporters of general duties cops carrying guns conveniently forget - one day it could be you, a relative or friend having a mental breakdown, young person acting the goat and they get shot by a general duties cop who felt threatened - thats all they have to say and murder is legal.

 

One other point - a few year back, the police asked that their already lethal S&W revolvers,  be replaced by Glocks WTF!!!  You arm the police, the crims are more likly to carry arms, the police want better arms, the crims get better & more arms, as if one pistol is likly to be any more of a deterrent than another - Your shot!  its either an injury or your dead - you can't be more dead - we now have an arms race at taxpayers expense -- talk about insanity.

 

Not every police force in the World is armed - Check out the British police force, to see how its done.😈

 

 

[turboplanner]

I agree with the others, shut this trash down.

[Admin]

Thread locked