Terror suspect shot dead in Melbourne suburb.

[philmud]

I wouldn't call what the Government are doing a conspiracy. Rather it's opportunism to distract and keep a dick-brained electorate on side. Some of you guys are clearly drinking more kool-aid than beer at the moment, if you don't think this **** is being politicised.

 

[manticle]

I think you're being a bit harsh there Nev. Unexpected threat on your life and your colleague's, trained how to use a weapon; it's forseeable and understandable
There are many occasions when Vic police have acted in a way I'd describe as trigger happy. If the reports in this case thus far are factual, then I don't see how they have been in this case. They are not Jet Li or Steven Seagall.

 

[CrookedFingers]

Hey guys.
I live seriously like 2 minutes from this event. The police station is right next door to my local shopping centre.

I have a wife and two young kids, this attack makes me very nervous.
If someone is radical enough to attack the very people who are charged to serve and protect us, well, attacking unarmed citizens is no problem.

I dont defend the actions of the police officers in taking his life, but imagine the backlash if they did nothing ??
Long gone are the days of the old trigger happy victorian cops we hope, but extreme acts like this really do need extreme action taken by the law enforcement individuals.


Lets hope there are no more attacks like this, but I am not at all confident of that.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

If two police can not defend themselves against one small guy with a knife with out killing him then they should not be doing what they are doing.
I am not anti police I actually had police in my family, none of them trigger happy I am happy to say.

Bit different when he springs a knife out of the blue and stabs them.......have a bit of a think about what you just said and what happened...

 

[Black Devil Dog]

So if some one stabs me I can kill them, I think not.
I dont know the full story but killing someone is a big call.

You could sing Kumbaya, that might work.

 

[DJ_L3ThAL]

I think that the point some (and I would myself also) make is that events like these are used to justify changes/introductions to legislation which give those in power and influence mmore opportunities to erode rights and access to information for the general populace. Govts and the like know full well that circumstances come up which will enable them to take such action.

I have no issue whatsoever with tyhe actions of the coppers.

So what reasons and drivers would be a more suitable reasoning for legislative change? If they are "proactive" and do such changes without an event, the backlash is even worse.

Give me a break.

 

[manticle]

There's not a real need for legislative change though is there? What has happened that is not adequately covered by existing laws?

 

[Eagleburger]

If two police can not defend themselves against one small guy with a knife with out killing him then they should not be doing what they are doing.
I am not anti police I actually had police in my family, none of them trigger happy I am happy to say.

In close quarters knives afford much more opportunity.

Police were lucky and the deadshit punk who got what he deserved.

 

[DJ_L3ThAL]

Not with this particular event, but the context purported was the government will USE this to justify the proposed legislative changes. The changes were brought on since the terror threat level was changed.

I am usually a skeptic at the best of times, but with national security and the current "state of affairs" overseas and ISIS etc, I firmly believe there is intelligence behind the change in terror threat level. People get threatened by the unknown, but perhaps some belief in those working behind the scenes to protect us wouldn't go astray. Rather than always taking the 9/11 consipracy theory mindset that all democratic governments just seek to gain more power at the expense of the globe and their own citizens rights.

 

[CrookedFingers]

I'm sure any change in legislation would be supported by the masses shortly after these radicals take it to the next level.



CF

 

[pk.sax]

Minister: Roger, that news channel is giving a lot of credit to the policemen and the police chief, we need to seen to be doing something.

Bureaucrat: Like praising the policemen, offering support to the families and reassuring the people that the law will continue to protect them?

Minister: No! The previous government brought in the laws, we can't give them such an opportunity. We must do something original. What is the latest buzzword in America?

Bureaucrat: They are going to fight the terrorists Sir.

Minister: That is what we will do. Prepare a draft bill to curb boat people and illegal entry and call a press conference to announce that we are going to go hard on terrorists who try to escape our legal system, we are strengthening our weak laws to deal with the loopholes left by the previous government.

Bureaucrat: Yes minister.

 

[Phoney]

There's not a real need for legislative change though is there? What has happened that is not adequately covered by existing laws?

Not being a lawyer and also not having the time to read the 165 pages of the draft legislation, I had a read through the News LTD article of the quick summary of the new changes here: http://www.news.com.au/national/new-terror-laws-what-they-mean-for-you/story-fncynjr2-1227068923472

I consider myself to be a bit over on the libertarian side, socially, but there was nothing in there that jumped out at me as being a scary step towards becoming a police state. Not being able to travel to Syria or Iraq without a legitimate reason is not exactly going to interfere with my holiday plans in the next decade, its safe to say.

I just wish legislation like this had mandatory sunset clauses, so that after every say 8 years they would need to be revisited. Whereby if the threat has passed, they would get scrapped. Wishful thinking?

 

[madpierre06]

So what reasons and drivers would be a more suitable reasoning for legislative change? If they are "proactive" and do such changes without an event, the backlash is even worse.

Give me a break.

If you read my post again, and slowly this time, you might get the idea that it was a generalisation rather than specific to this actual case.

Then you might not be in such a hurry to be a rude prick.

 

[DJ_L3ThAL]

If you read my post again, and slowly this time, you might get the idea that it was a generalisation rather than specific to this actual case.

Then you might not be in such a hurry to be a rude prick.

Ill put your unecessary insult aside mate and yes, reread what you said and still would like to know what reasoning you think would be acceptable and not seen as the government taking advantage of the events?

 

[manticle]

People disagree, sometimes vehemently but please discuss opposing points of view without getting personal. Goes for everyone.

 

[Phoney]

I forgot to add, these particular laws restricting the press are ******** of the highest order: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/22/australias-counter-terror-laws-will-restrict-our-free-speech-and-free-press

 

[Vini2ton]

I was a bit hammered on sunday night but this is what I was wanting to talk about. It appears.

 

[Blind Dog]

If two police can not defend themselves against one small guy with a knife with out killing him then they should not be doing what they are doing.
I am not anti police I actually had police in my family, none of them trigger happy I am happy to say.

So you're saying that if you were in the exact same situation you'd have acted differently and accepted the risk that someone who'd just stabbed a colleague standing next to you wasn't going to take your life before you're able to disarm and incapacitate him?

 

[manticle]

Not with this particular event, but the context purported was the government will USE this to justify the proposed legislative changes. The changes were brought on since the terror threat level was changed.

I am usually a skeptic at the best of times, but with national security and the current "state of affairs" overseas and ISIS etc, I firmly believe there is intelligence behind the change in terror threat level. People get threatened by the unknown, but perhaps some belief in those working behind the scenes to protect us wouldn't go astray. Rather than always taking the 9/11 consipracy theory mindset that all democratic governments just seek to gain more power at the expense of the globe and their own citizens rights.

The IS situation as a whole is already being used as justification for legislative changes. You may agree with the changes, they may turn out to be innocuous, they may even replace archaic legislation but it's hard to deny that historically, dramatically reported events and drastic legislative changes often go hand in hand and are met with little resistance from the population at large .
I'm not a big believer in conspiracies, despite the known existence of many (and the imagined existence of a million more) - I prefer to believe in logic informed by factual information. At most I believe people in power like being in power and do what they can to stay there. In the case of Western, liberal democracy, that happens when politicians are seen to be doing something good or right by the majority. No conspiracy, no puppetmaster but there is manipulation of an elastic populace.

 

[Vini2ton]

I think that if it wasn't for the catholics I would have had no one to chuck my yonnies at. But that was then. If I was a kid now I'd be right with targets. Lots. And even people who want to be offended for me. woohoo.