NSW Police

aussietraveller · Guru

NSW Police

adreamer · Senior Member

Yep, but too many dogooders around.

Helen

dave48 · Senior Member

I'm sorry but I've got no time for the police at all. When they had a clear shot of him when he was in the window ranting and raving they should have taken him out. But no pussy footing around until later and then they fired hundreds of rounds at a bloke and the end result was they killed one of the hostages. So I'm sorry I think the police are hopeless and should stop shooting people with mental illnesses and shoot the people they should. Waiting to hear
Dave

adreamer · Senior Member

Ugh.. Dave u should join up, I reckon u would shoot yourself in the foot,

H

TheHeaths · Guru

Lets get it right.

The people who died in the siege died because of one person. The perpetrator, Man Monis.

The police, the legal system and everyone else did what they were required to do. Hindsight is always 100% , but those people were there, living it and trying to do the right thing by all concerned. I can guarantee that none would have wanted the thing to end how it did with those people dying (except the perpetrator)

I wonder how we would react in the situation, forgetting the bravado sitting comfortably in front of the computer?

rockylizard · Guru

Gday...

Cheers - John

aussie_paul · Guru

The bail system is certainly one of the problems.

If Monis did have explosives, taking him out may have killed them all.

Monis should not have been on the streets.

Aussie Paul. smile

Cupie · Guru

I am not sufficiently informed to make comment on the actions of the Police, but at the time I was rather perplexed at the failure to utilise the world renown expertise of the locally located SAS.

In recent years they and particularly the NSW contingent have focused on developing their abilities in this precise area of operations. Indeed it is because of this potential threat that they are based on the East coast.

-- Edited by Cupie on Friday 26th of May 2017 09:35:33 PM

Fringe Dweller · Senior Member

I Bet . Those blaming the police . Have NEVER been in a situation where life is threatened.

That includes armchair Colonels on this forum. WHAT Would you have done . Yes we have 20/20 hindsight.

I Would Not be criticising anybody . Unless of course . You have done better.

aussie_paul · Guru

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/the-365-fine-that-left-a-boatie-nico-brand-baffled-on-the-sunshine-coast/news-story/eb463a048298cd917d61a1d00f5219ab?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=DailyTelegraph&utm_medium=Facebook

Aussie Paul. smile

Eaglemax · Guru

Dave 48 said "I'm sorry but I've got no time for the police at all." I assume if you get robbed you dont spend any time with the police ..to report it? I assume if your safety is threatened at a free camp by thugs you handle it yourself.....against half a dozen ? I assume you have zero concept of the difficulty police have knocking on on a parents door to inform them of their childs death by car accident? I assume you have never been attacked by a druggy high on ice....while trying to save a child from being hurt? Maybe your child? Nuf said

Desert Dweller · Guru

As with our military, our police forces are using out dated methods & shoddy equipment etc. it's about time we caught up with the rest of the world, Australia isn't the quiet, serene backwater (lucky country) it once was.

DMaxer · Guru

I have nothing but admiration for the police. Of course there will always be a few that drag them down, but that is true of all occupations. My poor old dad was a long serving police officer and I witnessed first hand the effect on him of the horrible things he saw and some of the low life he dealt with. It's funny, but one of the closest bonds is between police and crimal defence lawyers. I think it may be because we both have to deal with the same people, just in different roles. The matter referred to, he was granted bail because the prosecuting authorities failed to put all material before the court. The file was not even released to the coroner. Unless you have served in the police or had a close family member in the service you have no idea of the police commitment.

sandsmere · Guru

aussie_paul wrote:
The bail system is certainly one of the problems.
If Monis did have explosives, taking him out may have killed them all.
Monis should not have been on the streets.
Aussie Paul.

Yes. I blame the legal system, not the coppers for the Lindt Café debacle.

TheHeaths · Guru

One thing I do know.

When it all turns to poo in our own lives (which I hope never happens incidentally), everyone on this forum will turn to one group and system for help.

The police and the legal system!

It's not perfect, but it is still the best thing we have to fight the bad guys.

Yes, mistakes are made, and we do have a system that sees the police in many instances as de facto tax collectors, but in general, those that abide by the law are protected and safe, and don't pay the de facto taxes.

I wonder what others would suggest as a better system, and whether they would be happy to spend more (sacrificing spend in other areas) to fund it?

-- Edited by TheHeaths on Saturday 27th of May 2017 08:20:39 AM

Possum3 · Guru

Law enforcement, public safety and disaster management has been my profession and Forte' for many long years.

This (Lindt Siege), is a subject that has and will be discussed in living rooms and around campfires for many months.
Anyone that has been involved in a life changing event, like Granville/ Waterfall / Cairns train crashes, Thredbo disaster, or Military conflicts in Korea/Indonesia/Vietnam/Timor/Afghanistan/Iraq - these are the ones that know how the Front Line is managed, sometime SNAFU is the order of the day - That is why enquiries/inquests are held - to learn from what has been done to provide guidance in the future with a view to a better outcome for any similar event that may occur in the future or to prevent a further event entirely.

Anyone else should keep their ill informed adjudications to themselves.

The Belmont Bear · Guru

The police are in a no win situation here what would have happened if they had taken out that mad man before anyone was injured ? I'm sure that those who are criticising them now for not reacting quickly enough would have been calling for someones head if they had. Dave48 your argument is flawed - sane people don't go round holding people hostage and standing in front of windows ranting and raving so if the police had shot him they would have been shooting someone with a mental illness. Personally I have a lot of confidence in our NSW police force and appreciate the fact they are continually putting themselves in harms way to protect the rest of us.

DMaxer · Guru

This "law enforcement" that you continually refer to Possum, that was not in the police service was it?

bill12 · Guru

Shooting a high powered sniper rifle thru plate glass in a recipe for flying scrapnel verywhere, and a lot of collateral injuries. And you might not hit the target anyway. Hindsight is alway great after the fact.Monis was the only killer . Bill

Cupie · Guru

Possum3 wrote:
Law enforcement, public safety and disaster management has been my profession and Forte' for many long years.

This (Lindt Siege), is a subject that has and will be discussed in living rooms and around campfires for many months.
Anyone that has been involved in a life changing event, like Granville/ Waterfall / Cairns train crashes, Thredbo disaster, or Military conflicts in Korea/Indonesia/Vietnam/Timor/Afghanistan/Iraq - these are the ones that know how the Front Line is managed, sometime SNAFU is the order of the day - That is why enquiries/inquests are held - to learn from what has been done to provide guidance in the future with a view to a better outcome for any similar event that may occur in the future or to prevent a further event entirely.

Anyone else should keep their ill informed adjudications to themselves.

Are you then taking issue with my comments?

But of course in this country we all have the right to express our views however well informed or otherwise they are. This goes along with the obligation to listen & perhaps learn from the views of others.

"Informed' & 'Ill informed' is often a subjective assessment.

Edit ..

Perhaps I should have described the East Coast SAS contingent as "The 2nd Commando Regiment" which provides Tactical Assault Group (East) to respond to domestic incidents on the east coast of Australia.

-- Edited by Cupie on Saturday 27th of May 2017 10:50:38 AM

Possum3 · Guru

@ Cupie - Not particularly taking issue with your comment - Just generally P'd off with "They should have" comments - Normally by those that never have and most never will be.

@ DMaxer - as advised to you previously my personal history is none of your business - If you needed to know - you would.

DMaxer · Guru

Sorry to upset you Possum. It is just that you are always referring to either police matters or "law enforcement. I recall a few years ago I had a neighbour that was always informing us he was in "law enforcement" and that he was involved in "operational matters yet never would divulge what it was. Other neighbours thought it must be undercover work or spy work. It turned out he was employed by the adjoining local council as a litter inspector and dog catcher. Funny term that, law enforcement.

dieseltojo · Senior Member

We know nothing except what we saw played out on TV. But the inquiry was adamant that the manager's were to late in pulling the trigger. Ok it is all caused by that Monis whatever, but once ongoing it has to be controlled. This was far from a domestic situation.

I mean who didn't watch the saga develop and think ......"Just shoot this mongrel."

Lots of emotion here but little consideration of the causes and effect. Then blame a fellow member for having an opinion that is different to the High moral grounders, saying "who are you and what do you know." Then telling you they know better any way.

Well I know that they admitted to using domestic strategies to a bloke that held many unknown people hostage.

He was about to go away for a few years on murder related charges.

The police had him in sight, as did many camera shots from the TV crews.

The SAS admitted they had been given no authority to shoot.

This was all management not the police that go in risking all.

And if you want to make excuses for a bullet to fragment through a window, consider the range of solid FMJ and armour piercing rounds available.

The high moral grounders here imagine that if you criticize the police you are a radical. All I have seen is members reporting their view of what the coroner has said.

-- Edited by dieseltojo on Saturday 27th of May 2017 01:15:10 PM

TheHeaths · Guru

Sorry Dieseltojo,

So if you criticise the police you are "expressing an opinion", and that is fine and reasonable, but if you make a comment questioning that criticism, you are a "high moral grounder".

I would say it is simply "expressing an opposing opinion" and is as fine and reasonable as the other opinion.

Aus-Kiwi · Guru

Don't put any blame on Police but higher up need some serious rethinking . The Police were restricted by offiacialdom . Plus we are so scared to ever critisize a religion it's just stupid . The ACT never released info of warrants when he ( Manis ) was in custody at Penrith ! Due to time the ACT getting back to Penrith court he had to be released . The Police are working in an inifficiant system too remember !!

Bryan · Guru

I think the police did a great job in the circumstances.

It will be unfortunate for us that their anti terrorism skills can only be improved with more hands on experience which will happen as the terrorists take advantage of officialdom's quest to be the world leaders in what they think is political correctness (which to me translates to a lack of balls) to create more death and mayhem among our civilian population.

Furthermore the current justice system is way out of tune with reality as they expect police to fight terror while adhering the queensberry rule.

macka17 · Guru

A small. High power pill will go through glass sheet without shattering it.
From memory Shop fronts have to have laminated or hardened glass in there
for Litigation problems, and Public safety nowadays.

Even a 175 grain FMJ 30-0 pill would go through without doing more than punch a hole.
with full charge behind it.

What got me most about that totally mismanaged abortion.
was lack of direction and instruction from brains? controlling it.

and those idiots standing there like a mob of sheep. Then Bang. Flash grenade.
and we all go in blasting away with Auto\semi? weapons.

Apart from the ONE person in the lead. NONE had direct sight of who was where.
ALL the others had to shoot round him.

Yea. we all knew where our pills went sir.

They should be trained with weapons b4 being let loose with them.

Nobody fires Blind. Nobody fires without a point of target impact. and most important.

YOU don't know where it's gonna land. DON'T pull the trigger.

we used to head shoot rabbits and call every shot.
Same as stepping back to 4 and 600 with a bipod and the 30-06 (My fav)
For Roos and Goats. Deer were normally very close to.

Hand loaded pills and you called every shot
with a $5 in tin if pill didn't land where you called, in it's body\head.

But Back stop was always the most important of all rules.
No Backstop NO Squeeze.

None but one (or maybe 2) of them had that.

All 5 of us held a Marksmans badge in Army.
Even us in REME.
WITH a .303 Mk4.Full wood in those days Pre. Belgian FN.

They should always be using Militarily trained personnel for those things.
Let police do their job. Which will NEVER be covering terrorists.
The bossed ain't got the balls. to call the hard shots.
As that item proved fully. They Civillian. Not Military minds.

Unfortunately. Nowadays. That's what's required in the streets.

-- Edited by macka17 on Saturday 27th of May 2017 09:32:46 PM

wal1 · Veteran Member

Macka,

Your rambling again.

This is a excerpt of the federal law (state law closely follows)

The federal Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), which contains provisions that apply to both federal and state and territory law enforcement officers,[52] provides that

(1) A person must not, in the course of arresting another person for an offence, use more force, or subject the other person to greater indignity, than is necessary and reasonable to make the arrest or to prevent the escape of the other person after the arrest.
(2) Without limiting the operation of subsection (1), a constable must not, in the course of arresting a person for an offence:
(a) do anything that is likely to cause the death of, or grievous bodily harm to, the person unless the constable believes on reasonable grounds that doing that thing is necessary to protect life or to prevent serious injury to another person (including the constable); or
(b) if the person is attempting to escape arrest by fleeingdo such a thing unless:
(i) the constable believes on reasonable grounds that doing that thing is necessary to protect life or to prevent serious injury to another person (including the constable); and

(ii) the person has, if practicable, been called on to surrender and the constable believes on reasonable grounds that the person cannot be apprehended in any other manner.[53]

Its not up to the boss, rather the officer with the gun to make that decision.

You will find that quite a few of the police involved in high risks operations, are in fact ex members of the defence forces, that have seen active service. That means that the objects they have shot at sometimes shoot back, unlike animals and paper targets.

Now unless you have left out something in your long and varied description of your life and times i wonder how you can claim expert status on the matter.

Wal

Cupie · Guru

Who can do what & with which & to whom .. Just to muddy the water ..... Perhaps I am being a little mischievous in posting this .. Sorry LOL

If we wish to go down the sticky legalistic path of who can use what level of force, then it may be of interest to have a look at what the Defence Force may do if they were to be involved.

Should the State so request then the PM or Gov Gen may issue an 'Expedited Call Out' of the Defence force to 'recapture locations or things'

The DF is then subject to the following restrictions on the use of force.

51T Use of reasonable and necessary force

(1) A member of the Defence Force may, in exercising any power under Division 2, 2A, 3, 3A or 3B or this Division, use such force against persons and things as is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

(1A) However, subsection (1) does not apply to the powers under Subdivision E of Division 3A.

(1B) To avoid doubt, any use of force by a member of the Defence Force under this Part must be in accordance with this section.

Further restrictions on use of force

(2) Despite subsection (1), in exercising powers under Division 2, 3 or 3A (other than subparagraph 51SE(1)(a)(i) or (ii)) or this Division, a member of the Defence Force must not, in using force against a person:

(a) do anything that is likely to cause the death of, or grievous bodily harm to, the person unless the member believes on reasonable grounds that doing that thing is necessary to protect the life of, or to prevent serious injury to, another person (including the member); or

(b) subject the person to greater indignity than is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

(2A) Despite subsection (1), in exercising powers under Division 2A, a member of the Defence Force must not, in using force against a person:

(a) do anything that is likely to cause the death of, or grievous bodily harm to, the person unless the member believes on reasonable grounds that doing that thing is necessary to:

(i) protect the life of, or to prevent serious injury to, another person (including the member); or

(ii) protect, against the threat concerned, the designated critical infrastructure in respect of which the powers are being exercised; or

(b) subject the person to greater indignity than is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

See simple isn't it? This is the playground of Lawyers/Barristers.

I pulled this from The Defence Act 1903 amdt. 21 Oct 2016. But just as a matter of interest & not as a contradiction of wal 1's post.

BTW .. On the issue of rounds not being able to penetrate toughened glass, I believe that there are a range of projectiles/calibres & techniques designed to do, or capable of doing exactly that.

PS. As a general statement, I fully support & respect the integrity of the NSW Police Force. The review into the events of that tragic day is certainly a necessary & good thing.

macka17 · Guru

Only thing I'll say to that is no. I've never shot anybody but know many that have.
and gone through training for such. Long ago.

The things wrong with that Federal Law sheets you showing there.

is that with Terrorists. Specially Muslim ones.

IS. When you front them.
UNLIKE normal people.They tend blow themselves up Voluntarily. With everybody else around them.
You CAN NOT treat them as normal "civilised " people. They ain't.

Bombs were mentioned there.

Put the **** down first. talk about it later WITH your grandkids.

You have to STOP them. In circumstances that go way beyond rules and regulations written on paper.
Peacetime papers, in "civilised" country's.

Where people have no concience of anything they doing.
They're going to Allah with the 72 Virgins. hah.

They not "Mentally" Humans anymore.
just radical mutants. Treat them as such.

As the changing of the rules are showing. Slowly.
Their Mentality or lack of. Makes treating them a completely different kettle of fish.

And of the poor blokes that have been in Military and now under civilian rules
Many are very frustrated.

I do know a few mates and their kids who have been and are in Police and Military.
SAS and Mercenary work (My eldest for one in Gambia) They are very frustrated.

They know what to do. This stupid "political Correctness" has a lot to answer for.
Along with the dicks that promote it.

Personally I'd just wipe the lot out.

No Muslims. Equates to. In My eyes, and a lot of other minds.

That our Grandchildren are safe. Specially my recent 3 month old Grandson.

Choice between them and any Radical of any creed or religion.
They'd be dead from me b4 they got near any of mine.
As 90% of the rest of the world would agree with too.

I won't go into the fact that Christians and Muslims have been at war for around 600 yrs.

Some dicks nowadays think it's over.

We'll see.

I speak my mind. You. or anybody else. DON'T agree.

Simple.

Go on to next post. Some agree with me.

-- Edited by macka17 on Saturday 27th of May 2017 11:13:53 PM

-- Edited by macka17 on Sunday 28th of May 2017 11:18:22 AM