Yeah, I know. Thing is though, . they had been chasing this guy for most of the day, .. he was a "Wanted" felon, . or at least suspect in a stabbing etc.
The air wing had been tracking him for quite some time, and tracked him from Yarraville, Cops gave chase & aborted earlier in the day … so my question would be, "Did the cops standing watching at Flinders St know who he was? Had they received the call on the radio that the Police force was trying to apprehend him?? If so, should they not have tried to arrest him, perhaps (dependent on reports of how dangerous he was) at gunpoint? Even shot him?
As someone said, the Vic Police had quite the record when it came to shooting people that were off their rocker, & posed perhaps much less of a threat?
Perhaps through some bad decisions from young, and or too trigger happy individuals, & the resultant bad press, they’ve gone too far in the other direction?
I’m not saying one way or the other, just throwing it up for debate, not stating an opinion btw.
You have an opinion, you keep asking the same question to reinforce it.
I think they’re valid questions.
I hope the police force are asking similar questions right now.
No-one’s criticising the men on the ground (I hope).
The guy was armed, yes?
Doing donuts in the city’s central intersection.
I wonder about whether Melbourne even has a tactical force group, and combined with the Lindt siege, whether the call will ever be made to hand over to them.
We’re constantly told that we’re prepared. They weren’t ready for a guy with a known and current history who gave plenty of warning.
And what warning did they have that he was going to drive the car on the footpath and mow people down?
Maybe I have some of the basic facts wrong, but…
He stabbed someone that day
He’d taken a hostage.
He was behaving in a manner that no-one does in The most central part of Melbourne.
He was(?) armed.
I’m assuming that was a legitimate question.
There have been many cases over the past year of all those things happening and not once did the person end up running people down with their car.
The reality is that it is not as easy as people like to think it is to stop these people. When we watch those car chases in the US we think at how quickly they end, the truth is though, the often they take place over a few hours not minutes, with the cars often going through multiple built up areas before they are finally stopped. Unlike the movies, it is simply not so easy.
Also we can ask questions but how about waiting for the police to offer timelines and facts of what they attempted to do before assuming they didn’t do enough?
Often in these scenarios people are very, very quick to start asking questions about the police, yet when they do a lot of the good things, people rarely offer up much praise. It is a tough job with enormous amounts of pressure and often having to make life or death decisions, both for the public and for themselves. It is easy to criticise them but the job is not even remotely easy and it is why many of them suffer from stress related issues.
Let’s wait a reasonable amount of time and allow the usual process of investigating the circumstances of what went down before we start questioning everything they did.
Yeah, I know. Thing is though, . they had been chasing this guy for most of the day, .. he was a "Wanted" felon, . or at least suspect in a stabbing etc.
The air wing had been tracking him for quite some time, and tracked him from Yarraville, Cops gave chase & aborted earlier in the day … so my question would be, "Did the cops standing watching at Flinders St know who he was? Had they received the call on the radio that the Police force was trying to apprehend him?? If so, should they not have tried to arrest him, perhaps (dependent on reports of how dangerous he was) at gunpoint? Even shot him?
As someone said, the Vic Police had quite the record when it came to shooting people that were off their rocker, & posed perhaps much less of a threat?
Perhaps through some bad decisions from young, and or too trigger happy individuals, & the resultant bad press, they’ve gone too far in the other direction?
I’m not saying one way or the other, just throwing it up for debate, not stating an opinion btw.
You have an opinion, you keep asking the same question to reinforce it.
I think they’re valid questions.
I hope the police force are asking similar questions right now.
No-one’s criticising the men on the ground (I hope).
The guy was armed, yes?
Doing donuts in the city’s central intersection.
I wonder about whether Melbourne even has a tactical force group, and combined with the Lindt siege, whether the call will ever be made to hand over to them.
We’re constantly told that we’re prepared. They weren’t ready for a guy with a known and current history who gave plenty of warning.
And what warning did they have that he was going to drive the car on the footpath and mow people down?
Maybe I have some of the basic facts wrong, but…
He stabbed someone that day
He’d taken a hostage.
He was behaving in a manner that no-one does in The most central part of Melbourne.
He was(?) armed.
I’m assuming that was a legitimate question.
There have been many cases over the past year of all those things happening and not once did the person end up running people down with their car.
The reality is that it is not as easy as people like to think it is to stop these people. When we watch those car chases in the US we think at how quickly they end, the truth is though, the often they take place over a few hours not minutes, with the cars often going through multiple built up areas before they are finally stopped. Unlike the movies, it is simply not so easy.
Also we can ask questions but how about waiting for the police to offer timelines and facts of what they attempted to do before assuming they didn’t do enough?
Often in these scenarios people are very, very quick to start asking questions about the police, yet when they do a lot of the good things, people rarely offer up much praise. It is a tough job with enormous amounts of pressure and often having to make life or death decisions, both for the public and for themselves. It is easy to criticise them but the job is not even remotely easy and it is why many of them suffer from stress related issues.
Let’s wait a reasonable amount of time and allow the usual process of investigating the circumstances of what went down before we start questioning everything they did.
I’ll read the rest of your post after you name one example to support your premise.
Don’t really see the point, otherwise.
There are loads of questions that will be asked and answered in the future. One I have is about bail justices. Never heard of them until today. Apparently a voluntary role like a JP that gave this guy bail, despite police opposition, after he allegedly attacked his mother’s partner.
And just like Adrian Bailey it will be bail that will be the big issue. A man with multiple occasions of violence granted bail.
As far as the police and their actions are concerned, they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
If so, should they not have tried to arrest him, perhaps (dependent on reports of how dangerous he was) at gunpoint? Even shot him?
As someone said, the Vic Police had quite the record when it came to shooting people that were off their rocker, & posed perhaps much less of a threat?
From memory, the last one that was shot dead was that kid that ran at them with a knife.
1 in 8 years.
Damn those trigger happy coppers!
Iirc they also broke protocol in that instance by firing warning shots at the ground then his limbs before finally his torso after the previous had failed to stop/deter him
I haven’t really nothered to read the articles or watch the videos. Can someone explain what the situation of some people with baseball bats was? Did they try to stop before the people were run down
I haven't really nothered to read the articles or watch the videos. Can someone explain what the situation of some people with baseball bats was? Did they try to stop before the people were run down
The guy was doing donuts outside flinders st station. Two guys stepped onto the road and took a swing at the car. Nearly got hit.
I haven't really nothered to read the articles or watch the videos. Can someone explain what the situation of some people with baseball bats was? Did they try to stop before the people were run down
The SunUK has an extensive report of yesterday’s events.
If you toggle down a fair way on this page, you will find footage from inside the car of where baseball bat guy likely came from.
You can clearly hear a female companion urging him back into the car.
It would explain why someone had a baseball bat in the centre of town, as Noonan alluded to earlier.
Cops are extremely limited in their rules of engagement, largely to try to avoid situations like this. The individuals get frustrated by these rules, so it isn't fair to target the cops on scene, it's a lose lose situation. Imagine being a cop in the 60 seconds before he caused that carnage. What do you do? Fire a shot, miss and hit someone on the other side of the street? Fire a shot, hit and the car crashes into a crowd? T-bone the car, which then runs into a crowd? Attempt to block him in, aggravating the farkwit, causing him to do exactly what happened. At the speed these things go pear shaped, it's nigh on impossible to take out a vehicle cleanly and safely. Terrible terrible situation.
To be honest don’t feel like reading blow by blow descriptions. Well done for someone trying to step in. But it makes you wonder if you’ve got an out of control driver who’s being tailed, in the busiest part of the city, and someone taking him on with a baseball bat, if police are given the all clear to resolve the issue with lethal force.
We should totally keep cutting spending on mental illness.
And if mental illness is characterised by religious mania and excessive drug taking?
Isn’t that a symptom of the illness?
And what happens when the mentally ill refuse to take their medication because it makes them fell fuzzy. A friend of my mum’s got murdered by her son with that excuse. Her daughters repeatedly warned her not to let him in the house because he was violent.
And I’m sick of hearing that drug addicts are mentally ill. The drugs often cause the illness. I don’t know what the solution is, but being namby-pambies isn’t one of them.
If this piece of dross claims he was mentally ill, he should still be locked away for life just to protect the community. That’s the priority, not the well-being of the offender.
And his lawyer will claim that he is mentally ill and he will be detained at the governers pleasure and in 5 years time some clever ■■■■ activist psychiatrist wil claim he is no longer a danger to society and then we all know what will happen next.
Yeah, I know. Thing is though, . they had been chasing this guy for most of the day, .. he was a "Wanted" felon, . or at least suspect in a stabbing etc.
The air wing had been tracking him for quite some time, and tracked him from Yarraville, Cops gave chase & aborted earlier in the day … so my question would be, "Did the cops standing watching at Flinders St know who he was? Had they received the call on the radio that the Police force was trying to apprehend him?? If so, should they not have tried to arrest him, perhaps (dependent on reports of how dangerous he was) at gunpoint? Even shot him?
As someone said, the Vic Police had quite the record when it came to shooting people that were off their rocker, & posed perhaps much less of a threat?
Perhaps through some bad decisions from young, and or too trigger happy individuals, & the resultant bad press, they’ve gone too far in the other direction?
I’m not saying one way or the other, just throwing it up for debate, not stating an opinion btw.
Probably a bit late to the party and sorry if I have missed this, but would it have helped if the police had shot his tyres. Police are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. So much PC these days, not like in the old days, shoot first, ask questions later.
Cops are extremely limited in their rules of engagement, largely to try to avoid situations like this. The individuals get frustrated by these rules, so it isn't fair to target the cops on scene, it's a lose lose situation. Imagine being a cop in the 60 seconds before he caused that carnage. What do you do? Fire a shot, miss and hit someone on the other side of the street? Fire a shot, hit and the car crashes into a crowd? T-bone the car, which then runs into a crowd? Attempt to block him in, aggravating the farkwit, causing him to do exactly what happened. At the speed these things go pear shaped, it's nigh on impossible to take out a vehicle cleanly and safely. Terrible terrible situation.
And who makes the rules of engagement?
I honestly don’t know who decides those rules. Government? Senior leadership? Does it matter?
I do know that stopping a moving vehicle is extremely difficult. Stopping a drug affected psychotic is extremely difficult. Stopping one in a moving vehicle is an exercise in managing chaos.
The rules will probably be relaxed for future pursuits. People will then probably die at some point in the attempt to end a future pursuit. We will end up back in this debate, just from the other side.
All I’m saying is the police had an almost impossible job here. Question the decisions, take learnings if there are any, just try not to judge harshly based on hindsight.
Cops are extremely limited in their rules of engagement, largely to try to avoid situations like this. The individuals get frustrated by these rules, so it isn't fair to target the cops on scene, it's a lose lose situation. Imagine being a cop in the 60 seconds before he caused that carnage. What do you do? Fire a shot, miss and hit someone on the other side of the street? Fire a shot, hit and the car crashes into a crowd? T-bone the car, which then runs into a crowd? Attempt to block him in, aggravating the farkwit, causing him to do exactly what happened. At the speed these things go pear shaped, it's nigh on impossible to take out a vehicle cleanly and safely. Terrible terrible situation.
And who makes the rules of engagement?
I honestly don’t know who decides those rules. Government? Senior leadership? Does it matter?
I do know that stopping a moving vehicle is extremely difficult. Stopping a drug affected psychotic is extremely difficult. Stopping one in a moving vehicle is an exercise in managing chaos.
The rules will probably be relaxed for future pursuits. People will then probably die at some point in the attempt to end a future pursuit. We will end up back in this debate, just from the other side.
All I’m saying is the police had an almost impossible job here. Question the decisions, take learnings if there are any, just try not to judge harshly based on hindsight.
It is not the fault of the police on the ground, but you have to ask why they could not find this peanut in the 12 hours since he tried to murder his brother, lack a of resources , no cars, the instructions not to chase which ultimately cost 4 lives and 19 injured, the politicians who appoint milksop commissioners who refer to home invaders, thugs, drug dealers, rapists, bash merchants and murderers as “clients” while at the same time going after people who exceed the speed limit by 40% of a walking pace. Maybe it is the moron who despite his record let him out bail.
As an aside who or which group uses the phrase “unbelieving dogs” which appeared on his twitter account, no prizes for that one.
Cops are extremely limited in their rules of engagement, largely to try to avoid situations like this. The individuals get frustrated by these rules, so it isn't fair to target the cops on scene, it's a lose lose situation. Imagine being a cop in the 60 seconds before he caused that carnage. What do you do? Fire a shot, miss and hit someone on the other side of the street? Fire a shot, hit and the car crashes into a crowd? T-bone the car, which then runs into a crowd? Attempt to block him in, aggravating the farkwit, causing him to do exactly what happened. At the speed these things go pear shaped, it's nigh on impossible to take out a vehicle cleanly and safely. Terrible terrible situation.
And who makes the rules of engagement?
I honestly don’t know who decides those rules. Government? Senior leadership? Does it matter?
I do know that stopping a moving vehicle is extremely difficult. Stopping a drug affected psychotic is extremely difficult. Stopping one in a moving vehicle is an exercise in managing chaos.
The rules will probably be relaxed for future pursuits. People will then probably die at some point in the attempt to end a future pursuit. We will end up back in this debate, just from the other side.
All I’m saying is the police had an almost impossible job here. Question the decisions, take learnings if there are any, just try not to judge harshly based on hindsight.
It is not the fault of the police on the ground, but you have to ask why they could not find this peanut in the 12 hours since he tried to murder his brother, lack a of resources , no cars, the instructions not to chase which ultimately cost 4 lives and 19 injured, the politicians who appoint milksop commissioners who refer to home invaders, thugs, drug dealers, rapists, bash merchants and murderers as “clients” while at the same time going after people who exceed the speed limit by 40% of a walking pace. Maybe it is the moron who despite his record let him out bail.
As an aside who or which group uses the phrase “unbelieving dogs” which appeared on his twitter account, no prizes for that one.
The police are not really in a position to discharge a firearm under the circumstances. Too much risk and danger to innocent bystanders. Any officer that would have done such a thing would have a lot of explaining to do. No-one was to know what was about occur regarding the carnage the Rhole was about to do. If the police had a crystal ball I am sure he would have long ago been shot as it then would have been a viable risk.
Laws are made to secure public safety as best as possible. There is no perfect system. Every situation requires its own handling and the police can only make decisions at the time as what they perceive is best for the community safety and that it falls within the guidelines of the law…
Police pursuits are called off when excessive speeds become a real risk to innocent lives. Years ago when innocent lives were taken due to police pursuits there was public outcry so the law was adapted to try and minimize the risk. Now we have an outcry as to why he was not pursued any longer. The police have a job to do and generally do the job as best as possible under trying circumstances. For all you know the police standing around Flinders Street Station whilst the Rhole was doing as he pleases might have been ordered to back-off and wait for help to arrive so as to minimize public and police risk.
If someone really wants to do some damage in society they will…Hoddle Street, Queen Street, Port Arthur, Russell Street Bombing…etc
The onus can just as easily be put on the public as to why someone didn’t inform the police before it happened…the answer is that nobody knew…and that includes the police…nobody can know what is to unfold. Don’t put blame on the police or expect them to have done something else. A maniac in a car is damn hard to stop and I can assure you that Hollywood type stunts do not work in real life even if there are baseball bats involved.
