That's something I can get behind, plague.
#STOPTHEHASHTAGS
That's something I can get behind, plague.
#STOPTHEHASHTAGS
So a former police officer comes out and says Police did well.NSW Police were right to try to negotiate with the gunman, according to a former senior police officer familiar with counter terrorism training.
"There is a very strong history that negotiations work and time does solve problems," said the former officer, who asked not to be named.
"The intention would have been to negotiate with him, to try to influence him.
"The longer it goes, the more chance you have got, there is decades of evidence that is the best way.
A sniper's rifle on the ground in Phillip Street during the Lindt cafe siege. Picture: Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images
A sniper's rifle on the ground in Phillip Street during the Lindt cafe siege. Picture: Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images
"Unfortunately, in this case the risk rose dramatically and unexpectedly."
He said police involved in the Lindt cafe siege "train, train, train" and would have had a number of contingency plans in place "shortly after" it started.
The first would have been "to do something quickly in response to a major threat".
"I would say from what I have seen (that) plan had to be activated, they have obviously decided to go because of something occurring.
See your ad here
"That something occurring was a shot being fired and the grave danger against the hostages."
He said if the gunman had in fact shot and killed a hostage, police had no choice but to go in.
Asked about a number of scenarios, including whether officers could have gone in though the roof to end the siege earlier, he said: "It depends on the access."
It was more likely they had a plan to enter covertly, perhaps though a fire exit or a back door.
Former NSW assistant commissioner Clive Small said going though the roof would "create a racket" and was not really an option.
"You are exposing yourself to gunfire and you're not in a position to fire back because you don't know where the hostages are."
Both Mr Small and the former officer were skeptical about theories the gunman could have been shot through the window.
NSW Premier Mike Baird (left) speaks as NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione looks on during a press conference about the siege in Martin Place, Sydney. Picture: Getty Images
NSW Premier Mike Baird (left) speaks as NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione looks on during a press conference about the siege in Martin Place, Sydney. Picture: Getty Images
Both said it appeared the gunman had shown himself early in the day, before snipers would have been in position and also before police were in possession of vital information, such as how many gunmen were in the café.
"It's a very dangerous thing to do, for a start you don't know what's going to happen to the projectile once it goes though the glass," said the former senior officer.
Asked who would have made the decision to go in, he said "the office of constable gives anyone (in the force) the power to make a decision if they feel a life is being threatened.
"More likely than not, it would have been a supervisor."
The supervisor could have been a member of the heavily armed team or could have been a short distance away communicating by radio.
Information gleaned from the escaped hostages would have also informed the thinking of police, as would the criminal history of the gunman, Man Haron Monis.
There may have also been electronic evidence via a listening device that also informed the decision.
Mr Small said he thought it was significant the gunman "had no escape route."
"It seems it was quite clear he had no plan on leaving there alive."
The former officer said the police involved were "very disciplined".
"They are as good as anyone in Australia, or the world for that matter."
Another former NSW assistant police commissioner Ken McKay, who retired last year after 35 years in the service, said it was evident the strategy had been to "wait it out" and monitor events inside through observation and negotiation.
Mr McKay, who headed the first NSW Police Middle Eastern Organised crime Squad, said: "The main aim is to get everyone out safely – and a lot of the time, that includes the offender." But he added that when gunfire suddenly sounded inside the cafe, "that immediately changes the game." In that instance…when police are suddenly forced to go from negotiating and containing to attack…everything becomes different. With that, comes risk."
**** Me
Far too much bullshit being blown up peoples arses these days
Plenty of other Police forces around the world would not have ****ed around and taken 16 hours to deal with one bloke with a ****ing gun.
The only reason this shit is printed is to cover their arses from rightful criticism of their weak arse response
The Leftist apologist garbage is in overdrive seriously how hypocritical and deluded are these clowns and the scum in the media are making a mountain out of a molehill.
It was one ****ing deranged nut with a gun FFS. We have had worse incidents than that in this country yet these ****s carry on over nothing.
So you're saying risk the lives of innocent people for the sake of one undeserving one by going weapons free?Originally Posted by MFKS
Do you not realise the potential that he may have been strapped with explosives? Then you lose a whole squad of TAC because they decided to go weapons free
Glad you're not in charge
Jaliens gives me the horn
Where the **** did I say anything about going in without guns??
I think you will find I am big on the use of guns on this nut and not ****ing around like they have.
Ohh he may have been strapped with explosives?? FMD
I take it you think the Police then should not arrest anyone for breaking the law just on the off chance they are strapped with explosives.
WH&S Shit gone mad. As I said **** the police send the army in. Whether he was carrying explosives would not have fazed them unlike the pussies in the Police dept.
Errrrrrrr Member, have you read any of the 16,000 articles explaining how they physically couldn't take the bloke out?
Member, you do realise weapons free doesn't mean without weapons... Right? It means they are free to fire their weapons.
I have read one and discounted it as complete bullshit covering their arses(Reminds me a lot of our club actually
)
I can assure you the army take the preservation of innocent lives into consideration before acting.
And yes they would take into consideration Explosive devices
I repeat, this isn't the movies
These are real lives
And you have me wrong, they should deal with scum like this in a matter fitting, but that includes preserving the innocent lives that were in clear and present danger.
Jaliens gives me the horn
MFKS's SAS idea has merit though, put these blokes up against the big boys and i doubt you'll get a run of blokes that would want to try it on after an initial flurry of suicidial idiots
Wot?
So the fact that they knew that a snipers shot from that distance wouldn't have stayed true once it hit the glass because the glass installed on buildings in that street need to be a certain thickness (to prevent vandals smashing them). So the fact they COULDNT shoot him in no way sways your opinion.
Ok.
Cool.
I'm shocked the Member has yet to critisise the hostages who ran out once the shooting started instead of helping old mate who was wrestling with the lunatic.
"DERP DERP DERP PLASTIC HOSTAGES"
Also if you need any further proof that there are still a lot of nutjobs out there, check the replies in the Twitter feed of any one of the Greens MP's.
Holy moly.
You should also check the op of the twitter feed of greens for nutjob opinions.
They give as good as they get
The Greens follow the same neo-liberal right-wing ideology as the ALP and the Coalition.
The similarities of these three parties are far greater than their differences.
The greens are right wing ideolgists??
Like **** they are. Couldn't be further from the mark
I think all political ideology goes like this:
Person 1 says something.
Person 2 then disagrees louderer.
Person 3 says something dumbererer and louderer.
Then they all go to lunch together.
To be fair I think Dunster hates all of them and thinks they shouldn't be trusted.
He's probs not far from the truth to be honest.
All politicians should not be trusted except for that Bob Katter bloke who is a bona fide ledge. The rest are just lying crooks.
The greens though are just full of bat shit crazy fruit cakes who let any uni drop out smart arse who thinks they know everything but have no idea on the world in which they actually live because they live in an inner city bubble and hang out with other fruit cakes who also agree with their bat shit crazy ideas into their midst.
What baffles me is who are the cunce who actually vote for them.
do you want to know why the people of sydney vote clover moore back in every year membah (i know she is not a green but she has got to be on the spectrum for you)
because she is a brutally effective mayor who serves her constituents brilliantly and listens to what they want and provides it to them
the inner city bubble is ****ing magic mate, you should come and try it
What sort of interstellar travelling machine is capable of transporting the good Member from his own little universe into this bubble you speak of?
Oh, and shotgun.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote