I thought the media were jumping on the bandwagon far too quickly.. from the snippets I saw, it was impossible to understand the context of the situation each officer found themselves in, so I didn't really have any comments other than expecting someone to be a 'hero' in the middle of the most life threatening situation ever is ridiculous.. Hats off to those that were heroes though, they are truly commendable people..
Mass shooting at Bondi beach Australia
- Thread starter bingham67
- Start date
Looks like there was going to be a follow up attack. Thankfully thwarted by Police.
www.thesun.co.uk
Cops ram car filled with men 'planning violence on Bondi Beach' and arrest seven
HEAVILY armed cops rammed a car to arrest at least seven people accused of planning violence who were allegedly on their way to Bondi Beach. Footage shows counter-terrorism police wearing camouflag…
www.thesun.co.uk
I don't think it is, that's part of what they're paid for (granted it's rare) - even unarmed members of the public tried to tackle the gunman, it likely would've saved lives - I'm not saying they needed to have run right up to them - the detective took his shots from 40 meters away AFAIK and using a tree.
We've seen the same thing in the US, a 6 minute attack and the officer responsible was prosecuted as a result - in his case they've obviously got some active shooter SOPs he was supposed to have followed, in the Aussie case maybe not, they perhaps were technically correct and following inadequate rules/SOPs (but these are armed officers so that really ought to be looked at else why are they armed...) - either way it's frustrating to see that some of them didn't take the initiative and act - thankfully the detective who arrived did so despite seemingly doing so alone and also only armed with a pistol.
Scot Peterson: Parkland officer on trial for failing to stop shooting
Scot Peterson is thought to be the first US officer ever charged with failing to respond to a school shooting.www.bbc.co.uk
It's actually not what they're paid to do especially if they aren't equipped or trained to deal with the threat posed. One officer being in a position to open fire doesn't mean others were, especially in the context of an open space with lots of innocent people around. You're making sweeping judgements about the people involved and rushing to uninformed conclusions in order to get a dig in. You do this all the time.
They're equipped with firearms and the vehicle seen in the incident arrives close to the shooters, they were in a position to fire (and indeed some of them did - even members of the public attempted to intervene), again the point here was that the training/SOPs for mass shooter events perhaps needs to be updated - this isn't a claim about whether they were or weren't technically following procedures - on the other hand you're just blindly support anything police officers do because you are one. And no it's not a "sweeping judgement", you're parroting cliched expressions there - the detective who arrived and stopped the attack acted with a sense of urgency, others acted bravely too - you're avoiding any nuance here. I'd hope things get updated after this incident.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 2,259
- Location
- Cheltenham
It’s almost like he doesn’t realise the police and military operate under Rules of Engagement and can be sent to prison if they get it wrong. I don’t want any police just running in and opening fire like an American, the same way I wouldn’t have in my military career.
You don't know the first thing about Rules of Engagement - firstly they don't inhibit anyone's inherent right to self defence and secondly the protection of human life is present in even strict rules of engagement; someone actively shooting and killing people is absolutely permissible!
The point here is that time is of the essence, even seconds wasted can cost lives so the modern best practices from the US is that intervening ASAP is the priority for the first officers on scene not (for example) securing the area or waiting for SWAT to arrive etc. An imperfect but quick response can save more lives, prevent more injuries.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 2,259
- Location
- Cheltenham
And this one sentence reminds me why I never engage with you.
So when you start off with a sarcastic "it's almost as if he doesn't realise..." then it's fine but suddenly you get “triggered” when I reply in kind as you subsequently showed that the reference to rules of engagement was utterly irrelevant to any point being made.
Why not engage with the arguments actually made?
Australian authorities doing everything they can to label this as anything but Islamic terrorism. Its quite funny outside of the utterly tragic and horrific circumstances.
"ISIS inspired" "ISIS type" "antisemitic terror" and my personal favourite from the PM when asked who the biggest terror threat is "the far-right".
For context 9/10 of the last attacks in Oz were Islamic.
"ISIS inspired" "ISIS type" "antisemitic terror" and my personal favourite from the PM when asked who the biggest terror threat is "the far-right".
For context 9/10 of the last attacks in Oz were Islamic.
Last edited:
If they have a firearm, surely they are trained in rules of engagement?
Meaning if they see a threat to life (quite obviously was) they were protected by law to open fire unless they themselves increased threat to life.
Apparently he got booed and jeered when he turned up at the memorial on the beach. He's a moron.
Really good article on the bbc site today (makes a change!) about the rise in antisemitism and the complete lack of any efforts to deal with it.
www.bbc.co.uk
Completely aligns with the actions Albanese is displaying in the wake of the attacks.
Why British Jews are experiencing their biggest change in 60 years
There have been shifts in how secure many British Jews feel - and how connected they feel to the rest of the community.
www.bbc.co.uk
Completely aligns with the actions Albanese is displaying in the wake of the attacks.
Really good article on the bbc site today (makes a change!) about the rise in antisemitism and the complete lack of any efforts to deal with it.
Why British Jews are experiencing their biggest change in 60 years
There have been shifts in how secure many British Jews feel - and how connected they feel to the rest of the community.
Completely aligns with the actions Albanese is displaying in the wake of the attacks.
It is mainly due to the last 2 years genocide in Palestine, which is of course wrong jews as a whole are not to blame for Israeli government decisions.
But at the same time being against israeli genocidal zionist policies is not the same as as being anti semetic and when people obfuscate the two that is when actual anti semitism rises.
The chief culprit here in the rise of anti semitism is Israel and its policies, the second is far right and extremist islamic elements.
They're equipped with pistols, intended for personal defence and shooting at close range (likely up to 20m), not over a distance at subjects with rifles who are evidently experienced and trained in how to use them effectively. The officers were literally outgunned here but still attempted and ultimately succeeded in stopping the threat.
If you're talking about the marked vehicle that was seen to drive past initially, I understand it was confirmed to be an unarmed forensics/investigation unit.
You keep saying it needs to be reevaluated and updated but won't go into any specifics on how. Your argument seems to only hinge on the fact that because one officer was able and willing to fire, they all could and should have; any review of training and procedure for dealing with a long-range MTFA threat will need to be through the eye of what can reasonably be expected of the officers involved.
Incorrect. I'm supporting the concept of not jumping to baseless conclusions based on the minimal amount of information available this early. As this incident is reviewed each officer's actions will be heavily scrutinised and if it's determined one or more failed to act or shouldd have done more within the scope of their training and ability so be it; similarly the force will need to take responsibility if it's found that existing training and procedures were inadequate for dealing with the threat posed. Realistically though, dealing with that type of threat is not something regular officers would be trained for in most countries and is why specialist teams with appropriate training and equipment exist. It's simply not possible to train and equip every officer to deal with everything they might encounter.
I'm not parroting anything, I'm calling it what I believe it is. There's not much nuance in criticising the majority of the officers involved because they "didn't take the initiative and act" without considering what their individual circumstances were at the time. Policing is full of people like that detective who, despite not being trained or equipped to deal with a given situation, try to find a way to do something anyway. His actions shouldn't however be turned around and used as a way to criticise his colleagues, two of whom were shot while trying to deal with the incident themselves.
It's also worth noting that two Queensland officers were shot and killed only in August because they chose to act and move towards a threat rather than withdraw and wait for more resources or a tactical team; sometimes things go horribly wrong and they pay with their lives.
I can't find much information on specific policy or training for NSW Police or legislation around police use of lethal force. I did however find they have specific legislation around the use of lethal force against those actively involved in terrorism incidents:
Law on police use of force in Australia
Australia‘s federal rules on police use of force generally comply with international standards although an amended law in New South Wales allows use of firearms against suspected terrorists even where no imminent threat is perceived.
www.policinglaw.info
Well some of them did - and that's the point, he shot from 40m away and did so successfully, similarly in the US the school resource officer who was charged only had a pistol AFAIK - the SOP there is to neutralise the threat ASAP.
I'd suggest that they have rather more data/experience of mass shootings than the Aussie police.
No you're making up an argument yourself here but yes it seems like some of them should've.
And yet you're also demanding specifics in reply to a general point that was avoiding doing the very thing you're claiming to avoid.
Where did I say "the majority?" and again this wasn't a comment about all individuals.
Do you think that's risk is not obvious here? The key point here is that it's an *active* shooting, people are actively being shot and killed - that's why in parts of the US for example they've modified SOPs so that the standard practice is to intervene ASAP even if imperfectly. Yes that does increase risk but they do try to in turn reduce that with the tactics taught.
I can't find much information on specific policy or training for NSW Police or legislation around police use of lethal force. I did however find they have specific legislation around the use of lethal force against those actively involved in terrorism incidents:
Law on police use of force in Australia
Australia‘s federal rules on police use of force generally comply with international standards although an amended law in New South Wales allows use of firearms against suspected terrorists even where no imminent threat is perceived.
The rules of engagement stuff is a complete red herring from another poster just throwing it in on a whim, this isn't some borderline situation, this is people being actively shot and killed - of course armed officers can legally open fire.