General Lynnmall terrorist attack

Miket12

Miket12

Govts (all sides) change laws at the drop of a hat, sometimes even retrospectively - Bet the law is changed now.
The government had already copped criticism for bringing in an act in response to the Christchurch Attack which wouldn’t have prevented it. The act hasn’t prevented this one.

But I wonder how far an act like this can actually go. Unless someone is deemed such a danger to society that you prevent them from owning a gun or stop them from buying things necessary to build a homemade bomb. But does that then prevent them from being able to purchase a computer or laptop in case they access objectionable material. Do we stop them from buying a prepaid phone in case it gets used to activate a remote detonator? They can‘t buy a car because they may drive it up the footpath? No fertiliser for the garden because it might be used as an explosive? Can‘t allow people to buy petrol, glass bottles, matches and shirts in case someone makes home made Molotov cocktails?

I wonder at what time the current legislation came into force yesterday. Was it during the planning, preparation or execution of his cowardly act. Some reports say he used a knife as a weapon he picked up off a shelf while others say he took it with him.

If he picked it up there, then when did our current terrorism law kick in? It seems not when he was planning it by walking into the store and towards where the knives were (unless he just saw the knives and “snapped”…. which we’ll never know). Was preparing the moment he picked up a knife…. but anyone can do that in a store and it not be considered an act of terrorism. Once he made his first moment towards his first victim with an intention of attacking them or the moment the blade touched his first victim?

I don’t actually see that there is anyway that an act like this could have been prevented. He was under constant surveillance by armed undercover, no doubt, highly trained officers who had no hesitation at ending his life. Unless they find evidence where he lives or on electronic devises we most likely won’t know anymore about his motivation except he had been radicalised.

I honestly don’t know the answer on how you write a law preventing this sort of cowardly attack which didn’t seem to have much in the way of planning.

Do we just have to accept that acts like this may occur and they are the cost we pay for the freedoms we enjoy? At what point do we decide everyday activities are planning something like this?

Like I said, I just don‘t know.
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
It seems not when he was planning it by walking into the store and towards where the knives were (unless he just saw the knives and “snapped”…. which we’ll never know).
I know that supermarket.

IMO it was well planned.

He would known he was being tailed. If the cops saw him go and buy a knife they could have arrested him for carrying an offensive weapon in a public place.

The knives and kitchen hardware are in a tight area just past where people form the covid queues for the checkouts.

The cops have lost him even as he entered the mall before he got into the supermarket proper. That is not their fault. Because of covid there is only one entrance which stuffs up their surveillance systems.

He would have had ample time to casually walk to were the knives were, and even though that area is in view of the supermarket entrance itself, it is out of view of the mall area beyond the checkouts.

He was a very cunning little shite.

The cops have heard the screams and reached and shot the fecker in 60 seconds. Very well done, but way too late.

Just IMO...but it is an educated O
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
Some reports say he used a knife as a weapon he picked up off a shelf while others say he took it with him.
I forgot to mention...the little shite knew about knives...the knives on sale at Countdown are for chopping vegetables, not stabbing people.

It actually takes a bit of force to stab somebody.

So hopefully the wounds are better than they could have been if he had a decent bayonet type knife.
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
Heyzeuss spare me :wtf: :wtf: ...this useless bitch is pissing me off just as much as Cindy...are they really the best women we can find for the jobs??? Just asking like...

Judith Collins told Kim Hill on RNZ’s Saturday Morning that she was in “absolute shock” after yesterday supermarket terror attack.

Having previously been the Minister of police she was grateful the man had been under constant surveillance.

She said last night she had texted the PM about the Anti Terrorism Bill, and said the National Party would support them in getting it through with urgency

“We’ve got some mechanisms in place, and this Bill would be dealing with the gaps in the law. This man will not be the only person the authorities are keeping an eye on.”

She would also be supporting a change in the Immigration laws, to have people’s citizenship revoked if they committed crimes.
 
Gizzyfan

Gizzyfan

The government had already copped criticism for bringing in an act in response to the Christchurch Attack which wouldn’t have prevented it. The act hasn’t prevented this one.

But I wonder how far an act like this can actually go. Unless someone is deemed such a danger to society that you prevent them from owning a gun or stop them from buying things necessary to build a homemade bomb. But does that then prevent them from being able to purchase a computer or laptop in case they access objectionable material. Do we stop them from buying a prepaid phone in case it gets used to activate a remote detonator? They can‘t buy a car because they may drive it up the footpath? No fertiliser for the garden because it might be used as an explosive? Can‘t allow people to buy petrol, glass bottles, matches and shirts in case someone makes home made Molotov cocktails?

I wonder at what time the current legislation came into force yesterday. Was it during the planning, preparation or execution of his cowardly act. Some reports say he used a knife as a weapon he picked up off a shelf while others say he took it with him.

If he picked it up there, then when did our current terrorism law kick in? It seems not when he was planning it by walking into the store and towards where the knives were (unless he just saw the knives and “snapped”…. which we’ll never know). Was preparing the moment he picked up a knife…. but anyone can do that in a store and it not be considered an act of terrorism. Once he made his first moment towards his first victim with an intention of attacking them or the moment the blade touched his first victim?

I don’t actually see that there is anyway that an act like this could have been prevented. He was under constant surveillance by armed undercover, no doubt, highly trained officers who had no hesitation at ending his life. Unless they find evidence where he lives or on electronic devises we most likely won’t know anymore about his motivation except he had been radicalised.

I honestly don’t know the answer on how you write a law preventing this sort of cowardly attack which didn’t seem to have much in the way of planning.

Do we just have to accept that acts like this may occur and they are the cost we pay for the freedoms we enjoy? At what point do we decide everyday activities are planning something like this?

Like I said, I just don‘t know.

All good points, however as .an example you can be banned from owning breeds of animals. The decision was an opinion by the Judge saying the law did not apply. The Crown disagreed with that. I have no idea if there were appeals.
 
Hardyman's Yugo

Hardyman's Yugo

I've just been watching the full press conference and the Prime Minister clearly states that she could not give out certain information based on the law and privacy acts. Then the stupid reporters often go back and ask her the same questions and she cannot answer them and is clearly pissed off. They don't get it. They are just dumb idiots.

I know they are just doing their jobs but when she says she can't tell them the full time line and why, what, where, when, and how, they need to listen to her.
Journalists start from the position that they don’t believe what politicians are telling them. All they are doing is repeating the question in the hope that they’ll find an inconsistency of answer that they can jump on.
 
Sup42

Sup42

Contributor
I though the same myself...but...as you know the psychiatrists have a professional method of working out insanity...this fecker wasn't insane... just plain bad.

So the psychiatrists would have been asked to bend their ethics which I think is a big ask.

Now judges are a different breed...they bend ethics all the time.

You are correct Bruce. Being a terrorist has nothing to do with mental illness.

Zealots and extremists are not mentally unwell. I understand why people question whether someone who does extreme acts is sane. But it is as you say, a measure of their badness not madness.

A Psychiatrist will breach patient Doctor confidentiality to protect others at risk.

What the law does, is that people that are too dangerous for prisons or jails....think about that.....too dangerous for Paremoremo....get referred to mental health and are looked after by people who work in my former field.

It is dangerous work.

If you locked up and tried to treat all the zealots, our mental health system would be full of skin heads who own too many guns and love Donald Trump....and do Nazi salutes and rant about killing people of colour.
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
All good points, however as .an example you can be banned from owning breeds of animals. The decision was an opinion by the Judge saying the law did not apply. The Crown disagreed with that. I have no idea if there were appeals.
I think they accepted it was just a poorly drafted law.

Hey ISIS, Al Qaeda and all you terroristic dickheads, no need to stay in Afghanistan, just come to NZ where is is legal to plan a terrorist attack.

How fecking embarrassing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dean and BiggerD
Inruin

Inruin

Contributor
I just have a couple of thoughts.

I hope those cops don't get put through the ringer about the number of shots they fired or if they should have tried to subdue him some other way. I am hopeful they had standing orders to put him down at any sign of threat to the public.

Second thought is around our current gun controls and laws. I know people are making jokes about oh we will be banning knifes next but I for one am glad we live in a country that takes gun control a little more seriously than a lot of others. Imagine this fucker with an assault rifle. Yes he was under surveillance, but you can't watch them all.
 
Gizzyfan

Gizzyfan

However we despise it these are belief systems, not mental or even criminal in the usual sense. To me once they are identified there has to be a threshold where they cannot be in society.

Then, where do we put tem, personally I do not think Civil prisons are the place. Too much risk of indoctrination. Interested to get Dave's view. I would prefer a military prison, Soames Island springs to mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_P, dean and Sup42
bruce

bruce

Contributor
I hope those cops don't get put through the ringer about the number of shots they fired
I think you could guarantee it.

The Merkins call it Monday morning Quarterbacks.

If it needed 7 shots there needs some theoretical explanation although logic suggest they were on edge because they sensed this was going to go down.

The Police internal report will probably call for more training and counselling of the cops. :rolleyes:

Common sense is they are only human, and did an exceptional job, which the Commissioner has already stated publicly.
 
Gizzyfan

Gizzyfan

I think you could guarantee it.

The Merkins call it Monday morning Quarterbacks.

If it needed 7 shots there needs some theoretical explanation although logic suggest they were on edge because they sensed this was going to go down.

The Police internal report will probably call for more training and counselling of the cops. :rolleyes:

Common sense is they are only human, and did an exceptional job, which the Commissioner has already stated publicly.

Although usually trained to 'double tap' experience internationally show Cops generally have no idea of how many shots they have fired in these shootings. He was coming at them with a knife, no time for aimed shots, centre mass and let loose. Less deadly restraints like pepper spray and taser have limited effectiveness against target driven people.
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
Although usually trained to 'double tap' experience internationally show Cops generally have no idea of how many shots they have fired in these shootings. He was coming at them with a knife, no time for aimed shots, centre mass and let loose. Less deadly restraints like pepper spray and taser have limited effectiveness against target driven people.
They have to be careful with ricochets too.

From the sounds of it they all hit which is commendable from that point of view.

However it sounds like he was in the act of stabbing people as well, that seems to be the case from the film clip so they were really in a tight situation.

Like the Commissioner said, well done, he is a cops cop, he knows.
 
rugged

rugged

I don’t actually see that there is anyway that an act like this could have been prevented
They knew he was planning a terror act but the current law didn't allow for him to be detained/prosecuted for that. The police tried.
First reading of a new law has passed that would have enabled this. If the law had been fast tracked it could have been prevented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_P and Inruin
Miket12

Miket12

They knew he was planning a terror act but the current law didn't allow for him to be detained/prosecuted for that. The police tried.
First reading of a new law has passed that would have enabled this. If the law had been fast tracked it could have been prevented.
Thanks, didn’t realise that. How would it have helped? Hate speech? Objectionable material? Would he have been locked up or deported?

Not being smart, just wondering how it could have been prevented under what’s being proposed.
 
rugged

rugged

Thanks, didn’t realise that. How would it have helped? Hate speech? Objectionable material? Would he have been locked up or deported?

Not being smart, just wondering how it could have been prevented under what’s being proposed.
Hmm actually there is some debate about whether the new law would have applied with PM JA saying it is speculative.


"The new bill amends the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Act 2019 and expands offences that can be categorised as a terrorist act."
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_P and Inruin
Beastmode

Beastmode

Just another day in paradise
Contributor
I just have a couple of thoughts.

I hope those cops don't get put through the ringer about the number of shots they fired or if they should have tried to subdue him some other way. I am hopeful they had standing orders to put him down at any sign of threat to the public.

Second thought is around our current gun controls and laws. I know people are making jokes about oh we will be banning knifes next but I for one am glad we live in a country that takes gun control a little more seriously than a lot of others. Imagine this fucker with an assault rifle. Yes he was under surveillance, but you can't watch them all.
how many coppers were there?

7 cops for 7 shots?
 
  • Like
Reactions: matiunz and Dixpat

Similar threads

Miket12
Replies
13
Views
1K
Sup42
Sup42
Mojo154
Replies
8
Views
1K
mt.wellington
mt.wellington
Replies
27
Views
2K
ultimatefan_old
Replies
18
Views
1K
Northern_Union