Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

[rjh01]

Or if you want mass murder how about

The assailants left 31 civilians and 4 perpetrators[1] dead, with more than 140 others injured.[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

The person in NZ killed 50 people. How many did he injure? Add that to the 50 killed and does it exceed 31 + 140 = 171 killed or injured by these attackers?

My point is that it may be easier to commit mass murder with a gun, other weapons are possible. What common sense says to be true may not actually be true. You need to do your own research first.

On the other hand I am sure the majority of mass murders are committed using guns.

 

[rjh01]

I find your statement, given the facts presented, so absurd as to want to ask you the following question so I do not look foolish in replying in a serious tone.

You are making a joke, right? There is no need for me to seriously reply? Is late and im thinking the humor is bouncing off NE.

No, I am serious. You should never make assumptions without checking at some stage that these are correct. There have been too many convictions of people who are actually innocent of the crimes they were accused of committing.

Of course he probably will plead guilty and so the only question left would be is he sentenced to life or never to be released?

Edit. The assumption I am talking about above is that the person who has been arrested is actually the guilty party. Though I will admit, in this case, it is a very reasonable assumption.

 

[smartcooky]

Or if you want mass murder how about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

The person in NZ killed 50 people. How many did he injure? Add that to the 50 killed and does it exceed 31 + 140 = 171 killed or injured by these attackers?

My point is that it may be easier to commit mass murder with a gun, other weapons are possible. What common sense says to be true may not actually be true. You need to do your own research first.

On the other hand I am sure the majority of mass murders are committed using guns.

The conditions are

Set by sadhatter:
A non gun murder that is within a reasonable number of your your definition. Any number not matched by a readily available firearm. not accepted
If the largest number is picked then we have to have a discussion on whether we are talking average or peak murder rates in civilian situations or in any situation.

Set by smartcooky
Must be a hand held weapon, wielded by a single perpetrator against a group of people.

Not acceptable are:

Bombs on planes, trains, buses or any other form of public transport
Bombing of buildings
Deliberate crashing of planes, trains, buses or any other form of public transport
The use of gas, poisons or viruses
Driving of vehicles into crowds​

Arthwollipot suggested 49, I'm happy with that suggestion

Your example is not accepted. it has to be one person only (Kunming was eight people).

 

[smartcooky]

Totally agree

But these things tend to work both ways

I will watch with amusement when Labour, the Greens and the left call for better data collection by the GCSB and SIS after screaming from their parapet how evil their work was, not that long ago.

Both sides are going to have to live with a dose of reality. The days of 100% total privacy were already on their way out, and this terrorist attack has brought it to an end forever. If there is zero surveillance of private citizens, then this sort of thing is going to happen a lot more frequently and it will be worse.

As an aside, I notice that little weasel Nicky Hagar and his fellow weasel Kevin Hackwell have kept their mouths well shut in the last few days.

 

[cullennz]

I do not think this should be allowed. A person cannot defend themselves very well against a serious charge even under the best of conditions. A lawyer should be appointed to conduct his defence. If the defendant does not like that lawyer they can find another one. But once the trial has started the lawyer can only be sacked with the judge's permission. I do not want NZ to have their version of the David Eastman^WP original trial. We all knew at the time he was guilty, except he was not guilty. Suppose my comment above was not a waste of keystrokes and that he is innocent? It would take a good lawyer to uncover that fact. Otherwise do not bother with a trial, just lock him up and throw away the key.

The trial should answer one question - was he the person that killed the 50 people? His beliefs in immigration and related matters must not be aired.

How it works here for what it is worth

The nutter said he will defend himself and doesn't want a lawyer.



He will either cause nuisance by ranting or obviously be incapable of doing it, in a closed court.

The judge will be forced through his idiocy to make him incapable of defending himself after several warnings/hints/advice.

The judge will over rule the nutters decision and make him have a lawyer/lawyer adviser (there is a word for it I can't remember).

Edit: fixed wording

 

[smartcooky]

I do not think this should be allowed. A person cannot defend themselves very well against a serious charge even under the best of conditions. A lawyer should be appointed to conduct his defence. If the defendant does not like that lawyer they can find another one. But once the trial has started the lawyer can only be sacked with the judge's permission. I do not want NZ to have their version of the David Eastman^WP original trial. We all knew at the time he was guilty, except he was not guilty. Suppose my comment above was not a waste of keystrokes and that he is innocent? It would take a good lawyer to uncover that fact. Otherwise do not bother with a trial, just lock him up and throw away the key.

The trial should answer one question - was he the person that killed the 50 people? His beliefs in immigration and related matters must not be aired.

NZ Court proceedings are generally open to the public. However, judges have absolute control over conduct in the court room and have wide statutory powers to protect the integrity of the trial process and the rule of law.

A NZ High Court judge has the power and the sole discretion to

1. Order that a trial be behind closed doors, with no gallery & no cameras.
2. Order that all reporting be limited to the facts of the case only.
3. Decide which testimony will be made public and which will not.
4. Order that members of the Jury mist not reveal proceedings to the public

Effectively, the defendant can try to rant his disgusting bile as much as the judge will let him. No-one will ever get to hear it.

 

[a_unique_person]

Define large number, and I'll look for a non gun murder that is within a reasonable number of your your definition. Keep in mind I'll not accept any number not matched by a readily available firearm. And if you are going to pick the largest number you can find, then we have to have a discussion on whether we are talking average or peak murder rates in civilian situations or in any situation.

I'd rather face down 1 coward with a gun than 10 determined guys with knives.

How about instead of playing games you just say what you want to say.


The murderer didn't turn up with a car full of hammers or knives. There is a reason for that.

 

[rjh01]

The conditions are


Your example is not accepted. it has to be one person only (Kunming was eight people).

How about a serial killer? You mentioned they had to be a group of people. You never said they had to be all in one place or all killed in one day.

I give you Gary Ridgway^WP. Killed 49 people with his bare hands or ligatures. That 49 is just how many murders were linked to him. It probably was a lot higher. Could be over 90.

 

[Checkmite]

The judge will over rule the nutters decision and make him have a lawyer/lawyer adviser (there is a word for it I can't remember).

I think you're right. In the US, this is usually how it goes when a defendant invokes the right to self-representation but makes it clear they don't intend to properly defend themselves according to the rules of the court, and I can't imagine it's very different in other countries with similar legal systems.

 

[Checkmite]

How about a serial killer? You mentioned they had to be a group of people. You never said they had to be all in one place or all killed in one day.

I think the context of the discussion makes it obvious that "group" is meant to imply several people together in one place and time. Serial killers' victims comprise a set, not a group.

 

[rjh01]

NZ Court proceedings are generally open to the public. However, judges have absolute control over conduct in the court room and have wide statutory powers to protect the integrity of the trial process and the rule of law.

A NZ High Court judge has the power and the sole discretion to

1. Order that a trial be behind closed doors, with no gallery & no cameras.
2. Order that all reporting be limited to the facts of the case only.
3. Decide which testimony will be made public and which will not.
4. Order that members of the Jury mist not reveal proceedings to the public

Effectively, the defendant can try to rant his disgusting bile as much as the judge will let him. No-one will ever get to hear it.

A defendant without a lawyer is highly unlikely to conduct the defence very well. And that is even if he does not try to rant his disgusting bile. After the trial I want there to be no doubt that he is guilty. Holding part of the trial in private increases the risk that someone will say he is innocent and people believing it. Just look at the Pell case as an example.

NB: not concerned with issues around what irrelevant bile he might spew. I am only concerned about making sure that the evidence proves that he is guilty and this is demonstrated both to the court and the public. Let us confine this discussion to that issue. If you want to say we should not have a trial, just lock him up and throw away the key then you are disagreeing with me. If you can produce a news report saying he has attended court (even if the news report is next week) and he has pleaded guilty that is ok too.

 

[Information Analyst]

Or if you want mass murder how about

The assailants left 31 civilians and 4 perpetrators[1] dead, with more than 140 others injured.[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

The person in NZ killed 50 people. How many did he injure? Add that to the 50 killed and does it exceed 31 + 140 = 171 killed or injured by these attackers?

My point is that it may be easier to commit mass murder with a gun, other weapons are possible. What common sense says to be true may not actually be true. You need to do your own research first.

On the other hand I am sure the majority of mass murders are committed using guns.

The Kunming attack involved eight perpetrators, so with knives they managed an average of 21-22 victims each, with a 17.5% fatality rate amongst victims. The single Christchurch terrorist managed 100 victims, with a 50% fatality rate.

 

[smartcooky]

How about a serial killer? You mentioned they had to be a group of people. You never said they had to be all in one place or all killed in one day.

I give you Gary Ridgway^WP. Killed 49 people with his bare hands or ligatures. That 49 is just how many murders were linked to him. It probably was a lot higher. Could be over 90.

I think you must accept the title as the overall; governing conditon.

We are not talking about serial killers, we are talking about spree killers in a single attack.

 

[angrysoba]

Good to know that you agree with that. For rational people may also reply with ''their however's ' but only to point out the existence of double standards in the assessment of Islam, definitely not to 'dilute the message' of condemnation of such crimes.

Honestly, what I tend to hear after any kind of massacre, whether it be Islamist or white supremacist is people shifting effortlessly into the same narrative they trotted out the last time. It usually goes like this...

"So why is it that when a Muslim does it, it is terrorism, but when a white guy does it, it is all about mental illness?"

OR

"So why is it that when a white guy does it, it is terrorism, but when a Muslim does it, nobody can talk about the Religion of Peace^TM?"

You can very reliably find someone to back up your narrative and focus on that if you like, or you can try something else such as...

"Terrorism is a problem whether it is white supremacist, Islamist, or Seventh Day Adventist. Our reporting, and our security services should acknowledge the problem in proportion to its existence and allocate resources accordingly."

Not much of a rallying cry, admittedly, and of course there is not enough sulk involved.

 

[angrysoba]

How about a serial killer? You mentioned they had to be a group of people. You never said they had to be all in one place or all killed in one day.

I give you Gary Ridgway^WP. Killed 49 people with his bare hands or ligatures. That 49 is just how many murders were linked to him. It probably was a lot higher. Could be over 90.

Can we not accept that guns are more versatile and reliable instruments for killing as many people as possible, which indeed is exactly how they are designed to be, and why we arm our militaries with them instead of say, hammers, baseball bats, kitchen knives and boards with nails through them, and come up with sensible and reasonable legislation that is based on the facts and evidence of what we know about firearms... instead of looking for weird outliers to prove that guns are unnecessary to kill lots of people?

 

[Stout]

Holy Crap !

Up to 10 years in jail for watching Nazi Killer Guy's bodycam footage.

That’s despite a warning from New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern that anyone caught downloading or distributing such material — especially the killer’s 17 minute bodycam footage — faces up to 10 years jail.

Link

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Can we not accept that guns are more versatile and reliable instruments for killing as many people as possible, which indeed is exactly how they are designed to be, and why we arm our militaries with them instead of say, hammers, baseball bats, kitchen knives and boards with nails through them, and come up with sensible and reasonable legislation that is based on the facts and evidence of what we know about firearms... instead of looking for weird outliers to prove that guns are unnecessary to kill lots of people?

These mass shootings happen often enough that it should be abundantly clear to anyone that firearms, and more specifically, semi-auto magazine fed rifles and pistols, are the preferred weapon of spree killers. The MO of these spree killers is such that they need to kill as quickly and effectively as possible within a short time, as arrest, suicide, or death by police are swiftly arriving.

I don't underestimate the creativity of someone deranged enough to choose to do such a thing, and I imagine mass killings will continue even in the absence of such guns. There is something to be learned that, when available, these weapons are the clearly preferred choice. Other weapons, like improvised bombs, are more complicated and have a higher chance of failure.

 

[William Parcher]

...The gunman armed himself. He then left his car — the boot filled with more arsenal and open for easy access — and walked a short distance along Deans Ave into the mosque carpark.

As he walked towards the front door he lifted his gun and started shooting. It was 1.40pm.

Moments later Mohamad Jama saw the short gunman — who wearing a helmet, glasses, and military-style clothing — enter Al Noor Mosque. He was armed with a large, black automatic weapon.

At first, Jama thought the guns might have been fake or toy. The gunman had five cartridges on a belt, and one loaded in the gun.

Jama grabbed him by the arm and said: "What do you do, where are you going? This is a mosque."

The gunman did not say anything. He instead aimed at Jama and pull the trigger. A bullet whizzed past his left ear. The rampage then began...

This did not happen. The bolded part is a fictional account.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213643

 

[Belz...]

Seems like that's the right thing to do, if you want justice.

I suppose it depends on what kind of justice you want.

 

[uke2se]

Holy Crap !

Up to 10 years in jail for watching Nazi Killer Guy's bodycam footage.



Link

I'd say leaving them locked up without trial on an island would be a better option. That's how we treat terrorism-suspects.