Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

[smartcooky]

Why would the ethnicity of the law enforcement officers make a difference? In New Zealand, is it common and/or acceptable for people of one ethnic group to treat members of a different ethnic group more harshly than their own? In the United States, a prisoner if supposed to be treated the way prisoners are treated. The ethnicity of anybody involved shouldn't influence anything.

Oh dear, you've missed the point. Why am I not surprised?

(nice little show of poutrage though)

So just lock him up in solitary confinement without a trial?

Dangerous prisoners should be locked up until trial (unless of course, you think someone who murdered 50 people and wounded 50 more is not dangerous?

Make it as though Brenton Harrison Tarrant just walked into a dense fog late one night and was never heard from again?

Once he's tried and found guilty (and he will be found guilty) I don't care what happens to him. He's scum.

Should he happen to die in prison (and if he ends up in the prison general population, that is very likely to happen, cremate him and flush the cremains down the toilet).

 

[cullennz]

Oh dear, you've missed the point. Why am I not surprised?

(nice little show of poutrage though)



Dangerous prisoners should be locked up until trial (unless of course, you think someone who murdered 50 people and wounded 50 more is not dangerous?



Once he's tried and found guilty (and he will be found guilty) I don't care what happens to him. He's scum.

Should he happen to die in prison (and if he ends up in the prison general population, that is very likely to happen, cremate him and flush the cremains down the toilet).

And what ever basic prisoner rights he loses prior to his trial doesn't matter?

Edit: Not even going to bother with whatever ethnicity of wardens thing argument is as it is just weird and I don't know what it is.

 

[Minoosh]

How do you know kicking doors is a distortion of the truth ? There's obviously some police version of the events where they deny doing that, right ?

It's your claim; the burden on is you is to provide evidence.

 

[Minoosh]

Wait, What ? Tarrant gave them money ?

When has anybody said this?

 

[EHocking]

When has anybody said this?

Everybody?

including Martin Sellner, who heads the Austrian branch of the Europe-wide Identitarian Movement.

 

[banquetbear]

...you've gone from:

So kicking the doors of multiple properties over a facebook photo is a good thing, right ? Maybe we'll get lucky and find out this "suspected suicide" was really a police sniper bullet to the head.

to this:

It's just a figure of speech really, this whole kicking in the door thing. I'm not meaning the NZ police literally go up to a door, shout POLICE ! as they knock loudly then raise a jack booted foot and apply a swift kick to the door to bust it open before rushing in with weapons drawn. Especially not when dealing with violent offenders, no sir they don't kick in the door.

They use a battering ram like everybody else.

Until we find out what those reasonable grounds were, we work with what we got.

And even now there is no evidence to suggest that a battering ram was used in the execution of the warrant. There is nothing to indicate the police had to force entry to the 3 premises they raided. This is New Zealand. The police aren't even routinely armed. They don't go around breaking down doors unless they absolutely have to: and there is nothing in the article you cited that gives the impression that this particular case was an exception.

Can you, just for a little bit, stop making stuff up? We are reading the same article, and the fact that you feel the need, even now, to continue to embellish the story is starting to be getting a bit tiresome.

 

[dann]

Everybody?

including Martin Sellner, who heads the Austrian branch of the Europe-wide Identitarian Movement.

I never heard of that movement, but I can see that they would like Scania and Schleswig-Holstein to return to Denmark. I’m sure that Swedish and German nationalists would love that idea …

 

[dann]

So kicking the doors of multiple properties over a facebook photo is a good thing, right ? Maybe we'll get lucky and find out this "suspected suicide" was really a police sniper bullet to the head.

The police suspecting (and finding!) "an illegal, modified SKS semi-automatic" owned by suspected Nazis seems to be a pretty solid reason for (allegedly) kicking doors if that's what they actually did.
Why do you dream of "a police sniper bullet to the head"? The article doesn't mention a single shot being fired so I assume that you are just 'elaborating' again.
His son even mentions a reason why he may have killed himself:

He said his father, who had previously spent time in prison for assault, was worried about going back to prison for possessing the illegal firearm.

 

[cullennz]

...you've gone from:



to this:



And even now there is no evidence to suggest that a battering ram was used in the execution of the warrant. There is nothing to indicate the police had to force entry to the 3 premises they raided. This is New Zealand. The police aren't even routinely armed. They don't go around breaking down doors unless they absolutely have to: and there is nothing in the article you cited that gives the impression that this particular case was an exception.

Can you, just for a little bit, stop making stuff up? We are reading the same article, and the fact that you feel the need, even now, to continue to embellish the story is starting to be getting a bit tiresome.

Personally would have said "a pinch annoying" , but maybe you have thicker skin.

 

[smartcooky]

...you've gone from:

Originally Posted by Stout
So kicking the doors of multiple properties over a facebook photo is a good thing, right ? Maybe we'll get lucky and find out this "suspected suicide" was really a police sniper bullet to the head.

to this:

Originally Posted by Stout
It's just a figure of speech really, this whole kicking in the door thing. I'm not meaning the NZ police literally go up to a door, shout POLICE ! as they knock loudly then raise a jack booted foot and apply a swift kick to the door to bust it open before rushing in with weapons drawn. Especially not when dealing with violent offenders, no sir they don't kick in the door.

They use a battering ram like everybody else.

Until we find out what those reasonable grounds were, we work with what we got.

That is quite a substantial walk back, and a clear indication that he is completely ignorant of how things are done in this country.

And even now there is no evidence to suggest that a battering ram was used in the execution of the warrant. There is nothing to indicate the police had to force entry to the 3 premises they raided. This is New Zealand. The police aren't even routinely armed. They don't go around breaking down doors unless they absolutely have to: and there is nothing in the article you cited that gives the impression that this particular case was an exception.

Can you, just for a little bit, stop making stuff up? We are reading the same article, and the fact that you feel the need, even now, to continue to embellish the story is starting to be getting a bit tiresome.

When whole cloth is all you have, making stuff up is all you can do.

I don't accept Stout's pathetic "figure of speech" defence. He/she made an unevidenced claim, namely that "the militarized police kicked in the doors of not only the kid but also those of his mother and grandparents". That is a claim of fact; one that is not borne out by any evidence. I expect no less than for Stout to either substantiate his claim or immediately retract the claim... unconditionally! Its what any decent and honest person would to in those circumstances.

 

[cullennz]

to this:



That is quite a substantial walk back, and a clear indication that he is completely ignorant of how things are done in this country.



When whole cloth is all you have, making stuff up is all you can do.

I don't accept Stout's pathetic "figure of speech" defence. He/she made an unevidenced claim, namely that "the militarized police kicked in the doors of not only the kid but also those of his mother and grandparents". That is a claim of fact; one that is not borne out by any evidence. I expect no less than for Stout to either substantiate his claim or immediately retract the claim... unconditionally! Its what any decent and honest person would to in those circumstances.

Maybe Stout has just read too much Judge Dredd

 

[Stout]

Ok Ok Ok . I'll retract the claim and acknowledge that a forced enrty is something that's never done by police in New Zealand. Likewise with the militarized police statement. All these photos I've seen with police packing assault rifles, like the one of the officer guarding a funeral, are just.....Photoshop ?

We know now that dear old dad stabbed himself, so I'll even eat that statement too.

It's interesting just what actually ruffles Kiwi feathers. A few over the top statements bring out the rage maching yet something even more absurd, like 14 years for facebooking a manifesto is just hunky dory.

Oh and speaking of manifestos, the Unabomber's one is still out there and freely available so you better let your government know. Wouldn't want to see anyone radicalized by that piece of terrorist writing.

 

[banquetbear]

It's interesting just what actually ruffles Kiwi feathers. A few over the top statements bring out the rage maching yet something even more absurd, like 14 years for facebooking a manifesto is just hunky dory.

...there was no "rage maching" (whatever maching means) in my responses to you. Even now you continue to bluster. Once again: can you please stop making stuff up? Like "14 years for facebooking a manifesto." Another invention. The law:

Anybody who knowingly makes or knowingly trades, distributes, or displays an objectionable publication via the Internet can receive a maximum of 14 years imprisonment.

https://www.dia.govt.nz/Censorship-Objectionable-and-Restricted-Material

Merely looking up the manifesto on Facebook doesn't apply. And this is a maximum sentence, not a mandatory minimum, and typically in NZ people normally only serve half their sentence. This is an example of sentencing under the act:

Among the files were videos showing Turkish soldiers being burned alive, prisoners having their throats cut or being shot, and one man being executed by machine gun fire.

There were 68 images or videos containing logos or imagery linked to ISIS.

He also had a copy of the Terrorist Handbook, which detailed ways to make explosives out of household items.

Police also found 219 images and videos on Madams' computer showing child exploitation.

The search of Madams' computer came after he posted videos to YouTube in which he encouraged viewers to "kill the tyrants".

He posted more than one video to the website, telling people to "get up and find anything at all and go out there and find and kill the tyrants, where ever they may be," Judge Stephanie Edwards said.

The sentence he got?

Judge Edwards said the mitigating factors allowed a significant discount to his sentence. She said the focus of the sentence needed to be rehabilitation.

Madams was sentenced to six months of community detention with a night-time curfew, and two years of intensive supervision.

Sentence conditions include restrictions on possessing material that promotes violence, and owning devices that have internet access.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12037850

So you are posting misleading information yet again. Can you please stop doing that?

 

[Stout]

Oops, that "g" should have been an "e" typos happen.

So did I just make a claim and have you respond that's it's true but probably won't happen so it's "misinformation" Am I reading that correctly ?

 

[banquetbear]

So did I just make a claim and have you respond that's it's true but probably won't happen so it's "misinformation" Am I reading that correctly ?

...no it isn't true. You can't get "14 years for facebooking a manifesto". To get 14 years requires you to "knowingly trades, distributes, or displays an objectionable publication via the Internet." "Facebooking the manifesto" isn't enough.

But if you had read my cite you would have known that. Or even just read the snippet I quoted. Perhaps "not reading" is the problem.

 

[dann]

Oops, that "g" should have been an "e" typos happen.

So did I just make a claim and have you respond that's it's true but probably won't happen so it's "misinformation" Am I reading that correctly ?

No, you didn't, and no, you aren't.

 

[Stout]

...no it isn't true. You can't get "14 years for facebooking a manifesto". To get 14 years requires you to "knowingly trades, distributes, or displays an objectionable publication via the Internet." "Facebooking the manifesto" isn't enough.

But if you had read my cite you would have known that. Or even just read the snippet I quoted. Perhaps "not reading" is the problem.

So putting this manifesto on facebook can't get you 14 years ?

 

[banquetbear]

So putting this manifesto on facebook can't get you 14 years ?

...you didn't say "putting". You said "facebooking". Which means activity on facebook, doesn't directly imply uploading or display. If that is what you meant: then that is what you should say. Context and nuance is important.

 

[Stout]

...you didn't say "putting". You said "facebooking". Which means activity on facebook, doesn't directly imply uploading or display. If that is what you meant: then that is what you should say. Context and nuance is important.

So we're down to interpretation of what terms mean. A statement like "I just made some blueberry muffins, I think I'll Instagram them" carries a certain implied meaning but in the future i'll try to be more clear by stating that I'm going to take a picture of the blueberries muffins I made and upload that photo to my Instagram account and hope that picture makes it through content moderation so all those followers I bought can see them and drool over my baking skills.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Interpretation of statements is an important part of the law.