Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

[The Atheist]

Some people might be saying "but his rights, his rights"? The only "rights I care about at the moment is those of the victims, the survivors, and their families.

He is in protective custody inside a maximum security jail.

The article points out that he is indeed entitled to phone calls, as long as security and staffing allow.

Maybe Corrections could offer him a phone call from the general area of the prison. They're keeping the piece of filth alive at great cost to an already understaffed prison.

Corrections have made the correct decision in not allowing his phone calls to take priority over anything else.

No laws are being broken.

So just lock him up in solitary confinement without a trial? Make it as though Brenton Harrison Tarrant just walked into a dense fog late one night and was never heard from again?

He is not in solitary confinement, and is allowed exercise. He's being held in protective custody. Christ, even the paedophiles in segregation want to kill him.

I'm sure Corrections would love to let him loose with other prisoners - he's disrupted their work and rosters to a ridiculous degree and he'd be dead in seconds in D Block.

However, we are determined to make the virgin short man writhing with complete inadequacy, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, stand up in court and face the charges and not allow him to become a martyr to the insane cause he espouses.

Anyone with a problem with anything happening to Tarrant is either ignorant of the real world or just trolling. He is having no rights withheld, except where the greater good of keeping him alive is concerned.

 

[The Atheist]

An interesting thought occurred to me this morning:

If video of the Chch Massacre is so illegal that distributing a copy gets you thrown in jail without any chance of bail, why is Fahrenehit 9/11 still available in NZ?

I haven't seen the movie, but I'm assured it has a beheading and other violent deaths in it.

For that matter, I might be breaking the same law myself, since I have a stream available on my own website of the film stolen & released by Chelsea Manning of the gutless & gleeful US army filth shooting & killing a Reuters reporter and other civilians.

Double standard much?

 

[Samson]

I don't really understand his not guilty plea.
Will he claim he is a war prisoner or a political prisoner?

Does he have access to writing materials, reading material, and if so what?

Or is it complete sensory deprivation?

 

[banquetbear]

So we're down to interpretation of what terms mean.

...ummmm, yeah?

Thats kinda how the English language works?

And also how the law works?

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.

Except we aren't talking about making blueberry muffins. Context is important. Intent is important. We can determine your intent by reading your previous statements in this thread. We know that you are being disingenuous: I will gladly ignore any comments you make about baking. But you aren't talking about making muffins. You've painted a very specific picture: "police kicking in doors", "people jailed for 14 years for using facebook". We know what you are trying to do. Except you aren't very good at it.

 

[banquetbear]

I don't really understand his not guilty plea.
Will he claim he is a war prisoner or a political prisoner?

...he's trolling.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't really understand his not guilty plea.
Will he claim he is a war prisoner or a political prisoner?

Does he have access to writing materials, reading material, and if so what?

Or is it complete sensory deprivation?

I do. By entering a plea of not-guilty, he forces it to trial.

He will try to use the trial as a platform for his hate-filled white supremacist rage. He is not interested in a "fair trial", he's only interested in spewing his garbage, and a trial will give him that opportunity - he can take the stand in his own defense.

What I hope happens is that the judge orders the trial "in-camera" and suppresses the reporting of any of his testimony to the public. Jurors in NZ are not allowed to discuss their deliberation even after a trial (if they do they are in contempt of court)

The result will be that he will be denied any opportunity to get his vile message out.

 

[Samson]

That is a personal attack banquetbear. I am posing genuine questions that I am interested in having answered.
I see no point in the not guilty plea without this guy having a further motive to disrupt, and your complete understanding of the case could help illuminate.

 

[banquetbear]

That is a personal attack banquetbear. I am posing genuine questions that I am interested in having answered.
I see no point in the not guilty plea without this guy having a further motive to disrupt, and your complete understanding of the case could help illuminate.

...I'm not talking about you.

I'm talking about him.

He is pleading not-guilty because he is trolling. He's an alt-right 8-chan white-supremacist. He's doing it for the LOL's.

 

[Samson]

...I'm not talking about you.

I'm talking about him.

He is pleading not-guilty because he is trolling. He's an alt-right 8-chan white-supremacist. He's doing it for the LOL's.

Ok sorry, and thank you for clarifying.
The issue I see is how the courts operate.

He knows he has murdered, and a not guilty plea can only be attached to a claim of insanity. But his role model Brevick fought tooth and nail against that accusation, and would be self defeating for his "cause".
So once more the court system in New Zealand becomes a theater of game playing and divorced from truth seeking.

I suggest a fast track system where there is no solemn processing of a case where the facts are not in dispute.

 

[Stout]

Except we aren't talking about making blueberry muffins. Context is important. Intent is important. We can determine your intent by reading your previous statements in this thread. We know that you are being disingenuous: I will gladly ignore any comments you make about baking. But you aren't talking about making muffins. You've painted a very specific picture: "police kicking in doors", "people jailed for 14 years for using facebook". We know what you are trying to do. Except you aren't very good at it.

My good sir. At no point have I ever made reference to "people jailed for 14 years for using facebook". The word "jailed" appears nowhere in this thread except for you post.

I may be better at this than you think.

 

[banquetbear]

My good sir. At no point have I ever made reference to "people jailed for 14 years for using facebook". The word "jailed" appears nowhere in this thread except for you post.

...if I wanted to quote you directly I would have used the quote function. It was a paraphrase of your position: and an entirely fair one as well.

I may be better at this than you think.

Nope. Not even close.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

...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.

The police are not routinely armed? Upthread I saw that there's no security screening for domestic flights in New Zealand? Just how White is your country?

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.

You're getting hung up on a figure of speech. In a modern 21st Century country that enjoys the vibrant diversity of multiculturalism--like the United States--literally "kicking in a door" to serve a search warrant isn't common only because most people are not strong enough to break down an exterior door with their foot with one kick. But when police serve a search warrant they will use whatever force is necessary to gain entry to the area they want to search rapidly enough to ensure the occupants cannot resist, escape, or destroy evidence. This ensures that excessive force will be applied most of the time and that the event will be terrifying and very dangerous to anybody who is inside.

If "kicking in a door" to serve a search warrant is unfathomable in New Zealand, we're dealing with a disconnect between the way New Zealander's conceptualize serving a search warrant and the way Americans conceptualize it. The New Zealand way simply would not work in the United States.

 

[banquetbear]

The police are not routinely armed? Upthread I saw that there's no security screening for domestic flights in New Zealand? Just how White is your country?

...I have no idea what this means. How "White" is New Zealand? Are you talking about this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypyiAT1RelU

There are screening for domestic flights: just not all domestic flights, as has been explained throughout this thread.

You're getting hung up on a figure of speech.

I'm pointing out that someone is intentionally being misleading.

In a modern 21st Century country that enjoys the vibrant diversity of multiculturalism--like the United States--literally "kicking in a door" to serve a search warrant isn't common only because most people are not strong enough to break down an exterior door with their foot with one kick. But when police serve a search warrant they will use whatever force is necessary to gain entry to the area they want to search rapidly enough to ensure the occupants cannot resist, escape, or destroy evidence. This ensures that excessive force will be applied most of the time and that the event will be terrifying and very dangerous to anybody who is inside.

Your experiences in the United States is irrelevant to experiences found in other parts of the world. There is no need to use excessive force when simply knocking on the door and saying "we have a warrant to search this house" can also mean they gain rapid entry, prevent escape, and stop them destroying evidence. "Breaking down the door" doesn't prevent them from resisting. Terrifying 16-year-old kids is counter-productive to effective policing. Safer communities together. Always blow on the pie.

If "kicking in a door" to serve a search warrant is unfathomable in New Zealand, we're dealing with a disconnect between the way New Zealander's conceptualize serving a search warrant and the way Americans conceptualize it. The New Zealand way simply would not work in the United States.

Well we are talking about New Zealand. I can certainly conceptualize serving a warrant the way Americans conceptualize it, I've seen plenty of examples. But I'm pretty sure those examples are not representative: and that in America (just like everywhere else) search warrants are commonly executed without the need to intentionally "terrify" the occupants of the house. And in New Zealand, if needed, then the police will use force to execute a search warrant. However there is no evidence that in this particular case they needed to do so, nor that they did do so, and stating or implying that they did is misleading.

 

[Steve]

The police are not routinely armed? Upthread I saw that there's no security screening for domestic flights in New Zealand? Just how White is your country?



You're getting hung up on a figure of speech. In a modern 21st Century country that enjoys the vibrant diversity of multiculturalism--like the United States--literally "kicking in a door" to serve a search warrant isn't common only because most people are not strong enough to break down an exterior door with their foot with one kick. But when police serve a search warrant they will use whatever force is necessary to gain entry to the area they want to search rapidly enough to ensure the occupants cannot resist, escape, or destroy evidence. This ensures that excessive force will be applied most of the time and that the event will be terrifying and very dangerous to anybody who is inside.

If "kicking in a door" to serve a search warrant is unfathomable in New Zealand, we're dealing with a disconnect between the way New Zealander's conceptualize serving a search warrant and the way Americans conceptualize it. The New Zealand way simply would not work in the United States.

The violence common in police work in the US is not exactly a surprise to anyone here. It is just quite unusual for people in most of the more civilized countries. It is really nothing for Americans to be proud of.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

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

(nice little show of poutrage though)

So what is the point of reporting that Brendan Tarrant will not be guarded by White law enforcement officers (as had been erroneously reported in an earlier story) and that the officers who transported him to jail were not of European extraction?

No poutrage. I'm just curious. This is not something that gets reported in our newspapers.

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).

I understand that emotions are running on overdrive. But locking Brendan Tarrant in solitary confinement without any outside contact before trial is a bit of an overreaction. Not an over overreaction like transporting him to Guantanamo Bay where he can be stripped of all human rights and held indefinitely without a trial. And certainly not as ******* crazy an overreaction as taking away everybody's guns or arresting kids for downloading the video or sharing a link to his manifesto. But an overreaction nonetheless.

 

[Baylor]

The violence common in police work in the US is not exactly a surprise to anyone here. It is just quite unusual for people in most of the more civilized countries. It is really nothing for Americans to be proud of.

What's unusual is when skeptics would rather get on their high horse than try to understand why things are different in different parts of the world

 

[angrysoba]

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.

Mate, you got called on your BS and all you keep doing is digging deeper.

Nobody says “forced entries never happen” or that there are no police with guns only that you haven’t demonstrated that “militarized police kicked down the door” of this guy. Just admit it and move on, FFS.

 

[The Atheist]

What I hope happens is that the judge orders the trial "in-camera" and suppresses the reporting of any of his testimony to the public.

I'm certain that will be exactly the case.

The police are not routinely armed?

Nope, absolutely not. I expect their current fully-armed status to return to the status quo fairly quickly.

They're not usually very far from their weapons, however, which are locked in the boot of the car and not unlocked unless the other guy is known to be armed. Police doing traffic duty don't usually even have a gun in the boot. Getting pulled up for speeding by a gun-toting cop in NZ has never happened, I'd say. The only possible circumstance is if they were chasing someone who was thought to be armed, but in the normal course you just don't see armed cops in NZ.

The few cops that do inner-city beats have always been unarmed, except in the odd rare circumstance for short periods.

They don't need them, and we quite like it like that.

 

[Stout]

...if I wanted to quote you directly I would have used the quote function. It was a paraphrase of your position: and an entirely fair one as well.

You say paraphrase, I say complete fabrication. It maybe something that you wished I'd said but, no.

All we have is your speculation vs my speculation and let's face it, my speculation is much more interesting.

 

[banquetbear]

You say paraphrase, I say complete fabrication. It maybe something that you wished I'd said but, no.

All we have is your speculation vs my speculation and let's face it, my speculation is much more interesting.

...I'm sorry, but are you still going?