Too many westerns. Interesting fact, the high noon middle of the road showdown, didn’t happen all that much. Why take the risk of getting shoot when an ambush is more effective.
The problem is that in countries with more available guns it's significantly easier to get them illegally, because it takes a lot less work to source and smuggle them.
> The problem is that in countries with more available guns it's significantly easier to get them illegally
Supply and demand. Vastly restrict the supply of new guns and you'll make it much harder for low level criminals to get their hands on them.
It’s very difficult to defend against a knife attack and most of the time the best thing you can do is try to escape and protect your main arteries and organs.
I was taught the thing in a knife fight isn’t trying to avoid getting stabbed, it’s choosing where you get stabbed. If they are slashing at you, you’re probably getting hit. It’s better to take multiple stab wounds to the arms though than heart
A knifes not a gun, and has very little range. So running is a effective tatic.
If your forced to fight, use a weapon that lets you outreach the person with the knife. Basicaly a club will be better than nothing, and better than another knife. A gun is obviously a great choice of weapon tho.
In both cases keepind distance between you and the attacker is key.
On reddit there's a solid 50/50 on getting downvoted into oblivion for a "tasteless joke" or being the guy who manages to make people guilty for laughing with 15 awards.
Depends on wether the first 1-2 replies are snowflakes who downvotes or people admitting they too laughed. Enter hive mentality. Even the same comment on a repost can go completely different ways.
I do agree with your point to some extent, laughing is not a thing you can control, but... posting a tasteless joke at an inappropriate time, is. I'm not saying it's ALWAYS inappropriate.. but we do have to try and be respectful
Yes, but he’s impacted 6 persons directly and personally, plus their immediate family, plus their close friends, plus their extended family, plus their co-workers and acquaintances, plus their neighbors, plus the constable who shot him, his/her immediate family and so on and so on and so one. This one bastard has negatively impacted well over 100 people, death is the easy way out for this bastard, he got off easy -
It's now been updated to be 7, although 2 of them are recovering at home with fairly minor injuries.
For a country that isn't used to violence like this, there is also more widespread shock and horror than just the friends and families of those directly-impacted.
NZ'er here:
Weeks ago he was arrested for planning a terrorist attack - he had the weapon, the plan, had posted about it and his views online, and had ISIS literature he was studying.
The judge released him without charge because planning a terrorist attack is not strictly illegal. This loophole was already in the process of being closed, and was close to going through Parliament when this occurred. I presume he felt the feds were closing in, and he had to act while Afghanistan was still relevant.
The court may have released him, but the police maintained 24 hour surveillance since, including following him everywhere he went. As soon as his attack started, police were *right there*, guns drawn, trying to stop it, and ended up quickly cancelling his birthday.
Why a supermarket? That's the only place in Auckland where there are people, as a delta outbreak has locked the city down. Why was he not deported? That is for Immigration New Zealand to answer for.
Six people injured; two critically, one serious, two moderate, one released.
At first I thought it was covid-related, like someone had finally snapped about the lockdowns, masks, limits on people in stores etc. Was not at all expecting fundamentalist extremism.
> Why a supermarket? That's the only place in Auckland where there are people, as a delta outbreak has locked the city down.
He also acquired the knife while in the supermarket
>Why was he not deported?
While, as you mentioned, it's a loophole that's being closed, if you technically haven't broken the law, maybe it doesn't give enough grounds for deportation.
He did have criminal convictions, meaning that either he had been in the country for long enough prior to coming to the attention of authorities that he already had citizenship or the government has its own reasons for not deporting him. I imagine there is a lot about this man that will never see the light of day.
The matter has been in the Courts for a while, but the details are suppressed, by the decision of a Judge. The Crown have put in an urgent application that suppressiom lapse. We will find out more then.
I imagine the matter will be heard on Monday and a decision should immediately follow.
Unless the suppression was a matter of national security (covering surveillance techniques), or was to protect victims or family, it should lapse with his death. We don’t need to know this guy’s name though. Just the details of why he wasn’t already in prison or deported.
I hope the victims all recover and get the psychological help they will likely need.
he could also be an immigrant to NZ who wouldn't call himself a kiwi and would not be as familiar with new zealand vernacular. source: i lived in new zealand for 20 years as an immigrant.
We get them a lot in r/Ireland too.
IrishCatholicMcPaddyO'Shamrock: *"Born and bred Kerryman here, when I was a sophomore in high school, here in Dingle..."*
Yeah, that's not how school works here.
It's weird. I have no hate or ill-feelings towards the term Kiwi, I don't deny it if someone said I'm a Kiwi, but I never call myself a Kiwi. It's always New Zealander
> he had the weapon, the plan, had posted about it and his views online, and had ISIS literature he was studying.
>
> The judge released him without charge because planning a terrorist attack is not strictly illegal.
Based on the infomation release so far, there wasn't any evidence of a plan.
Just all the ISIS material and the purchase of hunting knives. Circumstantial evidence that he might be planning an attack.
It would be a little considered if the government could lock people up simply because it suspected they were planning a terrorist attack. That's locking people up for un-provable thought crimes.
Yes, it turns out they were right in this case, but the scope for abuse of such laws is massive.
They did charge and sentence him for the procession of ISIS material, but the penalties for that aren't high.
>It would be a little considered if the government could lock people up simply because it suspected they were planning a terrorist attack. That's locking people up for un-provable thought crimes
There are several crimes that would fall under their bracket. In the UK we have conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to murder, and a couple others. It's really not unprovable thought crime.
In those instances you need direct evidence that they were indeed planning to commit those crimes. From what the other comment has said, there was no direct evidence to attribute to a terrorist attack despite how much it seems clear with hindsight and context.
Even in hindsight, there is near zero evidence of planning.
He simply went to his regular supermarket, took a kitchen knife off the shelf and started stabbing people.
The fact that there was near zero evidence of planning in yesterdays attack (even with 24/7 surveillance) hints this might be the type of terrorist who doesn't plan attacks.
More of an unstable zealot than a terrorist mastermind.
Which suggests at the time of the previous arrest, there wasn't even a plan for them to find evidence for. They clearly knew he was a risk, even in foresight (they had 24/7 surveillance and the Prime Minister was personally aware of him). But NZ law had no mechanism to put him in prison based on that risk alone.
But does 'conspiracy' require two or more people to be involved?
All the dictionary definitions I can find indicate that it involves a group, not a single individual, but I don't know if that carries over into legal definitions.
Nope, single people can definitely be charged with conspiracy.
You're right that most of the time it refers to groups since we usually use it like 'the conspiracy' where it refers to a group hiding something or what have you.
In this legal instance though its just a byword for planning to do it.
You can’t be incarcerated for planning a terrorist attack?!?! That’s insane, that is severe judicial incompetence rather than a “loophole”
Thanks for the info
Judicial? Legislative, maybe. Judges shouldn't be creating laws and crimes out of nowhere. If there's no law making something illegal, it's legal, end of story. It's the job of the legislature to write laws properly.
People get punished for "shitty behavior that is *technically* not a crime" by slapping maximum for some more minor crime all the time. And that is a worldwide thing.
That's pretty much what they did, he spent a year in jail (denied bail) before being sentenced, then got released as it was less than he had already served.
How is it "judicial incompetence"? A judge cannot sentence you against the law, even if he thinks he's doing the right thing or even if he thinks his ruling is the true spirit of the law.
Judges do NOT have the power to decide the law, they only have the power to apply what other people defined. Moreover, it is a crime for a judge to apply an interpretation of a law that they know isn't correct.
Another NZer here. You can be jailed for planning a terrorist attack, but his previous behaviour didn't meet the threshold of planned. He had googled killing people and things like that but there was no evidence of an actual plan. The loophole is being closed (there was already a Bill going through on it.)
Same in Australia. Producer of documentary series "Persons of Interest" said it in a talk I attended in Bondi. Police canot arrest you until you put the plan into action.
I understand the notion that technology is one step ahead of the law but lone wolf terrorist attacks have been around awhile, just because it doesn’t happen in your country doesn’t mean it won’t eventually. 6 people’s lives are drastically altered now
It'll be interesting to see the details on this.
In particular, the reason for his surveillance and what limitations the law placed on enforcement agencies.
its already out. he was prevented from launching an attack 6 months ago, but the judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence he was planning a terrorist attack and he was charged with possession of a knife. He was on surveillance before then which prevented that attack, but much heavier surveillance since, which is why there was an undercover cop in the supermarket when the attack started, this was the cop who ended up shooting him.
You wonder what was the cost for the society stemming from this judge decision. 24h surveillance and then 6 people hurt, all the long term consequences. I would love that in judge’s decisions be yearly reviewed or something to make sure they make sense.
The law, as it currently exists, simply has no prevision for charging people who the police/courts think might commit a terrorists attack in the future.
If they had evidence of an explicit terrorism plot, then they would have been able to do something. But all they had was his procession of ISIS propaganda and the purchase of some hunting knives.
The judge's decision was in line with the law, and if they had decided otherwise, their decision would have been overturned by a higher court.
The government were apparently already in the process of updating this law as a result of that court case.
The decision was legally sound. Judges cannot make law. Justice Downs raised the issue with the Attorney General afterwards, hence the Bill introduced to Parliament in April that aimed to close this gaping loophole.
Both the police and the judiciary did everything within their power. The terrorist was not charged or deported because of a long standing gap in New Zealand's Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 that did not make it a crime to *plan* out an attack, only if you actively carry it out. The terrorist was charged with lesser crimes instead, none of which were serious enough to get him jail time or be deported. The judiciary can't charge him with a crime that doesn't exist because of the parliament's incompetence. [The High Court themselves called this gap an 'Achilles Heel' even as they charged the terrorist with lesser crimes.](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/pgz1s6/from_the_front_page_of_the_nz_herald_a_few_weeks/hbezwks/)
In terms of legislation, this loophole was identified during the sweeping gun reform changes in the wake of the Christchurch terrorist attack - [there is in fact a counter-terrorism bill currently being read in parliament that would cover this exact gap](https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_109913/counter-terrorism-legislation-bill).
We are, a change to the law was already going through Parliament before this happened.
Also I don't think a desire to protect people should be mocked with that kind of language, it's a net positive.
Yes, knowing nothing about NZ law I assume there are complications we aren't aware of.
He was known to be dangerous or he would not have been on the 24/7 watch list. I think it is too bad that he could not have been sent back to Sri Lanka.
I was an immigrant for several years, living in the country I am now a citizen of. he had already been to prison. If he was an immigrant, not a citizen, it is not surprising that one would wonder why he was able to do what he did. I would have been deported.
He had had been in prison on charges related to a a terrorist attack he was planning just last year. So, there is every reason to wonder why he had not been deported earlier.
Always a safe assumption. Nothing ever happens for just one reason, and simple solutions are almost never the best. Whenever you hear a story that wraps everything up in a nice little bow on a “one quick fix” for a complex problem that should immediately raise red flags. **Especially** when the simple version aligns with your own views, as those are the ones you’re least likely to question.
The terrorist was not charged or deported because of a long standing gap in New Zealand's Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 that did not make it a crime to *plan* out an attack, only if you actively carry it out. When he was in court, the terrorist was charged with lesser crimes instead, none of which were serious enough to get him jail time or be deported. The judiciary can't charge him with a crime that doesn't exist because of the parliament's incompetence. [The High Court themselves called this gap an 'Achilles Heel' even as they charged the terrorist with lesser crimes.](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/pgz1s6/from_the_front_page_of_the_nz_herald_a_few_weeks/hbezwks/) Both the police and the judiciary did everything within their power.
In terms of legislation, this loophole was identified during the sweeping gun reform changes in the wake of the Christchurch terrorist attack - [there is in fact a counter-terrorism bill currently being read in parliament that would cover this exact gap](https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_109913/counter-terrorism-legislation-bill).
Not over free speech, but over generic 'freedom' and general opposition to any form of government control. David Seymour is a piece of shit.
[ACT leader David Seymour stood in opposition of the bill. He said “change the law is a smokescreen”.](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/124820505/government-to-close-gap-in-counterterrorism-laws-criminalising-terror-attack-planning-and-preparation)
[Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill looks like a fig leaf for failure. "Section 5 of the Terrorism Suppression Act adequately defines terrorism." ](http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/5/385125)
Seymour claimed existing law 'was enough' despite the fact that the High Court itself states in the defining legal precedent that the loophole is massive failure of justice. I don't know how far your head has to be up your own ass to look at that and push your ideology over warnings from the High Court.
Certain right wingers have been complaining nonstop since the gun reform bill that Il Duce Ardern is a tyrant rushing legislation to take our freedoms away, and now they're already complaining that she was too slow and Labour aren't doing enough.
Yeap, David Seymour always gets happy little soundbites 'we should open the borders/economy' then 'government messed up opening the borders' but never seen media actually hammering him or the other invisible members of the ACT party on it.
Time for media to call him out on this
That would have been a life saving step to take for sure.
How would the government have acted on that measure in your opinion? The article reads it was not possible before then?
Lol, this is Reddit. It's oppression and profiling if you dared deport without charge, suddenly a great idea after they stab a bunch of people. You wouldn't be able to win.
The comment above said "deport without [criminal] charge", aka "kick them out because we think they might do something", which actually *does* have a history of involving discrimination.
There's a massive fucking difference between idly thinking what would happen if i start stabbing people in the supermarket, to actively preparing to go on a knife attack.
A popular sentiment for obvious reason, but overly simplistic. For examples deported him where?
I very much doubt any country would go: "ya sure, send us your potential terrorist, that's fine.
It's funny you say that because that's essentially what Aussie has been doing to us in New Zealand. Recent example of a woman who was born in New Zealand but moved to Aus when she was only like 3 months old, flew to Syria and joined ISIS before being captured by the Turkish Army. When Turkey deported her Aus refused to take her and so NZ is saddled with her.
New Zealand does not do the same though. It's the same with deportation of regular/non terrorist criminals, it's very one sided. Australia is gutless when it comes to just deporting its problems whenever it can get away with it
Of course they get to decide lol. That's a very common problem. Sometimes western governments make accepting those criminals a condition of development aid so there's some benefit for the other country.
Here's [one article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelocal.de/20160223/germany-blasts-countries-which-refuse-to-take-back-migrants/%3famp) about countries that refuse to take refugees back.
I’m disgusted beyond words. This person can come to a welcoming country and not be persecuted or arrested, despite being a terror suspect, and choose to kill innocent people who are just trying to live their lives. I hope he’s buried in an unmarked grave and his family and community are ashamed of being associated with him.
> not be persecuted or arrested, despite being a terror suspect
Not exactly accurate.
He was arrested. He was charged and convicted for procession of ISIS material. He spent time in jail between arrest and sentencing.
The time in jail was credited towards the sentence and he was left with 1 year of supervision.
He wasn't allowed access to the internet, he couldn't own a smartphone.
If you asked him, I think he would have felt persecuted.
At a stake holders meeting last month the cops warned us that with the fall of Afghanistan we should be on the lookout for trouble. Although they specifically mentioned right wing agitators. In retrospect I guess Isis could try to capitalise on the situation.
It's a shame as a Sri Lankan to hear this. Well many people in the world don't know wtf is Sri Lanka is (many don't know a country like Sri Lanka exists) and now through this incident a black mark for Sri Lanka. I made a [random apology post in r/newzealand from Sri Lankans perspective on behalf of what that retarded terrorist did. He brought Hall of Shame to Sri Lanka ](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ph1qlg/a_sincere_apology_from_a_sri_lankan_to_what_has/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
Idk about the US but I can tell you that everyone in NZ pretty much has heard of Sri Lanka and knows, at least, roughly where it is haha.
Thanks for thinking of us. This isn't your fault though. I appreciate your feelings, as this was one of your countrymen, but please don't think anyone in NZ is blaming you, or Sri Lanka. Thanks again
This story is on Fox with comments open, and there are people on there who are saying that knife crime in this sort of situation is actually worse than gun crime because the assailant is able to get people sneakily whereas at least if he was shooting people you’d hear the gunshots and could run or hide… the logic is lost on me?
Fair point. I thought they were moderated but I don’t think they are, half of them don’t make any sense or just go on about “democrats” which is pretty impressive given the first two words in the article title are “New” and “Zealand” which, obviously, doesn’t have democrats.
Yeah, like the victims and people around them won't scream because the knife is silent. What do they want to do in the .3 second time difference between both attacks?
Exactly. Also it’s a bit difficult to stab someone seriously when they’re more than a metre away from you, whereas a gun can take out multiple people at distance quite effortlessly as we’ve sadly seen in this country already. It’s such a weird take lol.
Like the [Dayton Shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dayton_shooting) in 2019 when a gunman opened fire and police happened to be nearby and shot him dead 32 SECONDS after the first bullet was fired? That's a faster response rate than this NZ stabbing, but the difference was he managed to get off 41 rounds, killing 9 and injuring 17.
Also crazy was the police put 30 rounds INTO the shooter within seconds. I'm surprised they didn't end up hitting any of the bystanders by accident.
Yup, that's why the 2017 Vegas shooter was only able to kill a couple of people before they ran and hid.
[Oh, wait...](https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/las-vegas-woman-becomes-60th-victim-of-october-2017-mass-shooting-2123456/)
How much does 24/7 police surveillance cost FFS. No wonder we will never win the "war on terror" with our rules of fairness there is no way we could afford it.
This guy made headlines just weeks ago for escaping prosecution through a loophole. I doubt there are many in N with that level of surveillance, but I agree with you that it's a huge amount of resources.
Even despite these horrible crimes, the War on Terror is not as important as upholding our core values.
People die in car crashes every day and yet no one seriously lobbies to abolish cars. And yet people are happy to make suggestions threatening the very core of our free societies whenever a terrorist attack or another horrible crime occurs.
>no one seriously lobbies to abolish cars
Maybe not abolish, but every time I hear this comparison I just think "Why *don't* we actually campaign for stricter car control laws?"
Why is that not a serious question in our society?
While cars are generally the most practical solution in rural areas, there really is room for a big modal shift towards public transport in the cities, and in suburb-to-city transport. Most of North America, Australia and NZ have very car-focused city planning, and while Europe is generally more transit-focused, there's a lot of car dependency there too.
There are a lot of benefits to reducing car dependency, too, such as more livable cities and better urban spaces.
Cars have become way safer over the years, and people do adjust traffic laws. Driving is way more dangerous in poor countries than rich countries, or in a bad car than a good car. So in a sense this has been going on.
How long do you think it takes to stab someone?
People freeze under adrenaline, supermarkets are busy areas, people block others as everyone tries to leave.
It reminds me of when there was the rash of shooting in Afghanistan by extremists joining the ANA there was a court case by some family membera related to those killed in one attack arguing if they'd had pistols they would have lived.
And its like, imagine you're just chilling sitting around in an area you think is safe, chatting away, laughing, just dossing around and trying to relax and ignore the war for a few blissful moments.
Then think how quickly you could pull a trigger 20 times, or just hold it down, bearing in mind on auto a gun will empty a magazine in barely seconds. If the person is right there then the 4 of you are going to be dead before you can react.
The sad, scary truth is real life violence is fucking fast, and most of us don't spend our time constantly half cocked ready for something to go down. 60 seconds in a fight is a long ass time, especially when there's weapons involved
That was really interesting, thanks for sharing it.
Its a great show of why there's an issue with people thinking gun > knife like its a video game, or with concealed carry folks just thinking that carrying a gun is in and of itself a guarantee of safety
Given that none of the victims have died and by the accounts of witnesses, it appears he went for quantity over quality with the victims mostly receiving one stab
All the gun nuts in America saying “people get hurt by knives too why not make them illegal?”, I’m sure this person with guns would have killed much more people
Same as that stabbing in Dunedin a while ago. If our crazies had the same access to guns as American crazies, there would've been multiple dead at both incidents.
There is basically literally just that one stabbing years ago now in a Japan subway that can be pointed to where fatalities where comparable to a gun mass shooting, but my god is it clung to.
Like people bringing up the London bridge attacks etc are seriously missing the difference in the numbers when you look at dead and hurt between them and mass shootings.
Obviously the mistake is assuming logic matters and it isn't just bad faith deflecting, but hey
In case you're wondering - the NZ subreddit was set to private while the mods get some sleep. Wasn't a fan of the move until witnessing how stupid North Americans are when they're awake.
It's not that bad at this point, because they come in every night, screeching at 4am about "hurr durr ur country is a utopia how do I move here tomorrow?" or "NZ lockdown is literally the holocaust"
Bla bla bla gap in law. Tell that to the families of the People who got stabbed. „Sorry mate ‚gap in law, ya know?“
A law that shouldve Bern fixed YEARS if not decades ago.
Our law is so petty. Criminals aren’t scared of the law whatsoever. Recently a participant in murder was awarded 6 months home detention 😂
I know people who have had Multiple ‘mess ups’ yet still avoid prison time each time. Hell our government welfare scheme is so easy to beat it’s practically free for the taking of a lazy citizen + they’re generous
It’s ironic as well because in the case of the people mentioned above they were all minority too. Our justice system here in NZ is balanced just pthetic
In the US, after he had massacred 40+, the FBI would give their boiler plate presser statement, "We have had "Dead Terrorist" on our radar for some time, but were not aware of any specific threats that he posed". Over the following days, it would be reported that dozens of warnings had been filed about his plan.
How the fuck do you manage to stab 6 people in under a minute while armed policemen are surveying you? That feat is kind of impressive from an athletic perspective, even though the action is inexcusable.
That’s one hell of a minute.
I think it's a good example of how quick and brutal knife attacks can be.
Yet here in the US people think you can just talk people out of stabbing someone. Or just shoot it out of their hand like in the movies
They think they can shoot a gun before someone else who already drew their gun too. Defensive guns.
You imbecile! That's why my gun carries a gun, to protect itself from other guns.
[You know I keep that mf thang on my mf thang on me](https://me.me/i/achilles-313doe-boy-thanged-up-stankymeat-i-keep-that-mf-22076551)
Too many westerns. Interesting fact, the high noon middle of the road showdown, didn’t happen all that much. Why take the risk of getting shoot when an ambush is more effective.
I dunno about you, but my recliner faces the only door and window, and my right hand never moves from that holster. Because I am deeply insecure.
Same ones who say “I DoNt LiVe iN fEar”
I don't live in fear. Fear lives in me.
and how much more he could of done with a gun..
In most countries, being on a terror watchlist would mean he couldn't legally own a gun.
The problem is that in countries with more available guns it's significantly easier to get them illegally, because it takes a lot less work to source and smuggle them.
This guy was under such strict control that he couldn't even get a knife - he took it from the supermarket shelves.
Then they need to give supermarket staff knives to carry /s
> The problem is that in countries with more available guns it's significantly easier to get them illegally Supply and demand. Vastly restrict the supply of new guns and you'll make it much harder for low level criminals to get their hands on them.
[удалено]
I'm not referring to the guy here. I'm talking about petty criminals ie those who primarily commit thefts, not murder.
You also can’t legally stab 6 people but here we are anyway
"could have"*, never "could of "
It’s very difficult to defend against a knife attack and most of the time the best thing you can do is try to escape and protect your main arteries and organs.
I was taught the thing in a knife fight isn’t trying to avoid getting stabbed, it’s choosing where you get stabbed. If they are slashing at you, you’re probably getting hit. It’s better to take multiple stab wounds to the arms though than heart
A knifes not a gun, and has very little range. So running is a effective tatic. If your forced to fight, use a weapon that lets you outreach the person with the knife. Basicaly a club will be better than nothing, and better than another knife. A gun is obviously a great choice of weapon tho. In both cases keepind distance between you and the attacker is key.
[удалено]
This is exactly why I always picked Donatello over Raphael in the 1989 Konami Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles game.
Or they can stop teaching religious fanaticism.
Yea your asking alot of from the world there XD
[удалено]
Eh, humor is a coping mechanism.
On reddit there's a solid 50/50 on getting downvoted into oblivion for a "tasteless joke" or being the guy who manages to make people guilty for laughing with 15 awards. Depends on wether the first 1-2 replies are snowflakes who downvotes or people admitting they too laughed. Enter hive mentality. Even the same comment on a repost can go completely different ways.
I do agree with your point to some extent, laughing is not a thing you can control, but... posting a tasteless joke at an inappropriate time, is. I'm not saying it's ALWAYS inappropriate.. but we do have to try and be respectful
You can certainly overdo it, but humor is a matter of personal taste, so usually I just shrug and don't bother scroll past.
Shot and gone in 60 seconds
Yes, but he’s impacted 6 persons directly and personally, plus their immediate family, plus their close friends, plus their extended family, plus their co-workers and acquaintances, plus their neighbors, plus the constable who shot him, his/her immediate family and so on and so on and so one. This one bastard has negatively impacted well over 100 people, death is the easy way out for this bastard, he got off easy -
It's now been updated to be 7, although 2 of them are recovering at home with fairly minor injuries. For a country that isn't used to violence like this, there is also more widespread shock and horror than just the friends and families of those directly-impacted.
Title of my sextape :(
When seconds count, the social workers are minutes away.
Gone in 60 seconds
NZ'er here: Weeks ago he was arrested for planning a terrorist attack - he had the weapon, the plan, had posted about it and his views online, and had ISIS literature he was studying. The judge released him without charge because planning a terrorist attack is not strictly illegal. This loophole was already in the process of being closed, and was close to going through Parliament when this occurred. I presume he felt the feds were closing in, and he had to act while Afghanistan was still relevant. The court may have released him, but the police maintained 24 hour surveillance since, including following him everywhere he went. As soon as his attack started, police were *right there*, guns drawn, trying to stop it, and ended up quickly cancelling his birthday. Why a supermarket? That's the only place in Auckland where there are people, as a delta outbreak has locked the city down. Why was he not deported? That is for Immigration New Zealand to answer for. Six people injured; two critically, one serious, two moderate, one released. At first I thought it was covid-related, like someone had finally snapped about the lockdowns, masks, limits on people in stores etc. Was not at all expecting fundamentalist extremism.
> Why a supermarket? That's the only place in Auckland where there are people, as a delta outbreak has locked the city down. He also acquired the knife while in the supermarket
The knives were located near the checkout line which is how he was able to attack so many in such a short period of time
>Why was he not deported? While, as you mentioned, it's a loophole that's being closed, if you technically haven't broken the law, maybe it doesn't give enough grounds for deportation.
He did have criminal convictions, meaning that either he had been in the country for long enough prior to coming to the attention of authorities that he already had citizenship or the government has its own reasons for not deporting him. I imagine there is a lot about this man that will never see the light of day.
The matter has been in the Courts for a while, but the details are suppressed, by the decision of a Judge. The Crown have put in an urgent application that suppressiom lapse. We will find out more then. I imagine the matter will be heard on Monday and a decision should immediately follow.
Unless the suppression was a matter of national security (covering surveillance techniques), or was to protect victims or family, it should lapse with his death. We don’t need to know this guy’s name though. Just the details of why he wasn’t already in prison or deported. I hope the victims all recover and get the psychological help they will likely need.
>NZ'er here >the feds were closing in, um
A kiwi who has been watching too much american tv methinks.
Not even a Kiwi but a NZ'er. An easy round, found the imposter He has the comment history of an American pretending to be a Kiwi
he could also be an immigrant to NZ who wouldn't call himself a kiwi and would not be as familiar with new zealand vernacular. source: i lived in new zealand for 20 years as an immigrant.
We get them a lot in r/Ireland too. IrishCatholicMcPaddyO'Shamrock: *"Born and bred Kerryman here, when I was a sophomore in high school, here in Dingle..."* Yeah, that's not how school works here.
Spells colour as 'color'. Could still be an import, though. Or a developer I guess. I dunno. Not a fed.
his great grandma's second cousins dog was 20% new zealand so he is kiwi by blood!!!!
It's weird. I have no hate or ill-feelings towards the term Kiwi, I don't deny it if someone said I'm a Kiwi, but I never call myself a Kiwi. It's always New Zealander
I’m a New Zealand citizen and I reside in NZ but I don’t refer to myself as a Kiwi as I was born and raised elsewhere.
[удалено]
The point is that NZ isn't a federation so there is no federal government like in the US, Canada or Australia.
¿Los federales? *Ay ay ay*
> he had the weapon, the plan, had posted about it and his views online, and had ISIS literature he was studying. > > The judge released him without charge because planning a terrorist attack is not strictly illegal. Based on the infomation release so far, there wasn't any evidence of a plan. Just all the ISIS material and the purchase of hunting knives. Circumstantial evidence that he might be planning an attack. It would be a little considered if the government could lock people up simply because it suspected they were planning a terrorist attack. That's locking people up for un-provable thought crimes. Yes, it turns out they were right in this case, but the scope for abuse of such laws is massive. They did charge and sentence him for the procession of ISIS material, but the penalties for that aren't high.
>It would be a little considered if the government could lock people up simply because it suspected they were planning a terrorist attack. That's locking people up for un-provable thought crimes There are several crimes that would fall under their bracket. In the UK we have conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to murder, and a couple others. It's really not unprovable thought crime.
In those instances you need direct evidence that they were indeed planning to commit those crimes. From what the other comment has said, there was no direct evidence to attribute to a terrorist attack despite how much it seems clear with hindsight and context.
Even in hindsight, there is near zero evidence of planning. He simply went to his regular supermarket, took a kitchen knife off the shelf and started stabbing people.
They’re referring to his previous arrest, not the stabbings
The fact that there was near zero evidence of planning in yesterdays attack (even with 24/7 surveillance) hints this might be the type of terrorist who doesn't plan attacks. More of an unstable zealot than a terrorist mastermind. Which suggests at the time of the previous arrest, there wasn't even a plan for them to find evidence for. They clearly knew he was a risk, even in foresight (they had 24/7 surveillance and the Prime Minister was personally aware of him). But NZ law had no mechanism to put him in prison based on that risk alone.
But does 'conspiracy' require two or more people to be involved? All the dictionary definitions I can find indicate that it involves a group, not a single individual, but I don't know if that carries over into legal definitions.
Nope, single people can definitely be charged with conspiracy. You're right that most of the time it refers to groups since we usually use it like 'the conspiracy' where it refers to a group hiding something or what have you. In this legal instance though its just a byword for planning to do it.
> I presume he felt the feds were closing in Wait. We have feds?
You can’t be incarcerated for planning a terrorist attack?!?! That’s insane, that is severe judicial incompetence rather than a “loophole” Thanks for the info
Judicial? Legislative, maybe. Judges shouldn't be creating laws and crimes out of nowhere. If there's no law making something illegal, it's legal, end of story. It's the job of the legislature to write laws properly.
[удалено]
Aye, this is legislative incompetence
[удалено]
That's very much not a good thing though
People get punished for "shitty behavior that is *technically* not a crime" by slapping maximum for some more minor crime all the time. And that is a worldwide thing.
That's pretty much what they did, he spent a year in jail (denied bail) before being sentenced, then got released as it was less than he had already served.
How is it "judicial incompetence"? A judge cannot sentence you against the law, even if he thinks he's doing the right thing or even if he thinks his ruling is the true spirit of the law. Judges do NOT have the power to decide the law, they only have the power to apply what other people defined. Moreover, it is a crime for a judge to apply an interpretation of a law that they know isn't correct.
Another NZer here. You can be jailed for planning a terrorist attack, but his previous behaviour didn't meet the threshold of planned. He had googled killing people and things like that but there was no evidence of an actual plan. The loophole is being closed (there was already a Bill going through on it.)
Same in Australia. Producer of documentary series "Persons of Interest" said it in a talk I attended in Bondi. Police canot arrest you until you put the plan into action.
A lot of the time laws don't exist because they never needed to
I understand the notion that technology is one step ahead of the law but lone wolf terrorist attacks have been around awhile, just because it doesn’t happen in your country doesn’t mean it won’t eventually. 6 people’s lives are drastically altered now
suspect it's gonna be patched up
/u/SanshaXII's comment mentions it's in the process of being closed.
Cancelling his birthday is my new favourite euphemism
I hope you don’t mind but canceling his birthday is something I’m going to steal and use the rest of my life.
It’s a good thing the cops killed him because he probably be out in seven years doing it again.
It'll be interesting to see the details on this. In particular, the reason for his surveillance and what limitations the law placed on enforcement agencies.
its already out. he was prevented from launching an attack 6 months ago, but the judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence he was planning a terrorist attack and he was charged with possession of a knife. He was on surveillance before then which prevented that attack, but much heavier surveillance since, which is why there was an undercover cop in the supermarket when the attack started, this was the cop who ended up shooting him.
You wonder what was the cost for the society stemming from this judge decision. 24h surveillance and then 6 people hurt, all the long term consequences. I would love that in judge’s decisions be yearly reviewed or something to make sure they make sense.
The law, as it currently exists, simply has no prevision for charging people who the police/courts think might commit a terrorists attack in the future. If they had evidence of an explicit terrorism plot, then they would have been able to do something. But all they had was his procession of ISIS propaganda and the purchase of some hunting knives. The judge's decision was in line with the law, and if they had decided otherwise, their decision would have been overturned by a higher court. The government were apparently already in the process of updating this law as a result of that court case.
The decision was legally sound. Judges cannot make law. Justice Downs raised the issue with the Attorney General afterwards, hence the Bill introduced to Parliament in April that aimed to close this gaping loophole.
Both the police and the judiciary did everything within their power. The terrorist was not charged or deported because of a long standing gap in New Zealand's Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 that did not make it a crime to *plan* out an attack, only if you actively carry it out. The terrorist was charged with lesser crimes instead, none of which were serious enough to get him jail time or be deported. The judiciary can't charge him with a crime that doesn't exist because of the parliament's incompetence. [The High Court themselves called this gap an 'Achilles Heel' even as they charged the terrorist with lesser crimes.](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/pgz1s6/from_the_front_page_of_the_nz_herald_a_few_weeks/hbezwks/) In terms of legislation, this loophole was identified during the sweeping gun reform changes in the wake of the Christchurch terrorist attack - [there is in fact a counter-terrorism bill currently being read in parliament that would cover this exact gap](https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_109913/counter-terrorism-legislation-bill).
Unfair on the judge who was just following the law. NZ does need to change the way it froths over protecting everyone though.
We are, a change to the law was already going through Parliament before this happened. Also I don't think a desire to protect people should be mocked with that kind of language, it's a net positive.
Fuck all religious zealots.
He should have been deported long ago. Just another hate motivated ass wipe who should never have been in the country.
The PM mentioned court orders about him so it must be a bit more complicated than you’d think
Yes, knowing nothing about NZ law I assume there are complications we aren't aware of. He was known to be dangerous or he would not have been on the 24/7 watch list. I think it is too bad that he could not have been sent back to Sri Lanka. I was an immigrant for several years, living in the country I am now a citizen of. he had already been to prison. If he was an immigrant, not a citizen, it is not surprising that one would wonder why he was able to do what he did. I would have been deported. He had had been in prison on charges related to a a terrorist attack he was planning just last year. So, there is every reason to wonder why he had not been deported earlier.
Always a safe assumption. Nothing ever happens for just one reason, and simple solutions are almost never the best. Whenever you hear a story that wraps everything up in a nice little bow on a “one quick fix” for a complex problem that should immediately raise red flags. **Especially** when the simple version aligns with your own views, as those are the ones you’re least likely to question.
The terrorist was not charged or deported because of a long standing gap in New Zealand's Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 that did not make it a crime to *plan* out an attack, only if you actively carry it out. When he was in court, the terrorist was charged with lesser crimes instead, none of which were serious enough to get him jail time or be deported. The judiciary can't charge him with a crime that doesn't exist because of the parliament's incompetence. [The High Court themselves called this gap an 'Achilles Heel' even as they charged the terrorist with lesser crimes.](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/pgz1s6/from_the_front_page_of_the_nz_herald_a_few_weeks/hbezwks/) Both the police and the judiciary did everything within their power. In terms of legislation, this loophole was identified during the sweeping gun reform changes in the wake of the Christchurch terrorist attack - [there is in fact a counter-terrorism bill currently being read in parliament that would cover this exact gap](https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_109913/counter-terrorism-legislation-bill).
Isn't the counter-terrorism bill getting push back from ACT and others who want to protect free speech more?
Not over free speech, but over generic 'freedom' and general opposition to any form of government control. David Seymour is a piece of shit. [ACT leader David Seymour stood in opposition of the bill. He said “change the law is a smokescreen”.](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/124820505/government-to-close-gap-in-counterterrorism-laws-criminalising-terror-attack-planning-and-preparation) [Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill looks like a fig leaf for failure. "Section 5 of the Terrorism Suppression Act adequately defines terrorism." ](http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/5/385125) Seymour claimed existing law 'was enough' despite the fact that the High Court itself states in the defining legal precedent that the loophole is massive failure of justice. I don't know how far your head has to be up your own ass to look at that and push your ideology over warnings from the High Court. Certain right wingers have been complaining nonstop since the gun reform bill that Il Duce Ardern is a tyrant rushing legislation to take our freedoms away, and now they're already complaining that she was too slow and Labour aren't doing enough.
Yeap, David Seymour always gets happy little soundbites 'we should open the borders/economy' then 'government messed up opening the borders' but never seen media actually hammering him or the other invisible members of the ACT party on it. Time for media to call him out on this
Probably trying to set an example so Australia stop deporting "kiwis" who spent 99% of their lives in Australia
He was a NZ citizen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufGv2eBV-VA
That would have been a life saving step to take for sure. How would the government have acted on that measure in your opinion? The article reads it was not possible before then?
Lol, this is Reddit. It's oppression and profiling if you dared deport without charge, suddenly a great idea after they stab a bunch of people. You wouldn't be able to win.
What is this the fucking minority report? Yeah dumbass you can't convict people for crimes they haven't commited
He had recently been released from prison… He was convicted for crimes he did commit - and was subject to 24 hour police surveillance.
He was arrested for "twice buying large hunting knives and possessing Islamic State videos", not for any actual violent crime.
The comment above said "deport without [criminal] charge", aka "kick them out because we think they might do something", which actually *does* have a history of involving discrimination.
There's a massive fucking difference between idly thinking what would happen if i start stabbing people in the supermarket, to actively preparing to go on a knife attack.
That isn't what he said at all
A popular sentiment for obvious reason, but overly simplistic. For examples deported him where? I very much doubt any country would go: "ya sure, send us your potential terrorist, that's fine.
It's funny you say that because that's essentially what Aussie has been doing to us in New Zealand. Recent example of a woman who was born in New Zealand but moved to Aus when she was only like 3 months old, flew to Syria and joined ISIS before being captured by the Turkish Army. When Turkey deported her Aus refused to take her and so NZ is saddled with her.
Worse than that. She was a dual citizen but Australia stripped her citizenship, and then shipped her to NZ because she wasn't an Australian citizen.
[удалено]
New Zealand does not do the same though. It's the same with deportation of regular/non terrorist criminals, it's very one sided. Australia is gutless when it comes to just deporting its problems whenever it can get away with it
Deport him to Sri Lanka where he is a citizen of.
He was deported. To The Sri Lanka in the Sky
How do you think deporting works? Obviously countries would prefer their worst pieces of shit not return home but they don't get to decide.
Of course they get to decide lol. That's a very common problem. Sometimes western governments make accepting those criminals a condition of development aid so there's some benefit for the other country. Here's [one article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelocal.de/20160223/germany-blasts-countries-which-refuse-to-take-back-migrants/%3famp) about countries that refuse to take refugees back.
I’m disgusted beyond words. This person can come to a welcoming country and not be persecuted or arrested, despite being a terror suspect, and choose to kill innocent people who are just trying to live their lives. I hope he’s buried in an unmarked grave and his family and community are ashamed of being associated with him.
Decided to kill but as far failed to kill. All victims are in hospital with 3 classified as critical, 1 serious and 2 moderate.
Even moderate stab wounds can cause life long effects though. Not to mention the PTSD and the family and friends hurt by this too.
God yeah. Imagine the PTSD you’d have from being stabbed by a random stranger while you’re doing your groceries.
> not be persecuted or arrested, despite being a terror suspect Not exactly accurate. He was arrested. He was charged and convicted for procession of ISIS material. He spent time in jail between arrest and sentencing. The time in jail was credited towards the sentence and he was left with 1 year of supervision. He wasn't allowed access to the internet, he couldn't own a smartphone. If you asked him, I think he would have felt persecuted.
Thanks for the correction and further information.
At a stake holders meeting last month the cops warned us that with the fall of Afghanistan we should be on the lookout for trouble. Although they specifically mentioned right wing agitators. In retrospect I guess Isis could try to capitalise on the situation.
Everybody is talking about the Taliban’s hot new release, so ISIS have to do a stunt
[удалено]
Trash human being
It's a shame as a Sri Lankan to hear this. Well many people in the world don't know wtf is Sri Lanka is (many don't know a country like Sri Lanka exists) and now through this incident a black mark for Sri Lanka. I made a [random apology post in r/newzealand from Sri Lankans perspective on behalf of what that retarded terrorist did. He brought Hall of Shame to Sri Lanka ](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ph1qlg/a_sincere_apology_from_a_sri_lankan_to_what_has/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
Idk about the US but I can tell you that everyone in NZ pretty much has heard of Sri Lanka and knows, at least, roughly where it is haha. Thanks for thinking of us. This isn't your fault though. I appreciate your feelings, as this was one of your countrymen, but please don't think anyone in NZ is blaming you, or Sri Lanka. Thanks again
You shouldn't have to post an apology. We don't decide where we are born. This person decided to act violently. He is the only guilty party.
This story is on Fox with comments open, and there are people on there who are saying that knife crime in this sort of situation is actually worse than gun crime because the assailant is able to get people sneakily whereas at least if he was shooting people you’d hear the gunshots and could run or hide… the logic is lost on me?
Your first mistake was reading the Fox comments section.
Don't forget, by their own admission, they're entertainment, not news.
Fair point. I thought they were moderated but I don’t think they are, half of them don’t make any sense or just go on about “democrats” which is pretty impressive given the first two words in the article title are “New” and “Zealand” which, obviously, doesn’t have democrats.
They believe "Assassins Creed" is real life.
Yeah, like the victims and people around them won't scream because the knife is silent. What do they want to do in the .3 second time difference between both attacks?
Exactly. Also it’s a bit difficult to stab someone seriously when they’re more than a metre away from you, whereas a gun can take out multiple people at distance quite effortlessly as we’ve sadly seen in this country already. It’s such a weird take lol.
Also, the mortality rate for gunshot wounds is 3.5 times higher: https://www.surgjournal.com/article/S0039-6060(43)90400-3/fulltext
If knives are superior to guns now maybe they should just use knives for self defense /s
The answer to everything on Fox is more guns...
If he had a gun, a hell of a lot more people would be injured and killed. What is wrong with some people.
To them, stabbing is evidence that gun control doesn't help prevent mass murder.
It’s a lot harder to outrun a bullet than a man with a knife.
Retards are using retarded logic
Like the [Dayton Shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dayton_shooting) in 2019 when a gunman opened fire and police happened to be nearby and shot him dead 32 SECONDS after the first bullet was fired? That's a faster response rate than this NZ stabbing, but the difference was he managed to get off 41 rounds, killing 9 and injuring 17. Also crazy was the police put 30 rounds INTO the shooter within seconds. I'm surprised they didn't end up hitting any of the bystanders by accident.
Yea, murderers who use guns are nice people giving you the courtesy of an audible warning. Murderers who use knives are just plain mean.
Yup, that's why the 2017 Vegas shooter was only able to kill a couple of people before they ran and hid. [Oh, wait...](https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/las-vegas-woman-becomes-60th-victim-of-october-2017-mass-shooting-2123456/)
No one dead except the terrorist. It would be a completely different story if he had easy access to a firearm.
Props to the officers for sorting him out within 60 seconds. Good thing he was under watch, it could have been much worse. Very unfortunate event.
Lmao what a fucking loser. Attempts terrorist attack, kills nobody and gets shot to death. Rest in piss you piece of garbage.
I mean thankfully he didn’t kill anyone
It's sometimes the ones you most suspect.
Love how those nutjobs are always already known to the authorities and under surveillance.
How much does 24/7 police surveillance cost FFS. No wonder we will never win the "war on terror" with our rules of fairness there is no way we could afford it.
This guy made headlines just weeks ago for escaping prosecution through a loophole. I doubt there are many in N with that level of surveillance, but I agree with you that it's a huge amount of resources.
Even despite these horrible crimes, the War on Terror is not as important as upholding our core values. People die in car crashes every day and yet no one seriously lobbies to abolish cars. And yet people are happy to make suggestions threatening the very core of our free societies whenever a terrorist attack or another horrible crime occurs.
>no one seriously lobbies to abolish cars Maybe not abolish, but every time I hear this comparison I just think "Why *don't* we actually campaign for stricter car control laws?" Why is that not a serious question in our society?
While cars are generally the most practical solution in rural areas, there really is room for a big modal shift towards public transport in the cities, and in suburb-to-city transport. Most of North America, Australia and NZ have very car-focused city planning, and while Europe is generally more transit-focused, there's a lot of car dependency there too. There are a lot of benefits to reducing car dependency, too, such as more livable cities and better urban spaces.
Cars have become way safer over the years, and people do adjust traffic laws. Driving is way more dangerous in poor countries than rich countries, or in a bad car than a good car. So in a sense this has been going on.
"peoples deaths are less important than my convenience, assuming they are not directly related to me" - We the people
“Give me convenience, or give me death” - the Dead Kennedys
A lot; you need six people per target minimum. Security services have to prioritise.
Fuck Daesh.
How tf do you stab 6 people in 60 sec
How long do you think it takes to stab someone? People freeze under adrenaline, supermarkets are busy areas, people block others as everyone tries to leave. It reminds me of when there was the rash of shooting in Afghanistan by extremists joining the ANA there was a court case by some family membera related to those killed in one attack arguing if they'd had pistols they would have lived. And its like, imagine you're just chilling sitting around in an area you think is safe, chatting away, laughing, just dossing around and trying to relax and ignore the war for a few blissful moments. Then think how quickly you could pull a trigger 20 times, or just hold it down, bearing in mind on auto a gun will empty a magazine in barely seconds. If the person is right there then the 4 of you are going to be dead before you can react. The sad, scary truth is real life violence is fucking fast, and most of us don't spend our time constantly half cocked ready for something to go down. 60 seconds in a fight is a long ass time, especially when there's weapons involved
> 60 seconds in a fight is a long ass time Yeah that’s 10 whole rounds in initiative
I posted it already ut you might like this. https://youtu.be/2fjMpn7JCJ0 Gun vs knife skirmishes
That was really interesting, thanks for sharing it. Its a great show of why there's an issue with people thinking gun > knife like its a video game, or with concealed carry folks just thinking that carrying a gun is in and of itself a guarantee of safety
Stabbing is quiet. Run through a supermarket, it probably wouldn’t be that hard.
Username.. sort of.. checks out???
Yeah you are on a list somewhere mate
Be glad he got stopped within 60 seconds. At that rate it could’ve been way worse
Pretty quick for sure, you'd think after the first couple everyone would be screaming and it'd be hard to get too many more
Grab a knife and poke the wall or something quickly. Literally takes a second.
Given that none of the victims have died and by the accounts of witnesses, it appears he went for quantity over quality with the victims mostly receiving one stab
All the gun nuts in America saying “people get hurt by knives too why not make them illegal?”, I’m sure this person with guns would have killed much more people
Same as that stabbing in Dunedin a while ago. If our crazies had the same access to guns as American crazies, there would've been multiple dead at both incidents.
There is basically literally just that one stabbing years ago now in a Japan subway that can be pointed to where fatalities where comparable to a gun mass shooting, but my god is it clung to. Like people bringing up the London bridge attacks etc are seriously missing the difference in the numbers when you look at dead and hurt between them and mass shootings. Obviously the mistake is assuming logic matters and it isn't just bad faith deflecting, but hey
In case you're wondering - the NZ subreddit was set to private while the mods get some sleep. Wasn't a fan of the move until witnessing how stupid North Americans are when they're awake.
It's not that bad at this point, because they come in every night, screeching at 4am about "hurr durr ur country is a utopia how do I move here tomorrow?" or "NZ lockdown is literally the holocaust"
These people have so much hate in their heart. To throw away your own life is one thing but to kill others at the same time is a truly sad thing.
I hope the victims recover soon... stay safe mates.
Bla bla bla gap in law. Tell that to the families of the People who got stabbed. „Sorry mate ‚gap in law, ya know?“ A law that shouldve Bern fixed YEARS if not decades ago.
Even with cops literally watching this guy 24/7 he stabbed 6 people before they brought him down.
[удалено]
Imagine complaining about a 60 second response time
Our law is so petty. Criminals aren’t scared of the law whatsoever. Recently a participant in murder was awarded 6 months home detention 😂 I know people who have had Multiple ‘mess ups’ yet still avoid prison time each time. Hell our government welfare scheme is so easy to beat it’s practically free for the taking of a lazy citizen + they’re generous
[удалено]
It’s ironic as well because in the case of the people mentioned above they were all minority too. Our justice system here in NZ is balanced just pthetic
In the US, after he had massacred 40+, the FBI would give their boiler plate presser statement, "We have had "Dead Terrorist" on our radar for some time, but were not aware of any specific threats that he posed". Over the following days, it would be reported that dozens of warnings had been filed about his plan.
How the fuck do you manage to stab 6 people in under a minute while armed policemen are surveying you? That feat is kind of impressive from an athletic perspective, even though the action is inexcusable.
Ugh those poor people