After The Gatton Shooting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trout1105

I have No doubts that the police followed every guideline and protocol in this matter, Especially because one of their own had been lost and that they would have been acutely aware everything that they did would be under scrutiny.

---

i hope so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bytemrk

Eevo, have you seen the photographs of the bullet holes in the police vehicles?

Not sure that they are there for convenience or because of "people are getting emotional"

The bloke was shooting at armed police.... even his family have come out and made a statement which supports police.

All this conspiracy stuff is just plain stupid.

Brett Forte killing: Police remove damaged vehicles from deadly siege scene - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


Brett Forte shooting: Rick Maddison's family says son 'not one-dimensional career criminal' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

---

i'm not pushing any conspiracy.

its too easy to get lost in the moment and want revenge. posts on this forum are examples. people wanted him dead without a trial. is this some 3rd world country without a proper justice/legal system? i'm disappointed by the attitudes of people here. or should i forget we live in a civilised country and say they should of napalmed the forest he was hiding in and burnt the ****er straight to hell.

Damage to police vehicles shows scale of gunman's arsenal Brett Forte killing: Police remove damaged vehicles from deadly siege scene - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) - via @abcnews

The police are major part of society's 'glue' that keeps us safe and orderly in society. An attack on the police is seen as an attack on our way of life. That's why the death of a policeman in the line of duty garners such strong reactions.
It's also why they (should and usually do) get pinged harder when they break a law.

This blokes weapon was so heavy it was able to send bullets through an armoured police vehicle. That is a good example of why such weapons should be banned.
Supporting the current ban on such weapons is very respectful of the dead officer and his family, who I bet support laws to make it harder to obtain such weapons. It is those who want to shut down discussion of how to make it harder for people to possess the weapon which killed him who are being disrespectful. It would be disrespectful to argue the law should be changed to make it easier to get weapons like the one that killed the officer.
Having those laws in place means the police have the legal backing to grab those who choose to possess them and charge them with possession of illegal weapons. Him being able to get that weapon on the black market does not mean the ban has failed, it just means those who selfishly break it can be arrested. This is not naive, it is how the law actually works.

With respect DiscoMick , The Australian gun control laws are an emotive subject and many people that do Not have the experience or knowledge about different types of firearms or different calibres wade into the discussion half cocked and it always ends in tears on any forum.
This thread is all about the tragic demise of a Queensland Police officer in the line of duty and I personally feel that it is not the platform to debate "Gun control", A new and separate thread would be a much better option to discuss this [thumbsupbig]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mox

Have not looked at details of this case myself to see if the real gunman was almost certainly the one subsequently killed. However an accused should have the right of a fair trial considering evidence presented in court. In some cases the wrong person is charged or circumstances and details may differ considerably from those initially portrayed. Certainly don't want an immediate lynch mob mentality or "trial by media" which may be blatant contempt of court. Regarding an alleged offender shot dead immediately after the offences, in some cases it may not be the real one but the blame is then usually put on him unchallenged while the real offender gets away. This is sometimes what happens with "false flag" atrocities covertly arranged to falsely blame someone and/or pursue an agenda.

Nowadays thanks to the Internet, news and views that the mainstream media is unlikely to publish can be disseminated more than ever before. Including evidence that helps expose false flags, including some carried out long ago. Seems to have been plenty of them lately, including incidents in Syria and other terrorist attacks supposedly committed on sole initiative of Muslim fanatics. Another type has been mass shootings each allegedly committed on sole initiative of a deranged "lone nut gunman". When these have been quickly been followed by a barrage of anti gun propaganda and calls for tougher gun laws, some details of the case usually not publicised in mainstream media and "official" accounts may suggest these may have deliberate omissions and/or contain half truths or even blatant lies. Some in themselves could be just coincidences but combined, they virtually expose a "false flag".

One of these I have studied a lot of detail on is the Port Arthur Massacre. Especially note how Martin Bryant has been vilified. Including in TV programs aired by the major networks last year for the 20th anniversary. However, a large proportion of comments on their Facebook pages following these show that increasing numbers of people now recognise it was a false flag atrocity. The shootings were certainly real, but scrutiny of numerous details show that Martin could not have been the real gunman but was an appropriate dimwit selected beforehand and set up to take the blame. He was not and could not have been convicted of these crimes on evidence . Just sentenced after being successfully pressured to plead guilty by a crooked lawyer after being kept in illegal solitary confinement for six months. This was necessary after one important part of many false flags went wrong. ie Not having the alleged offender killed by police or supposedly commit suicide to avoid messy court proceedings. However, the anti gun psychopaths still managed to have implemented a significant proportion of draconian gun laws they wanted that largely affected mainly law abiding shooters though.

I expect that pointing out the PAM as a false flag will prompt name calling and other personal type abuse against me from a few who have been brainwashed to regard anything that questions the official accounts of it as crackpot "conspiracy theories" that should not even be listened to, let alone considered. Remember apparently the term was originally popularised by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as a description to use when trying to detract from dirty things it gets up to at times and attempting to discredit whistleblowers.

Re a reference being made to Ned Kelly, it seems some of his criminal activity was prompted by bad police officers. I remember hearing on local ABC radio once a lawyer representing his current Kelly family members. Pointed out it had been widely known that at least one of the police officers killed by Kelly gang, Lonergan, had been bragging he was going to kill Ned. So not surprising that if they knew he was among those shooting at them their aim would be to kill first. Seems the motivation of those who shoot at police is sometimes a form of retaliation against what a police officer has done. A possibility that should be considered in analysis of this latest incident.

---

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________________________

Are you for real ? what story books do you read? I lost two of my relations in the Port Arthur and I have talked and listened to all the conspiracy theories but the facts that I have come from people that were directly involved in the advent I went to school with one of the main players in the advent I know 2 prison warders that looked after Bryant for some time I have a cousin that has worked At Port Arthur for many years. I don't know who starts all this conspiracy crap for sure it must be the media, just to sell their trash. Martin Bryant was allowed to survive so that the authorities could find out the way he thinks and why The police on the ground that day were ordered not to take him out.
I am just glad that people that live with these conspiracy theories are the minority of our of our population If you want to say something please take facts not conspiracy theories.
I an not sorry if I have offend you or any one else, but my feelings and anger so?

Hodgo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trout1105

With respect DiscoMick , The Australian gun control laws are an emotive subject and many people that do Not have the experience or knowledge about different types of firearms or different calibres wade into the discussion half cocked and it always ends in tears on any forum.
This thread is all about the tragic demise of a Queensland Police officer in the line of duty and I personally feel that it is not the platform to debate "Gun control", A new and separate thread would be a much better option to discuss this [thumbsupbig]

---

Here Here :BigThumb:
Leave it alone Mick please it is not the time nor the place [wink11]

How could it not be the place to discuss laws which might make it harder for people to get guns such as the one which killed officer Forte? Shutting down that discussion would be disrespectful to the dead officer and his family. We should be seeking greater ways to protect police such as him by further reducing the availability of those weapons.

Mick,seriously mate,people are trying to be nice and giving you a hint to leave it.You seem to not only be extremely ignorant of firearms and firearms regulations but of when people are being politically correct when they want you to stop. Pat