[**butterflylove**]

Two in 30 year. This is a probably a once in a lifetime event for our cops.

[Banshee]

Originally Posted by Sturrminator ↗

The man had just carried out a mass shooting that had killed numerous people, the other shooter was still active, the man had no idea if he had a secondary weapon on him. A very good case of self defense would be made here. Unless Australia is that authoritarian that it’s illegal to kill a mass killer in the midst of a shooting event.

If we follow your logic, the consequences would be serious. Anyone in a similar situation could later justify shooting a civilian by claiming they were “defending themselves”. This creates a dangerous precedent and opens the door to abuse of self-defence claims, false accusations, and fatal mistakes. We already see this pattern frequently in the US, where non-perpetrators are killed after being accused of violence in “he said, she said” situations.

If the attacker is fleeing, unarmed, or no longer an immediate threat, shooting them is not automatically legal, even if they killed people earlier. Australia is not authoritarian, but it is strict about no vigilante justice and no punishment by civilians. Police are the ones authorised to neutralise suspects.

This incident itself shows why restraint matters. When the second gunman was shot by police, another civilian approached him to check on him. Because visibility was poor and people could not see that he came up to the bridge from the stairs, police and other civilians believed he was also a perpetrator. Police fired at him, and civilians attacked him. He was unarmed and was simply standing near the perpetrator to ensure there was no further harm.

There were only three camera angles that captured Ahmed tackling the gunman from behind in an attempt to disarm him, meaning only three people knew what was actually happening at that moment. Since the site was still an active shooting scene, there was no way to present proof to police or others in time.

Australia has previously seen cases where police use of lethal force under high pressure led to public backlash and inquests. While these were not terrorist misidentification cases, they show how easily errors can occur in chaotic situations.

Avoiding civilian shootings and misidentification is not authoritarianism. It is how the rule of law prevents innocent people from being killed. In this case, not shooting the perpetrator was the correct decision.

[MrNimbus]

If one of those dozens of people were carrying instead of filming the killers would have never got nearly as many shots fired off.

[Usmcholmesjr]

Fuck Islam

[icehole]

I don't know man
I just think that their method is stupid

[Atlas]

Those cops were utterly fucking useless.

[shazrand]

Originally Posted by Atlas ↗

Those cops were utterly fucking useless.

Almost as useless as American cops.

[spycosis]

Originally Posted by Atlas ↗

Those cops were utterly fucking useless.

All popular tourist places and major cities in the UK have counter terror police and UK SOF teams on standby ready for this shit. Not saying it's safer here ; it's not, but one good thing is the armed response here are fast and they kill the cunts immediately.

[spycosis]

Australia needs to get serious too, now the Saracens are inside the city walls

[gringo1965]

Originally Posted by Ziphold ↗

Dude is bashing his head gta style while the police is holding the assailant down. Gotta love aussies.

1-------------------------------------------------------------------- The surviving shooter should have
been skinned alive .