Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Sydney Siege, why was there no use of a sniper?

Sydney Siege, why was there no use of a sniper?

If a scumbag claims to be actiung in the Name of Allah then why does the Australian media keep insisting on pretending otherwise?

If a scumbag claims to be acting in the Name of Allah then why does the Australian media keep insisting on pretending otherwise?

I don’t sleep very well at the bets of times but I have spent most of last night listening to the rolling coverage of the siege in Sydney and I am both desperately saddened by the death of two hostages and annoyed that a sniper did not take the scumbag out before any hostages could be killed. Further I can not comprehend why he was out on bail after being changed with murdering his wife and how he was able to get hold of a hand gun.

Finally I have been utterly sickened by all of the obsequious excuse making for Islam We, as a society well understand that the the majority of this in this country who follow that religion are decent people who mean their fellow Australians no harm so we do not need the sort of endless excuse making for the religion that has been so evident in the Media coverage for this atrocity done in the name of Allah. Simply put, if this was not an act based upon an “Islamic” motivation then why was it clothed in Islamist vestments?

Sadly nothing  to cheer about on this one Comrades

Sydney siege

If channel 7 could get this image then why did the police not have a sniper to “take the shot”?

Advertisements

18 Comments

  1. mumbles says:

    Exactly.
    Should have been handed to the military.

  2. Richard Ryan says:

    15 OR 16 pages in the Sydney Telegraph today on this hostage drama, this is happening quite often in Iraq, thanks to the invasion of that country, Now let us get on to the law that put this guy out on bail,

  3. John Wood says:

    My thoughts exactly Ian. I can only conclude that the snipers had been ordered not to shoot unless expressly ordered. My sense is that the politicians had made it clear to the police commissioner that they wanted to avoid shooting dead a muslim man without him having drawn first blood. They got what they asked for. I saw dozens of clear shot opportunities within the first hour. Left wing political correctness has cost two innocent people their lives on my opinion. John Wood.

  4. Fleeter says:

    Iain
    Ballistics clearly not your strong suit.
    Sniper making a shot through 1/4 inch glass with target so far away from the window.
    Low % solution mate.

  5. richard ryan says:

    “Exactly. Should have been handed to the military.” Sorry but the military are in the Middle East fighting American wars. Shalom!

  6. Ray Dixon says:

    The NSW Police said from the outset that they wanted to end the siege “peacefully”. How stupid an idea was that? This was only ever going to end in at least one death because that fruitcake clearly went there to die – even made himself a target by standing in clear sight in the window (Fleeter might be right about the low % of the shot but I reckon it was still worth doing).

    Apparently, all this idiot had was a sawn-off shotgun, which was also clearly visible at one stage slung over his shoulder. What the frick was the Police plan? Did they even have one? Why couldn’t someone get inside and take him? They knew everything about this bloke and by all accounts he was not exactly a trained military type. Not exactly a tough guy. Just a wind bag with a farmer’s gun. He would have been easily outsmarted and overcome but no, the NSW Police decided (in the end) to burst the door open and blaze away. The footage of that is actually embarrassing and they look like real wimps.

    But the big question now is this: Whose bullets killed the two hostages?

  7. Christine says:

    Yes, use army snipers. They have access to larger calibre ammunition (e.g. 50 calibre rifle – would. Have sliced through the window with ease and ended the life of the delusional psychopath in an instant). Even with a 7.62 mm NATO round he would be dead – there are options available to the density and length of the projectile and the number of grains which would increase the projectile’s velocity.

  8. John Wood says:

    Fleeter – Ballistics is clearly not your strong suit either mate. You are completely wrong. There no such thing as an absolute expert, but I know a good deal more of ballistics than the average person, and I must say that there are a number of ways that shooting a target behind cover can be approached. Options would include: employing the use of a 50 calibre projectile, now common in military armouries. A 50cal is designed to punch through metal plate armor such as vehicles and equipment. It would have gone through that glass like it was rice paper. Second option, using standard 7.62 calibre – two shoots, from two shooters. The first shot to shatter the glass and the second shot released on the rapport of the first. The glass will have been safety glass by regulation, which means that upon breaking it would have completely shattered into small squares. I wish I could agree that a sniper shot was technically too risky but that is not what I see. What I see is a government afraid to release it’s police to do their job in the most effective and expedient manner. I remain of the opinion that they were avoiding taking him out for fear of a muslim backlash, and a left wing backlash lead by the ABC. Imagine if only the gunman had been killed early in the siege, and no one else harmed. The international socialists would by yabbering on about how the police killed him too quickly. I feel sorry for the police because I believe their hands were tied by political directives. It was a disasterous outcome for many of the hostages, and for two of them it was fatal. John Wood.

  9. Iain: exactly what I thought when I saw live CNN pics here (Norway). Actually I found your blog just now, as I was doing simple GOOLE search: “sydney why not sniper”.
    I see there others on the planet had the same thought: “Gee, when the CNN camera can see this vermin, why not sniper???” What kind of pussyfooting is this? Zero tolerance if anybody takes hostages, doesn’t matter if it’s sawn-off shotgun or a bottle of petrol and zippo: TAKE THE ANIMAL DOWN!!!
    Shame on Aussie (NSW) Police, same wankers as our norwg. police allowing some mexican looser to crash Nobel Prize ceremony the other day!

  10. richard ryan says:

    This was just a practice run, they will get better with more experience.

  11. richard ryan says:

    Breivik killed 77 in Norway—now that is what I call killing.

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    What I see is a government afraid to release it’s police to do their job in the most effective and expedient manner. I remain of the opinion that they were avoiding taking him out for fear of a muslim backlash, and a left wing backlash lead by the ABC

    Which Government do you think gave NSW Police these “political directives” not to shoot him, John? The NSW one or the Federal Government? They’re both Conservative Coalition governments so do you seriously believe Tony Abbott or Mike Baird picked up the phone and gave the NSW Police Commissioner orders to “hold fire”? I think that only happens in the movies or on TV cop shows.

    As for the so-called “left wing backlash led by the ABC” if he’d been taken out earlier, I’ve been watching a lot of ABC coverage of the aftermath and, if anything, they seem to be more on the side of “why wasn’t he killed earlier?”, like most of us are.

    Sorry mate, I can’t buy your conspiracy theory. I put it down to police incompetence. Oh, and that they had too many female officers involved (sorry, girls).

  13. Ray Dixon says:

    This report appears to answer the “why no sniper” question. Apparently they had one, but … read on:

    http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/2772715/how-sydney-siege-gunman-tricked-police-into-thinking-there-was-a-bomb-in-his-backpack/?cs=7

    They were the wires that had police wary.

    As he walked around the Lindt cafe, siege gunman Man Haron Monis was wearing a backpack that he told hostages was filled with explosives.

    Snipers stationed in the Channel Seven studio across the road could see wires poking out of the backpack and it was one of the reasons they were reluctant to take a shot at the gunman, according to a report from Seven journalist Chris Reason, who was on the scene.

    Footage captured through the windows of the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Martin Place clearly shows Monis wearing a large backpack as he creeps around inside the cafe, using hostages as human shields throughout the 16-hour siege.

    The sharp images of Monis captured on camera led many to question why, if the cameras could get a clear view of Monis, the snipers did not shoot him earlier?

    Reason said Monis had convinced the hostages that he was carrying a bomb, and police had no choice but to take that threat seriously.

    One possibility was that the supposed bomb was fitted with a dead man’s switch, which would automatically activate if Monis was incapacitated.

    However when a police later examined the backpack they discovered an old stereo speaker inside the backpack, revealing just how calculated Monis had been in his movements. There were no explosives in the backpack, as he had claimed.

    “It turned out the gunman was carrying an old stereo speaker, but at the time the police didn’t know that and had to assume the worst,” Reason reported.

    Channel Seven’s studio in Martin Place is located directly across from the cafe, and provided such an ideal vantage point to view the unfolding hostage situation that a sniper positioned himself within the newsroom throughout the 16-hour siege.

    The newsroom was evacuated, but Channel Seven cameraman Greg Parker and journalist Reason were allowed to remain in the studio. Parker fed live images to police command throughout the siege so they could devise an action plan.

    Another reason why snipers did not take out Monis earlier was that they were shooting through reinforced glass, meaning it was impossible to predict with precision the path of the bullet. The risk of hitting a hostage was too great, Reason said.

    Yeah, I thought about that backpack too and my hunch was that it was a hoax and there was no bomb. Technically the Police were right to ‘err on the side of caution’ but in this case they should have known enough about this bloke’s background to make a reasonable assessment on the likelihood of whether he had explosives or not. Bottom line: the guy was a wind bag and full of shit. He also gave out false leads about 3 other bombs planted throughout Sydney by so-called ‘brothers’. It all pointed to a hoax, as did the back pack. Oh, and the sawn off shotgun should have told them this guy was amateur # 1. They should have taken the chance on that shot or at least devised some way to get inside.

  14. Peter says:

    I think some of the comments regarding the use of a sniper are somewhat far fetched and dare I say somewhat ignorant. The rationale for not using the sniper is quite sound. As always in seiges and other critical incidents, the safety of all involved is paramount and takes precedence. Personally I think the question should be asked of the Magistrate who released this man on bail, despite the serious nature of the charges. Whilst we are all accountable for our actions, sadly our guardians of the law are not.

  15. John Wood says:

    I acknowledge what you say, Ray Dixon, but I was not suggesting a Hollywood style telephone call from the Prime Minister or Premier. I think most of us have these days realised that it matters not whether one votes Labor or Liberal, it is the Senior levels of the State and Commonwealth Public Service that drive policy. That is why nothing appears to change regardless of who takes government. No Ray, the directive not to shoot a muslim extremist at all costs would have never been expressly stated, but rather would have been indirectly and tacitly “conveyed” and gently infered during the months and years that Australia has been waiting for this menace to reach home. Conspiracy theory? No, it’s a bloody conspiracy proper mate. It doesn’t take midnight meetings to run a conspiratorial cabal these days, it is done by making known to everyone that only a certain mindset is considered politically correct. From there people will self-sensor and alter their behaivour accordingly. That is how it works and it is very sublte and very effective. We have been aculturated into believing that all claims of conspiracy are a sign of lunacy. Rubbish. Conspiracies are the basis of all crimes involving two or more offenders. Nothing amazing about that. The Manhattan Project was a conspiracy conducted by a government that involved the construction of a small city to be populated with hundreds of scientists and support workers, complete with accomodation and massive electricity consumption – and the general public had no idea it existed until after the war. Conspiracy? You betcha.

  16. John Wood says:

    The whole excuse about not shooting him for fear that he had a bomb rigged with a deadman switch is bullshit too. Notice how it was not mentioned at all for the first few days? That is becuase the authorities, coming under increased criticism from the public, have gone looking for a good technical reason as to why they did not shoot Monis before he could shoot anyone else.

    That whole excuse rests on the deadman switch. A deadman switch is a switch that will complete an electric circuit unless a minimum level of resistance to circuit completion is maintained. There are a number of ways to create the resistance, such as the employment of a mercury switch or a gravity switch, but overwelmingly the only type to be used with an acceptable level of reliability is spring resistance. These are what most land mines are based on. The human element in the circuit must either use their hand to maintain a minimum level of resistance to the spring, or they must keep their body weight planted on the spring. This is not rocket science, it is old and well established ordinance engineering.

    The point is, the footage indicates that Monis showed both hands to be empty on a number of occasions. He also paced around a lot, ruling out a foot or body weight switch. A mercury switch is entirely unpredictable because it could complete simply with the movement of walking. Those on the front line knew that he had no deadman switch, and I bet the poor buggers on the end of the guns will never forget the day they were made to sit and watch every opportunity to end the siege go by.

  17. richard ryan says:

    One wonders if it was two Aborigines killed in the siege, would this mob of mourners, show the same concern of love.

  18. Ray Dixon says:

    the directive not to shoot a muslim extremist at all costs would have never been expressly stated, but rather would have been indirectly and tacitly “conveyed” and gently infered during the months and years that Australia has been waiting for this menace to reach home.

    Well John, that “directive” seems to have not reached Victoria Police who shot a young Muslim extremist dead (in the head) just a few months ago (*).

    I don’t recall any public backlash (lead by the ABC) about that either, as you said there would be. Seems nearly everyone was glad to be rid of the vermin.

    I would suggest that if Monis had been taken out early too (as he should have been) that also would have been greeted with a “thank f*ck for that” attitude by the great masses.

    (* How quickly we forget, eh?)

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: