Man shot dead by police, six injured, after stabbings at Auckland's LynnMall Countdown

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Man shot dead by police, six injured, after stabbings at Auckland's LynnMall Countdown

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Smpl Mnmlst
9334 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6203

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2773136 6-Sep-2021 18:34

Probably a silly question but I don’t understand why the police surveillance needed to be covert. Would it have mattered if he knew he was being watched? People might have been less likely to have been hurt and it would have made the tracking a lot easier. Am I missing something blindingly obvious?

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

clinty

1201 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 402

Lifetime subscriber

#2773216 6-Sep-2021 20:18

eracode:

Probably a silly question but I don’t understand why the police surveillance needed to be covert. Would it have mattered if he knew he was being watched? People might have been less likely to have been hurt and it would have made the tracking a lot easier. Am I missing something blindingly obvious?

They said he was surveillance conscious and paranoid - so I think overt surveillance would have caused him to try and give them the slip

Also would have fed into his paranoia.

Still whose knows if it had been overt if he would have done what he did

Clint

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2773403 7-Sep-2021 09:32

Handle9:
networkn:

I thought we had clauses that people had to be of decent character or something of that lines? it seems extraordinary we don't have something we could have kicked him out for...

He was a refugee. The general principle is you can't put a refugee into harm's way by deporting them.

Perhaps you know more about this, but he had assaulted guards and a number of other similar things. The threshold of deporting someone must be pretty high as a refugee to continue to be allowed to stay here after some of the things he is reported to have done.

Given he had round-the-clock surveillance, it seems they considered him an imminent threat to others, if it's a choice between protecting him or protecting our citizens, surely, we take precedence.

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 477

#2773417 7-Sep-2021 09:57

networkn:

Given he had round-the-clock surveillance, it seems they considered him an imminent threat to others, if it's a choice between protecting him or protecting our citizens, surely, we take precedence.

I just want to raise an issue with this statement. As a person granted refugee status he was one of our citizens. Until the legal process plays out and that status is stripped that would remain the case. The rule of law and the protections that grants us, even people who do bad things is an important part of the freedoms we enjoy. There are some very important questions to be asked coming out of this incident. i.e Should he have been granted bail? What opportunities were missed in the last ten years to prevent him falling down the rabbit hole so far? etc.

Jas777

840 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 111

#2773439 7-Sep-2021 10:44

eracode:

Probably a silly question but I don’t understand why the police surveillance needed to be covert. Would it have mattered if he knew he was being watched? People might have been less likely to have been hurt and it would have made the tracking a lot easier. Am I missing something blindingly obvious?

Because they didn't want him to recognise faces as only a limited number of people who could follow him and that he might then tell others what they look like, coupled with he might have lead them to others.

And the fact that if they were too close human rights lawyers and those who want to make a name for themselves would get involved

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2773443 7-Sep-2021 10:50

Varkk:

There are some very important questions to be asked coming out of this incident. i.e Should he have been granted bail? What opportunities were missed in the last ten years to prevent him falling down the rabbit hole so far? etc.

Realistically another question that needs to be asked is whether he should have been able to stay so long in the country under appeal if he represented a security risk. I get that there is a due process to follow but if that can't be done in a timely manner than it is unconscionable to leave the community exposed to a level of risk because paperwork isn't getting shuffled fast enough.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

gzt

18690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#2773445 7-Sep-2021 10:54

NZ Police warn fake news on social media:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-mall-terrorist-attack-police-warn-of-fake-news-on-social-media/JGB4H5B47S6N6RJMEANR2QM2ZY

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2773465 7-Sep-2021 11:35

Varkk:

I just want to raise an issue with this statement. As a person granted refugee status he was one of our citizens. Until the legal process plays out and that status is stripped that would remain the case. The rule of law and the protections that grants us, even people who do bad things is an important part of the freedoms we enjoy. There are some very important questions to be asked coming out of this incident. i.e Should he have been granted bail? What opportunities were missed in the last ten years to prevent him falling down the rabbit hole so far? etc.

the thing is, when you pluck someone out of a situation, you cannot reinstall the OS in them, they bring everything with them.

take it in reverse: you see when you spend 20 years helping Afghanistan, and within 7 days of letting them do what they want - what do they do. they do exactly what they did 20 years ago.

for refugees, assimilation is the hardest.

when i was in Melbourne, every week Somali refugees would chop each other's limbs off with big knives. why? because they were rival tribes in Somalia, they were rival tribes in Somali living in refugee accommodation. they knew nothing better.

https://www.google.com/search?q=melbourne+somali+gang+fight

mind you many will assimilate fine, many have issues. i don't know the percentage. probably a very small minority end up with major issues.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2773719 7-Sep-2021 15:09

Varkk:
networkn:

Given he had round-the-clock surveillance, it seems they considered him an imminent threat to others, if it's a choice between protecting him or protecting our citizens, surely, we take precedence.

I just want to raise an issue with this statement. As a person granted refugee status he was one of our citizens. Until the legal process plays out and that status is stripped that would remain the case. The rule of law and the protections that grants us, even people who do bad things is an important part of the freedoms we enjoy. There are some very important questions to be asked coming out of this incident. i.e Should he have been granted bail? What opportunities were missed in the last ten years to prevent him falling down the rabbit hole so far? etc.

I believe he was a permanent resident, not a citizen. Refugees still have to go through the same qualification process for citizenship.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2773721 7-Sep-2021 15:13

Handle9:

I believe he was a permanent resident, not a citizen. Refugees still have to go through the same qualification process for citizenship.

Presumably then, assaulting someone would, as it does for others, give IMNZ reason to decline his application and deport him? I'm guessing it's not as simple as that, given the resources expended, but it feels like it should have.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2773722 7-Sep-2021 15:13

networkn:
Handle9:

He was a refugee. The general principle is you can't put a refugee into harm's way by deporting them.

Perhaps you know more about this, but he had assaulted guards and a number of other similar things. The threshold of deporting someone must be pretty high as a refugee to continue to be allowed to stay here after some of the things he is reported to have done.

Given he had round-the-clock surveillance, it seems they considered him an imminent threat to others, if it's a choice between protecting him or protecting our citizens, surely, we take precedence.

No. As far as I understand it the state can not deliberately place someone in harm's way.

I generally support this policy. It prevents significant harm.

There should be also be mechanism to deal with people like this terrorist.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41088

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2773725 7-Sep-2021 15:15

networkn:

Presumably then, assaulting someone would, as it does for others, give IMNZ reason to decline his application and deport him? I'm guessing it's not as simple as that, given the resources expended, but it feels like it should have.

I believe this was explained before. Basically, having refugee status means the person can't just be sent back. Immigration New Zealand would have to rescind the refugee status to be allowed to deport him, and there's a lot more stuff to consider when the refugee status is in play.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2773727 7-Sep-2021 15:15

networkn:
Handle9:

I believe he was a permanent resident, not a citizen. Refugees still have to go through the same qualification process for citizenship.

Presumably then, assaulting someone would, as it does for others, give IMNZ reason to decline his application and deport him? I'm guessing it's not as simple as that, given the resources expended, but it feels like it should have.

What application? I don't believe he had applied for citizenship. He was a PR. There is nothing to decline.

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 477

#2773740 7-Sep-2021 15:33

Interesting article in The Guardian touching on some of the struggles this man faced. https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2021/sep/06/i-assessed-the-auckland-supermarket-terrorist-our-approach-has-to-change

I think some of the problem is trying to deal with him on the basis of terrorism needing to be stomped out rather than as a mental health issue needing treatment.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2773744 7-Sep-2021 15:37

Handle9:

No. As far as I understand it the state can not deliberately place someone in harm's way.

Well, now some of our citizens have ended up in harms way. They felt he was a credibly imminent threat. It's was probably no less theoretical than the harm he may come to if he was sent back from whence he came.

I generally support this policy. It prevents significant harm.

There should be also be mechanism to deal with people like this terrorist.

I agree with both of these points. It feels like it should have been something addressed along with the review that happened after Christchurch happened.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4