General Christchurch Shooting

DO NOT POST VIDEO TO THE MASSACRE OR LINKS TO IT

  • Ban hammer

    Votes: 3 100.0%
  • No regrats

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
12,907
Joined
May 19, 2012
Inruin

Inruin

Kata Fan Club - Colonel
Contributor
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
12,907
Theres a good interview of Simon Bridges around how Paula Bennett was asked as the minister of police to make changes to the gun laws because "there will be a mass shooting" in 2015. Paula Bennet bowed to pressure from the gun lobby and rejected seven key changes.

Bridges is such a weak human being didling over the changes right now disgusts me.

This is not the time for politician waffle and not committing to the prime minister outright.

Most Muslims are very worried that NZ's bureaucratic avoidance will see a slow response to the kinds of changes they need right now.

I cannot imagine mainstream NZ diddling if they were worrying this week that another nutter might go them again. Its a big releif to me that he is not in charge of this.
What is Bridges didling about on?

If he tries anything but agree to law changes then his days are numbered as a politician.

Bennett made minimal changes to gun laws, however the current labour party Police Minister Stuart Nash said Bennett got it 100% right. Looking at the recommendations you would have a strong argument for 'what the fuck were you thinking?'

The sad thing is that I think NZ can be naive and/or short sighted on a lot of issues. This happens to be one of them. If we had introduced the recommendations in 1997....

 
Messages
15,140
Reaction score
27,197
Joined
May 7, 2012
Sup42

Sup42

Warriors 1st Grader
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
15,140
Reaction score
27,197
What is Bridges didling about on?

If he tries anything but agree to law changes then his days are numbered as a politician.

Bennett made minimal changes to gun laws, however the current labour party Police Minister Stuart Nash said Bennett got it 100% right. Looking at the recommendations you would have a strong argument for 'what the fuck were you thinking?'

The sad thing is that I think NZ can be naive and/or short sighted on a lot of issues. This happens to be one of them. If we had introduced the recommendations in 1997....

I think New Zealand politics has a culture of being obtuse, deliberate wilful ignorance and a significant lack of ambition.
 
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
5,096
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Ever Hopeful

Ever Hopeful

1st Grade Fringe
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
5,096
Theres a good interview of Simon Bridges around how Paula Bennett was asked as the minister of police to make changes to the gun laws because "there will be a mass shooting" in 2015. Paula Bennet bowed to pressure from the gun lobby and rejected seven key changes.

Bridges is such a weak human being didling over the changes right now disgusts me.

This is not the time for politician waffle and not committing to the prime minister outright.

Most Muslims are very worried that NZ's bureaucratic avoidance will see a slow response to the kinds of changes they need right now.

I cannot imagine mainstream NZ diddling if they were worrying this week that another nutter might go them again. Its a big releif to me that he is not in charge of this.
Whatever anyone's political leanings, I think we can all be glad Bridges isn't the one fronting international media.
 
Messages
6,906
Reaction score
9,698
Joined
May 8, 2012
gREVUS

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
6,906
Reaction score
9,698
I regularly watch the History Channel, especially stuff about the Nazis. Why? Because for the life of me I still cannot quite figure out how such a civilised and orderly country as Germany caused so much death and destruction to the world in the 20th century.

Included in those docos are the mass murders by shooting of innocent Jewish people. That has put a lie to those who still claim that the Holocaust was a hoax. The films were taken by Nazis proud of what they were doing.

This idiot was proud of what he did, so captured it online. In years to come people might be interested in what happened.

Can somebody tell me the difference between that and the Nazi documentaries?
time. If I remember correctly they withheld shitloads of video for years, because of the living relatives of the victims. Its all well and good looking at it now, when there is perspective, but back then they showed shots of underfed and starving people and mass graves, not the actual event.
 
Messages
6,906
Reaction score
9,698
Joined
May 8, 2012
gREVUS

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
6,906
Reaction score
9,698
Messages
5,167
Reaction score
6,014
Joined
May 9, 2012
surfin

surfin

Warriors 1st Grader
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
5,167
Reaction score
6,014
I don't see it like you do. I don't think the video would inspire anyone that wasn't already a murderer in waiting. It would disturb anyone else. I think radicalisation is a slower process than watching one video.
Wow. It may be slower than watching one video, but what if there is 50 like this out there? I personally totally support free speech, but that video and those like it, although I personally made no attempt to watch it, has nothing to do with free speech. FFS one of the people that died was a 3 year old boy, his death alone and the way it happened should be enough to make your comments abhorrent to any decent person. That to me is like saying watching one video of a 3 year old being beaten to death by an adult would be OK because it wouldn't make you want to beat a child to death.
 
Messages
675
Reaction score
1,238
Joined
Mar 13, 2016

dean

1st Grade Fringe
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
675
Reaction score
1,238
Wow. It may be slower than watching one video, but what if there is 50 like this out there? I personally totally support free speech, but that video and those like it, although I personally made no attempt to watch it, has nothing to do with free speech. FFS one of the people that died was a 3 year old boy, his death alone and the way it happened should be enough to make your comments abhorrent to any decent person. That to me is like saying watching one video of a 3 year old being beaten to death by an adult would be OK because it wouldn't make you want to beat a child to death.
I have not advocated the video should be able to be viewed. I have said that I do not agree with the 14 year maximum sentence for posting, sharing etc. If you think the video will inspire more murderers then it may have already happened, the video has been widely viewed apparently. Your last sentence is nonsense.
Consider this. A young person, say 18 year old, shares a copy or part copy they have recorded with someone and are caught and charged. Say they were let off lightly and got convicted and sentenced to community service. That person would now have a conviction carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years. Work and travel options would be virtually zero, their ability to reach their potential is destroyed. Is that the outcome you are prepared to accept?
 
Messages
675
Reaction score
1,238
Joined
Mar 13, 2016

dean

1st Grade Fringe
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
675
Reaction score
1,238
So a murderer in waiting wouldn't be inspired and it would disturb anyone else. So what is the issue? This is not anything that anyone should view whether accidentally or not. How anyone could argue that there may be a place for this anywhere is beyond me.
Read my posts, I am not arguing that.
 
Messages
675
Reaction score
1,238
Joined
Mar 13, 2016

dean

1st Grade Fringe
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
675
Reaction score
1,238
You do realise he was inspired by the Norwegian Terrorist, Anders Breivik right?
No I don't but I will take your word for it. Breivik didn't attack a mosque though.
 
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
12,907
Joined
May 19, 2012
Inruin

Inruin

Kata Fan Club - Colonel
Contributor
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
12,907
Read my posts, I am not arguing that.
What actually is your argument?

your argument originally is that either the sentence for owning, viewing or sharing this video is too high or the sentence for other crimes is to low?

You follow that up by comparing an event that happened in the second world war with something that is happening in real time, here and now?

So your viewpoint is that it shouldn't be classified as objectionable and that it should be freely available to whoever wants to view it?
 
Messages
15,140
Reaction score
27,197
Joined
May 7, 2012
Sup42

Sup42

Warriors 1st Grader
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
15,140
Reaction score
27,197
No I don't but I will take your word for it. Breivik didn't attack a mosque though.
The Norwegian killed what he thought of as the liberal enemy of the white race.

He started his attack with an explosion in the city.

Then he went for those teenage children because they were hosting a world inclusive political camp.

Many of the victims were the children of moderate Norwegians who believed in racial and religious tolerance.

These terrorists hate some white people too.

They both had Internet profiles, spent time in these extremist chat rooms telling people they were going to kill people.

They both prepared their attack over several years, the Norwegian gradually built up his arms cache. It looks like this Australian because of our weapons culture was able to do this very easily in our country.

They both had what they called a manifesto.

There are a lot of other parallels.

I followed Al Jazera and Muslim online comments closely in the wake of this event.

As soon as it came out Muslims all over the world, and I mean ALL over the world said similar things.

"They will say it is mental health because only Muslims get labelled terrorist, every white terrorist act gets covered up" They went on to cite some compelling examples.

It was so vitally important to our future security that Jacinda came out and declared it a Terror attack, and so very important to the people who were targeted.

It spins my head listening to the leader of the opposition avoiding a hard stance of guns right now, I am so greatful it wasn't his decision whether to declare it an act of Terrorism. As a former the lawyer his world view seems to be very much working against him at the moment. He is being litigeous at a time, and in a country where that is the most harmful way of behaving.

The Norwegian was encouraged strongly to take an insanity plea by his lawyer and the consensus at that time was that someone who does something like that must be mentally unwell.

What they are really saying is, white people don't behave like Non whites.

I wonder what Netfilx and the film makers of the docudrama that shows the killings in Norway and profiles the shooter are thinking now.

In that movie they show way too much of the killings for my liking, but the emphasis of the story is to make him look what he is, an insect, and to promote the humanity of the victims.

I know one thing for certain, the New Zealand movie out of the blue about Aramoana had a profound effect on me.

I didn't intend on seeing it. I just so happened to be in Wellington with a couple of good lads from work that really wanted to see it. I didn't tell them about my past experiences that were linked to this kind of stuff.

Anyway, they came out of the movie theater humbled and deeply moved. I was surprised at their reaction because they are hardened nuts used to being exposed to the most heinous things at work and they actually worked directly with someone similar to the killer.

The reason it hit them so hard was that the film makers made the most accurate real life film I've ever seen.

One mate said "I can't understand why the cop didn't pull the trigger when he had him in his sights".

I told him "because it's real" (Gizzy fan posted that he has faced this experience himself personally). A lot of people over the years have asked me if I could have run at a gunman when their back was turned to me. You ask yourself that same question for the rest of your life. I know for a fact that if I know Im going down in a public place and there is nowhere to hide, that I will go out fighting, but thats because of having my head changed by something in the past.

What out of the blue showed, is that when it starts, you have no preparation for the complete assault of your senses, your entire nervous system goes into shock, especially the brain. It is normal to freeze, fight or flee. That movie portrayed the powerlessness of every day people when they are instantly overwhelmed.

These terrorist bank on that stuff, they seek to overwhelm with shock and to divide people in the aftermath.

The biggest difference between a well intentioned movie and the stuff we've been talking about is just that, it's intent, and who owns the message.

We seem to be learning as a human race, that what held limited potential for damage in the past, now feeds the predators and grooms and inspires them to act.
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
12,907
Joined
May 19, 2012
Inruin

Inruin

Kata Fan Club - Colonel
Contributor
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
12,907
It spins my head listening to the leader of the opposition avoiding a hard stance of guns right now, I am so greatful it wasn't his decision whether to declare it an act of Terrorism. As a former the lawyer his world view seems to be very much working against him at the moment. He is being litigeous at a time, and in a country where that is the most harmful way of behaving.
Do you have anything to support this? All i can see is him saying that they support changes.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111390690/all-of-parliament-support-for-gun-reforms-following-chrustchurch-attack--but-what-does-that-look-like
 
Messages
15,140
Reaction score
27,197
Joined
May 7, 2012
Sup42

Sup42

Warriors 1st Grader
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
15,140
Reaction score
27,197
Uhm yesterday I think it was Kim Hill's show, he dithered and was very weak I thought, I can't post the link from Radio NZ National, but its on their website.
He starts out well. He does say that he is up for any and every change,

Thereafter he just sounds like an Nrl coach fronting the media, especially not comiting to the suggestion of a Royal inquiry.
 
Messages
6,906
Reaction score
9,698
Joined
May 8, 2012
gREVUS

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
6,906
Reaction score
9,698
Uhm yesterday I think it was Kim Hill's show, he dithered and was very weak I thought, I can't post the link from Radio NZ National, but its on their website.
He starts out well. He does say that he is up for any and every change,

Thereafter he just sounds like an Nrl coach fronting the media, especially not comiting to the suggestion of a Royal inquiry.
what is the talk about an royal enquiry for? Given that the government has indicated that it wants change and the people have stated they want change, what does the Inquiry achieve?
 
Messages
15,140
Reaction score
27,197
Joined
May 7, 2012
Sup42

Sup42

Warriors 1st Grader
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
15,140
Reaction score
27,197
what is the talk about an royal enquiry for? Given that the government has indicated that it wants change and the people have stated they want change, what does the Inquiry achieve?
It's a good question.

The main issue for people is around the ability of the intelligence community to white wash any lower level review platform.

It probably wouldn't change a lot in of itself, I think most commentators see it as a must to signify the importance of making the best efforts to have the highest level of review available.

There will also be an element of wanting accountability too I guess.
 
Messages
675
Reaction score
1,238
Joined
Mar 13, 2016

dean

1st Grade Fringe
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
675
Reaction score
1,238
What actually is your argument?

your argument originally is that either the sentence for owning, viewing or sharing this video is too high or the sentence for other crimes is to low?

You follow that up by comparing an event that happened in the second world war with something that is happening in real time, here and now?

So your viewpoint is that it shouldn't be classified as objectionable and that it should be freely available to whoever wants to view it?
My argument is the sentence is far too high. I think the video is objectionable whatever it contains and people should be discouraged from viewing it although that may be too late in many cases. I have said that there is equally objectionable footage of mass murder viewable at anytime by anyone of events in WW2, as an example. Although probably less graphic and not here, 9-11 was played endlessly, planes crashing into buildings , people jumping out of windows etc. Then we had the US bombing of Iraq and Libya to supposedly avenge 9-11. This was viewed on the news for all to see. It seems to me that some footage that is perhaps less objectionable than the Christchurch mass murders is viewable, but , if you watch that video you are looking at 14 years. It doesn't matter if you don't get sentenced to the maximum, you would have been convicted of a very serious crime that will impact the rest of your life. I have described that as draconian.
 
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
1,869
Joined
Nov 9, 2012

Juju

1st Grade Fringe
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
1,869
My argument is the sentence is far too high. I think the video is objectionable whatever it contains and people should be discouraged from viewing it although that may be too late in many cases. I have said that there is equally objectionable footage of mass murder viewable at anytime by anyone of events in WW2, as an example. Although probably less graphic and not here, 9-11 was played endlessly, planes crashing into buildings , people jumping out of windows etc. Then we had the US bombing of Iraq and Libya to supposedly avenge 9-11. This was viewed on the news for all to see. It seems to me that some footage that is perhaps less objectionable than the Christchurch mass murders is viewable, but , if you watch that video you are looking at 14 years. It doesn't matter if you don't get sentenced to the maximum, you would have been convicted of a very serious crime that will impact the rest of your life. I have described that as draconian.
Is your view the same on kiddie porn?
Or is 51 people (children as young as 3) being slaughtered with a semi automatic not quite as serious for you...

IMO if you share this video you deserve the full consequences of the law.
I don't agree the sentence is draconian at all - more a humane step to protect the families involved.

It's good to see someone is already being charged.
 
Messages
15,140
Reaction score
27,197
Joined
May 7, 2012
Sup42

Sup42

Warriors 1st Grader
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
15,140
Reaction score
27,197
It's a clever way to target extremists.

I imagine with the amount of discretion the judge has, that Joey teenager who didn't think through what they were doing, would get a slap on the wrist and a big wake up call.

Adults found to be celebrating the thing will get the other end of the Judges discretionary powers. People with proven links to the criminal, the supporters in other words, will be in for a rude shock when it cost them a not insignificant percentage of their life times.

Lets say they applied more 'reasonable' sentences "Fifty thousand dollar fine with up to 18 months jail" comes to mind.

That won't scare anyone. That's the kind of warning people ignore at the start of films they're settling down to watch.

Fourteen years says to me ' get fucked we're in charge here . . .no more'.
 
Messages
12,573
Reaction score
17,335
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
bruce

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
12,573
Reaction score
17,335
Paula Bennett was asked as the minister of police to make changes to the gun laws because "there will be a mass shooting" in 2015. Paula Bennet bowed to pressure from the gun lobby and rejected seven key changes.
They are goners, nothing surer. Jacinda has another term out of this unless she really stuffs up.
have you seen the video?
No I haven't, I couldn't bear to watch it, and I have seen some real life gore in my time. I have trouble with the German shite as well but because it was so long ago it seems to be less intense.

In any case I don't watch the docos for that, but for the extra snippets of information that keep coming out. History was my best subject at school, and the causes of WWII were a major part of the curriculum. For all that, and all these years later I am still trying to get my head around it.

It is a bit like Gallipoli which is celebrated down here yet in reality was an unjustified invasion of a sovereign country with which Australia and NZ had no quarrel at all. The Turks killed a lot of Anzacs, but they were just defending their country from invaders.

Getting back to the point, the more we look at the past the better chance we have for the future. It seems that history will blame this in major part to our quite weak gun laws.

I just have this feeling that censoring this sort of stuff can have repercussions, such as if the gun lobby, who are masters at manipulation manage to somehow water down the effect of this massacre.
 
Messages
7,331
Reaction score
10,367
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Miket12

Miket12

Warriors 1st Grader
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
7,331
Reaction score
10,367
44 year old business man appears in court for distributing the footage.

He is the director of a company which is also under scrutiny for having a Nazi sign as its logo - the same symbol featured in a manifesto by the alleged shooter.

The company, Beneficial Insulation, has a sun wheel as its company logo. It is a symbol employed in a post-Third Reich context by neo-Nazis.

 
Top Bottom