there sure is some confused maggots of the world here on YT... go look at yourself in the mirror and admire your own self image... is all just a lie to yourself anyway.
@franny231123DMT thats about as shallow as it gets eh?... avoid any questions and resort to the 'see the dislikes' routine. i consider that a confirmation of your inability to be honest as it shows the gutlessness of people who are willing to disrespect the memories of 2 beatiful little girls heartlessly shot by bryant and the fact you consider yourself and your ego before Alannah and Madeline Mikac.
@franny231123DMT you, and others, base your theory on the number 'casings' found in the Broad Arrow Cafe. do you know any people on pensions for psychological reasons? i guess they're all too disabled to shoot a gun... no they're mentally impaired. so do you know the exact amount of shots fired in the cafe? nearly all victims were immobile and motionless, average distance 12ft. do you know how long bryant had been firing weapons? he killed Helen Harvey in a vehicle accident cause by him.
@1AussieAvenger1 i actually dont base my comment on anything you have typed ... only the kill rate achieved & knowledge of what its like to use a gun and to carry ammunition etc.
1st first world country to de-arm citizens since Nazi's.
we all know that criminals still have guns ........ now only good people dont ;)
@franny231123DMT you based your comment on 'low IQ' and 'kill rate' which i responded and asked questions of you which you decline to answer. how do you get an accurate IQ test from a subject that is intellectually disabled especially with bryants condition? since when have Australians been disarmed?... another of your distortions? why not be truthful instead of lying to cover your opinions... it's typical of your sort... biased opinions spreading disinformation. yep a conspiracy theorist.
@franny231123DMT <<< typical. you make unsubstantiated statements of innuendo then decline to answer simple questions. yes you're a conspiracy theorist, and if Mick Sargent seeing his partner Kate being murdered by bryant just before he was shot himself in the Broad Arrow cafe is what you call a coincidence theory... then you are a very disturbed person of a lower IQ than bryant.
disgraceful, heartless, disrespect of the victims.. shown by conspiracy theorists of the Port Arthur shootings.
@franny231123DMT yeah and while you were doing that you squeezed the puss out of your pimply arse... whilst ignoring facts. maybe you should stop letting your arse speak for you.
you keep saying "i think youll find its many" yet you cant name one. I think you are delusional and too accepting of the brainwashing the media and govt has done on you just like most others. Open your eyes because im not a "theorist" yet i have seen these people show lots of proof that Martin couldnt have done it.
@cyndee1971 ... open my eyes? yeah right. i dont need to name anyone do i? they are right there in the reports, but for your information, unless you are too dumb and blind to read it, Mick Sargent has been here on YT and said he witnessed bryant shoot his partner Kate. he also said he had no media influence, hadnt seen a paper or tv before identifying bryant on the monday morning.
its about time you disrespectful clowns stopped playing your wannabee game hoping for a conspiracy. yes theorists
LOL martyn bryant was held up in solitary confinement without conviction, he eventually relented and pleaded guilty to get OUT OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, we was TORTURED UNTIL HE "CONFESSED"
this video is pure ignorance, look at the facts
we need a bill of rights people, this should be our priority, not the "issues" the media CONSTANTLY bangs on about, WAKE UP
@guberskank the only ignorance is your mind set.... you've got no idea on the PA issue. have you been in contact with witnesses? done real research? accepted all facts? sad thing is you think you deserve an explanation but it's none of your business to ask. let the relatives ask, which they have, and they are satisfied.
one thing i agree upon is a Bill Of Rights which we have never had ??? hmmm. so yes make this a priority and forget the waffle on bryant as he is, and always has been, guilty.
@1AussieAvenger1 my mind set? LOL i just stated THE FACTS, if you have a problem with the FACTS that i stated in my previous comment then by all means refute them, you wont because you can't he was locked away in solitary confinement without trial, hello human rights? oh thats ok because he all know he did it because he confessed LOL and i have an ignorant mindset..
@guberskank no you distorted the facts... to be placed in segregation is normal and bryant couldn't be placed in any other situation at that time Fact. carleen convinced martin to plead guilty not john avery FACT. many cases end with a guilty plea or plea bargain with no trial FACT.
the only thing i agree with is there should have been a coronial inquest 'at the time' but we can forget that now.
stick to your thoughts of a Bill Of Rights... and human rights protect guilty as much as innocent
@1AussieAvenger1 so you reckon its normal to put someone into solitary confinement for more than 3 months without conviction or trial? WRONG show me ONE aussie apart from martin bryant, it was a gross abuse of his human rights.. and how can you suggest that holding him illegally was the only way to hold him? how does that even make sense, you are innocent until proven guilty or do you disagree with that
@guberskank also where's the answers to the Q's i ask of you? you theorists get hysterical and change the subject, thinking you are the only ones who deserve answers, instead of giving the information asked of you. if you cant see how human rights have evolved to protect all including criminals then you're blind. how do you feel about criminals caught in the act or with evidence against them pleading not guilty and stretching out the legal system only to get the minimum sentence due to appeals?
@1AussieAvenger1 "theorists" lol give me a break and then the accusation of changing subject matter to further discredit my comment, feeble mate, anyone with half a brain will see right through you, the only thing i said was:
sure i can answer your q's but then it will take away from the single point i wanted to make
MARTIN BRYANT WAS TORTURED UNTIL HE PLEADED GUILTY
that my friend is a fact, the only fact ive stated, sorry if you disagree but i can assure that is what actually happened
@guberskank more waffle eh?... i've answered your statement... you can't assure anyone but if you like provide the whole of bryants incareration including dates and places... can you do that?
bryant did it, is where he belongs, and you're not happy? it's all about the process isnt it and not whether bryant actually committed the crimes? try as you may but you've got nothing.
you say "it would take away from the single point i wanted to make" what are you scared of? the truth?
many of Australias most notorious criminals have experienced segregation. for me, your human rights go out the window as soon as you disregard anothers human rights. now society is full of lies and deceit with no real consequence for actions. great. still waiting for your answers.
@1AussieAvenger1 name ONE, you can't because there isn't one apart from bryant, its illegal ;)
bryant is the only one who's been thrown into solitary confinement before trial
my problem with the bryant case is that there was no due process
a confession whist being tortured isn't good enough for me, shouldn't be good enough for anyone, anyone who values human life equally, maybe thats the kicker for some..
@guberskank so confident in what you say, but its all in vain isnt it? name how many who have been put in 'solitary confinement'? well i think you'll find many prisoners who are remanded for serious crimes are put in 'solitary' which is called 'segrogation'. yes even before trial. how about you research and ask corrective services how often this happens then you will see that all your claims are false.
i guess getting a crim to admit guilt is about the same as getting you to admit you're wrong
conspiracy theory nuts huh, you are dead set so dumb you are just an oxygen thief. So going by the official story 1 man with an IQ a bit higher than yours at 66 with no military training walks into a cafe firing from his opposite/unnatural side and decides that he will match the close quarter combat statics of some of the very best troopers in the world. Ted Serong stated it perfectly but a man involved in the pheonix program and CT training just doesn't know what he's talking about hey.
@TheEnlightenedMind1 oxygen theif? thats original... nice 80s touch... so yes a person with an IQ much higher than yours, martin bryant, committed the PA shootings. you mention serong... so what? he wasnt there and neither were you or I, but there was surviving victims and witnesses and their word is better than your disturbed unqualified assessment.
This clip is an insult to the fallen. Anyone with some spare time can research this tragic event and come to the conclusion that MUCH was covered up and the time lines of some events were incorrect. If I were a betting man I'd say Bryant was a fall guy. There were 2 shooters. This was an inside job. Those who don't research are either lazy or not ready to delve into this subject matter and I can accept that. The ones who annoy me are the ones who know better and are trying to cover it up.
@mr1000rx .."i'd say... a betting man".. yes thats all it means to you and the heartless mouth pieces that go off half cocked from reading some crap written by persons you can obviously put you life in their trusting hands. the total insult is that even if a victim told you the truth and said it was bryant in the cafe alone, you would still wish to question everything. for one its not your business, and two, better people than you have examined the case.
@1AussieAvenger1 You know that if this ever did go to trial all the facts would be tabled. All the other ignored witnesses would have a chance. I wont waste anymore time talking to you until you have gone through the other evidence and witnesses. Wendy Scurr for instance.
@mr1000rx wendy scurr is not even a primary witnesses. her own testimony at macgregors rally shows she reads from scripts prepared for her. i'd rather not waste time with you either but the world needs to know the lies that are being spread by people who read 5 words and make ridiculous statements.
even if all facts were released bryant would still be found guilty, but some think a few technicalities can throw out the case. this isnt tv law and you need to do your own 'unbiased' research
@gwald<<<< says "no evidence collected"???... you sure about that?... not much credibility in what you say... and great to see your part of the anti-govt illumnati hidden agenda association. typical.
@gwald i've watched all the conspiracy theory videos... all full of disinformation and many have blatant lies.
Mick Sargent was there in the cafe and has verified that he never was exposed to media as he was taken into custody from that sunday afternoon and yet identified bryant from a photo the morning after the shooting so there goes your 2 days and media.
just because someone didnt agree doesnt mean it wasnt bryant. plenty say it was and they know better than you, i, or any theorists.
@1AussieAvenger1 be careful of where you get your info from, wikipedia and aussie media can not be trusted, in fact there is a constant disinformation campaign going on, i stubbled across it when trying to publish peer reviewed journals in wikipedia on water fluoridation.. STOP i know what you're thinking WAKE UP.. we need to band together and pick our fights, a bill of rights for australians is the battleground, if we manage to shift the public debate then the rest will follow...
@guberskank you know what im thinking? sure. its typical to second guess anothers thoughts. we all get the same info so why make out you get different? its how you interpret things and whether you're unbiased.
water fluro? chem trails? police state? on it goes... but what of the permissive and tolerant society that accepts anti-social behavior? we afford as much right to criminals as victims. where's the sense in that? how many guilty people use our system to fight honesty? human rights... pahh
"with auto weapons used on a close group not hard " ??
like a semi auto ar15 used on people eating their dinner in a closed room / packed cafe ??
The average distance bryant murdered the people in the cafe was less then 2 meteres i believe . The majority found either at their tables or close to them . Meaning they were stunned , in disbelief , and coward under tables / chairs / loved ones ect ...The powder burns found on the victims necks ect mean he was quite close.
@LoonYLegionnaire Fire a .223 next to your ear or even within a few feet with no hearing protection and see how still you sit. You're saying in 90 seconds (according to the official story) he can let off 29 rounds in a closed space and no one moves more than a few feet? Thats almost one round every 3 seconds, with what, 20 of those headshots, from the hip. No one disputes they didnt have time to move very far away from where they were - thats the point indeed!
@Ironwulf2000 wasnt 20 head shots from the hip... thats a blatant lie. its 29 casings found, not rounds fired. wendy scurr said around 50 shots and seemed 5 minutes... yes it was around 90 seconds and between 45 - 50+ shots. around 60 in cafe but near 30 escaped, some couldnt so they tried to take cover and were sought out. but you know most of this already dont you? you just twist it to use it for your guns agenda
@LoonYLegionnaire On a closed group, its not hard, when - according to the latest media reports - he had 2 hours to do it. Not 90 seconds. I guess he didnt have the benefit of the 'non moving' targets. As for me using facts that suit me, and ignoring those that dont, you also ignore the shoddy investigation and interview techniques which casts doubts over the entire official story. At least AussieAvenger admits they exist and some would require "FOI" and/or an expensive enquiry to verify.
@Ironwulf2000 But lets be honest , how many of you would still claim conspiracy and just say the documents doctored and still wouldnt be happy . , i mean honestly ...
its been 15 years entrenched in some conspiracists mindests that even hearing it from bryant himself still wouldnt convince them .
that is something they have to deal with I suppose.
@LoonYLegionnaire yep its the type of person they are. the mirror never lies. i can look in mine and say i've been truthful and fair when required, and an asshole badguy when required. i prefer the 1st guy but the conspiracy theorists bring out the best in me. most have hidden agendas and are anti govt. i know lifes complicated these days but it seems to have messed with some peoples capacity to reason and understand things. i guess some never got over their 6th birthday party. a big boy now!
@1AussieAvenger1 I want to know how a village idiot with a low I.Q could aim/fire shots like that ?? I want to know why a graphic video tape is circulating on youtube, when it's suppose to be under Police lock and key ?Funny how its showed up when people are starting to put the dots together.... I smell a rat-a really large one ;)) Rember people: A NATION OF SHEEP SPAWN A GOVERMENT OF WOLVES
@TheShell1973 what a load of dribble.... if you want to know the truth then read all the info instead of patting each other on the back telling yourself you know better... calling people sheep and putting dots together? yes you go play your little game of nwo and i'll stick to reality. i always say "if you smell a rat, its usually in the same room". Remember people: EXTREMISTS COME TO DIVIDE THE MASSES
@ProfessorTiNfOiL one day they will need to account for their actions... not to you or me... noooo... to themselves, and for extreme cases such as freemartinbryant lets hope they be accountable to the laws too.
a sensible person would say it's all gone to far, with the amount of abuse, lies, and blatant breaking of current and possibly future communications laws, where will it all end?
it's sad that humanity has degraded so much. what next?
@LoonYLegionnaire hi mate. yeah i'm not against firearms. i've been a rural landholder. guns have their purpose. i do think the gun laws went to the extreme but it has shown to be good. nothing wrong with a good repeater rather than a semi-auto for a civilian. professional shooters and persons wishing to gain further licences can own some restricted types. its about accounting for your weapon at all times. the guns arent bad. people are bad.
@LoonYLegionnaire Obviously you didnt read all of my comments, because I stated that I didnt believe that Bryant was innocent. I believe he is involved I am not convinced that he is the shooter at the Broad Arrow Cafe. I believe there are gaping holes in the trail of evidence, and the explanation of the evidence in the official story. These need shoring up.
As i said as a gun owner myself , some of us are still bitter over the knee jerk reaction to the murders committed by Martin Bryant ( and others before him ) in Australia , resulting in some of our firearm choices and freedoms being removed and restricted.
I have looked at both sides of the PA argument for many years now and have yet to come up with 1 piece of solid evidence pointing to a "setup"by the government .
The conspiracies that they buy into differ greatly from 1 another from "mind control" tavistock , to
" SAS shooter " which i personally and you should aswell being apparently " ex adf " find ridiculous and somewhat offensive .... that an active Australian soldier of special forces calibre on orders would go and shoot 35 innocent people and wound many more to change the gunlaws in Australia? pure fantasy...
@LoonYLegionnaire I dont find it offensive. ADF personnel are real people too, and subject to any mental issue a regular person might suffer. They are corruptable. What I do see is a US Army soldier @ Fort Hood blazing away with a high powered pistol in a fairly closed room (like the BA cafe) & getting nowhere near the phenomenal accuracy (despite expending at least 2x the ammunition) of the PA shooter, and despite spending weeks at the range training specifically for close combat headshots.
@LoonYLegionnaire Of course the 'SAS shooter' statement discounts it could be other S.F member(s) from other nations, or even other services capable of deploying advanced weapons & tactics. I am pretty sure a non-Australian special forces soldier wouldnt have half the issues with the situation an Australian one might. You also mention them doing it 'under orders' - again this leads to the govt being involved, & the concept they might have been acting outside the Aust. govt is somehow impossible.
@Ironwulf2000 Also you mention the Fort Hood shootings as some sort of evidence for your " sas " combat / trained assasin killer ect ect ect .
What about The virginia tech shooter ? ..he killed 32 people with pistols i believe . his accuracy and kill rate must then make him a government assasin / special forces soldier ect ect ?
And what about the Recent mass shooting in Norway ? , shot around 80 people dead ... also a
" assasin" government / special forces "combat " shooter ect ..... ??
@LoonYLegionnaire Virginia tech... around what 180 rounds fired to kill 28 people. Each person hit 3 times. Thats 6 rounds expended for each person that died - many times more, per victim, than Port Arthur. Most that died were hit in the head - as per Port Arthur, however it took an average of 3 shots to do it. The shooter also used hollow point ammo - greatly increasing the damage caused by each hit. Norway? Well no details on that one, but with auto weapons used on a closed group - not hard.
@Ironwulf2000 yes norway.... another sad unnecessary incident. there's details available now. another nail in the coffin for private assault rifle ownership. the people who use excuses such as to rise up against their govt are just clowns. i cant see an incident happening in australia that would require civilians taking up arms against their govt. it would be anarchy as there would also be others who support their country and against the rebels. no excuse for civilian auto weapons.
@1AussieAvenger1 You seem to believe that all shooters, including myself, subscribe to the US 2nd amendment rote. I do not. You make a lot of assumptions about me, yet I make none of you. Is that your only basis for defence of your claims? Ridicule and baseless allegations? You have no arguments from me that civilians do not require fully automatic firearms. Full auto fire is used for suppression of an enemy (who may also shoot back)....Shooters just want semi-autos,
@Ironwulf2000 if you read the conversation you are the one making assumptions. the current gun ownership laws are satifactory for this time and place. semi-auto? go to a range and pay to shoot. better still take a holiday in US and shoot some real big guns and feel good eh. it's a primitive caveman thing. an identity crisis. like hot cars... for me its music and good sound systems... guns are bad m'kay
@1AussieAvenger1 I can think of a situation in Australia, however, where civilians might want to take up arms against their government. When their government is no longer their government any more, because some foreign power has attacked the country, and they are now the government - at least in the areas they ahve taken control of. Cant happen? It happened less than a century ago. Nothing is impossible in world politics. I dont think its very likely, but I dont ignore it either.
@Ironwulf2000 if it comes to being invaded all rules will be out the window and current weapons that are available, but not in use due to UN conventions, will be used in a way you have never even thought of. do you think your rock throwing rifle will be any defence. you think invaders will play by the rules? see the 'big dog' video
its still all about your need for gun ownership and nothing else. only agenda you have here is gun control.
There is no doubt though that the murders committed by bryant were the catalyst for tightening our gunlaws no-one has ever denied that fact.
But my bitterness at the gunlaw changes aside ....... I wont let it cloud my judgement of the case and evidence presented that Bryant is guilty . and soley responsible .
@LoonYLegionnaire You talk about evidence of a 'setup by the government'. I dont necessarily think it was - I am not convinced it wasn't, either. What I do believe it is is government incompetance at almost every level. Whether its the fact Bryant could by firearms illegally on a fake license, to the shoddy police interview, the failed securing of a crime scene and the contamination of evidence and statements. They should be made to get the story right.
@LoonYLegionnaire I have been a 'gun owner' for just over a year. Between 1998 and then, I had no firearms licenses of any kind, as I believed that with no access to semi-automatics, the sport of Service Rifle shooting (which I much enjoyed in the ADF) was dead. Turns out it wasnt, and thats why I got my license. I can 100% assure you that, prior to getting my license, had I seen the information I've seen lately, I would absolutely question the official line in the exact same way I do now.
@LoonYLegionnaire I'm referring to the police transcript of the interview. The police version of events - their documents, the inconsistencies with the weapons, etc, don't add up. They are not convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt, in my mind. As I mentioned before, I dont have a beef with 99% of the firearms laws that came in as a result of the event, so its not like i have an axe to grind there - except in one area, and whether Bryant is guilty or not has no bearing on that.
@Ironwulf2000 what exactly in the police transcripts ?
Where Bryant admits to taking a hostage , shooting people , playing games admitting to the rifles oh oh but not that one ?
saying his Ar15 is a sweet little rifle isnt it ?.. and he doesnt like being locked up if i had my rifle i could get out of here ... The ammunition and calenders circled at his house , statements from pshciatrist that Bryant made years ago mentioning he would like to shoot alot of people ... it had been on his mind
@LoonYLegionnaire LOL there's a lot of people I've said I'd like to shoot too. But alas, my civility gets the better of me, aparently. The AR15 is a sweet little rifle. Well made, good piece of engineering. Not exactly my favourite, but still pretty sweet. Oops, I just incriminated myself, right? Its ME! Pfft! Are you saying that if you had ammunition for a firearm that you own (albeit illegally in this case, but nonetheless), and a circled calendar, you're a mass murderer?
@Ironwulf2000 I notice you picked out the bits to support your argument . But left the other stuff alone.
So again Bryant admitting to kidnapping , putting someone in his boot , and shooting people
Bryant also admitting to owning the rifles . Not to mention if he was "innocent" why was he the only one on the phone at seascape and the only survivor?
His body count and accuracy greatly reducing from Super SAS assasin , once he moved outside where his victims could run away ?
@LoonYLegionnaire yes they always avoid any point that may expose their charade.
bryants unprompted admission of the bmw hijacking abduction which linked him to 3 crime scenes. the toll booth where he shot 4 people and stole the bmw leaving his car, the general store where he shot Zoe Hall and abducted Glenn Pears, and Seascape where the bmw was found and also the body of Glenn Pears, with bryant the sole survivor. bryant thought it was acceptable to do such things.
@Ironwulf2000 if a persons witnessed several times in his car enroute to PA argue at toll booth, told to move car in PA, car photo, seen & various items left in cafe, car found @ 4 murder scene, sole survivor at Seascape, statement admitting armed abduction of bmw driver (from another incident at the store), all the futher evidence in searches, statements, previous history. only a biased person ignores all this. maybe you shouldnt own a gun as you seem to like the thought of shooting people.
@1AussieAvenger1 Biased person? Yes I am biased towards fact, justice, and due process. "Seen" - identifications tainted by media releases. "Statement" - inadmissible as he also made the statement that he wanted a lawyer, and none was provided. "Previous history" of what? How many people did he shoot before then? Evidence in searches? not the Ammunition & Calendars?? How unlikely that a rifle owner might also possess ammunition!
@Ironwulf2000 you know nothing about Law or due process. police know how far they can go. one word. probity. its used all the time to judge whether an item which could be challenged by the defence but may be deemed admissable based on sufficient probity. read bryants life too.
you dont find it odd that bryant knew of the bmw hijacking although no one else mentioned it? so how did bryant know of a story that linked him to 3 crime scenes?
C'mon AussieAvenger, you're disputing my knowledge of firearms now? Whats your knowledge thats so much better than mine? I had an assault rifle and was serving my country in 1996. I had to know how it worked or I might die in combat one day. So, whats your quals?
@Ironwulf2000 dispute your knowledge of firearms?... now how did you come up with that? all i said was that you are inaccurate about the guns and casings. tell us all how many shots were fired then.
so you have proven that all you are is a pro-gun anti gun laws activist that joined the army so you could shoot guns and feel like a real big man. still affects you now. we both wish you were in afghanistan.
still got your assault rifle?.... ah is that why you're crying
@1AussieAvenger1 Ah, now here's where you're epic fail lies. I don't have a problem with 99% of the current gun laws. I didn't join the Army, I joined the Air Force, as a pilot actually. Yes, I wish I was in Afghanistan, serving my country. Family and professional commitments prevent me from doing that now, but I am considering rejoining in a year or so.
As for the number of shots fired, its irrelevant to my point about matching the casings to the firearm.
@Ironwulf2000 army/airforce/navy whatever... still in 'the services'. if you do agree with current gun laws (which permits have been rising in most states and some laws relaxed) thats fine and we can forget the gun issues.
the ballistics? until all is released through FOI neither of us will have access to all the facts. why dispute something that cant be proven unless all facts are presented. most information is being derived from less than accurate sources.
@1AussieAvenger1 My point with mentioning my specific service history is to highlight that you dont actually know me or my "agenda". I'm not here to get gun laws repealed. Its not going to happen. I want an enquiry.... but i've mentioned that enough.
@Ironwulf2000 i could say the same thing... you dont know me or my agenda either but i have made it plain for all to see for quite some time. im not here to stop an enquiry... im here because of the blatant liars spreading disinformation and making accusations that not only can they not prove, but know they are lying.
an equiry = 3 - 5+yrs, $300m+ in costs, maybe 3000+ witnesses called, police govt media all shown for their incompetance, and all for the same outcome.
I don't agree with the current gun laws. I *mostly* agree with them. Licensing, registration, safe storage, safety courses, progressive access, all fine by me. Stupid things, like lesser (but appropriate) restrictions on my easily concealable semi auto pistols, versus the over the top restriction on semi auto rifles, for example, when they could have had the same or similar restrictions as handguns. Pre-1996 I will agree they were too lax. Definitely. Right now, too strong in some areas.
@Ironwulf2000 gun law reforms began after milperra in 1984 then again in 87 and 91 from shooting at strathfield and hoddle st. all PA achieved was to make gun laws national requiring all states to conform.
gun laws are working. why would you wish to carry a concealable weapon? and if confronted would you use it? thats why they make certain laws because people just cant seem to make the right decisions or tell the truth.
@1AussieAvenger1 Gun laws are working? Depends what you mean. If you mean that it made already law abiding shooters comply with new laws, then yes, they worked. The people who don't care about laws - the criminals - didnt hand anything back, and if you read any of the news, illegal firearms are just as prolific - if not more so - than they were back then.
@Ironwulf2000 oh yeah... i can tell you right now without a doubt it is much harder to get an illegal firearm than it was 20 years ago. crime stats are rising in many areas but police dont have the resources. violent crime is prolific. who needs a gun when you have a gang of thugs?
its plain you enjoy guns and wish to make them more a part of your life. maybe move to a country that will accomodate your fantasies because it will never happen here.
@1AussieAvenger1 Actually I strongly doubt its harder to get an *illegal* fiream today. I would say its probably easier. All thats got harder, is getting a LEGAL firearm. What should have been done, is have the tests they have now to get a firearm - good criminal, domestic, mental history, safety courses, and safe storage. Forget about categories of firearms- waste of time when it comes to criminals. Ban full autos. Mandatory non-reducable minimum sentance for firearms offences.
@Ironwulf2000 rubbish... just shows you know nothing of the underworld, or criminal activities. i've been in the entertainment industry for 30yrs and witnessed many things in many circles. what was available then is 5 to 10 times the price now, rare, and may come with history. difficult to buy ammo. weapons are now being stolen from gun owners at an increasing rate. 7 at one property near me recently. fortunately they weren't hand guns or assault rifles like you would probably wish to own
@1AussieAvenger1 So its 5 to 10 times the price? I didn't refer to its price, I referred to its availability. I'm not sure which expensive circles you roll in, but I have had friends offered 6 illegal handguns for cheaper than the average going 2nd hand legal price. Before you ask, it was reported by that person later. I watch the news, and pay particular attention to firearms crimes. Almost without exception every crime is with an unregistered firearm by an unlicensed person.
@Ironwulf2000 there are incidents of firearm thefts all the time. some are brazen with one i remember being a security firm with many handguns taken. another was a police station. i wouldn't be surprised if criminals are infiltrating gun associations to gain knowledge of certain ownerships. retail sector is always a worry, watch a store, follow purchaser. could have 'plants' in the store as customers. think like a crim to fight a crim.
@1AussieAvenger1 I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, that illegal firearms are more or less prevalent now. You just said they werent, yet now saying they are stolen all the time, which would imply with those volumes that they are cheap. Given they are stolen and/or illegally purchased, the possesor is a criminal already by that act, if no other - where do firearms laws work then? Only after they are caught, usually after some other crime they used it in. Point is, the laws didnt stop them.
@Ironwulf2000 thats right. laws didn't stop them, and never will. criminals will always exists in every society, not always violent, and sometimes just who you dont suspect.
if laws and penalties deterred people from crime then we would have a perfect society. some people think they are above the law. some have no regard. some have extremists views. i just wish all people were honest and told the truth even when they stuffed up. we are taught not to tell on people from a very young age.
@1AussieAvenger1 So, if laws dont stop criminals, who does it stop? The law abiding? but, its the law abiding who arent going to give you any trouble to start with. So, in essence the laws are about restricting those that didnt need it in the first place. Ah well you could say its about public safety. Well thats where I agree that the laws should have been changed to include the safe storage, safety course, licensing, transport and transfer requirements they have today.I think thats safe enough!
@Ironwulf2000 people are naturally greedy, selfish, or lazy. thats where most crime begins. it must be a caveman thing. but over the years we have become civilized and generations have made decisions based on fairness, equality, and justice for all. i think our society is very lucky even though i expect even more crime in public places. when in tourism i always told the backpackers the most dangerous thing in OZ is a drunk Aussie. since then many have been bashed to death. more police i say.
@1AussieAvenger1 I don't particularly want to carry a concealable weapon. But, I would rather that be my choice - and remember that if the law did allow it, it doesnt mean its compulsory... as it seems to get implied by gun control advocates ("Everyone walking the streets with guns" - when in actual fact even in the US this is untrue). I do firmly believe I should be able to have and use any weapon I can to defend my house and family from criminal invasion, however.
@Ironwulf2000 well i, and most of the Australian population don't wish to give you the choice of concealing a weapon from us. its not your choice, it's everyones and the majority say no way unless you need to as part of your employment or other licensed purposes.
why would you want a rock throwing weapon in this day and age? there are plenty of sonic and electronic devices to protect yourself with but psychologically wouldn't feel the same. you dream of being a gun toting cowboy eh.
@1AussieAvenger1 You and most of the population? What percentage? Was there a referendum or vote? What I think (and note I dont pretend to speak for all)- if anything- the population wants, is criminals to not have concealed weapons. But, stopping me from having one (if I so choose, and to be honest where I live, I dont feel I'd have to) isn't going to stop the criminals.Sonic and electronic devices are (or very soon will be) illegal in my state. So is CS spray. Got a better option? Call 000?LoL
@Ironwulf2000 most of OZ population dont want any civilian carrying a concealed weapon, and who's to say who the criminal is? you live in a box and think guns. i see a bigger picture. sonic and electronic devices may come in many forms. i use gsm spy video surveillance security at my studio, sends pics to me and can emitt over 135db of siren just with an sms, but mostly its silent so i know who comes and goes.
you think you will defend yourself with a gun? a lot get shot with their own gun.
@1AussieAvenger1 A static siren in a dwelling is different to a personal sonic, electrical, or chemical defence device. In my state, its legal to use any force necessary to remove or deter someone from unlawfully entering my premises. This means that such a device is legal. However the streets are not my premesis, and it is soon to be unlawful to have such a sonic device, if the proposed laws get in. CS spray and tasers are, of course already banned.
@Ironwulf2000 chances are the only time you will ever have access to firearms in an emergency is at the storge place. even then you are only permitted to use 'equal' force as a civilian. use of excessive force results in charges. thats the law. seen it all before. the classic case of pisshead got thrown out of pub, breaks in through upstairs quarters, is confronted by owner and hit with defensive billy club. owner is charged and intruder gets compensation, so does his mum for stress.
@1AussieAvenger1 As I said, in my state, its permissible to use ANY force to remove someone unlawfully in your dwelling. There is no limitation through the term 'reasonable'. The term 'Reasonable force' is only a condition on self defence, but since its easy to assert (if you are in your own home) you are defending your dwelling, there's no limitation on whats reasonable, only that it was necessary. If they don't leave, are duely warned, and still dont, then its necessary.
@Ironwulf2000 reasonable force?... thats why laws change because they see the grey areas. so in your state you could plan to assault or murder someone within your own home yet claim 'reasonable force' as your defence because they wouldn't leave? you and i may not do this, but there are people who would and thats why laws are amended to be fair to all. in some countries your right to defence or privacy within your own dwelling holds precedence over the laws used in public. not the best laws
@1AussieAvenger1 Well, the law hasnt changed in decades - possibly since its inception in the early 1900s as its based on the british criminal code, which has pretty much the exact same defence. You can have a planned defence, I guess. you don't have to claim 'reasonable force' as the test for the defence does not require that the force was reasonable, only that it was necessary. Look it up - QLD criminal code - s267. Just before or after it are the self defence ones.
@1AussieAvenger1 In the particular case of the publican, if he didnt live in the pub, he cannot reasonably claim he was defending his dwelling (a place of business is not a dwelling) and thus his only defence to the charge was self defence, which does have a 'reasonable force' clause.
@Ironwulf2000 it was the most public case in victims compensation history in NSW. the licencee lived at the hotel and it was his living quarters where it happened. this case prompted the NSW govt to cap victims of crime compensation to $50k maximum for any victim(s) of a crime. it goes both ways. i have known people to report crime just to get the compensation and dont care about justice. they embellish the truth, or fake trauma, to gain higher payouts.... humans... who needs em
@1AussieAvenger1 Last but not least, there's a reason lady justice is blindfolded - it is because justice is objective, and does not consider emotion or compassion in seeking the justifiable truths pertaining to a case. Its only during sentancing (after the case has been decided) that such things are appropriate. So, no one should get put first- even the victims and families- in the course of justice, or its not objective. Call it callous, but sometimes life's tough.
@Ironwulf2000 justice today is not like it was... do gooder civil libertarians and human rights activists protecting the perpetrators rights and ignoring the victims. most crime is solved with either a guilty plea or a plea bargain. many times these days victims never see true justice. criminals are treated with compassion under human rights conventions, whilst victims voices are unheard. this is the society we, as a whole, are building. bottom line is it all about money.
@1AussieAvenger1 Are you saying the victims story would not be heard at trial? Of course it would. Human rights apply equally and in this country everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. One day you might need that right yourself - would you want it diminished just because there is an alleged victim? I dont care about money. We blow more money on more useless crap (like world cup soccer bids) than you ever would on a proper enquiry.
@Ironwulf2000 idiot... how do you twist that... of course the victims would be heard... you are just waffling scaremonger tactics. bryant pled guilty so no further proof needed. thats the law.
you carry on with needing rights this that and the other.... "alleged victim" ?? ... if you're ever a victim lets hope you wont be termed 'alleged victim'. that why emotionally biased people have no credibility. you just dont understand.... yet.... like i said, let the victims decide not you and me.
@1AussieAvenger1 Everyone needs rights. Thats what its like to live in a free country. You have rights, I have rights, Bryant has rights. I say 'alleged victim' because, until the case is heard and guilt proven no one's a victim.There is (an) alleged offender(s), and alleged victim(s). When the case is heard and the proofs are decided upon, then the actuality of those statuses will have been established. You seem to have the chicken preceding the egg, which is the problem with Port Arthur
@Ironwulf2000 you do live in a free country. however freedom of speech is no more. everyones rights are more important than a discriminating (whether truthful or not) opinion.
understand law and due process. a person makes a complaint to police, they become the complainant, and make an allegation. so the complainant alleges a crime has taken place and provides details of the alleged perpetrator(s). the complainant is considered the victim and the perpetrator defends the allegation(s).
@1AussieAvenger1 One wonders how a dead person becomes a complaintant. Someone else (DPP) is the 'complaintant' as you put it, and the deceased is the killers alleged (because an allegation has been made but not proven) victim. Similarly, a person could be charged with a murder based on a disappearance. That person is not there to complain, they are the alleged (by the police) victim. That person might be perfectly safe & well and hiding for some other reason, so they are not an actual victim.
@Ironwulf2000 the epic fail is in front of you in the mirror.
the ones calling for an enquiry into PA have nothing to do with the case at all, apart from carleen who STILL WONT ASK bryant if he did it. what does that tell you. i find it offensive that these same people wish all the witnesses to go through everything again, just to satisfy their opinion. but of course you wont have to... you weren't involved. i wouldn't ask it of them. let them decide if its necessary. not you or me. shameful
@1AussieAvenger1 My understanding is his mother has asked, he refuses to answer.In law, at least, exercising your right to remain silent is not a defacto implication of guilt.People (like me) want an enquiry because what they are being told does not make sense.If it were even half way plausible in evidence alone (hence why I said in my first post to take the confession out of the picture) maybe there'd be less 'theories'.Fact is, its not half way plausible in my view, so I want an explanation.
@Ironwulf2000 carleen asked and bryant refused to answer or see her for some time. now she goes public claiming her son is innocent but wont ask for the answer. there's plenty of evidence, sightings, and real witnesses, but conspiracy theorists wish to focus on a few conflicting points.
leave out the confession, explain his movements that day, his car, argued at toll booth, told to move car in PA, some actual identifications, all descriptions fit a likeness of bryant (none said fat short dark)
@1AussieAvenger1 I dont disbelieve or believe the Dyson theory. Again, something to be investigated at an enquiry. But, you've also named Bryants mother as a second shooter, so you're not much better in my view. Of course, that not only makes you a conspiracy theorist yourself, it also means you are casting doubts on the 'official' sequence of events. To be honest, your theory doesnt sound any more or less credible than other second shooter theories. Again, to be investigated at enquiry.
@Ironwulf2000 anyone will understand the 2nd shooter accusation towards carleen was a fabrication to be taken in jest and also retaliation towards carleen for her actions, and inactions. how about she visits every victims families and the eyewitnesses who said it was her son. let her feel what they feel and know what they know.
dyson has never looked anything like the descriptions of the gunman. nothing but his SOG shooting skill has made him a target. an innocent man already investigated
@1AussieAvenger1 You talk about compassion for the victims then suggest Bryants mother go visit?WTF? Lets for arguments sakes alone say there was an enquiry and it was shown there was insufficient evidence to prove Bryant guilty in a court of law, would you, the victims, & other Australians that called him guilty (which until I bothered to look into it further, even included me) go visit him with heartfelt apologies? I doubt an enquiry would find him innocent, but the law is about proven guilt.
@Ironwulf2000 there will be no need for apologies because bryant did it. all the inuendo in the world wont change that. so also will the conspiracy theorists apologize to all concerned when the full story is known and found that bryant is indeed guilty.
carleen visit... well if there is an enquiry it would be the same but at least she may see what her son did to those peoples lives. her denial and claims of innocence are more than disrespectful.
@1AussieAvenger1 With respect to Dyson, you say nothing but his SOG shooting skill has made him a target. Why would that be? If we believe the facts of the case, as presented, SOG shooting skill was aparently not required. Of course based on my military experience, thats where my biggest doubt lies. A 1.25 degree deflection is all that is needed to miss a head at the police version's average engagement range. On a standard 39" AR-15, thats a muzzle deflection of under 1 inch. See part 2.
@Ironwulf2000 understanding the AR-15 you would know how light it is and that the high velocity rounds cause bullet and bone fragmentation on solid impacts. statements say bryant changed clips in the cafe then continued shooting changing weapons after around 5 shots outside. its estimated around 45 - 50 shots in the cafe. not all injured were shot. 2 bullets killed 3 people and injured 3 more with fragments. average distance 12ft. if AR-15 in 3 shot mode thats 15 bursts or mixed single shots
@1AussieAvenger1 Its weight has little to do with it, in fact it makes it harder to control its recoil. The high velocity rounds don't fragment very well. Its a known weakness of the full metal jacket military ammunition in all calibres, but in particular with the 5.56mm (wiki 5.56mm NATO). This is why to get a kill, it had to be a hit to the head. The AR-15 doesnt have a '3 shot burst'- you are mistaking it for the M-16, which can. I used an average distance of 3.5 metres in my calculations.
@Ironwulf2000 AR-15 comes in many models (and a few brands) from civilian to military spec. you should know that. if not read up. everything from hardness of barrel and weights to shot selection. the high velocity 5.56mm round causes what it hits to fragment unlike lower velocity 7.62mm, not its casing, especially at shorter distances, but you would know more on that. i recommend you research the weapon in question.
@1AussieAvenger1 The fully automatic and burst fire AR-15 is military only, and has the designator M-16. In the US, they were available to civilians. In Australia, they were not. There has been nothing I've read in either 'conspiracy' or 'official' stories that indicate automatic or burst fire operation, and the wounding patterns dont suggest burst fire, so you can't even suggest it was modified to be so.
@Ironwulf2000 the AR-15 was a military spec model that was found complete with scope. its known that the very same weapon was handed in during a gun amnesty in victoria, only to be sold by the govt to a gun dealer who sold it in a state where it was still legal.
its unknown exactly how the shots took place in the cafe but accounts suggest rapid fire bursts. not streams but bursts. after the 1st few seconds most people were motionless and cowering. 90 seconds is said to have passed in the cafe.
@1AussieAvenger1 I am not sure what you mean by casing, unless you mean jacketing. The Hague convention prevents the use of expanding ammunition by military forces. Hence full metal jackets (lead will deform on impact and expand). The standard 5.56mm FMJ round is about 60 grains. The standard 7.62mm FMJ round is about 155-170 grains. Thats almost 3x the mass. travelling at speeds only about 10-20% less. Trust me when I say it fragments everything it hits.
@1AussieAvenger1 But, its bullet fragmentation thats needed for a quick kill. If the bullet breaks up, it gains the ability to impart more energy on the target before passing through. This energy kills through gross organ damage, to hydrostatic shock destroying tissue, organs & even the brain. You can punch neat holes through most areas of the body & the victim will survive long enough for medical attention. But, whoever it was wanted a death count not a wounded count, and that meant headshots.
@1AussieAvenger1 Part 2 on Dyson. I agree, probably not the Broad Arrow shooter. But the shootings didnt all happen in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Whether or not he is a shooter anywhere else, or the 'mastermind' is speculation, to me. So whilst I find it quite plausible that SOG (or similar) shooting skill would be essential to carry out the version of events as reported by the police. Am I convinced Bryant had that skill? Answer is, no I am not.
@Ironwulf2000 bryant was pensioned when he admitted he wished to shoot people even before Maurice died (martins weight belt around his neck) in the dam. Helen Harvey told people she was worried about martins behaviour in the car, twice causing accidents pulling on the wheel. Helen tried not to drive over 60kph for that reason. bryant was injured seriously in the accident that killed Helen.
history tells it all but some are blind to the facts. bryant liked, owned, and practised with his guns
Oh just on the thousands of rounds of ammo in his house... I am a target shooter. In a 2 day event I can expend up to 500 rounds, shooting at legitimate paper and steel targets. I have no intention or desire to shoot at innocents. Like anything, it cheaper to buy in bulk (yes even thousands), and I can legally do so, as do many shooters every day today - and before this incident. Regardless of that, he was unlicensed & the ammo & rifles were illegal- if indeed they were his. That is undisputed
@Ironwulf2000 a target shooter? get a big thrill out of the pop guns eh?... typical.
its obvious you're more pro gun lobby than anything. you dont care about bryant or any of the victims, or their families and friends. just your firearm insecurities and gun laws.
you say "if indeed they were his. That is undisputed". the 1st part of the sentence contradicts the 2nd part. you cant Q something if its undisputed.... sheeeeeeeze talk about basically numb
@1AussieAvenger1 I was referring to the firearms he did claim to own - which did NOT include the FN FAL presented by police (nor the mystery SKS was orginally reported and that even Howard writes about in his book). He quite willingly admitted to owning an AR-15 and an AR-10 which is the same calibre as the FAL. As did hundreds if not thousands of other people in Australia at the time. Unfortunately his cannot be matched to the shooter's. Owning a particular rifle doesnt make you a criminal.
@Ironwulf2000 blah blah blah about guns again..... where was bryant that day? what were his movements?.... or just go on ignoring anything that may contradict your opinion
@1AussieAvenger1 I can tell you now, firearms laws do not stop criminals getting guns. Regardless of whether Bryant was the shooter or not, he was unlicensed & thus already a criminal well before the events of that day. There was already a legal system stopping him from getting the firearms that he had, & it failed. It fails time & again today.
Re: my 'contradictions' Let me lay it out nice n simple for you. He admitted to owning an AR-15 and an AR-10, and witness testimony confirms that. He bought them with a fake license, which is illegal - again also confirmed. Hence 'undisputed' by me or indeed any so called 'theorists' that I have read. The rifles, for reasons I've mentioned, can't be POSITIVELY matched to casings found at the crime scene. So there's nothing to link them unless we imagine it.Last I heard justice relied on fact.
@Ironwulf2000 all your evidence you present. where did you obtain it from? do you know what is in the complete police report, and would you believe it anyway. you would rather talk shit and get your assault rifle back than any real justice, and the real facts of justice are bryant pled guilty. too bad for you..... go back to looking at gun mags and drooling.
nothing else but guns? check this goose out (shakes head then farts and goes on with life)
@1AussieAvenger1 Evidence I present? Its just a common sense view of the police's own evidence, or lack thereof. Its an opinion founded on knowledge and reason. The police explanation of the sequence of events does not add up. As I said before. I am not saying Bryant is innocent - in fact in my personal opinion I believe he was involved, but he was not the shooter in the Cafe. What I am saying is there should be an enquiry. I have my rifles, there's nothing to be gained by me, but maybe justice
@Ironwulf2000 all the 'doesn't add up' explanations... why do people do certain things? who understands anothers mind? the police report? the guilty plea? what can i say that i haven't said before. police govt media all stuffed up.
if justice was ones aim then the innocent victims, both alive and deceased, and their families, should be put first before sympathy for a lying murderer. not one of these defends bryant. what do you think an enquiry would involve in time and money? same outcome.
@1AussieAvenger1 I am not particularly interested in why he or whoever did it. I just want to know what happened and who did it, in a sequence of events and facts that properly fits the police service's own evidence.
You are very right in the fact that the police stuffed it- heavily contaminated crime scenes, poor detective work, poor interview procedures.If they got that much wrong, whats to say their story isnt.Then there is the media, contaminating any possibly jury with doctored pics.
@Ironwulf2000 if you do want justice then begin with asking for the release under FOI of the full files on PA so that all evidence, statements, and reports can be made public for all to see. right now no politician from any party will back me to have it released. maybe soon.
but can you imagine the nutters that the witnesses will have to deal with if all becomes public? i have spoken to Mick Dyson personally and find it rude that people can name others without proof or retribution.
They needed a confession of they were never going to convict him, or anyone, purely based on the contaminated evidence, contaminated identification, and so on.
@Ironwulf2000 the movies say 'one conflicting bit of evidence and its thrown out'. well in real life its very different. i know a fair bit about the legal system and most evidence in the PA case is inline with bryant committing the crime.
a large percentage of prosecutions are plea bargained for ease of conviction or for fear of a flimsy case and DPP losing. consider that many legal minds would love the notoriety and have looked at this case and said forget it.
@1AussieAvenger1 Its not about conflicting evidence, its about contaminated evidence. The minds of the witnesses - who often made statements weeks later - were contaminated by the media stating that Bryant was the shooter. Hear it often enough and you will believe it. That means any identification they make has to be in doubt, legally. What has to be sought is proof beyond ANY reasonable doubt, and I even have anti-gun friends who can say there are SERIOUS doubts in this case.
@Ironwulf2000 if what you say about contaminated evidence being valid then how much more so would the memories of anyone associated be contaminated after so many years?
so whats the SERIOUS doubts? its easy to focus on one point of info hoping that it will be the one thing that will throw the case out. it doesn't work like that.
we've already gone over the fact of police govt and media stuff ups. that still doesn't mean bryant didn't do it. he did and is where he belongs. justice done
Well I'll have my sporting chance. Other than his confession - and trust me, with the right 'help' you'll provide a confession that shit tastes like pumpkin pie, where is the evidence that Bryant is the shooter? The police themselves cant tie even the weapons that were found 'in his possession' (in actuality not) to him. They cant even match the spent cases in the crime scene to the firearm. Thus what ultimately cannot prove him guilty, also ironically cannot prove him innocent.
@Ironwulf2000 But, I guess 'innocent until PROVEN guilty', is not a reality, is it.Oh yes, the confession.As I mentioned before, you can get anyone to confess anything with the right 'persuasive techniques'.Its up to the judicial system to determine that a confessor was not: 1.coerced into their confession, and 2.knew exactly what they were confessing to, and 3.Their account of events fits the crime.
@Ironwulf2000 So, if you could just post up that transcript of where Bryant was in court in front of a trial judge, where not only did he prove he was in full understanding of what he was confessing to (despite being mentally impaired), can attest that his confession was not coerced, and can provide an account of events that matches the forensic evidence and witness testimony, I'd appreciate it, and I will be on my way. Thanks.
@Ironwulf2000 ... gotta love how you reply to yourself.... thats a 1st.
why ask me for such things when you know who to ask but will never have the spine to approach authorities with your simple minded requests.
seems the world owes you an explanation... when you dont wish to explain yourself. tell us your agenda here. its all about your pop guns isn't it? at least have the guts to say what you think happened that day and explain where your innocent defendant was at the times.
@1AussieAvenger1 Replying to my own posts keeps them clustered together. If youtube permitted longer comments, I'd gladly do it in one. The world doesnt owe me an explanation. The government does. They will not permit an enquiry because people like you are just willing to accept those versions of events, when - if you look at the evidence - even a non-shooter has to have some doubts. All I ask for, is an enquiry. A non-biased, 3rd party, expert enquiry.
@Ironwulf2000 your agenda is politically motivated and nothing to do with justice for all... you want bryant free? go for it.... but no.... you'll hang around the net with your so called newfound intelligence. get some legal advice on what you say. just shows how little you, understand or, really care for the victims families and friends.
@Ironwulf2000 you say "Other than his confession - and trust me, with the right 'help' you'll provide a confession that shit tastes like pumpkin pie"
why would i trust you? with a lot of 'help' you might gain a grain of intelligence... so what?
where's the evidence bryant wasn't there? you're really inaccurate about casings and weapons, making bold statements you know you cant back up. thus ultimately you cannot prove him innocent.... and ironically you're pro gun biased too eh?
@1AussieAvenger1 The police report says that the breech and bolt of the AR-15 & FAL that was recovered from the burned cottage (in the case of the AR-15, and I believe it was the roof of another building for the FAL) was destroyed "by an overpressured round". This means they can never match the casings from the shooting scene or anywhere else to that rifle, other than that they have the same calibre - like thousands of other 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibre rifles commonly available at the time
While all the continued references to the media, those people aren't interested in justice, just ratings! A Piss poor attempt at debunking buddy!
Whether the guy did it or not is not the issue here, but the direct assault upon the Australian Constitution as the event was used for, is a major issue. Your references to media throughout this suggests that you feel Trial by Media is justice, Wake the fuck up stupid!
@kryckeestrooff ... oh and you dont use any media at all?... just secret bits of paper passed in class?
i have my eyes wide open clown. you wake the fuck up and get over your anti-govt, hidden agenda, bullshit and realise that you are the one being brainwashed by so called educated truthers. imagine how much they laugh when they have you sucked in.
you obviously did no research into OZ gun laws, or wont admit the truth as you're biased and hide the fact of continuing gun law changes from 1984
there sure is some confused maggots of the world here on YT... go look at yourself in the mirror and admire your own self image... is all just a lie to yourself anyway.
1AussieAvenger1 2 weeks ago
@1AussieAvenger1 see the likes and the dislikes? hahaha numbers dont lie :)
franny231123DMT 2 weeks ago
@franny231123DMT thats about as shallow as it gets eh?... avoid any questions and resort to the 'see the dislikes' routine. i consider that a confirmation of your inability to be honest as it shows the gutlessness of people who are willing to disrespect the memories of 2 beatiful little girls heartlessly shot by bryant and the fact you consider yourself and your ego before Alannah and Madeline Mikac.
1AussieAvenger1 2 weeks ago
low iq man with kill rate better than the best crack troops in the world?? well yeah ......
franny231123DMT 2 weeks ago
@franny231123DMT you, and others, base your theory on the number 'casings' found in the Broad Arrow Cafe. do you know any people on pensions for psychological reasons? i guess they're all too disabled to shoot a gun... no they're mentally impaired. so do you know the exact amount of shots fired in the cafe? nearly all victims were immobile and motionless, average distance 12ft. do you know how long bryant had been firing weapons? he killed Helen Harvey in a vehicle accident cause by him.
1AussieAvenger1 2 weeks ago
@1AussieAvenger1 i actually dont base my comment on anything you have typed ... only the kill rate achieved & knowledge of what its like to use a gun and to carry ammunition etc.
1st first world country to de-arm citizens since Nazi's.
we all know that criminals still have guns ........ now only good people dont ;)
franny231123DMT 2 weeks ago
@franny231123DMT you based your comment on 'low IQ' and 'kill rate' which i responded and asked questions of you which you decline to answer. how do you get an accurate IQ test from a subject that is intellectually disabled especially with bryants condition? since when have Australians been disarmed?... another of your distortions? why not be truthful instead of lying to cover your opinions... it's typical of your sort... biased opinions spreading disinformation. yep a conspiracy theorist.
1AussieAvenger1 2 weeks ago
@1AussieAvenger1 i dont mind being called a conspiracy theorist if you dont mind being called a coincidence theorist :)
franny231123DMT 2 weeks ago
@franny231123DMT <<< typical. you make unsubstantiated statements of innuendo then decline to answer simple questions. yes you're a conspiracy theorist, and if Mick Sargent seeing his partner Kate being murdered by bryant just before he was shot himself in the Broad Arrow cafe is what you call a coincidence theory... then you are a very disturbed person of a lower IQ than bryant.
disgraceful, heartless, disrespect of the victims.. shown by conspiracy theorists of the Port Arthur shootings.
1AussieAvenger1 2 weeks ago
@1AussieAvenger1 im sorry, did you say something?? i was scratching my arse , and thought i heard something
franny231123DMT 2 weeks ago
@franny231123DMT yeah and while you were doing that you squeezed the puss out of your pimply arse... whilst ignoring facts. maybe you should stop letting your arse speak for you.
1AussieAvenger1 2 weeks ago
you keep saying "i think youll find its many" yet you cant name one. I think you are delusional and too accepting of the brainwashing the media and govt has done on you just like most others. Open your eyes because im not a "theorist" yet i have seen these people show lots of proof that Martin couldnt have done it.
cyndee1971 3 months ago
@cyndee1971 ... open my eyes? yeah right. i dont need to name anyone do i? they are right there in the reports, but for your information, unless you are too dumb and blind to read it, Mick Sargent has been here on YT and said he witnessed bryant shoot his partner Kate. he also said he had no media influence, hadnt seen a paper or tv before identifying bryant on the monday morning.
its about time you disrespectful clowns stopped playing your wannabee game hoping for a conspiracy. yes theorists
1AussieAvenger1 3 months ago
@cyndee1971 Go put your tin foil hat back on. I don't even really know what happened, but I still know you are crazy.
bestshowontheweb 3 weeks ago
LOL martyn bryant was held up in solitary confinement without conviction, he eventually relented and pleaded guilty to get OUT OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, we was TORTURED UNTIL HE "CONFESSED"
this video is pure ignorance, look at the facts
we need a bill of rights people, this should be our priority, not the "issues" the media CONSTANTLY bangs on about, WAKE UP
guberskank 4 months ago
@guberskank the only ignorance is your mind set.... you've got no idea on the PA issue. have you been in contact with witnesses? done real research? accepted all facts? sad thing is you think you deserve an explanation but it's none of your business to ask. let the relatives ask, which they have, and they are satisfied.
one thing i agree upon is a Bill Of Rights which we have never had ??? hmmm. so yes make this a priority and forget the waffle on bryant as he is, and always has been, guilty.
1AussieAvenger1 4 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 my mind set? LOL i just stated THE FACTS, if you have a problem with the FACTS that i stated in my previous comment then by all means refute them, you wont because you can't he was locked away in solitary confinement without trial, hello human rights? oh thats ok because he all know he did it because he confessed LOL and i have an ignorant mindset..
guberskank 4 months ago
@guberskank no you distorted the facts... to be placed in segregation is normal and bryant couldn't be placed in any other situation at that time Fact. carleen convinced martin to plead guilty not john avery FACT. many cases end with a guilty plea or plea bargain with no trial FACT.
the only thing i agree with is there should have been a coronial inquest 'at the time' but we can forget that now.
stick to your thoughts of a Bill Of Rights... and human rights protect guilty as much as innocent
1AussieAvenger1 4 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 so you reckon its normal to put someone into solitary confinement for more than 3 months without conviction or trial? WRONG show me ONE aussie apart from martin bryant, it was a gross abuse of his human rights.. and how can you suggest that holding him illegally was the only way to hold him? how does that even make sense, you are innocent until proven guilty or do you disagree with that
guberskank 4 months ago
@guberskank also where's the answers to the Q's i ask of you? you theorists get hysterical and change the subject, thinking you are the only ones who deserve answers, instead of giving the information asked of you. if you cant see how human rights have evolved to protect all including criminals then you're blind. how do you feel about criminals caught in the act or with evidence against them pleading not guilty and stretching out the legal system only to get the minimum sentence due to appeals?
1AussieAvenger1 4 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 "theorists" lol give me a break and then the accusation of changing subject matter to further discredit my comment, feeble mate, anyone with half a brain will see right through you, the only thing i said was:
sure i can answer your q's but then it will take away from the single point i wanted to make
MARTIN BRYANT WAS TORTURED UNTIL HE PLEADED GUILTY
that my friend is a fact, the only fact ive stated, sorry if you disagree but i can assure that is what actually happened
guberskank 4 months ago
@guberskank more waffle eh?... i've answered your statement... you can't assure anyone but if you like provide the whole of bryants incareration including dates and places... can you do that?
bryant did it, is where he belongs, and you're not happy? it's all about the process isnt it and not whether bryant actually committed the crimes? try as you may but you've got nothing.
1AussieAvenger1 4 months ago
@guberskank *incarceration.....
you say "it would take away from the single point i wanted to make" what are you scared of? the truth?
many of Australias most notorious criminals have experienced segregation. for me, your human rights go out the window as soon as you disregard anothers human rights. now society is full of lies and deceit with no real consequence for actions. great. still waiting for your answers.
1AussieAvenger1 4 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 name ONE, you can't because there isn't one apart from bryant, its illegal ;)
bryant is the only one who's been thrown into solitary confinement before trial
my problem with the bryant case is that there was no due process
a confession whist being tortured isn't good enough for me, shouldn't be good enough for anyone, anyone who values human life equally, maybe thats the kicker for some..
guberskank 4 months ago
@guberskank so confident in what you say, but its all in vain isnt it? name how many who have been put in 'solitary confinement'? well i think you'll find many prisoners who are remanded for serious crimes are put in 'solitary' which is called 'segrogation'. yes even before trial. how about you research and ask corrective services how often this happens then you will see that all your claims are false.
i guess getting a crim to admit guilt is about the same as getting you to admit you're wrong
1AussieAvenger1 4 months ago
conspiracy theory nuts huh, you are dead set so dumb you are just an oxygen thief. So going by the official story 1 man with an IQ a bit higher than yours at 66 with no military training walks into a cafe firing from his opposite/unnatural side and decides that he will match the close quarter combat statics of some of the very best troopers in the world. Ted Serong stated it perfectly but a man involved in the pheonix program and CT training just doesn't know what he's talking about hey.
TheEnlightenedMind1 5 months ago
@TheEnlightenedMind1 oxygen theif? thats original... nice 80s touch... so yes a person with an IQ much higher than yours, martin bryant, committed the PA shootings. you mention serong... so what? he wasnt there and neither were you or I, but there was surviving victims and witnesses and their word is better than your disturbed unqualified assessment.
like i said... conspiracy theory nuts.
1AussieAvenger1 5 months ago
This clip is an insult to the fallen. Anyone with some spare time can research this tragic event and come to the conclusion that MUCH was covered up and the time lines of some events were incorrect. If I were a betting man I'd say Bryant was a fall guy. There were 2 shooters. This was an inside job. Those who don't research are either lazy or not ready to delve into this subject matter and I can accept that. The ones who annoy me are the ones who know better and are trying to cover it up.
mr1000rx 6 months ago
@mr1000rx .."i'd say... a betting man".. yes thats all it means to you and the heartless mouth pieces that go off half cocked from reading some crap written by persons you can obviously put you life in their trusting hands. the total insult is that even if a victim told you the truth and said it was bryant in the cafe alone, you would still wish to question everything. for one its not your business, and two, better people than you have examined the case.
you disrespect the victims yourself
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 You know that if this ever did go to trial all the facts would be tabled. All the other ignored witnesses would have a chance. I wont waste anymore time talking to you until you have gone through the other evidence and witnesses. Wendy Scurr for instance.
mr1000rx 6 months ago
@mr1000rx wendy scurr is not even a primary witnesses. her own testimony at macgregors rally shows she reads from scripts prepared for her. i'd rather not waste time with you either but the world needs to know the lies that are being spread by people who read 5 words and make ridiculous statements.
even if all facts were released bryant would still be found guilty, but some think a few technicalities can throw out the case. this isnt tv law and you need to do your own 'unbiased' research
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
haha he never was judged... that's the point.. no trail, no evidence collected
gwald 6 months ago
@gwald<<<< says "no evidence collected"???... you sure about that?... not much credibility in what you say... and great to see your part of the anti-govt illumnati hidden agenda association. typical.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1
Hi well this video say's it's the truth, so it must be the new truth!
Your truth is sooo 1996!!
watch?v=qL2eLtOyHAg&NR=1
gwald 6 months ago
@gwald so the truth changes over time even though it was the truth in the beginning? your version of truth is so shallow for 2011.
ask the real witnesses and victims. believing the conspiracy shows how dumb and gullible people can be.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 It's the information age mate :D
If you watched the video, his photo was printed 2 days after as the shooter.. making 'real' eye witnesses impossible.
google john Godfrey & Jim Laycock who knew martin bryant plus more
And his guilty plea was factually wrong too lol
gwald 6 months ago
@gwald i've watched all the conspiracy theory videos... all full of disinformation and many have blatant lies.
Mick Sargent was there in the cafe and has verified that he never was exposed to media as he was taken into custody from that sunday afternoon and yet identified bryant from a photo the morning after the shooting so there goes your 2 days and media.
just because someone didnt agree doesnt mean it wasnt bryant. plenty say it was and they know better than you, i, or any theorists.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 be careful of where you get your info from, wikipedia and aussie media can not be trusted, in fact there is a constant disinformation campaign going on, i stubbled across it when trying to publish peer reviewed journals in wikipedia on water fluoridation.. STOP i know what you're thinking WAKE UP.. we need to band together and pick our fights, a bill of rights for australians is the battleground, if we manage to shift the public debate then the rest will follow...
guberskank 4 months ago
@guberskank you know what im thinking? sure. its typical to second guess anothers thoughts. we all get the same info so why make out you get different? its how you interpret things and whether you're unbiased.
water fluro? chem trails? police state? on it goes... but what of the permissive and tolerant society that accepts anti-social behavior? we afford as much right to criminals as victims. where's the sense in that? how many guilty people use our system to fight honesty? human rights... pahh
1AussieAvenger1 4 months ago
"with auto weapons used on a close group not hard " ??
like a semi auto ar15 used on people eating their dinner in a closed room / packed cafe ??
The average distance bryant murdered the people in the cafe was less then 2 meteres i believe . The majority found either at their tables or close to them . Meaning they were stunned , in disbelief , and coward under tables / chairs / loved ones ect ...The powder burns found on the victims necks ect mean he was quite close.
still impossible ?
LoonYLegionnaire 6 months ago
@LoonYLegionnaire Fire a .223 next to your ear or even within a few feet with no hearing protection and see how still you sit. You're saying in 90 seconds (according to the official story) he can let off 29 rounds in a closed space and no one moves more than a few feet? Thats almost one round every 3 seconds, with what, 20 of those headshots, from the hip. No one disputes they didnt have time to move very far away from where they were - thats the point indeed!
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 wasnt 20 head shots from the hip... thats a blatant lie. its 29 casings found, not rounds fired. wendy scurr said around 50 shots and seemed 5 minutes... yes it was around 90 seconds and between 45 - 50+ shots. around 60 in cafe but near 30 escaped, some couldnt so they tried to take cover and were sought out. but you know most of this already dont you? you just twist it to use it for your guns agenda
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@LoonYLegionnaire On a closed group, its not hard, when - according to the latest media reports - he had 2 hours to do it. Not 90 seconds. I guess he didnt have the benefit of the 'non moving' targets. As for me using facts that suit me, and ignoring those that dont, you also ignore the shoddy investigation and interview techniques which casts doubts over the entire official story. At least AussieAvenger admits they exist and some would require "FOI" and/or an expensive enquiry to verify.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 Bryants victims were in a packed cafe , small enclosed building.
The Norway shooters victims were trapped on an island just over 500mtrs wide i believe.
Atleast they had time to move , hide , attempt to avoid the norway shooter after hearing the first shots.
Bryants victims did not have the time , place , or room to attempt to even hide .
At least AussieAvenger admits they exist and some would require "FOI"
I would welcome it aswell more information released .
LoonYLegionnaire 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 But lets be honest , how many of you would still claim conspiracy and just say the documents doctored and still wouldnt be happy . , i mean honestly ...
its been 15 years entrenched in some conspiracists mindests that even hearing it from bryant himself still wouldnt convince them .
that is something they have to deal with I suppose.
LoonYLegionnaire 6 months ago
@LoonYLegionnaire yep its the type of person they are. the mirror never lies. i can look in mine and say i've been truthful and fair when required, and an asshole badguy when required. i prefer the 1st guy but the conspiracy theorists bring out the best in me. most have hidden agendas and are anti govt. i know lifes complicated these days but it seems to have messed with some peoples capacity to reason and understand things. i guess some never got over their 6th birthday party. a big boy now!
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 I want to know how a village idiot with a low I.Q could aim/fire shots like that ?? I want to know why a graphic video tape is circulating on youtube, when it's suppose to be under Police lock and key ?Funny how its showed up when people are starting to put the dots together.... I smell a rat-a really large one ;)) Rember people: A NATION OF SHEEP SPAWN A GOVERMENT OF WOLVES
TheShell1973 6 months ago
@TheShell1973 what a load of dribble.... if you want to know the truth then read all the info instead of patting each other on the back telling yourself you know better... calling people sheep and putting dots together? yes you go play your little game of nwo and i'll stick to reality. i always say "if you smell a rat, its usually in the same room". Remember people: EXTREMISTS COME TO DIVIDE THE MASSES
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@TheShell1973 actually The original footage began circulating in 2004 and is 22 minutes long.
One wonders why the conspiracy nuts only keep repetedly posting the same 9-12 minutes ?
is this all they have?...or does the rest of the footage further prove Bryants guilt and therefore not fit into their conspiracy agendas ?
The tactic of calling people "sheep " is typical of these fools.
What they mean by look at the facts is ... Believe the conspiracies or your a " sheep / shill "
ironic..
ProfessorTiNfOiL 6 months ago 2
@ProfessorTiNfOiL one day they will need to account for their actions... not to you or me... noooo... to themselves, and for extreme cases such as freemartinbryant lets hope they be accountable to the laws too.
a sensible person would say it's all gone to far, with the amount of abuse, lies, and blatant breaking of current and possibly future communications laws, where will it all end?
it's sad that humanity has degraded so much. what next?
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
reading through ironwulf's postings I get the feeling he is a gun owner like myself .
Typicaly its still a sore point among many of us that hold firearms licences and are SSAA members .
That Some of our firearm rights were taken away ,the knee jerk reaction to the Murders committed by Bryant should not have had to effect us all .
still Being angry and bitter about the changes in the gun laws 15 years later is one thing ..
Defending the guilty one Bryant as "innocent" is unfathomable
LoonYLegionnaire 6 months ago
@LoonYLegionnaire hi mate. yeah i'm not against firearms. i've been a rural landholder. guns have their purpose. i do think the gun laws went to the extreme but it has shown to be good. nothing wrong with a good repeater rather than a semi-auto for a civilian. professional shooters and persons wishing to gain further licences can own some restricted types. its about accounting for your weapon at all times. the guns arent bad. people are bad.
yep bryant did it. shameful the 'innocent' claims
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@LoonYLegionnaire Obviously you didnt read all of my comments, because I stated that I didnt believe that Bryant was innocent. I believe he is involved I am not convinced that he is the shooter at the Broad Arrow Cafe. I believe there are gaping holes in the trail of evidence, and the explanation of the evidence in the official story. These need shoring up.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 @Ironwulf2000
As i said as a gun owner myself , some of us are still bitter over the knee jerk reaction to the murders committed by Martin Bryant ( and others before him ) in Australia , resulting in some of our firearm choices and freedoms being removed and restricted.
I have looked at both sides of the PA argument for many years now and have yet to come up with 1 piece of solid evidence pointing to a "setup"by the government .
LoonYLegionnaire 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 @Ironwulf2000
The conspiracies that they buy into differ greatly from 1 another from "mind control" tavistock , to
" SAS shooter " which i personally and you should aswell being apparently " ex adf " find ridiculous and somewhat offensive .... that an active Australian soldier of special forces calibre on orders would go and shoot 35 innocent people and wound many more to change the gunlaws in Australia? pure fantasy...
LoonYLegionnaire 6 months ago
@LoonYLegionnaire I dont find it offensive. ADF personnel are real people too, and subject to any mental issue a regular person might suffer. They are corruptable. What I do see is a US Army soldier @ Fort Hood blazing away with a high powered pistol in a fairly closed room (like the BA cafe) & getting nowhere near the phenomenal accuracy (despite expending at least 2x the ammunition) of the PA shooter, and despite spending weeks at the range training specifically for close combat headshots.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@LoonYLegionnaire Of course the 'SAS shooter' statement discounts it could be other S.F member(s) from other nations, or even other services capable of deploying advanced weapons & tactics. I am pretty sure a non-Australian special forces soldier wouldnt have half the issues with the situation an Australian one might. You also mention them doing it 'under orders' - again this leads to the govt being involved, & the concept they might have been acting outside the Aust. govt is somehow impossible.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 Also you mention the Fort Hood shootings as some sort of evidence for your " sas " combat / trained assasin killer ect ect ect .
What about The virginia tech shooter ? ..he killed 32 people with pistols i believe . his accuracy and kill rate must then make him a government assasin / special forces soldier ect ect ?
And what about the Recent mass shooting in Norway ? , shot around 80 people dead ... also a
" assasin" government / special forces "combat " shooter ect ..... ??
LoonYLegionnaire 6 months ago
@LoonYLegionnaire Virginia tech... around what 180 rounds fired to kill 28 people. Each person hit 3 times. Thats 6 rounds expended for each person that died - many times more, per victim, than Port Arthur. Most that died were hit in the head - as per Port Arthur, however it took an average of 3 shots to do it. The shooter also used hollow point ammo - greatly increasing the damage caused by each hit. Norway? Well no details on that one, but with auto weapons used on a closed group - not hard.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 yes norway.... another sad unnecessary incident. there's details available now. another nail in the coffin for private assault rifle ownership. the people who use excuses such as to rise up against their govt are just clowns. i cant see an incident happening in australia that would require civilians taking up arms against their govt. it would be anarchy as there would also be others who support their country and against the rebels. no excuse for civilian auto weapons.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 You seem to believe that all shooters, including myself, subscribe to the US 2nd amendment rote. I do not. You make a lot of assumptions about me, yet I make none of you. Is that your only basis for defence of your claims? Ridicule and baseless allegations? You have no arguments from me that civilians do not require fully automatic firearms. Full auto fire is used for suppression of an enemy (who may also shoot back)....Shooters just want semi-autos,
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 if you read the conversation you are the one making assumptions. the current gun ownership laws are satifactory for this time and place. semi-auto? go to a range and pay to shoot. better still take a holiday in US and shoot some real big guns and feel good eh. it's a primitive caveman thing. an identity crisis. like hot cars... for me its music and good sound systems... guns are bad m'kay
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 I can think of a situation in Australia, however, where civilians might want to take up arms against their government. When their government is no longer their government any more, because some foreign power has attacked the country, and they are now the government - at least in the areas they ahve taken control of. Cant happen? It happened less than a century ago. Nothing is impossible in world politics. I dont think its very likely, but I dont ignore it either.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 if it comes to being invaded all rules will be out the window and current weapons that are available, but not in use due to UN conventions, will be used in a way you have never even thought of. do you think your rock throwing rifle will be any defence. you think invaders will play by the rules? see the 'big dog' video
its still all about your need for gun ownership and nothing else. only agenda you have here is gun control.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000
There is no doubt though that the murders committed by bryant were the catalyst for tightening our gunlaws no-one has ever denied that fact.
But my bitterness at the gunlaw changes aside ....... I wont let it cloud my judgement of the case and evidence presented that Bryant is guilty . and soley responsible .
LoonYLegionnaire 6 months ago
@LoonYLegionnaire You talk about evidence of a 'setup by the government'. I dont necessarily think it was - I am not convinced it wasn't, either. What I do believe it is is government incompetance at almost every level. Whether its the fact Bryant could by firearms illegally on a fake license, to the shoddy police interview, the failed securing of a crime scene and the contamination of evidence and statements. They should be made to get the story right.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@LoonYLegionnaire I have been a 'gun owner' for just over a year. Between 1998 and then, I had no firearms licenses of any kind, as I believed that with no access to semi-automatics, the sport of Service Rifle shooting (which I much enjoyed in the ADF) was dead. Turns out it wasnt, and thats why I got my license. I can 100% assure you that, prior to getting my license, had I seen the information I've seen lately, I would absolutely question the official line in the exact same way I do now.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 what "information" exactly are you referring to ?
The many conspiracys , and amateur detective video's on youtube as examples?
Are you simply just buying what the conspiracists are saying on video's and websites , in such a way that can only be the "real" story?
LoonYLegionnaire 6 months ago
@LoonYLegionnaire I'm referring to the police transcript of the interview. The police version of events - their documents, the inconsistencies with the weapons, etc, don't add up. They are not convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt, in my mind. As I mentioned before, I dont have a beef with 99% of the firearms laws that came in as a result of the event, so its not like i have an axe to grind there - except in one area, and whether Bryant is guilty or not has no bearing on that.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 what exactly in the police transcripts ?
Where Bryant admits to taking a hostage , shooting people , playing games admitting to the rifles oh oh but not that one ?
saying his Ar15 is a sweet little rifle isnt it ?.. and he doesnt like being locked up if i had my rifle i could get out of here ... The ammunition and calenders circled at his house , statements from pshciatrist that Bryant made years ago mentioning he would like to shoot alot of people ... it had been on his mind
LoonYLegionnaire 6 months ago
@LoonYLegionnaire LOL there's a lot of people I've said I'd like to shoot too. But alas, my civility gets the better of me, aparently. The AR15 is a sweet little rifle. Well made, good piece of engineering. Not exactly my favourite, but still pretty sweet. Oops, I just incriminated myself, right? Its ME! Pfft! Are you saying that if you had ammunition for a firearm that you own (albeit illegally in this case, but nonetheless), and a circled calendar, you're a mass murderer?
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 I notice you picked out the bits to support your argument . But left the other stuff alone.
So again Bryant admitting to kidnapping , putting someone in his boot , and shooting people
Bryant also admitting to owning the rifles . Not to mention if he was "innocent" why was he the only one on the phone at seascape and the only survivor?
His body count and accuracy greatly reducing from Super SAS assasin , once he moved outside where his victims could run away ?
LoonYLegionnaire 6 months ago
@LoonYLegionnaire yes they always avoid any point that may expose their charade.
bryants unprompted admission of the bmw hijacking abduction which linked him to 3 crime scenes. the toll booth where he shot 4 people and stole the bmw leaving his car, the general store where he shot Zoe Hall and abducted Glenn Pears, and Seascape where the bmw was found and also the body of Glenn Pears, with bryant the sole survivor. bryant thought it was acceptable to do such things.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 if a persons witnessed several times in his car enroute to PA argue at toll booth, told to move car in PA, car photo, seen & various items left in cafe, car found @ 4 murder scene, sole survivor at Seascape, statement admitting armed abduction of bmw driver (from another incident at the store), all the futher evidence in searches, statements, previous history. only a biased person ignores all this. maybe you shouldnt own a gun as you seem to like the thought of shooting people.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 Biased person? Yes I am biased towards fact, justice, and due process. "Seen" - identifications tainted by media releases. "Statement" - inadmissible as he also made the statement that he wanted a lawyer, and none was provided. "Previous history" of what? How many people did he shoot before then? Evidence in searches? not the Ammunition & Calendars?? How unlikely that a rifle owner might also possess ammunition!
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 you know nothing about Law or due process. police know how far they can go. one word. probity. its used all the time to judge whether an item which could be challenged by the defence but may be deemed admissable based on sufficient probity. read bryants life too.
you dont find it odd that bryant knew of the bmw hijacking although no one else mentioned it? so how did bryant know of a story that linked him to 3 crime scenes?
you're sounding rather hysterical. bryant guilty
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
C'mon AussieAvenger, you're disputing my knowledge of firearms now? Whats your knowledge thats so much better than mine? I had an assault rifle and was serving my country in 1996. I had to know how it worked or I might die in combat one day. So, whats your quals?
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 dispute your knowledge of firearms?... now how did you come up with that? all i said was that you are inaccurate about the guns and casings. tell us all how many shots were fired then.
so you have proven that all you are is a pro-gun anti gun laws activist that joined the army so you could shoot guns and feel like a real big man. still affects you now. we both wish you were in afghanistan.
still got your assault rifle?.... ah is that why you're crying
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 Ah, now here's where you're epic fail lies. I don't have a problem with 99% of the current gun laws. I didn't join the Army, I joined the Air Force, as a pilot actually. Yes, I wish I was in Afghanistan, serving my country. Family and professional commitments prevent me from doing that now, but I am considering rejoining in a year or so.
As for the number of shots fired, its irrelevant to my point about matching the casings to the firearm.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 army/airforce/navy whatever... still in 'the services'. if you do agree with current gun laws (which permits have been rising in most states and some laws relaxed) thats fine and we can forget the gun issues.
the ballistics? until all is released through FOI neither of us will have access to all the facts. why dispute something that cant be proven unless all facts are presented. most information is being derived from less than accurate sources.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 My point with mentioning my specific service history is to highlight that you dont actually know me or my "agenda". I'm not here to get gun laws repealed. Its not going to happen. I want an enquiry.... but i've mentioned that enough.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 i could say the same thing... you dont know me or my agenda either but i have made it plain for all to see for quite some time. im not here to stop an enquiry... im here because of the blatant liars spreading disinformation and making accusations that not only can they not prove, but know they are lying.
an equiry = 3 - 5+yrs, $300m+ in costs, maybe 3000+ witnesses called, police govt media all shown for their incompetance, and all for the same outcome.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
I don't agree with the current gun laws. I *mostly* agree with them. Licensing, registration, safe storage, safety courses, progressive access, all fine by me. Stupid things, like lesser (but appropriate) restrictions on my easily concealable semi auto pistols, versus the over the top restriction on semi auto rifles, for example, when they could have had the same or similar restrictions as handguns. Pre-1996 I will agree they were too lax. Definitely. Right now, too strong in some areas.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 gun law reforms began after milperra in 1984 then again in 87 and 91 from shooting at strathfield and hoddle st. all PA achieved was to make gun laws national requiring all states to conform.
gun laws are working. why would you wish to carry a concealable weapon? and if confronted would you use it? thats why they make certain laws because people just cant seem to make the right decisions or tell the truth.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 Gun laws are working? Depends what you mean. If you mean that it made already law abiding shooters comply with new laws, then yes, they worked. The people who don't care about laws - the criminals - didnt hand anything back, and if you read any of the news, illegal firearms are just as prolific - if not more so - than they were back then.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 oh yeah... i can tell you right now without a doubt it is much harder to get an illegal firearm than it was 20 years ago. crime stats are rising in many areas but police dont have the resources. violent crime is prolific. who needs a gun when you have a gang of thugs?
its plain you enjoy guns and wish to make them more a part of your life. maybe move to a country that will accomodate your fantasies because it will never happen here.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 Actually I strongly doubt its harder to get an *illegal* fiream today. I would say its probably easier. All thats got harder, is getting a LEGAL firearm. What should have been done, is have the tests they have now to get a firearm - good criminal, domestic, mental history, safety courses, and safe storage. Forget about categories of firearms- waste of time when it comes to criminals. Ban full autos. Mandatory non-reducable minimum sentance for firearms offences.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 rubbish... just shows you know nothing of the underworld, or criminal activities. i've been in the entertainment industry for 30yrs and witnessed many things in many circles. what was available then is 5 to 10 times the price now, rare, and may come with history. difficult to buy ammo. weapons are now being stolen from gun owners at an increasing rate. 7 at one property near me recently. fortunately they weren't hand guns or assault rifles like you would probably wish to own
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 So its 5 to 10 times the price? I didn't refer to its price, I referred to its availability. I'm not sure which expensive circles you roll in, but I have had friends offered 6 illegal handguns for cheaper than the average going 2nd hand legal price. Before you ask, it was reported by that person later. I watch the news, and pay particular attention to firearms crimes. Almost without exception every crime is with an unregistered firearm by an unlicensed person.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 there are incidents of firearm thefts all the time. some are brazen with one i remember being a security firm with many handguns taken. another was a police station. i wouldn't be surprised if criminals are infiltrating gun associations to gain knowledge of certain ownerships. retail sector is always a worry, watch a store, follow purchaser. could have 'plants' in the store as customers. think like a crim to fight a crim.
cheap gun = ballistics history and trouble.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, that illegal firearms are more or less prevalent now. You just said they werent, yet now saying they are stolen all the time, which would imply with those volumes that they are cheap. Given they are stolen and/or illegally purchased, the possesor is a criminal already by that act, if no other - where do firearms laws work then? Only after they are caught, usually after some other crime they used it in. Point is, the laws didnt stop them.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 thats right. laws didn't stop them, and never will. criminals will always exists in every society, not always violent, and sometimes just who you dont suspect.
if laws and penalties deterred people from crime then we would have a perfect society. some people think they are above the law. some have no regard. some have extremists views. i just wish all people were honest and told the truth even when they stuffed up. we are taught not to tell on people from a very young age.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 So, if laws dont stop criminals, who does it stop? The law abiding? but, its the law abiding who arent going to give you any trouble to start with. So, in essence the laws are about restricting those that didnt need it in the first place. Ah well you could say its about public safety. Well thats where I agree that the laws should have been changed to include the safe storage, safety course, licensing, transport and transfer requirements they have today.I think thats safe enough!
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 people are naturally greedy, selfish, or lazy. thats where most crime begins. it must be a caveman thing. but over the years we have become civilized and generations have made decisions based on fairness, equality, and justice for all. i think our society is very lucky even though i expect even more crime in public places. when in tourism i always told the backpackers the most dangerous thing in OZ is a drunk Aussie. since then many have been bashed to death. more police i say.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 I don't particularly want to carry a concealable weapon. But, I would rather that be my choice - and remember that if the law did allow it, it doesnt mean its compulsory... as it seems to get implied by gun control advocates ("Everyone walking the streets with guns" - when in actual fact even in the US this is untrue). I do firmly believe I should be able to have and use any weapon I can to defend my house and family from criminal invasion, however.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 well i, and most of the Australian population don't wish to give you the choice of concealing a weapon from us. its not your choice, it's everyones and the majority say no way unless you need to as part of your employment or other licensed purposes.
why would you want a rock throwing weapon in this day and age? there are plenty of sonic and electronic devices to protect yourself with but psychologically wouldn't feel the same. you dream of being a gun toting cowboy eh.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 You and most of the population? What percentage? Was there a referendum or vote? What I think (and note I dont pretend to speak for all)- if anything- the population wants, is criminals to not have concealed weapons. But, stopping me from having one (if I so choose, and to be honest where I live, I dont feel I'd have to) isn't going to stop the criminals.Sonic and electronic devices are (or very soon will be) illegal in my state. So is CS spray. Got a better option? Call 000?LoL
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 most of OZ population dont want any civilian carrying a concealed weapon, and who's to say who the criminal is? you live in a box and think guns. i see a bigger picture. sonic and electronic devices may come in many forms. i use gsm spy video surveillance security at my studio, sends pics to me and can emitt over 135db of siren just with an sms, but mostly its silent so i know who comes and goes.
you think you will defend yourself with a gun? a lot get shot with their own gun.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 A static siren in a dwelling is different to a personal sonic, electrical, or chemical defence device. In my state, its legal to use any force necessary to remove or deter someone from unlawfully entering my premises. This means that such a device is legal. However the streets are not my premesis, and it is soon to be unlawful to have such a sonic device, if the proposed laws get in. CS spray and tasers are, of course already banned.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 chances are the only time you will ever have access to firearms in an emergency is at the storge place. even then you are only permitted to use 'equal' force as a civilian. use of excessive force results in charges. thats the law. seen it all before. the classic case of pisshead got thrown out of pub, breaks in through upstairs quarters, is confronted by owner and hit with defensive billy club. owner is charged and intruder gets compensation, so does his mum for stress.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 As I said, in my state, its permissible to use ANY force to remove someone unlawfully in your dwelling. There is no limitation through the term 'reasonable'. The term 'Reasonable force' is only a condition on self defence, but since its easy to assert (if you are in your own home) you are defending your dwelling, there's no limitation on whats reasonable, only that it was necessary. If they don't leave, are duely warned, and still dont, then its necessary.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 reasonable force?... thats why laws change because they see the grey areas. so in your state you could plan to assault or murder someone within your own home yet claim 'reasonable force' as your defence because they wouldn't leave? you and i may not do this, but there are people who would and thats why laws are amended to be fair to all. in some countries your right to defence or privacy within your own dwelling holds precedence over the laws used in public. not the best laws
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 Well, the law hasnt changed in decades - possibly since its inception in the early 1900s as its based on the british criminal code, which has pretty much the exact same defence. You can have a planned defence, I guess. you don't have to claim 'reasonable force' as the test for the defence does not require that the force was reasonable, only that it was necessary. Look it up - QLD criminal code - s267. Just before or after it are the self defence ones.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 In the particular case of the publican, if he didnt live in the pub, he cannot reasonably claim he was defending his dwelling (a place of business is not a dwelling) and thus his only defence to the charge was self defence, which does have a 'reasonable force' clause.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 it was the most public case in victims compensation history in NSW. the licencee lived at the hotel and it was his living quarters where it happened. this case prompted the NSW govt to cap victims of crime compensation to $50k maximum for any victim(s) of a crime. it goes both ways. i have known people to report crime just to get the compensation and dont care about justice. they embellish the truth, or fake trauma, to gain higher payouts.... humans... who needs em
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 Last but not least, there's a reason lady justice is blindfolded - it is because justice is objective, and does not consider emotion or compassion in seeking the justifiable truths pertaining to a case. Its only during sentancing (after the case has been decided) that such things are appropriate. So, no one should get put first- even the victims and families- in the course of justice, or its not objective. Call it callous, but sometimes life's tough.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 justice today is not like it was... do gooder civil libertarians and human rights activists protecting the perpetrators rights and ignoring the victims. most crime is solved with either a guilty plea or a plea bargain. many times these days victims never see true justice. criminals are treated with compassion under human rights conventions, whilst victims voices are unheard. this is the society we, as a whole, are building. bottom line is it all about money.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 Are you saying the victims story would not be heard at trial? Of course it would. Human rights apply equally and in this country everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. One day you might need that right yourself - would you want it diminished just because there is an alleged victim? I dont care about money. We blow more money on more useless crap (like world cup soccer bids) than you ever would on a proper enquiry.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 idiot... how do you twist that... of course the victims would be heard... you are just waffling scaremonger tactics. bryant pled guilty so no further proof needed. thats the law.
you carry on with needing rights this that and the other.... "alleged victim" ?? ... if you're ever a victim lets hope you wont be termed 'alleged victim'. that why emotionally biased people have no credibility. you just dont understand.... yet.... like i said, let the victims decide not you and me.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 Everyone needs rights. Thats what its like to live in a free country. You have rights, I have rights, Bryant has rights. I say 'alleged victim' because, until the case is heard and guilt proven no one's a victim.There is (an) alleged offender(s), and alleged victim(s). When the case is heard and the proofs are decided upon, then the actuality of those statuses will have been established. You seem to have the chicken preceding the egg, which is the problem with Port Arthur
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 you do live in a free country. however freedom of speech is no more. everyones rights are more important than a discriminating (whether truthful or not) opinion.
understand law and due process. a person makes a complaint to police, they become the complainant, and make an allegation. so the complainant alleges a crime has taken place and provides details of the alleged perpetrator(s). the complainant is considered the victim and the perpetrator defends the allegation(s).
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 One wonders how a dead person becomes a complaintant. Someone else (DPP) is the 'complaintant' as you put it, and the deceased is the killers alleged (because an allegation has been made but not proven) victim. Similarly, a person could be charged with a murder based on a disappearance. That person is not there to complain, they are the alleged (by the police) victim. That person might be perfectly safe & well and hiding for some other reason, so they are not an actual victim.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 the epic fail is in front of you in the mirror.
the ones calling for an enquiry into PA have nothing to do with the case at all, apart from carleen who STILL WONT ASK bryant if he did it. what does that tell you. i find it offensive that these same people wish all the witnesses to go through everything again, just to satisfy their opinion. but of course you wont have to... you weren't involved. i wouldn't ask it of them. let them decide if its necessary. not you or me. shameful
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 My understanding is his mother has asked, he refuses to answer.In law, at least, exercising your right to remain silent is not a defacto implication of guilt.People (like me) want an enquiry because what they are being told does not make sense.If it were even half way plausible in evidence alone (hence why I said in my first post to take the confession out of the picture) maybe there'd be less 'theories'.Fact is, its not half way plausible in my view, so I want an explanation.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 carleen asked and bryant refused to answer or see her for some time. now she goes public claiming her son is innocent but wont ask for the answer. there's plenty of evidence, sightings, and real witnesses, but conspiracy theorists wish to focus on a few conflicting points.
leave out the confession, explain his movements that day, his car, argued at toll booth, told to move car in PA, some actual identifications, all descriptions fit a likeness of bryant (none said fat short dark)
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 I dont disbelieve or believe the Dyson theory. Again, something to be investigated at an enquiry. But, you've also named Bryants mother as a second shooter, so you're not much better in my view. Of course, that not only makes you a conspiracy theorist yourself, it also means you are casting doubts on the 'official' sequence of events. To be honest, your theory doesnt sound any more or less credible than other second shooter theories. Again, to be investigated at enquiry.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 anyone will understand the 2nd shooter accusation towards carleen was a fabrication to be taken in jest and also retaliation towards carleen for her actions, and inactions. how about she visits every victims families and the eyewitnesses who said it was her son. let her feel what they feel and know what they know.
dyson has never looked anything like the descriptions of the gunman. nothing but his SOG shooting skill has made him a target. an innocent man already investigated
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 You talk about compassion for the victims then suggest Bryants mother go visit?WTF? Lets for arguments sakes alone say there was an enquiry and it was shown there was insufficient evidence to prove Bryant guilty in a court of law, would you, the victims, & other Australians that called him guilty (which until I bothered to look into it further, even included me) go visit him with heartfelt apologies? I doubt an enquiry would find him innocent, but the law is about proven guilt.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 there will be no need for apologies because bryant did it. all the inuendo in the world wont change that. so also will the conspiracy theorists apologize to all concerned when the full story is known and found that bryant is indeed guilty.
carleen visit... well if there is an enquiry it would be the same but at least she may see what her son did to those peoples lives. her denial and claims of innocence are more than disrespectful.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 With respect to Dyson, you say nothing but his SOG shooting skill has made him a target. Why would that be? If we believe the facts of the case, as presented, SOG shooting skill was aparently not required. Of course based on my military experience, thats where my biggest doubt lies. A 1.25 degree deflection is all that is needed to miss a head at the police version's average engagement range. On a standard 39" AR-15, thats a muzzle deflection of under 1 inch. See part 2.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 understanding the AR-15 you would know how light it is and that the high velocity rounds cause bullet and bone fragmentation on solid impacts. statements say bryant changed clips in the cafe then continued shooting changing weapons after around 5 shots outside. its estimated around 45 - 50 shots in the cafe. not all injured were shot. 2 bullets killed 3 people and injured 3 more with fragments. average distance 12ft. if AR-15 in 3 shot mode thats 15 bursts or mixed single shots
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 Its weight has little to do with it, in fact it makes it harder to control its recoil. The high velocity rounds don't fragment very well. Its a known weakness of the full metal jacket military ammunition in all calibres, but in particular with the 5.56mm (wiki 5.56mm NATO). This is why to get a kill, it had to be a hit to the head. The AR-15 doesnt have a '3 shot burst'- you are mistaking it for the M-16, which can. I used an average distance of 3.5 metres in my calculations.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 AR-15 comes in many models (and a few brands) from civilian to military spec. you should know that. if not read up. everything from hardness of barrel and weights to shot selection. the high velocity 5.56mm round causes what it hits to fragment unlike lower velocity 7.62mm, not its casing, especially at shorter distances, but you would know more on that. i recommend you research the weapon in question.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 The fully automatic and burst fire AR-15 is military only, and has the designator M-16. In the US, they were available to civilians. In Australia, they were not. There has been nothing I've read in either 'conspiracy' or 'official' stories that indicate automatic or burst fire operation, and the wounding patterns dont suggest burst fire, so you can't even suggest it was modified to be so.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 the AR-15 was a military spec model that was found complete with scope. its known that the very same weapon was handed in during a gun amnesty in victoria, only to be sold by the govt to a gun dealer who sold it in a state where it was still legal.
its unknown exactly how the shots took place in the cafe but accounts suggest rapid fire bursts. not streams but bursts. after the 1st few seconds most people were motionless and cowering. 90 seconds is said to have passed in the cafe.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 I am not sure what you mean by casing, unless you mean jacketing. The Hague convention prevents the use of expanding ammunition by military forces. Hence full metal jackets (lead will deform on impact and expand). The standard 5.56mm FMJ round is about 60 grains. The standard 7.62mm FMJ round is about 155-170 grains. Thats almost 3x the mass. travelling at speeds only about 10-20% less. Trust me when I say it fragments everything it hits.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 thats true
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 But, its bullet fragmentation thats needed for a quick kill. If the bullet breaks up, it gains the ability to impart more energy on the target before passing through. This energy kills through gross organ damage, to hydrostatic shock destroying tissue, organs & even the brain. You can punch neat holes through most areas of the body & the victim will survive long enough for medical attention. But, whoever it was wanted a death count not a wounded count, and that meant headshots.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 Part 2 on Dyson. I agree, probably not the Broad Arrow shooter. But the shootings didnt all happen in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Whether or not he is a shooter anywhere else, or the 'mastermind' is speculation, to me. So whilst I find it quite plausible that SOG (or similar) shooting skill would be essential to carry out the version of events as reported by the police. Am I convinced Bryant had that skill? Answer is, no I am not.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 bryant was pensioned when he admitted he wished to shoot people even before Maurice died (martins weight belt around his neck) in the dam. Helen Harvey told people she was worried about martins behaviour in the car, twice causing accidents pulling on the wheel. Helen tried not to drive over 60kph for that reason. bryant was injured seriously in the accident that killed Helen.
history tells it all but some are blind to the facts. bryant liked, owned, and practised with his guns
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
Oh just on the thousands of rounds of ammo in his house... I am a target shooter. In a 2 day event I can expend up to 500 rounds, shooting at legitimate paper and steel targets. I have no intention or desire to shoot at innocents. Like anything, it cheaper to buy in bulk (yes even thousands), and I can legally do so, as do many shooters every day today - and before this incident. Regardless of that, he was unlicensed & the ammo & rifles were illegal- if indeed they were his. That is undisputed
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 a target shooter? get a big thrill out of the pop guns eh?... typical.
its obvious you're more pro gun lobby than anything. you dont care about bryant or any of the victims, or their families and friends. just your firearm insecurities and gun laws.
you say "if indeed they were his. That is undisputed". the 1st part of the sentence contradicts the 2nd part. you cant Q something if its undisputed.... sheeeeeeeze talk about basically numb
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 I was referring to the firearms he did claim to own - which did NOT include the FN FAL presented by police (nor the mystery SKS was orginally reported and that even Howard writes about in his book). He quite willingly admitted to owning an AR-15 and an AR-10 which is the same calibre as the FAL. As did hundreds if not thousands of other people in Australia at the time. Unfortunately his cannot be matched to the shooter's. Owning a particular rifle doesnt make you a criminal.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 blah blah blah about guns again..... where was bryant that day? what were his movements?.... or just go on ignoring anything that may contradict your opinion
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 I can tell you now, firearms laws do not stop criminals getting guns. Regardless of whether Bryant was the shooter or not, he was unlicensed & thus already a criminal well before the events of that day. There was already a legal system stopping him from getting the firearms that he had, & it failed. It fails time & again today.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 some on firearms laws.... which you dont say how it all started.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
Re: my 'contradictions' Let me lay it out nice n simple for you. He admitted to owning an AR-15 and an AR-10, and witness testimony confirms that. He bought them with a fake license, which is illegal - again also confirmed. Hence 'undisputed' by me or indeed any so called 'theorists' that I have read. The rifles, for reasons I've mentioned, can't be POSITIVELY matched to casings found at the crime scene. So there's nothing to link them unless we imagine it.Last I heard justice relied on fact.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 all your evidence you present. where did you obtain it from? do you know what is in the complete police report, and would you believe it anyway. you would rather talk shit and get your assault rifle back than any real justice, and the real facts of justice are bryant pled guilty. too bad for you..... go back to looking at gun mags and drooling.
nothing else but guns? check this goose out (shakes head then farts and goes on with life)
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 Evidence I present? Its just a common sense view of the police's own evidence, or lack thereof. Its an opinion founded on knowledge and reason. The police explanation of the sequence of events does not add up. As I said before. I am not saying Bryant is innocent - in fact in my personal opinion I believe he was involved, but he was not the shooter in the Cafe. What I am saying is there should be an enquiry. I have my rifles, there's nothing to be gained by me, but maybe justice
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 all the 'doesn't add up' explanations... why do people do certain things? who understands anothers mind? the police report? the guilty plea? what can i say that i haven't said before. police govt media all stuffed up.
if justice was ones aim then the innocent victims, both alive and deceased, and their families, should be put first before sympathy for a lying murderer. not one of these defends bryant. what do you think an enquiry would involve in time and money? same outcome.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 I am not particularly interested in why he or whoever did it. I just want to know what happened and who did it, in a sequence of events and facts that properly fits the police service's own evidence.
You are very right in the fact that the police stuffed it- heavily contaminated crime scenes, poor detective work, poor interview procedures.If they got that much wrong, whats to say their story isnt.Then there is the media, contaminating any possibly jury with doctored pics.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 if you do want justice then begin with asking for the release under FOI of the full files on PA so that all evidence, statements, and reports can be made public for all to see. right now no politician from any party will back me to have it released. maybe soon.
but can you imagine the nutters that the witnesses will have to deal with if all becomes public? i have spoken to Mick Dyson personally and find it rude that people can name others without proof or retribution.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
They needed a confession of they were never going to convict him, or anyone, purely based on the contaminated evidence, contaminated identification, and so on.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 the movies say 'one conflicting bit of evidence and its thrown out'. well in real life its very different. i know a fair bit about the legal system and most evidence in the PA case is inline with bryant committing the crime.
a large percentage of prosecutions are plea bargained for ease of conviction or for fear of a flimsy case and DPP losing. consider that many legal minds would love the notoriety and have looked at this case and said forget it.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 Its not about conflicting evidence, its about contaminated evidence. The minds of the witnesses - who often made statements weeks later - were contaminated by the media stating that Bryant was the shooter. Hear it often enough and you will believe it. That means any identification they make has to be in doubt, legally. What has to be sought is proof beyond ANY reasonable doubt, and I even have anti-gun friends who can say there are SERIOUS doubts in this case.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 if what you say about contaminated evidence being valid then how much more so would the memories of anyone associated be contaminated after so many years?
so whats the SERIOUS doubts? its easy to focus on one point of info hoping that it will be the one thing that will throw the case out. it doesn't work like that.
we've already gone over the fact of police govt and media stuff ups. that still doesn't mean bryant didn't do it. he did and is where he belongs. justice done
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
Well I'll have my sporting chance. Other than his confession - and trust me, with the right 'help' you'll provide a confession that shit tastes like pumpkin pie, where is the evidence that Bryant is the shooter? The police themselves cant tie even the weapons that were found 'in his possession' (in actuality not) to him. They cant even match the spent cases in the crime scene to the firearm. Thus what ultimately cannot prove him guilty, also ironically cannot prove him innocent.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 But, I guess 'innocent until PROVEN guilty', is not a reality, is it.Oh yes, the confession.As I mentioned before, you can get anyone to confess anything with the right 'persuasive techniques'.Its up to the judicial system to determine that a confessor was not: 1.coerced into their confession, and 2.knew exactly what they were confessing to, and 3.Their account of events fits the crime.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 So, if you could just post up that transcript of where Bryant was in court in front of a trial judge, where not only did he prove he was in full understanding of what he was confessing to (despite being mentally impaired), can attest that his confession was not coerced, and can provide an account of events that matches the forensic evidence and witness testimony, I'd appreciate it, and I will be on my way. Thanks.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 ... gotta love how you reply to yourself.... thats a 1st.
why ask me for such things when you know who to ask but will never have the spine to approach authorities with your simple minded requests.
seems the world owes you an explanation... when you dont wish to explain yourself. tell us your agenda here. its all about your pop guns isn't it? at least have the guts to say what you think happened that day and explain where your innocent defendant was at the times.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 Replying to my own posts keeps them clustered together. If youtube permitted longer comments, I'd gladly do it in one. The world doesnt owe me an explanation. The government does. They will not permit an enquiry because people like you are just willing to accept those versions of events, when - if you look at the evidence - even a non-shooter has to have some doubts. All I ask for, is an enquiry. A non-biased, 3rd party, expert enquiry.
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 and again.... oooooh all about guns eh?
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 your agenda is politically motivated and nothing to do with justice for all... you want bryant free? go for it.... but no.... you'll hang around the net with your so called newfound intelligence. get some legal advice on what you say. just shows how little you, understand or, really care for the victims families and friends.
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 you say "Other than his confession - and trust me, with the right 'help' you'll provide a confession that shit tastes like pumpkin pie"
why would i trust you? with a lot of 'help' you might gain a grain of intelligence... so what?
where's the evidence bryant wasn't there? you're really inaccurate about casings and weapons, making bold statements you know you cant back up. thus ultimately you cannot prove him innocent.... and ironically you're pro gun biased too eh?
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
@1AussieAvenger1 The police report says that the breech and bolt of the AR-15 & FAL that was recovered from the burned cottage (in the case of the AR-15, and I believe it was the roof of another building for the FAL) was destroyed "by an overpressured round". This means they can never match the casings from the shooting scene or anywhere else to that rifle, other than that they have the same calibre - like thousands of other 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibre rifles commonly available at the time
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
@Ironwulf2000 bit more about guns
1AussieAvenger1 6 months ago
Comment removed
Ironwulf2000 6 months ago
Let Martin Bryant speak for himself on 60 Minutes.
titaniumtube 11 months ago
@titaniumtube ... and what do you expect to hear?
1AussieAvenger1 11 months ago
While all the continued references to the media, those people aren't interested in justice, just ratings! A Piss poor attempt at debunking buddy!
Whether the guy did it or not is not the issue here, but the direct assault upon the Australian Constitution as the event was used for, is a major issue. Your references to media throughout this suggests that you feel Trial by Media is justice, Wake the fuck up stupid!
kryckeestrooff 11 months ago
@kryckeestrooff ... oh and you dont use any media at all?... just secret bits of paper passed in class?
i have my eyes wide open clown. you wake the fuck up and get over your anti-govt, hidden agenda, bullshit and realise that you are the one being brainwashed by so called educated truthers. imagine how much they laugh when they have you sucked in.
you obviously did no research into OZ gun laws, or wont admit the truth as you're biased and hide the fact of continuing gun law changes from 1984
1AussieAvenger1 11 months ago