Paramedic killing - Sydney

[Kurve]

In your eyes.

You are inconsistent. I don't know how many times you've waded in to flatten discussion across threads reminding people repetetively about 'rule of law' and comment 'You can want anyone to be guilty, proving they are is a legal process where the rule of law applies' 'presumption of innocence!'

This guy needs to be locked up for his own benefit, i.e his mental state.

From your OP

No excuses for this bastard, throw away the keys.
Our legislators talk tough, yet the judiciary find a way to excuse the flotsam & jettison of Society.

That front line emergency workers are in harms way counts.

While it's particularly upsetting when emergency and health workers become victims of extreme random violence, they all count.

 

[mr bagcroft]

If the offender does suffer from psychosis and/or drug addiction then the tough response that many pine for will achieve nothing. It certainly will do nothing to stop other people having psychotic or drug-endured violent episodes.

We can’t lock up people with psychosis or drug addiction, we don’t have the space, resources or money to do it and it’s a highly questionable approach anyway.

The only answer is continued research to chip away at the problem.

What a tragedy. The epitome of “wrong place, wrong time”.

We can lock em up if they committ a serious crime, like I dunno, murdering someone unprovoked by stabbing them 50 times ! What ****ing planet are YOU living on Jesus ****ing Christ !

 

[BFew]

From a public reader comment to a "National Times" article on FB yesterday.

 

[Kurve]

We can lock em up if they committ a serious crime, like I dunno, murdering someone unprovoked by stabbing them 50 times ! What ******* planet are YOU living on Jesus ******* Christ !

Of course we can lock them up when they do that but I think Bunk was speaking generally of people with mental illness, many of whom do have occasional breaks or episodes of psychosis, the vast majority who don't hurt anybody at all and those with drug addiction. We can't lock them all up.

Anyhoo, he will probably expand on it.

 

[mr bagcroft]

From a public reader comment to a "National Times" article FB yesterday.

View attachment 1663204

Lets hope they lock the ****er up for the rest of his natural life.
What a load of shit, excluding the family is not to blame.
Otherwise, a load of laughable garbage.

 

[Kwality]

You are inconsistent. I don't know how many times you've waded in to flatten discussion across threads reminding people repetetively about 'rule of law' and comment 'You can want anyone to be guilty, proving they are is a legal process where the rule of law applies' 'presumption of innocence!'



From your OP

No excuses for this bastard, throw away the keys.
Our legislators talk tough, yet the judiciary find a way to excuse the flotsam & jettison of Society.



While it's particularly upsetting when emergency and health workers become victims of extreme random violence, they all count.

When consistency involves my own, it is no longer academic.

 

[BFew]

It's interesting to read, see and hear the reactions of people to tragic and murderous incidents/crimes like this.
Sadness v Anger (not the only reactions)
Or a bit of both to varying degrees.

 

[Kurve]

When consistency involves my own, it is no longer academic.

You're related to the victim?

 

[BFew]

Law to create new criminal offences against police, law enforcement, emergency services and health workers introduced to NSW Parliament

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Assaults on Frontline Emergency and Health Workers) Bill 2022 has been introduced to, and passed, the lower house in the NSW Parliament. According to The Hon Steph…

australianemergencylaw.com

'It will create ‘new criminal offences for assaulting frontline emergency workers, bringing them into line with acts of violence against NSW Police officers’.

https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/pdf/asmade/act-2022-48

'Crimes Legislation Amendment (Assaults on Frontline Emergency and Health Workers) Act 2022 No 48'

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Assaults on Frontline Emergency and Health Workers) Bill 2022

'An Act to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to create new offences in relation to assaults on, and other actions in relation to, law enforcement officers and frontline emergency and health workers and persons who come to the aid of law enforcement officers; to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to provide for the new offences in the Crimes Act 1900 to be triable summarily; and for related purposes.'

IMO, neither higher than current sentencing, fines, penalties, or even equipment like tasers on the belts of every paramedic, would have been likely to have deterred someone like a psychotic Jordan Fineanganofo, or prevented the death of Steven Tougher.

IMO, the money would be better invested in the mental health system and emergency services in general, than in things like attempting to implement state-wide armed security (or a new category of (armed) Police) to accompany every paramedic van out their in NSW.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/calls-for-stevens-law-for-greater-protection-of-paramedics/news-story/21a9ab1daba4d3ad9e05995122fce685

​

'Calls for ‘Steven’s law’ for greater protection of paramedics'​

April 17, 2023 - 3:06PM
NCA NewsWire'

'...
The new NSW Labor government has been called on to bolster legislation to include harsher penalties for those who attack frontline workers while they are on the job.

NCA NewsWire understands Premier Chris Minns has spoken to the Mr Tougher’s family in the wake of the death amid calls for ‘Steven’s Law’ to be introduced.

In 2022, the Perrottet government introduced stronger laws to increase the maximum penalty for those convicted of assaulting a frontline worker – such as a paramedic, doctor or firefighter – to 14 years in prison.

The legislation was brought in after a disturbing rise in attacks on emergency workers during the Covid-19 lockdowns.

NSW Health Minister Ryan Park said the Minns government was now looking at ways to better protect paramedics in the wake of Mr Tougher’s death.

“We will certainly be looking at all the raft of those measures. Sentencing, fines, penalties as well as equipment. That will come in the days and weeks ahead,” Mr Park said on the Today Show on Monday morning.

“My priority at the moment is to make sure that family is supported, his colleagues are supported, his colleagues are supported and the broader ambulance family.”
...'

 

[Bunk Moreland]

We can lock em up if they committ a serious crime, like I dunno, murdering someone unprovoked by stabbing them 50 times ! What ******* planet are YOU living on Jesus ******* Christ

Of course those who commit serious crimes like murder should and will be punished. But those who take the “we have to lock these people up!” as though it’s an answer to stop it happening are miles off the mark.

Sentencing is not a deterrent for drug addicts and the seriously mentally ill.

Lock this bloke up for life, it won’t make the slightest difference to somebody else doing the same thing.

Sentencing as a deterrent requires rational thought on the part of the would-be offender and drug addicts or those having a psychotic episode are not thinking rationally.

The only true answer is continued research and to keep chipping away at the problems.

Bringing in new sentencing guidelines is the cheap bullshit response from politicians who just want the nuffy vote at the next election. It won’t fix the problem.

The only way to progress is greater funding of mental health and addiction treatment and research. Get people off the stuff before they get to this stage. Get people help with their mental health when they show the signs.

But it costs money and takes time.

Maybe start taxing some billionaires to kick it off.

 

[HAPPY CHEFFY]

Of course those who commit serious crimes like murder should and will be punished. But those who take the “we have to lock these people up!” as though it’s an answer to stop it happening are miles off the mark.

Sentencing is not a deterrent for drug addicts and the seriously mentally ill.

Lock this bloke up for life, it won’t make the slightest difference to somebody else doing the same thing.

Sentencing as a deterrent requires rational thought on the part of the would-be offender and drug addicts or those having a psychotic episode are not thinking rationally.

The only true answer is continued research and to keep chipping away at the problems.

Bringing in new sentencing guidelines is the cheap bullshit response from politicians who just want the nuffy vote at the next election. It won’t fix the problem.

The only way to progress is greater funding of mental health and addiction treatment and research. Get people off the stuff before they get to this stage. Get people help with their mental health when they show the signs.

But it costs money and takes time.

Maybe start taxing some billionaires to kick it off.

But surely this particular offender should not be walking the streets alone?

 

[jason_recliner]

Of course those who commit serious crimes like murder should and will be punished. But those who take the “we have to lock these people up!” as though it’s an answer to stop it happening are miles off the mark.

Sentencing is not a deterrent for drug addicts and the seriously mentally ill.

Lock this bloke up for life, it won’t make the slightest difference to somebody else doing the same thing.

Sentencing as a deterrent requires rational thought on the part of the would-be offender and drug addicts or those having a psychotic episode are not thinking rationally.

The only true answer is continued research and to keep chipping away at the problems.

Bringing in new sentencing guidelines is the cheap bullshit response from politicians who just want the nuffy vote at the next election. It won’t fix the problem.

The only way to progress is greater funding of mental health and addiction treatment and research. Get people off the stuff before they get to this stage. Get people help with their mental health when they show the signs.

But it costs money and takes time.

Maybe start taxing some billionaires to kick it off.

That's not the whole story. A teen is less likely to try drugs if he faces a massive fine and possible jail time if he gets caught. At the moment there's no deterrent whatsoever. Teens try drugs, most get over it, but too many others ruin their lives and other people's lives. We need to deter people from doing drugs in the first place. Those who are genetically ill, I don't know if there's a solution. It's probably a hazard society will always live with.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Of course those who commit serious crimes like murder should and will be punished. But those who take the “we have to lock these people up!” as though it’s an answer to stop it happening are miles off the mark.

Sentencing is not a deterrent for drug addicts and the seriously mentally ill.

Lock this bloke up for life, it won’t make the slightest difference to somebody else doing the same thing.

Sentencing as a deterrent requires rational thought on the part of the would-be offender and drug addicts or those having a psychotic episode are not thinking rationally.

The only true answer is continued research and to keep chipping away at the problems.

Bringing in new sentencing guidelines is the cheap bullshit response from politicians who just want the nuffy vote at the next election. It won’t fix the problem.

The only way to progress is greater funding of mental health and addiction treatment and research. Get people off the stuff before they get to this stage. Get people help with their mental health when they show the signs.

But it costs money and takes time.

Maybe start taxing some billionaires to kick it off.

And where does that leave the victims and their dependants and relatives who bear the brunt FOR LIFE? “Sorry about that, but it’s no use punishing this bloke, he’s so far off his tree he needs compassion, not removal from society.”

There just has to be a reckoning, to give those left behind some sort of justice. Don’t they deserve it?

No, there’s a limitless number of addicts and psychotics out there, and like every other problem, buckets of money is poured into “research” but the problems only get bigger. I’m betting that no solutions will ever be found, short of totalitarian system of human control. And even then, ways will be found to transgress. That’s humanity for you.

Oh, and tax a few billionaires, that’s the answer to everything

 

[Kwality]

You're related to the victim?

er no. Context dear boy.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

That's not the whole story. A teen is less likely to try drugs if he faces a massive fine and possible jail time if he gets caught. At the moment there's no deterrent whatsoever. Teens try drugs, most get over it, but too many others ruin their lives and other people's lives. We need to deter people from doing drugs in the first place. Those who are genetically ill, I don't know if there's a solution. It's probably a hazard society will always live with.

You can't lock up and destroy the lives of teenagers who might try drugs. It's not possible (where do we put them), affordable or the right thing to do... oh here Mr and Mrs Recliner, your 16yo is bright, well adjusted, hard working, polite and has a great future ahead of him, we're going to lock him up and wreck his life because he was drinking at a party last week and had a puff of something like we all did when we were his age. Seriously.

Fine them all you want, kids don't have any money and can't pay.

The only answer is to better fund and resource addiction treatment and research. When people have issues, make it simple and free for them to get off it and stay off it.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

And where does that leave the victims and their dependants and relatives who bear the brunt FOR LIFE? “Sorry about that, but it’s no use punishing this bloke, he’s so far off his tree he needs compassion, not removal from society.”

There just has to be a reckoning, to give those left behind some sort of justice. Don’t they deserve it?

No, there’s a limitless number of addicts and psychotics out there, and like every other problem, buckets of money is poured into “research” but the problems only get bigger. I’m betting that no solutions will ever be found, short of totalitarian system of human control. And even then, ways will be found to transgress. That’s humanity for you.

Oh, and tax a few billionaires, that’s the answer to everything

I have no idea what you're on about, I never said those who commit serious crimes shouldn't be punished. I said that if people think it's going to deter others doing the same if they're drug addicts or psychotics, they're very wrong.

If you actually want to prevent some of these things happening then you have to step up addiction and mental health treatment. But there's no immediate payday. The reward is things that don't happen. Politicians can't measure it.

And it's expensive. The issue there is the tax base. So yeah, closing loopholes on billionaires and corporations who pay little tax would help massively to better fund health. The rest of us pay for it, they can too.

 

[jason_recliner]

You can't lock up and destroy the lives of teenagers who might try drugs. It's not possible (where do we put them), affordable or the right thing to do... oh here Mr and Mrs Recliner, your 16yo is bright, well adjusted, hard working, polite and has a great future ahead of him, we're going to lock him up and wreck his life because he was drinking at a party last week and had a puff of something like we all did when we were his age. Seriously.

Fine them all you want, kids don't have any money and can't pay.

The only answer is to better fund and resource addiction treatment and research. When people have issues, make it simple and free for them to get off it and stay off it.

Why not? Other countries do it successfully. The point is, far fewer kids there even try drugs because the consequences are immense. Demand is reduced. Criminality is reduced. Harm is reduced. Sure, some will bear the consequences because they do drugs regardless but the benefits to society far outweigh the costs to a few IMO.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I have no idea what you're on about, I never said those who commit serious crimes shouldn't be punished. I said that if people think it's going to deter others doing the same if they're drug addicts or psychotics, they're very wrong.

If you actually want to prevent some of these things happening then you have to step up addiction and mental health treatment. But there's no immediate payday. The reward is things that don't happen. Politicians can't measure it.

And it's expensive. The issue there is the tax base. So yeah, closing loopholes on billionaires and corporations who pay little tax would help massively to better fund health. The rest of us pay for it, they can too.

Yes, sorry to have jumped on you. But I don’t think deterrence is a priority, if it exists at all, in the minds of addicts and the mentally disturbed. So we agree there. But treating addiction is overwhelmingly difficult, once it takes hold.

If only it were possible to channel taxes into the areas where we’d like it to go. Like car rego and fuel tax were supposed to be used for maintaining roads, for example. We all know how governments swallow extra revenue for their own electorally appealing agendas.

Also, I can understand why drug and mental health programs are so inadequate - how many people actually want to work in these areas? The burn-out rate in social work is huge and takes a toll on their own mental health, as well as personal safety, for often little result. Throwing money at it does no good if staffing is the biggest problem. As it is everywhere else right now.

 

[BFew]

Throwing money at it does no good if staffing is the biggest problem. As it is everywhere else right now.

Using the money to assist existing staff in some ways might help.

Like assistance with accomodation and other benefits, to assist them cope with the pressures of their invaluable and very difficult work.

Without it leading to too many staff moving jurisdictions to where the benefits are greatest, leaving even more shortages in other Cities, States/Territories, or countries.

 

[HK_Hawk]

Why not? Other countries do it successfully. The point is, far fewer kids there even try drugs because the consequences are immense. Demand is reduced. Criminality is reduced. Harm is reduced. Sure, some will bear the consequences because they do drugs regardless but the benefits to society far outweigh the costs to a few IMO.

Yeah, and those other countries that do it also tend to have controlling authoritarian-type governments that have drained any sense of autonomy from their citizens. Even the more friendly appearing societies like japan rely on a subservient population that follows the doctrine of never standing out.

 

[HK_Hawk]

Well, dear recliner, please articulate your response. Hard to engage in any valuable discourse when you simply want to employ a negative emoji because you don’t like what you are reading.

 

[jason_recliner]

Well, dear recliner, please articulate your response. Hard to engage in any valuable discourse when you simply want to employ a negative emoji because you don’t like what you are reading.

It's a "disagree" emoji. I don't agree with your statement that "countries that do it also tend to have controlling authoritarian-type governments that have drained any sense of autonomy from their citizens". I've spent a fair bit of time in some of those countries, married somebody from one of those countries, and I think that's a bizarre and ignorant thing to say.

 

[HK_Hawk]

It's a "disagree" emoji. I don't agree with your statement that "countries that do it also tend to have controlling authoritarian-type governments that have drained any sense of autonomy from their citizens". I've spent a fair bit of time in some of those countries, married somebody from one of those countries, and I think that's a bizarre and ignorant thing to say.

As have I. So again, please articulate your response. You’ve offered nothing yet we can back and forth on.

 

[HK_Hawk]

It's a "disagree" emoji. I don't agree with your statement that "countries that do it also tend to have controlling authoritarian-type governments that have drained any sense of autonomy from their citizens". I've spent a fair bit of time in some of those countries, married somebody from one of those countries, and I think that's a bizarre and ignorant thing to say.

Ok, let me be more precise to help you. Which countries have you spent time in? And secondly, which of those particular countries have a strong stance on drugs that is “working” in your opinion?

 

[jason_recliner]

Ok, let me be more precise to help you. Which countries have you spent time in? And secondly, which of those particular countries have a strong stance on drugs that is “working” in your opinion?

Thailand, China, Indonesia and Malaysia. I haven't been but a lot of Middle Eastern countries are also very successful.