Whatever. It’s your country. Understand though that, per his manifesto, he wanted to get taken alive.
Probably so he could continue to spew his hateful filth, or keep on trolling, depending on your point of view. Maybe in keeping him around, at God knows what fiscal expense—he looks healthy and young; he’s going to be a guest of the state for awhile—New Zealand’s version of Anders Breivik can give us stories about how his cell only has a PlayStation instead of an XBox One. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/06/21/european-court-rejects-mass-murderer-anders-breiviks-claim-that-isolation-in-three-room-cell-is-inhumane Or are you going to tell me that he’s going to have a horrific existence in a New Zealand prison? Maybe if they chuck him into general population, but I doubt that will happen.
Alternatively, your security forces could have put him down while he was carrying a weapon, like the diseased animal he is, and we can get on with consigning his corpse and his views to the rubbish heap.
I’m sorry that this piece of shit chose to victimize the good people of Southern New Zealand, a place that sounds about as idyllic as any on this planet, in large part because of how trusting and peaceful the population there are.
Loach, or anyone local with better information, has it been confirmed that the shooter met armed resistance at the second mosque, and, curiously, the article in the NZ Herald mentioned the security/armed bystander at the mosque returning fire against multiple shooters?
It would also be interesting to know how he acquired the weapons. AIUI, as a recent immigrant or tourist to NZ, he would not have been allowed to own the firearms he used, and he definitely would not have been allowed items like the 40 and 60 round magazines that he used, regardless of his citizenship.
Right. The idea of being a civized society is that said society is better than the contemptible people.
Your post is disturbing on a number of levels. First, the state already knows (a) how much incarceration costs and (b) how much capital punishment, along with its attendant expenditures, costs. Takeca wild guess at whuch one is more expensive. Next, the state is responsible for the safety of all its prisoners, even those you personally want to see die. Finally, he’s still human, as broken as he is, as horrible as he is. If it takes convincing oneself he’s “just an animal” to consider a particular outcome “justice”, that should indicate if that outcome is actually just. Finally, the police in New Zealand do not have a mandate to kill those they feel like killing; they, like other police forces in other civilized societies, are required to follow the law. I’d rather they do that than be similar to the killer we’re discussing at the moment.
Any arguments about killing the terrorist, the death penalty, how abhorrent you find another posters views… all need to go into the Pit thread and not here.
He is a nothing, and if we let the wishes of a nothing define how we behave as a society, we give that nothing what he wants. We have arrested him, he will be tried, sentenced and will spend the rest of his life being forgotten in prison - and no, we don’t have the death penalty - because as a society we don’t let the worst of us dictate our choices. We don’t indulge in Hollywood revenge fantasies about “putting him down” or “chucking him into general population” because our response to inhumanity is to be more human, not less. What we do is not about him, it’s about us.
Hi Baker, Kiwi here pretty depressed about the whole thing but happy to “GQ” this is in the spirit of the the SD’s mission.
No, we don’t have the death penalty here anymore. Capital punishment was abolished for murder in 1961.
Life imprisonment is the usual sentence for murder. The *minimum *life sentence (if that makes sense) is 10 years before being eligible for parole. Once released the offender is on parole and may be subject to electronic monitoring for the rest of their life. Judges can and do impose longer periods before eligibility for parole. For example a guy who shot up a government unemployment services office a few years back, killing two people and wounding a third, was sentenced to a minimum non-parole period of 27 years.
Judges also may pass a sentence of life without parole which is exactly what it sounds like, though as of today this sentence has never actually been used. There’s a chap awaiting sentencing at the moment who is looking at being the lucky first if the Crown gets its way… if not this asshole terrorist would seem an obvious candidate for its first application.
It appears that someone discharged a weapon at the shooter; that person was one of the four taken into custody and was later released. I think “armed bystander” might be accurate - possibly someone who retrieved a rifle or shotgun from their vehicle.
He appears to have got a legitimate “A” category NZ Firearms licence. This is the standard licence for the rifles and shotguns that make up the vast majority of legally-owned firearms in New Zealand. It’s also possible for a visitor to get a temporary NZ licence based on having a licence in their home country. I don’t know / haven’t seen if that’s what happened here.
It looks like there is a bit of a loophole that certain military-style long guns that have been modified to remove military features (so that they meet “A” licence) can be illegally modified back with larger magazines, etc. From what I was reading this appears to have been done here. I suspect closing this loophole will be something the government addresses.