Ok on Bridge Street in the city of Sydney last night we had a gangland execution.
ABC News: Underworld crime boss Bilal Hamze shot and killed in Sydney's CBD.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-18/underworld-crime-boss-bilal-hamze-shot-and-killed-in-sydneys-cbd/100225052
All of us non gangland people deeply appreciate when these targetted killings do not involve stray bullets that endanger random people. Amazingly, it seems to my relatively unschooled notions, many drug related targetted killings, around the western world, often do not directly endanger the public, although obviously, sometimes, they do. This is easily perceivable when considering Chicago, but I'd say here in Sydney, these unexpected, unintended injuries and deaths resulting unexpectedly from targetted drug war killings, are rare.
Related to this shooting in article above, we have a matriarch of this victim, being shot at around seven years ago in Auburn. A stray bullet almost hit a nurse in a nearby hospital there in Auburn. This in turn encouraged the police to be even more severe with the crimmos (organised crimmos) under the umbrella of their 'operation raptor'. It certainly makes for interesting reading if you care to take it up, and my understanding is that the crime journalists that cover this kind of story are fairly competent.
As a taxi driver you will run into these kinds of crimmos that would shoot people potentially like that and generally they will use code language on the phone, so you'd think they were talking about a plumbing or carpentery job if you were a casual listener. I heard just one conversation like this as a taxi driver and seemed to feel the atmosphere of tension, relief and seriousness and apprehension, all at once, in the taxi cab, obviously betrayed a coded conversation. However there was nothing I could latch on to to report the people involved as they did nothing to incriminate themselves. Generally if I hear a drug deal casually happening over the phone and have a license plate I call it in to the cops.
With regard to this case in the article above: the police need to check surveillance on River Rd for the getaway car will certainly be heading to Burns Bay Rd and Five Dock way. Try the BP up the hill on River Rd. If the assassins burned out a stolen car on Fleming Rd back of River then for a certainty that getaway car was parked nearby and went by the BP I'd say.
Different story:
DPP: Case or no case. Or as Benji says: hotel or no hotel. An extremely unusual case that has come up, was the case of the Deputy Premiere (deputy State Governor of NSW). Some goofy journalists with a YouTube channel decided to adopt a mocking procedure to grill the politician, taking pains to dress up as a doll or tube of toothpaste or something. The politician complained to the police it was criminal harassment and the DPP (Director of Public Prosecution), equivalent to the relevant DA (District Attorney) in America, may attempt to prosecute. This politician is also pursuing a civil defamation case against said journalists or internet entertainers, however the police do not get involved in civil matters like that. Through the DPP, the NSW police seek to use new laws created to pursue 'obsessed people'. As an example, say you were considered an 'obsessed' person by the police. You think about Taylor Swift all the time, listen to all her music. Talk about her between mouthfuls of cum at the local gay bar. Women with pink leggings begin complaining about lunch bags on fire on their doorsteps, which, when they stamp on them to put the little flames out, spatter shit all over their little pink leggings. Each time a picture of Taylor Swift is found. Tired of investigating people eating mouthfuls of grapes at the supermarket before weighing them for payment, the police swoop in with a taskforce dedicated to dealing with 'obsessed people'.
Who then, is now on the 'obsessed persons unit' police radar?: none other than our toothpaste wielding YouTubers 'the Friendly Jordies'.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-14/friendlyjordies-producer-charged-for-stalking-john-barilaro/100213126
So the question is, given these are new laws, intended to stop a lone wolf terrorist, patiently and painstakingly capable of building her own bombs capable of systematically levelling a city block building by building, unnoticed. Can they be used by the DPP to thwart an annoying internet entertainer, rubbing a politician the wrong way in public? The answer, given my understanding of the law, is, no. Or as I'd say: no hotel. To quote the man in the movie: you need four houses and a thousand dollars to have a hotel right before GO (on Boardwalk). Notwithstanding what Danny DeVito thinks about it. Obsoyb:
https://youtu.be/zdvAH2J56wU
That means in this case, where the DPP has no case, they're acting like Danny DeVito just plunking a hotel down on Boardwalk. It's a no-hoteller.
Still I'm not the judge in this case but it seems foolish to use laws designed to prevent circumstances such as those mentioned above, to prosecute an internet entertainer. This fellow has created two internet videos scoffing the deputy governor and both received about a million view, which is significant as the population is only 23 million in Australia. While it's a matter for a judge to decide the outcome of a civil liability case for defamation, as stated, it's extremely unusual for the police to make this a criminal harassment case. Very risky precedent, which is why I'm commenting on it whereas normally I wouldn't since there's no real Bill of Rights or Constitution like in America that enshrines free speech and peaceful assembly. Or essays to.
This brings us to America. Let's keep our legal ('no hotel') hats on for this legal eagle case.
No comments:
Post a Comment