Inquest called to discuss whether Australian Army units should have handled Sydney Siege. - Polidicks

[quote]Witnesses have been called at an inquest into the Sydney siege to resolve debate about whether the Australian Defence Force (ADF) could have handled the incident more effectively than the NSW police. Counsel assisting the coroner Jeremy Gormly SC has drawn attention to media reports that ADF sources believed the army could have better managed the 17-hour ordeal at the Lindt cafe in December 2014.[/quote] [quote]"It is well known that the NSW police had management of the siege. It made the critical decisions, using NSW police resources," Mr Gormly said. "It managed the siege from start to finish; that included the forced entry of the cafe using officers of its Tactical Operations Unit." "It is also known that during the siege, the ADF had been on notice for possible call-out and management of the siege. "There were ADF personnel involved in observer and liaison roles."[/quote] [quote]Mr Gormly said ADF officers were on standby at a police operations centre and ADF staff also [B]built a mock up of the cafe at Sydney's Holsworthy Army Base to trial a forced entry.[/B] Mr Gormly said the army could have become involved in the siege if NSW police declared it beyond their own capability but that declaration was not made. He said 11 statements from the Commonwealth show a limited involvement from ADF observers and liaison officers. "We are anxious not to unnecessarily prolong the inquest or allow it to diverge from its primary purpose. "However the role played by the Australian Defence Force during the Lindt Siege has been a clear topic of relevance since the siege occurred. "It has been on the list of issues of the inquest from an early stage."[/quote] [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-13/sydney-siege-inquest-calls-witnesses-to-discuss-army-involvement/7412734[/url]

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people," Not entirely applicable but still

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;50312195]"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people," Not entirely applicable but still[/QUOTE] I think as long as the military has people capable of dealing with such situations, and the police asks them for assistance, this doesn't apply, as it's still the police dealing with the situation on a decision-level.

I'm assuming Australia has some kind of SWAT which would almost certainly be better trained to handle these kinds of situations because that's kind of what they existed in the US for

[QUOTE=Sableye;50312254]I'm assuming Australia has some kind of SWAT which would almost certainly be better trained to handle these kinds of situations because that's kind of what they existed in the US for[/QUOTE] I have no clue what point you're trying to get across there.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50312254]I'm assuming Australia has some kind of SWAT which would almost certainly be better trained to handle these kinds of situations because that's kind of what they existed in the US for[/QUOTE] The NSW police force have some of our best civilian counter-terrorist operatives - there was a great ABC series on it a few years back. It was eerie seeing them at my work when we did a scenario test.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;50312277]The NSW police force have some of our best civilian counter-terrorist operatives - there was a great ABC series on it a few years back. It was eerie seeing them at my work when we did a scenario test.[/QUOTE] I would personally say the state tactical response units are all about the same. None of them have even really been in a situation that defines them over another.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;50312195]"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people," Not entirely applicable but still[/QUOTE] I appreciate what you're trying to get at, but there are occasions when military personnel are going to the best response to certain crises - though that should always be the decision of the civilian police. I suppose an example is the Iranian Embassy seige in the UK - the SAS were far and above the most qualified people to perform the operation.

[QUOTE=download;50312270]I have no clue what point you're trying to get across there.[/QUOTE] You have reading trouble? He's saying "Australia probably has swat. Use swat, that's their job."

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;50312195]"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people," Not entirely applicable but still[/QUOTE] I'd consider a terrorist an enemy of the state

Of course ADF sources would say they would have done a better job than the NSW police. It's easy to stand at the sideline and say in hindsight 'nah we would have done it better'. I'm confident that the NSW police did a very fine job. It was a shame that the man and woman lost their lives, but it could have ended much, much worse.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50312254]I'm assuming Australia has some kind of SWAT which would almost certainly be better trained to handle these kinds of situations because that's kind of what they existed in the US for[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;6XA-nhBokOw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XA-nhBokOw[/video] That's basically what they had and it was kind of a clusterfuck

[QUOTE=Richoxen;50315836]You have reading trouble? He's saying "Australia probably has swat. Use swat, that's their job."[/QUOTE] Maybe he should write something then that wasn't a jumble of words.

Well with their new legislation in NSW don't they have the power to go in straight away instead of negotiation with the hostage taker? Biggest problem with the Sydney siege in my opinion was the police's lack of power.

[QUOTE=download;50316574]Maybe he should write something then that wasn't a jumble of words.[/QUOTE] It was pretty clear to me I don't know why it would be confusing

[QUOTE=StrykerE;50316272][video=youtube;6XA-nhBokOw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XA-nhBokOw[/video] That's basically what they had and it was kind of a clusterfuck[/QUOTE] They almost knocked over their own pointman. Also that rear guy had quite the issues with his grenade.