Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

NSW First arrest under new bikie laws

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by evelknievel75, Apr 4, 2009.

  1. when i first heard this on the news yesterday i thought this was absolute bullshit, another arrest like the Haneef one where they held the guy for no reason at all but in evidence according to police the guy was carrying a loaded .45 calibre handgun stuffed down his pants at time of being pulled over


    more on this story tonight on Ch 2 news said a search of his unit allegedly recovered a pump shotgun, 2 litres of GBH, ammo and more illegal paraphernalia.

    an amusing aside actually stated the man had his licence disqualified but should not have been riding such a powerful harley, as he was only on his L's ( no joke here but :LOL: all the same ).

    what i want to know is, why were these draconian laws needed to be tested, legislated in the first place, to pull over a full colours wearing bikie :roll: :?:

    it's not rocket science really.....still extremely concerned about them and their potential abuse
  2. more bleeding heart 'let's protect criminals' garbage..... :roll:

    If you need to ask the question, you already know the answer

    The possible abuse of the laws pales into insignificance against the abuse of persons and property being carried out by their targets.
  3. hornet i've been pretty consistent in saying i have no problems with these "outlaws" shooting, bombing, fighting each other out of existence ( hell, they can even use the school oval near where i live, 3.15pm next wednesday, chains, bats and fence posts allowed ) but i refuse to support any legislation that can be so arbitrarily used and yes, abused on anyone.

    haneef was held by ruddock who would not piss or get off the pot after two weeks of holding the guy, after being told within 3 days that there was nothing he had done. love those terror laws don't you. suspend the right of habeas corpus, mmmmm, only about 500 yrs of law history there.....

    christ, do i have to recite the litany of corruption amongst NSW police to you ( if you don't remember ) over the last 50 years? trevor haken et al wasn't too long ago, maybe you were too young then, i don't know.

    but these "laws" are not needed to sort this out. hell, you could say anything state labor legislates is pretty much guaranteed to be f-cked up or wrong just on general principle.
  4. I turned 60 last week, so I probably remember (and through family contacts in the Police Force) know more about what used to happen, than you do.

    My beef is with the attitude that these secretive colonies of law-breakers should be afforded the protection from laws which they daily hold in contempt.

    My observationis that the straw-man of 'these laws might be used against innocent citizens' is just that. The lawyer for the crims who committed the murder at Mascot is whining that they are being held 'while the Police gather evidence'. Well, d'uh, when has that NOT been the case?????
  5. They recovered 2 litres of Grievous Bodily Harm?

    Lucky it wasn't drugs eh?
  6. What about when it spills over and affects the innocent? Or when they set out to terrorize as in the bombings in WA? It seems to be the same argument as yours. It is all well and good to turn a blind eye to one thing but history dictates that these people will have an affect on the community around, whether it be due to drugs, assassination of senior police and other prominent people, or innocent civilians caught in the cross fire (whether actually injured or witnessing the violence such as at Sydney airport).
  7. So, by my reckoning, this bloke was breaking about eleventy-billion existing laws and statutes.

    Explain to me again why the authorities need the new laws unless they are too incompetent to be trusted with handing out parking fines, let alone catching criminals.
  8. And tell me Paul, why are these laws needed? None of the offences for which this man has been alleged to have carried out are part of the freedom of association laws. Yet they are being cited (in the media) as the first use of them. Carrying a gun, possession of drugs were illegal prior to today. Police have only to suspect that someone is carrying these substances to be allowed to stop them. But, because we are surrounded by the 'think of the children' mentality, your right (yes, you, because we this law can be applied to any group) to associate with whoever you want to are to be severely curtailed.

    Today you are safe. Tomorrow, with a new government, a new police chief, a small change to the law and you're affected.

    Why isn't your outrage levelled against the criminal incompetence of a system that allowed a man to be beaten to death, over several minutes, in full view of CCTV (that is alleged to not work) in the largest domestic airport terminal in Australia. And then, these criminals escape in a taxi?

    How incompetent can any government or law enforcement agency be? To allow a brutal attack to take place in a supposed high security area, somewhere where you're not allowed to take a fork, more than 100ml of fluid, but where smashing a mans head in with a metal bollard in the check in area doesn't result in any police response until several minutes after the suspects have left the area.

    And the police and government response to such an outrage? To change the law, with no debate, no overview, no second chance to make sure we're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A state opposition, as pathetic as the government, all desperate to prove to ACA, TT and the Telly that they are tough on bikies.

    I will never forget the sight of the NSW finest arresting the father, out with his son, during the G20, when he didn't cross the road when they told him to. Gross abuse of power and of force.

    And how good were the police? They were so incompetent that they didn't stop the Chaser team from making absolute fools of them. The police response? Not to question their own abilities, but to threaten Chaser with criminal charges. Pathetic.

    I have a huge amount of respect for the police, the ones who do the job because they want to make a difference. But from what I've seen, from what's happened in QLD, NSW and now Victoria, they are riddled with corruption and not beyond outright criminality.

    If I had faith that they wouldn't and couldn't abuse their powers, I'd feel a whole lot safer, but time and time again they reinforce my concerns with their activities.

    I am sure, that if we had a decent media, something that went beyond the drivel that ACA and TT report and the population were aware of what they were giving up, there'd be much less support for these draconian laws. As it is, the media is compliant and complicit and as guilty as the pollies for these continuing knee jerk responses.
  9. hornet, i happen to know someone who quite senior in ICAC who worked against the police for many years successfully and was part of bringing down a lot of those so called honest cops. ( maybe my friend knows some of the people you know, 6 degrees and all )

    so before we get into a "my e-dick is bigger than yours" contest lets just face facts. you don't need these laws to prosecute these scumbags.

    as for the attitude these "secretive colonies of law-breakers should be afforded the protection from laws which they daily hold in contempt", shit 95% of the people on hear bow down to them when a couple log-on and post here ( without proving who they are ). what examples can you cite about protection from any laws they break? i'd say the arrest of any OMG member for breaking any law at the moment would be high up on Scipione's memo to the force at the moment.....

    my point is, and it answers Days point about innocent people being affected also, is that these laws are not needed to prosecute anyone who is or has been harmed illegally by any OMG member......they aint exactly low profile people and this is knee jerk populism of a soon to be booted govt...

    those at the syd airport thing are being held because yes, the govt did "show the body", ( pun intended )
  10. Agree with you there. I don't see the need for the new laws. My contention is that to say that they will be used against innocent people and then turn around and make out that the OMCG's are only hurting themselves, makes me raise an eye brow. Fairness across the board.
  11. Every single day OMC members break road laws, not to mention the corruption of the RTA in allowing their unroadworthy machines to be registered, and they are NEVER booked, RBT'd, or subject to the normal level of scrutiny to which us law-abiding riders are subject. Any reason why?

    For whatever reason, the Police are scared of them, OR have connections with them and don't want to upset their mates.
  12. I see we are on the same wave length then. I posted my last post before I had seen this. Cheers.
  13. I agree that existing laws are adequate, see above, but as I have already stated, the 'they might be used against innocent citizens' is a straw-man, and not really part of a rational discussion. ANY law could be used against innocent citizens; we have higher authorities, and the courts to safeguard us against this happening.
  14. or maybe cos ur 60 you have old man syndrome.
  15. which is?

    being old means that you have more to remember, not more to forget
  16. Really?

    In one breath you state that either the police, the RTA or others are in cahoots with the OM gangs. Then you state that we have higher authorities to prevent abuse. But a judge can only act on the evidence provided to them. If the evidence is tainted or just plain wrong, how do you correct that?

    There are high profile cases every year where a serious miscarriage of justice is uncovered. And each time we only get to hear about it because someone pursues it relentlessly. How many people are sitting in jail today for a crime they didn't commit, but that isn't high profile enough to attract the attention of a seriously good lawyer?

    If the laws are not required, why create them?

    I can foresee many instances where these laws can be easily abused. Animal rights for instance? What about the people who were vocal (and borderline criminal) about the immigrant detention laws? These laws, if we believe Rees, were developed in response to the airport and recent gun attacks. So, by definition, they were hastily created. Laws made in haste are bad laws. And a state opposition that has rubber stamped them means that there is almost no review.
  17. When the nation that is supposed to be going to be our financial saviour (China) routinely murders its own citizens for the simple 'crime' of being Christians, I think our concerns about our elected governments pale into insignficance by comparison.
  18. WTF has that got to do with anything Paul?

    Talking about strawman arguments, that takes the biscuit.

  19. Want to cite some neutral evidence?
    There are millions of Christian Chinese in China, that must mean those millions are doomed.
  20. WTF has China got to do with bikies?

    Cejay i agree with everything you posted...people break laws so we make more laws...erm hello dickhead they break existing ones or the police do not enforce them...how are new laws going to help exactly?

    It's about time Police did police work...it's seems the only police I see these days are parked on the side of the road with a radar gun or talking shit on TV about the road toll...

    Poor old bikies, in the knucklehead publics opinion they are almost as disgusting as baby killer speeding motorists who don't wipe off 5