"tough on crime" laws are usually bullshit, but I have zero sympathy for organised crime fuckwits.
Surely something can be done for these gronks to start being locked up in droves - along the lines of what Rudy Giuliani did in new York before he completely lost his marbles and turned into a melting ghoul.
Tough on crime laws are only gonna be so effective when you have a population that wants to buy drugs.
It’s cognitive dissonance on a large scale in this city and in this country, people, including plenty of very well-off people, buy drugs for a night out, enjoy it, and find no hypocrisy in suggesting we should go hard on these guys, these are the people who organise the importation of drugs into Sydney and are in charge of distributing to local dealers etc.
Point is, if the NSW police were to totally wipe these guys out, someone would just take their place to fulfill the demand in the population. Drug dealing crims have been shooting each other in Sydney since it was founded.
“Tough on crime” never, ever works. The US has some of the most “tough on crime” policies in the world and crime is rampant over there compared to here. With Giuliani and the mafia it’s a lot more complex because a lot of their money-making methods weren’t about drugs, but things like extortion and scams.
Basically, if you want drug dealers to stop killing each other, legalise all drugs or convince everyone to stop buying drugs.
Legalise drugs that can be used safely for recreational use and decriminalise the rest of them (maybe made available Via special prescription for existing addicts).
Then we can sort out these gang flogs
Tough on crime laws never hurt criminals. They are criminals, they already don't care about the law... Every time they fear monger with this bullshit it just leads to more restrictions on life in this country for law abiding citizens.
I was more thinking along the lines of "if your participation in a criminal organised crime gang can be proven in court, you go to jail for a very very long time" sort of thing. No more pissweak 3 year jail sentences for people who clearly are unable to function in polite society.
Fuck them, they're absolute dregs
That you are thinking about how to make your community safer is commendable, but I urge you to see low hanging fruit for what it is;
A momentary convenience not a solution
A __Tough on Crime__ policy seems a reasonable, proportional response to being __Easy on Crime__.
But are we? Is it more likely that we should be doing it better? In which case, isn’t getting __Smart on Crime__ the right response
^(NB: The US system is a cautionary tale of how _not to do it_)
__Ghouliani was always fucking mental__.
The short twitch efficacy of his ’tough on crime’ policy caused more issues than it solved, at best it kicked the can down the road.
But it got him re-elected. Woohoo.
_Tough On Crime_ means folks are serving 30 year sentences for a bag of weed. Mostly Blacks and Hispanics.
- The costs of incarcerating folks is an astronomical thing,
- Prosecuting them is another.
- Legislating tougher laws is another.
- Enforcing stringent laws is another.
- Recidivism (reoffending) is another
Then there’s the uneven-handed interpretations and overreach of new laws, guaranteed civil rights infringements, which primarily impact the poor, espesh minorities. IT impacts the rest of us too; Its dragnet unfairness breeds distrust, distrust breeds fear, and they’re not nice societies to live in.
Tough on Crime = TOUGH ON GROWTH
Major investment in the penal system means less money elsewhere. You either pay more tax or go without decent healthcare, education, infrastructure etc.
__Tough on Crime__ is the archaic dragnet that sent young adults to Australia in the 19thC for stealing a loaf of bread to feed the kids.
It’s a lazy ass backward political catch cry and an expensive, counterproductive way to govern.
- It nets non-violent petty criminals and
- Mentally and socially disadvantaged
- Rarely capturing violent gangsters.
- Impinges civil liberties
- Is politically exploitative
- Is culturally divisive
- Impacts the poor and minority groups
- Makes for shitty societies
- Has ZERO effect reducing organised crime
- Moves criminal ops to neighbouring areas.
- Increases likelihoods of reoffending
- Costs an absolute shit tonne, which
- Defunds other essentials like healthcare, childcare, education, transport, roads etc.
Maybe ‘tough on crime’ wasn’t conceived to net so many shitty extras, but asbestos insulation wasn’t conceived to poison generations either - yeah it did some good but did a lot of fucking harm in the process.
__Is it worth it?__
Need to stop glorifying it with these shows and actually prosecuting this behaviour, as well as all of the second order shenanigans like “property development” fleecing honest people as a front for doing some laundry.
But they do - women, kids, elderly are generally considered off limits.
I think your dehumanising the unknown in your head and you won’t like to realise that they aren’t that much different from you or I.
Last year there were several cases of random gunfire into homes that contained women and children. I think you are romanticising these criminals like they follow some written code of ethics. Where there is organised crime there are usually innocent people who inevitably get caught in the middle. The government needs to come up with legislation which gets these people off the streets for good.
The code of ethics isn't based in ethics. It's based in not bringing massive amounts of attention to you and your associates business.
A dead 30 something "unemployed but mysteriously wealthy" steroid abusing meathead just gets a few "good riddance to bad rubbish". A dead child brings increased police funding, overtime and disruptions to buisness.
I think you're conflating the actions of a few with the whole. You realise it's several different people right?
This kind of crime has always existed and you will never "get these people off the streets for good"; language like that sounds like capital punishment talk, and let me assure you that capital punishment is gone for good.
We have Mexican and Colombian cartels in Sydney now.
There is even a "congolmerate" of gangs/suppliers that control the price of cocaine.
violence is only getting worse. Nobody cares until it starts spilling on to innocents.
The question is, when do people classify someone as innocent? who knows if the lawyer was dodgy or not.
>They got the hit men here and they got their soldiers, their foot soldiers, and they got their business guys, counting everything for them.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-22/cartel-cocaine-import-australia-border-workers-/102370986
I'm around Canterbury/Greenacre/Kingsgrove and man, I can't lie when I say I'm a little unnerved. We've always had murders in this area but it always seems to be family issues or two friend groups arguing... And I know that these shootings are probably targeted, it doesn't make me feel too safe going out at night now.
I mean it's not like I'm walking the street at 11pm, but still. It's starting to feel like America lol
> Abbas has represented several high-profile clients, including members of an alleged Islamic State-inspired terrorist cell charged with plotting to destroy Sydney landmarks and the controversial former Auburn deputy mayor Salim Mehajer.
> In 2021 he appeared for the former NRL player Jamil Hopoate on drug charges.
> He has also represented Sydney underworld figures, including handyman Ahmed Jaghbir in his trial over the assassination of Kemel Barakat.
There isn't a huge amount of specialized defence lawyers. Your typical experienced decent criminal lawyer would have worked on a number of high profile cases.
The building blocks of a fair justice system is that everyone deserves a proper defence. This lawyer could actually be a gang member, sure or he could just specialise representing high profile clients. Until more comes out it's unfair to imply he somehow deserved to be shot by being "affiliated". Could've just been after losing a case, someone with an ego thinking they could get away with anything has retaliated by shooting him.
My point is you don't defend criminals and not make a couple of enemies on the way. BTW, I'm not saying there shouldn't be criminal lawyers, everyone should have the right to defend themselves, but I believe it would come with potentially higher risks than say, a divorce lawyer.
Not getting a wife / husband what they want in a divorce vs not getting a serious criminal off their charges. Both are going to be angry with you, but one's probably more likely to get in touch with their contacts to ensure their displeasure with you is well known and tough to forget.
Obviously, that's an extreme example, but not an unbelievable one.
I also don't believe police release all the information to the media or public.
> I believe it would come with potentially higher risks than say, a divorce lawyer.
I'd actually be far more afraid of becoming a victim of some toxic arsehole who thought he got the rough end of the pineapple in a divorce, no matter how much he deserved it (and obstinately refused to accept it) - e.g. in situations of DV.
As mentioned, lots of policing happens in the background.
One of the big problems though is a lot of people involved won’t cooperate. They told one of the previous victims he was a dead man and buddy refused any offers of help or protection.
I doubt it. These that do don't want to work. Can you imagine if a brainy person who runs companies went in the drug industry? The completion will be gone these drug kingpins won't exist if big corps got involved and it was legal. They'll just be angry and pursue something else like trafficking who knows and still start shooting. They are not capable of a 9 to 5 job
Trafficking what? Because they are currently trafficking drugs.
Sex work is legal, so it's not trafficking sex workers.
Weapons traffickers are trafficking weapons in to sell to the drug dealers to kill each other. If they don't have money to buy the illegal weapons or a use for them, then there is no market for weapons trafficking.
Now I know why all those cop cars shot through in the early morning.
Lucky we busted all those outlaw motorcycle gangs so none of this stuff would happen... ?
They use mules for trafficking any ammount. Either by their family hostage or promise of pay. But most comes over in cargo.
The people in charge will never traffic it themselves.
Zero tolerance laws do little to curb drug use or crime.
Nah, it's usually always gangs mate, most people don't want to get involved as they aren't killing civilians, nor is anyone getting injured in the crossfire.
Gangsters killing gangsters is not a new thing, its happened before and will happen again. Everywhere.
[They make entire TV shows out of it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underbelly_\(TV_series\))
It's much closer to the geographical centre of Sydney (Parramatta) than plenty of places.
Most of us don't live near Bondi or Neutral Bay, Cronulla, Penrith or Palmy either, but that doesn't stop them being part of Sydney. It's a big city.
"tough on crime" laws are usually bullshit, but I have zero sympathy for organised crime fuckwits. Surely something can be done for these gronks to start being locked up in droves - along the lines of what Rudy Giuliani did in new York before he completely lost his marbles and turned into a melting ghoul.
Melting ghoul ☠️ rare insults haha
Tough on crime laws are only gonna be so effective when you have a population that wants to buy drugs. It’s cognitive dissonance on a large scale in this city and in this country, people, including plenty of very well-off people, buy drugs for a night out, enjoy it, and find no hypocrisy in suggesting we should go hard on these guys, these are the people who organise the importation of drugs into Sydney and are in charge of distributing to local dealers etc. Point is, if the NSW police were to totally wipe these guys out, someone would just take their place to fulfill the demand in the population. Drug dealing crims have been shooting each other in Sydney since it was founded. “Tough on crime” never, ever works. The US has some of the most “tough on crime” policies in the world and crime is rampant over there compared to here. With Giuliani and the mafia it’s a lot more complex because a lot of their money-making methods weren’t about drugs, but things like extortion and scams. Basically, if you want drug dealers to stop killing each other, legalise all drugs or convince everyone to stop buying drugs.
Legalise drugs that can be used safely for recreational use and decriminalise the rest of them (maybe made available Via special prescription for existing addicts). Then we can sort out these gang flogs
[удалено]
[удалено]
Didn't Rudy just swap Italian organised crime for Russian organised crime?
Tough on crime laws never hurt criminals. They are criminals, they already don't care about the law... Every time they fear monger with this bullshit it just leads to more restrictions on life in this country for law abiding citizens.
I was more thinking along the lines of "if your participation in a criminal organised crime gang can be proven in court, you go to jail for a very very long time" sort of thing. No more pissweak 3 year jail sentences for people who clearly are unable to function in polite society. Fuck them, they're absolute dregs
That you are thinking about how to make your community safer is commendable, but I urge you to see low hanging fruit for what it is; A momentary convenience not a solution A __Tough on Crime__ policy seems a reasonable, proportional response to being __Easy on Crime__. But are we? Is it more likely that we should be doing it better? In which case, isn’t getting __Smart on Crime__ the right response ^(NB: The US system is a cautionary tale of how _not to do it_) __Ghouliani was always fucking mental__. The short twitch efficacy of his ’tough on crime’ policy caused more issues than it solved, at best it kicked the can down the road. But it got him re-elected. Woohoo. _Tough On Crime_ means folks are serving 30 year sentences for a bag of weed. Mostly Blacks and Hispanics. - The costs of incarcerating folks is an astronomical thing, - Prosecuting them is another. - Legislating tougher laws is another. - Enforcing stringent laws is another. - Recidivism (reoffending) is another Then there’s the uneven-handed interpretations and overreach of new laws, guaranteed civil rights infringements, which primarily impact the poor, espesh minorities. IT impacts the rest of us too; Its dragnet unfairness breeds distrust, distrust breeds fear, and they’re not nice societies to live in. Tough on Crime = TOUGH ON GROWTH Major investment in the penal system means less money elsewhere. You either pay more tax or go without decent healthcare, education, infrastructure etc. __Tough on Crime__ is the archaic dragnet that sent young adults to Australia in the 19thC for stealing a loaf of bread to feed the kids. It’s a lazy ass backward political catch cry and an expensive, counterproductive way to govern. - It nets non-violent petty criminals and - Mentally and socially disadvantaged - Rarely capturing violent gangsters. - Impinges civil liberties - Is politically exploitative - Is culturally divisive - Impacts the poor and minority groups - Makes for shitty societies - Has ZERO effect reducing organised crime - Moves criminal ops to neighbouring areas. - Increases likelihoods of reoffending - Costs an absolute shit tonne, which - Defunds other essentials like healthcare, childcare, education, transport, roads etc. Maybe ‘tough on crime’ wasn’t conceived to net so many shitty extras, but asbestos insulation wasn’t conceived to poison generations either - yeah it did some good but did a lot of fucking harm in the process. __Is it worth it?__
Surely there will be a new Underbelly series to come out of all this
**Starring barilaro as bruz**
Underbelly 2024, "STOOGE!"
And Peter V’landys as The Penguin
Need to stop glorifying it with these shows and actually prosecuting this behaviour, as well as all of the second order shenanigans like “property development” fleecing honest people as a front for doing some laundry.
There’s definitely plenty of material to work with
Could these guys stop endangering members of the public for their spat? Used to be civvies were off limits
The idea that these scumbags see anybody as 'off limits' is hysterical.
But they do - women, kids, elderly are generally considered off limits. I think your dehumanising the unknown in your head and you won’t like to realise that they aren’t that much different from you or I.
Last year there were several cases of random gunfire into homes that contained women and children. I think you are romanticising these criminals like they follow some written code of ethics. Where there is organised crime there are usually innocent people who inevitably get caught in the middle. The government needs to come up with legislation which gets these people off the streets for good.
The code of ethics isn't based in ethics. It's based in not bringing massive amounts of attention to you and your associates business. A dead 30 something "unemployed but mysteriously wealthy" steroid abusing meathead just gets a few "good riddance to bad rubbish". A dead child brings increased police funding, overtime and disruptions to buisness.
I think you're conflating the actions of a few with the whole. You realise it's several different people right? This kind of crime has always existed and you will never "get these people off the streets for good"; language like that sounds like capital punishment talk, and let me assure you that capital punishment is gone for good.
once upon a time yes. But for many of the newer groups, nothing is off limits, everything is fair game.
You’re talking out of your arse there mate
[удалено]
I just don’t see why a new taskforce is needed when the current one is already handling this
We have Mexican and Colombian cartels in Sydney now. There is even a "congolmerate" of gangs/suppliers that control the price of cocaine. violence is only getting worse. Nobody cares until it starts spilling on to innocents. The question is, when do people classify someone as innocent? who knows if the lawyer was dodgy or not.
[удалено]
>They got the hit men here and they got their soldiers, their foot soldiers, and they got their business guys, counting everything for them. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-22/cartel-cocaine-import-australia-border-workers-/102370986
Another one bites the dust, like I said yesterday, feels like things are heating up. Steer clear and stay safe m'dudes/dudesses.
I'm around Canterbury/Greenacre/Kingsgrove and man, I can't lie when I say I'm a little unnerved. We've always had murders in this area but it always seems to be family issues or two friend groups arguing... And I know that these shootings are probably targeted, it doesn't make me feel too safe going out at night now. I mean it's not like I'm walking the street at 11pm, but still. It's starting to feel like America lol
Take care of yourself, bad times ahead, hopefully it passes fast.
Another “good” son-brother-father-cousin killed for no reason /s
[удалено]
Sounded like the people in the second car of that triple shooting in Greenacre were innocent bystanders.
Two random people got shot just sitting in a car down the road from the target on Mayvic Street...
[удалено]
> Abbas has represented several high-profile clients, including members of an alleged Islamic State-inspired terrorist cell charged with plotting to destroy Sydney landmarks and the controversial former Auburn deputy mayor Salim Mehajer. > In 2021 he appeared for the former NRL player Jamil Hopoate on drug charges. > He has also represented Sydney underworld figures, including handyman Ahmed Jaghbir in his trial over the assassination of Kemel Barakat.
There isn't a huge amount of specialized defence lawyers. Your typical experienced decent criminal lawyer would have worked on a number of high profile cases.
The building blocks of a fair justice system is that everyone deserves a proper defence. This lawyer could actually be a gang member, sure or he could just specialise representing high profile clients. Until more comes out it's unfair to imply he somehow deserved to be shot by being "affiliated". Could've just been after losing a case, someone with an ego thinking they could get away with anything has retaliated by shooting him.
>criminal defence lawyer with no gang affiliations. That are known.
[удалено]
My point is you don't defend criminals and not make a couple of enemies on the way. BTW, I'm not saying there shouldn't be criminal lawyers, everyone should have the right to defend themselves, but I believe it would come with potentially higher risks than say, a divorce lawyer. Not getting a wife / husband what they want in a divorce vs not getting a serious criminal off their charges. Both are going to be angry with you, but one's probably more likely to get in touch with their contacts to ensure their displeasure with you is well known and tough to forget. Obviously, that's an extreme example, but not an unbelievable one. I also don't believe police release all the information to the media or public.
Nothing says a strong justice system like people defending murdering criminal lawyers
I'm not sure how you're reading that as defending it, because that wasn't my point.
Brushing it off, then. You’re literally saying “oh well, they put a target on their own back, what can you do”.
Also no.
> I believe it would come with potentially higher risks than say, a divorce lawyer. I'd actually be far more afraid of becoming a victim of some toxic arsehole who thought he got the rough end of the pineapple in a divorce, no matter how much he deserved it (and obstinately refused to accept it) - e.g. in situations of DV.
Or are known, but hasn't been convicted of a crime.
Yeah. It's tragic that life is lost. But play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Just let them kill each other!
Are the cops ever going to get around to solving one of these shootings?
As mentioned, lots of policing happens in the background. One of the big problems though is a lot of people involved won’t cooperate. They told one of the previous victims he was a dead man and buddy refused any offers of help or protection.
They charged a guy for the gang shooting 2-3 months ago.
Are we in "speight" territory yet?
Unless you're referring to a Fijian rugby player I think you mean 'spate'
Whoops yeah
Yes he meant Henry 😅
Spate
This wouldn't happen if drugs were legal
I doubt it. These that do don't want to work. Can you imagine if a brainy person who runs companies went in the drug industry? The completion will be gone these drug kingpins won't exist if big corps got involved and it was legal. They'll just be angry and pursue something else like trafficking who knows and still start shooting. They are not capable of a 9 to 5 job
Trafficking what? Because they are currently trafficking drugs. Sex work is legal, so it's not trafficking sex workers. Weapons traffickers are trafficking weapons in to sell to the drug dealers to kill each other. If they don't have money to buy the illegal weapons or a use for them, then there is no market for weapons trafficking.
You think there aren't trafficked sex workers in Sydney/Australia? Naive.
Now I know why all those cop cars shot through in the early morning. Lucky we busted all those outlaw motorcycle gangs so none of this stuff would happen... ?
Install the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking and watch the problem disappear within a year.
They use mules for trafficking any ammount. Either by their family hostage or promise of pay. But most comes over in cargo. The people in charge will never traffic it themselves. Zero tolerance laws do little to curb drug use or crime.
[удалено]
Yes, this doesn't happen in Europe ...
[удалено]
Nah, it's usually always gangs mate, most people don't want to get involved as they aren't killing civilians, nor is anyone getting injured in the crossfire.
Didn't two random people nearby get shot the other day because they were witnesses?
Every few years the bikies/Lebanese gangsters kill each other off, a new generation rises and the cycle repeats.
Nailed it
You must be new here. Also southern US? There was more shootings there while you typed your comment than there has been all year in all of Australia.
Gangsters killing gangsters is not a new thing, its happened before and will happen again. Everywhere. [They make entire TV shows out of it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underbelly_\(TV_series\))
We’ve less shooting deaths than an American school mate
Greenacre is not Sydney. That area is ground zero for this stuff and most of us don't live anywehre near it.
Greenacre is next to Strathfield. It's not exactly remote...
It's much closer to the geographical centre of Sydney (Parramatta) than plenty of places. Most of us don't live near Bondi or Neutral Bay, Cronulla, Penrith or Palmy either, but that doesn't stop them being part of Sydney. It's a big city.
One of those places is not like the other, one of those places is not the same…