New Zealand - Christchurch Mosque shooting, dead & injured reported, 15 March 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would a mass murderer have an opportunity to cross-examine people who are related to the victims? Witnesses who were at the Mosque could testify, but would people related to victims would have anything to contribute to the evidence?

Anyone who testifies at a trial can be cross-examined. The accused no longer has a lawyer and is planning to represent himself. If relatives of the victims were present inside or outside the mosques and testify as to what they witnessed or heard, the accused is entitled to cross-examine them. He has the right to challenge anything they say.
 
Far-right extremists were on the intelligence radar and tip-offs about their activity had been followed up ahead of the Christchurch mosque attack, according to the Government and intelligence bosses.

The minister responsible for intelligence agencies, Andrew Little, said the SIS [Security Intelligence Service] commissioned its own internal review into the far right about nine months ago.

It was in response to the "obvious rise" of white supremacism, and other far right activity around the world, he said.

"The rise of white supremacism had become apparent in the arrests in Europe and other parts of the word and it was at that point the SIS undertook its programme of work to consider how they had to gear up to deal with that issue."

He said the Government has announced a review into the Christchurch mosques massacre and it could be followed by Royal Commission of inquiry.

Far-right extremists were on the Government's radar before mosque attack
 
Anyone who testifies at a trial can be cross-examined. The accused no longer has a lawyer and is planning to represent himself. If relatives of the victims were present inside or outside the mosques and testify as to what they witnessed or heard, the accused is entitled to cross-examine them. He has the right to challenge anything they say.

Of course. That's what I said. Witnesses to the mass shooting may be asked to testify, and they may be related to victims, but, in general, family of victims will not testify.
 
Far-right extremists were on the intelligence radar and tip-offs about their activity had been followed up ahead of the Christchurch mosque attack, according to the Government and intelligence bosses.

The minister responsible for intelligence agencies, Andrew Little, said the SIS [Security Intelligence Service] commissioned its own internal review into the far right about nine months ago.

It was in response to the "obvious rise" of white supremacism, and other far right activity around the world, he said.

"The rise of white supremacism had become apparent in the arrests in Europe and other parts of the word and it was at that point the SIS undertook its programme of work to consider how they had to gear up to deal with that issue."

He said the Government has announced a review into the Christchurch mosques massacre and it could be followed by Royal Commission of inquiry.

Far-right extremists were on the Government's radar before mosque attack

The only person who wants to connect the mass murder to race is the suspect, and the less attention given to his ridiculous words, the less credibility he has.

Common sense indicates that this mass murder was related to religion. He killed praying people in a religious building. The people who were praying are considered to be Caucasian. It's a bit absurd to accept his stupid ideas and view the killing of praying Caucasians as a race thing.
 
Anyone who testifies at a trial can be cross-examined. The accused no longer has a lawyer and is planning to represent himself. If relatives of the victims were present inside or outside the mosques and testify as to what they witnessed or heard, the accused is entitled to cross-examine them. He has the right to challenge anything they say.

I suspect prosecution will run a stripped down trial - I think we have already seen signs of that with only one representative murder charge to date

IMO they are going to hit him with 50 murders and likely ask for consecutive sentences, but have the bare minimum of evidence

After all, they have him on video doing a lot of murders so a skeleton crew of witnesses will be sufficient.
 
I suspect prosecution will run a stripped down trial - I think we have already seen signs of that with only one representative murder charge to date

IMO they are going to hit him with 50 murders and likely ask for consecutive sentences, but have the bare minimum of evidence

After all, they have him on video doing a lot of murders so a skeleton crew of witnesses will be sufficient.

The defence can call any witness they like, so it will come down to whether the suspect is charged with terrorism or murder. If the charges are murder, then the suspect is limited in his grandstanding with distorted opinions.
 
Why is that odd? Why should it raise a red flag?

Huge numbers of people have moved between our two countries.

At present over 49,00 Aussies live in NZ and over 500,00 Kiwis live in Oz.


Thought NZ was it’s own country.

If I move from one state to another I have to change addy/drivers license, can’t just move anonymously.

Living in NZ for 2 years seems he would be a NZ residence.
 
His name shouldn't be mentioned, his face seen or his voice heard. Take all that away from him and he's left spending his life in prison and no-one cares.
I have very mixed feelings about this issue. I do agree that many of these murderers do seek notoriety and should not get it. Yet I also have the feeling (maybe rare, maybe not) that if one of my friends or relations died in such an attack, I would actually want the killer's name and image plastered about so that the populace could join me in despising him, as the individual who did this atrocity. I would get a bit of satisfaction of having this individual called a monster by others instead of just a "26 year-old male" or other generic description. This is just my view, and as I stated, I have mixed feelings.
 
Candace Owens reacts after name mentioned is New Zealand mosque shooter's alleged manifesto

“FACT: I’ve never created any content espousing my views on the 2nd Amendment or Islam,” Owens wrote.

“The Left pretending I inspired a mosque massacre in...New Zealand because I believe black America can do it without government hand outs is the reachiest reach of all reaches!

Owens added: “To be clear: We played the ‘Candace is Hitler’ game. We played the ‘Candace is anti-rape victims’ game. If the media attempts this ‘Candace inspired a mosque shooting in New Zealand’ bit—they better all lawyer the f*ck up. I will go full Covington Catholic lawsuit. Try me.”
 
Thought NZ was it’s own country.

If I move from one state to another I have to change addy/drivers license, can’t just move anonymously.

Living in NZ for 2 years seems he would be a NZ residence.

He did have a NZ residence.

Australians and NZers have special rights to move between the two countries.

As a kiwi I can go to Australia tomorrow to live if I want to. Yes I would need to get a tax number and ultimately change my drivers license etc. None of these things will attract scrutiny provided i am not a criminal and not on any watch lists
 
I suspect prosecution will run a stripped down trial - I think we have already seen signs of that with only one representative murder charge to date

IMO they are going to hit him with 50 murders and likely ask for consecutive sentences, but have the bare minimum of evidence

After all, they have him on video doing a lot of murders so a skeleton crew of witnesses will be sufficient.

The man charged over the Christchurch mosque shootings faces an unprecedented prison term if found guilty, a veteran criminal defence barrister says. [The shooter] faced one murder charge, but police say more are likely.

Belinda Sellars QC, who specialises in murder cases, said the offender was likely to face an "extraordinary" minimum non-parole term if found guilty of the shooting - given the number of casualties was far in excess of previous mass-murder cases.

Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge said it would be risky for the Crown to attempt to use terrorism laws to try the man, and he would instead expect them to pursue multiple murder charges against the accused.

Hodge said the standard approach was to use a 'holding' charge while the case was investigated, which would be why the shooter has been initially charged with a single count of murder despite 50 people now being declared dead after the shootings.

What sentence the shooter could expect if found guilty will raise legal questions.

New Zealand judges rarely sentence people who have committed multiple offences to serve their sentences consecutively. Instead, they serve them concurrently.

The longest sentence given to a multiple murderer in modern times was the 30-year non-parole term given to William Bell, who killed three people and left another close to death in a gun attack at the Mt Wellington-Panmure RSA in 2001. Bell's non-parole term expires in 2033, when he will be 55 years old.

"On the magnitude of this, you would basically say it is only going to be far more than anything we've ever seen before."

Sellars said given the lack of comparative trials here, the judiciary might look to Australia or the UK for similar cases for sentencing comparisons.

Hodge agreed, saying: "You would say this is worse than William Bell, who got 30 years."

Christchurch shooter faces 'extraordinary' jail sentence
 
Also Candace Owens


If you are invoking Hitler to defend nationalism you can't clutch our pearls when you get name checked by whackjobs

"Hitler had some good points" is a key cray hole for internet nazis and holocaust deniers.

Rule 1 - don't talk about hitler, mussolini etc to advance your ideas
Don't twist words - she didn't say "Hitler had some good points".

She doesn't have a problem with nationalism, its globalism that she doesn't like. A lot of people feel that way. IMO

ETA - Just another way words get twisted to support an agenda. IMO
 
Last edited:
The man charged over the Christchurch mosque shootings faces an unprecedented prison term if found guilty, a veteran criminal defence barrister says. [The shooter] faced one murder charge, but police say more are likely.

Belinda Sellars QC, who specialises in murder cases, said the offender was likely to face an "extraordinary" minimum non-parole term if found guilty of the shooting - given the number of casualties was far in excess of previous mass-murder cases.

Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge said it would be risky for the Crown to attempt to use terrorism laws to try the man, and he would instead expect them to pursue multiple murder charges against the accused.

Hodge said the standard approach was to use a 'holding' charge while the case was investigated, which would be why the shooter has been initially charged with a single count of murder despite 50 people now being declared dead after the shootings.

What sentence the shooter could expect if found guilty will raise legal questions.

New Zealand judges rarely sentence people who have committed multiple offences to serve their sentences consecutively. Instead, they serve them concurrently.

The longest sentence given to a multiple murderer in modern times was the 30-year non-parole term given to William Bell, who killed three people and left another close to death in a gun attack at the Mt Wellington-Panmure RSA in 2001. Bell's non-parole term expires in 2033, when he will be 55 years old.

"On the magnitude of this, you would basically say it is only going to be far more than anything we've ever seen before."

Sellars said given the lack of comparative trials here, the judiciary might look to Australia or the UK for similar cases for sentencing comparisons.

Hodge agreed, saying: "You would say this is worse than William Bell, who got 30 years."

Christchurch shooter faces 'extraordinary' jail sentence

Nice find.

Either way, concurrent or non parole - he is going down for life.

3 murders attracted 30 years.

50 is off the charts
 
Candace Owens reacts after name mentioned is New Zealand mosque shooter's alleged manifesto

“FACT: I’ve never created any content espousing my views on the 2nd Amendment or Islam,” Owens wrote.

“The Left pretending I inspired a mosque massacre in...New Zealand because I believe black America can do it without government hand outs is the reachiest reach of all reaches!

Owens added: “To be clear: We played the ‘Candace is Hitler’ game. We played the ‘Candace is anti-rape victims’ game. If the media attempts this ‘Candace inspired a mosque shooting in New Zealand’ bit—they better all lawyer the f*ck up. I will go full Covington Catholic lawsuit. Try me.”

LOL, I ❤️❤️❤️ her.
 
The defence can call any witness they like, so it will come down to whether the suspect is charged with terrorism or murder. If the charges are murder, then the suspect is limited in his grandstanding with distorted opinions.
I agree with this. In this case, the government would probably be better off to forget the terrorism angle and just go with murder. I know there will be tremendous pressure to go with terrorism, but it really only helps to serve the defendant's goals.
 
Also Candace Owens


If you are invoking Hitler to defend nationalism you can't clutch our pearls when you get name checked by whackjobs

"Hitler had some good points" is a key cray hole for internet nazis and holocaust deniers.

Rule 1 - don't talk about hitler, mussolini etc to advance your ideas
How many times are you going to post this? It is not relevant to this discussion. Lets stay focused on this particular crime.
 
I'm surprised that terrorists like Tarrant or today's tram shooter in Utrecht think their actions will impress anyone. They enter a closed space with violent weapons and shoot people who have no where to run. It's nothing more than shooting fish in a barrel. They're mama's boys who are terrified of a fair fight.

They’re cowards.
 
Nice find.

Either way, concurrent or non parole - he is going down for life.

3 murders attracted 30 years.

50 is off the charts

If they look to Oz, we have a small number of prisoners in super max prisons who have been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. There are less than 15 of the approximate 1,019 prisoners currently serving life sentences who have had the penalty imposed on them.

The harshest sentences ever handed down in Australia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
77
Guests online
2,454
Total visitors
2,531

Forum statistics

Threads
590,013
Messages
17,928,989
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top