Thread: Anti-1080 protester has firearms licence revoked after delivering threatening letter

Originally Posted by Cordite

Examine the logic:

He says,

"We believe that your terrorist actions are torturing and offering undue acts of cruelty to non-targeted species ... you have poisoned our children's future and as such we wish you to cease and desist,"

Cop says,

"You ... indirectly threatened the [council] employees with lethal force in relation to their support or stance towards 1080 drops, citing said employees to be deemed as terrorists,"

When you step in one and it smells like one, you're dealing with a genuine non sequitur. It genuinely terrorises me when someone in power use arbitrary logic like this and I hope the courts will agree. I can only wonder what pressure Mel Aitken is under to screw about with reason in that way - if that is so, it will not be pressure from any true friend of hers.

Bottom line is, animal cruelty is animal cruelty - but people do not like being told to their face that they're cruel and wrong and find this very threatening. After all, who does he think he is to challenge our groupthink morals??? We are 'only following orders' and so deserve that police will go and construct allegations against someone who dares to confront us about our willing compliance.

As with ALL Stuff articles, not all the truth will be there. The use of the word Terrorist will grab headlines and is there for click bait. The actual threats may not have been published for any number of reasons, but the main one I can think of is that it would be detrimental to the story which is to encourage the conflict.

Or it may not have been published if there is a genuine belief that someone will try to commit the act. Either way I trust Stuff about as much as I trust twigs and tweets to tell the truth. Remember that their motto is Never let the facts get in the way of a good headline....

Personally, if the police have seen fit to follow through with this, I would like to believe there is more to it than a simple reference to terrorism in a letter. That term does not by itself equate to a threat of lethal force so one must conclude that there had to be an actual threat of some sort within the unpublished part of the letter.