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

Originally Posted by stretch

The guy is a nutter, and may very well NOT be fit and proper, but I can't find any reference to any threat of lethal force. He called people terrorists.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Yup. Trying to find out what the lethal threat he was supposed to have made as well. If calling people terrorists is all he did then he has a case.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

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.

Has his fal been revoked or suspended. The issue is i think he has concealed those firearms and undoubtedly still has access to them which now constitutes a clear criminal offence if he accesses them.
He has the right to have the suspension reviewed and I hope he does but from the video and a quick look at his fb page he doesn't exactly fit the definition of fit and proper in my mind. Perhaps a test case to set parameters for that definition is a good idea.

Originally Posted by R93

Yup. Trying to find out what the lethal threat he was supposed to have made as well. If calling people terrorists is all he did then he has a case.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Other people have talked about shooting helicopters etc. I hope he hasn't encouraged or endorsed such hypotheticals.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Hmmmm. Odd.

I sent an email to my AO about someone who has lost their driving licence multiple times, including doing a runner and having a police chase. Has been on home detention multiple times. Loosing drivers licence once or being sentenced to Home detention once is not a huge issue depending on what they did. But Multiple times of both already shows to me they are not "Fit and proper"
And they have multiple threats against 1080 supporters and the police including
"If there was a reward for 1080 droppers ears like there used to be for animals i will be out hunting all day"
Talking about police "I wanta (sic) shoot one and watch everyone not give a fuck, lets call it pig hunting"
And generic ramblings that makes me think they are an unstable person..


......They still have their FAL

Originally Posted by Nugget connaisseur

Hmmmm. Odd.

I sent an email to my AO about someone who has lost their driving licence multiple times, including doing a runner and having a police chase. Has been on home detention multiple times. Loosing drivers licence once or being sentenced to Home detention once is not a huge issue depending on what they did. But Multiple times of both already shows to me they are not "Fit and proper"
And they have multiple threats against 1080 supporters and the police including
"If there was a reward for 1080 droppers ears like there used to be for animals i will be out hunting all day"
Talking about police "I wanta (sic) shoot one and watch everyone not give a fuck, lets call it pig hunting"
And generic ramblings that makes me think they are an unstable person..


......They still have their FAL

Unreal

Originally Posted by stretch

Other people have talked about shooting helicopters etc. I hope he hasn't encouraged or endorsed such hypotheticals.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

That’s been said to me, I don’t see the guy as, not fit and proper! Just stating what may happen?

Originally Posted by Tommy

Unreal

Yup...and as far as im aware they have not even had a chat to them about it either. I would expect that at a minimum.

Originally Posted by Maca49

Does she alone have the right to do this? Or would there be consultation? That’s a lot of power to one person?

When things like rank once concerned me, an Inspector meant Captain. Below senior management by a fair bit. Correct?

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.

I would hope the perceived bias is not a factor?

Sounds like a witch hunt to me....councilor has a word in the cops ear to make life difficult for this guy and here we are.
As far as I can see he has done nothing wrong but legal protest and no threatening action at all?

In the context of recent threats to DOC staff and potentially dangerous incidents this guy loosing his FAL is the only response the police could reasonably take. One gunshot in the vicinity of DOC workers on the Coast and the police would be facing ranting journalists forcing them to explain why any anti-1080 protester still has a FAL. If tensions were not already so high it could be handled differently, but not in this context.

What happened to the guy that assaulted Scribe? Or did that not happen?

Originally Posted by Ben Waimata

In the context of recent threats to DOC staff and potentially dangerous incidents this guy loosing his FAL is the only response the police could reasonably take. One gunshot in the vicinity of DOC workers on the Coast and the police would be facing ranting journalists forcing them to explain why any anti-1080 protester still has a FAL. If tensions were not already so high it could be handled differently, but not in this context.

Citation please!

Where? When? and exactly what was the threat you are accusing this man of?