The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank????

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driveby-shooting-prank-is-cousin-20160226-gn4zxn.html

Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens.

...that's not free speech.

  Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers

Swagman wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 12:59am:

...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers

It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 1:13am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression.

..so ringing triple 0 as a prank, is artistic expression in your book?   :-?

Swagman wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 1:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. ..so ringing triple 0 as a prank, is artistic expression in your book?   :-?

Making a false call to 000 is an offence in NSW.. and rightly so.

Swagman wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 1:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. ..so ringing triple 0 as a prank, is artistic expression in your book?   :-?

is it ringing triple 0 or pretending to ring triple 0 but actually ringing a staged triple 0, for the purposes of artistic expression?

Get off it swag - for a guy who claims to want small government you are happy to see government interfere in absolutely ridiculous areas.  Such as charging kids for making a youtube video.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 1:13am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression.

Nothing artistic about scaring people about a terrorist attack. Not these days. They aren't to know it's fake. Throw the book at the wenkers.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 2:51am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:24am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. ..so ringing triple 0 as a prank, is artistic expression in your book?   :-? is it ringing triple 0 or pretending to ring triple 0 but actually ringing a staged triple 0, for the purposes of artistic expression? Get off it swag - for a guy who claims to want small government you are happy to see government interfere in absolutely ridiculous areas.  Such as charging kids for making a youtube video.

You miss the point. What if Police had driven past and seen them doing that? They could've been shot dead. Not to mention how traumatised members of the public can be by such an idiotic prank.

By the way, fake 000 calls are illegal, as are fake guns like that which is shown in their moronic videos.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:22am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. Nothing artistic about scaring people about a terrorist attack. Not these days. They aren't to know it's fake. Throw the book at the wenkers.

https://youtu.be/fhX0kPTJdTg

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:22am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. Nothing artistic about scaring people about a terrorist attack. Not these days. They aren't to know it's fake. Throw the book at the wenkers.

Do you read? It was allllll staged.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:25am:

By the way, fake 000 calls are illegal, as are fake guns like that which is shown in their moronic videos.

No.  Fake 000 calls to 000 are unlawful.  Fake 000 calls to a pretend 000 are perfectly fine. 

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:23am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 2:51am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:24am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. ..so ringing triple 0 as a prank, is artistic expression in your book?   :-? is it ringing triple 0 or pretending to ring triple 0 but actually ringing a staged triple 0, for the purposes of artistic expression? Get off it swag - for a guy who claims to want small government you are happy to see government interfere in absolutely ridiculous areas.  Such as charging kids for making a youtube video. You miss the point. What if Police had driven past and seen them doing that? They could've been shot dead. Not to mention how traumatised members of the public can be by such an idiotic prank.

If the police saw them and decided to shoot instead of restrain then it would be murder.  And again, no trauma - it was all stAgggged.  Plus why do you care about trauma? You're one of those "ooooh racism is so pc today".  You know how many people are left traumatised be caused of racism?  Be consistent!!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:28am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:22am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. Nothing artistic about scaring people about a terrorist attack. Not these days. They aren't to know it's fake. Throw the book at the wenkers. Do you read? It was allllll staged.

How were members of the public witnessing this to have known that? How would Police driving by know that? Gawd, you're starting to come across as dumber than GW, and that's something!!!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:31am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:23am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 2:51am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:24am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. ..so ringing triple 0 as a prank, is artistic expression in your book?   :-? is it ringing triple 0 or pretending to ring triple 0 but actually ringing a staged triple 0, for the purposes of artistic expression? Get off it swag - for a guy who claims to want small government you are happy to see government interfere in absolutely ridiculous areas.  Such as charging kids for making a youtube video. You miss the point. What if Police had driven past and seen them doing that? They could've been shot dead. Not to mention how traumatised members of the public can be by such an idiotic prank. If the police saw them and decided to shoot instead of restrain then it would be murder.  And again, no trauma - it was all stAgggged.  Plus why do you care about trauma? You're one of those "ooooh racism is so pc today".  You know how many people are left traumatised be caused of racism?  Be consistent!!

Wow, you're simply not making any sense now. I'll leave you to finish your bottle.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:33am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:28am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:22am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. Nothing artistic about scaring people about a terrorist attack. Not these days. They aren't to know it's fake. Throw the book at the wenkers. Do you read? It was allllll staged. How were members of the public witnessing this to have known that? How would Police driving by know that? Gawd, you're starting to come across as dumber than GW, and that's something!!!

Police driving by can stop and ask. If they shoot then ask it's murder.  As for bystanders, what bystanders? It's clear in the videos the kids did the artistic expressions on empty streets.

You are such a fcken idiot seriously.  Terrorism has you so scared you are okay with police trying to control the masses to such an extent it is obvious that freedom of speech has been suppressed.  You're one of those useful 1di0ts used by dictators to keep power over people.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:34am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:31am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:23am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 2:51am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:24am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. ..so ringing triple 0 as a prank, is artistic expression in your book?   :-? is it ringing triple 0 or pretending to ring triple 0 but actually ringing a staged triple 0, for the purposes of artistic expression? Get off it swag - for a guy who claims to want small government you are happy to see government interfere in absolutely ridiculous areas.  Such as charging kids for making a youtube video. You miss the point. What if Police had driven past and seen them doing that? They could've been shot dead. Not to mention how traumatised members of the public can be by such an idiotic prank. If the police saw them and decided to shoot instead of restrain then it would be murder.  And again, no trauma - it was all stAgggged.  Plus why do you care about trauma? You're one of those "ooooh racism is so pc today".  You know how many people are left traumatised be caused of racism?  Be consistent!! Wow, you're simply not making any sense now. I'll leave you to finish your bottle.

Did you support the proposed abolition of the racial discrimination act?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:36am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:33am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:28am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:22am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. Nothing artistic about scaring people about a terrorist attack. Not these days. They aren't to know it's fake. Throw the book at the wenkers. Do you read? It was allllll staged. How were members of the public witnessing this to have known that? How would Police driving by know that? Gawd, you're starting to come across as dumber than GW, and that's something!!! Police driving by can stop and ask. If they shoot then ask it's murder.  As for bystanders, what bystanders? It's clear in the videos the kids did the artistic expressions on empty streets. You are such a fcken nice person seriously.  Terrorism has you so scared you are okay with police trying to control the masses to such an extent it is obvious that freedom of speech has been suppressed.  You're one of those useful 1di0ts used by dictators to keep power over people.

Police: "Um, excuse us but are you real terrorists or is this fake?"

Terrorists: "Er, this is fake!"

Fifteen minutes later they blow a hole in parliament house.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:44am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:36am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:33am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:28am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:22am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. Nothing artistic about scaring people about a terrorist attack. Not these days. They aren't to know it's fake. Throw the book at the wenkers. Do you read? It was allllll staged. How were members of the public witnessing this to have known that? How would Police driving by know that? Gawd, you're starting to come across as dumber than GW, and that's something!!! Police driving by can stop and ask. If they shoot then ask it's murder.  As for bystanders, what bystanders? It's clear in the videos the kids did the artistic expressions on empty streets. You are such a fcken nice person seriously.  Terrorism has you so scared you are okay with police trying to control the masses to such an extent it is obvious that freedom of speech has been suppressed.  You're one of those useful 1di0ts used by dictators to keep power over people. Police: "Um, excuse us but are you real terrorists or is this fake?" Terrorists: "Er, this is fake!" Fifteen minutes later they blow a hole in parliament house.

So police should never ascertain a situation and shoot first? You're such a tool!!!!

To what extent was it staged? Are we talking a movie set here?

If you are waving a gun around in an apparent committal of a crime, and point it at a police officer who stumbles across your idiocy, you are going to get shot. If a member of the public thinks you are committing a serious crime and takes the opportunity to hit you on the head with the nearest heavy object, you won't get much sympathy.

I thought the videos were real.
I didn't know that everyone in them was an actor:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDM20YLtGyA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5Vefa_AGXM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OdfsBxgKFM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slh_cq9K7u8

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:56am:

To what extent was it staged? Are we talking a movie set here? If you are waving a gun around in an apparent committal of a crime, and point it at a police officer who stumbles across your idiocy, you are going to get shot. If a member of the public thinks you are committing a serious crime and takes the opportunity to hit you on the head with the nearest heavy object, you won't get much sympathy.

Really?  So now the only way to express oneself is to go and take out a council permit to close down a street and declare a movie set?  How about we look as reason here. The kids put together a YouTube video. They had actors. They did it in obvious quiet areas.

That's it, that's all there is to it. Cops are being overZealous as always.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 5:09am:

I thought the videos were real. I didn't know that everyone in them was an actor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDM20YLtGyA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5Vefa_AGXM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OdfsBxgKFM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slh_cq9K7u8

Yes, if it was a proper sketch show, everyone would be applauding. But because it's a garage production and the cops got a little upset we all have to be outraged.

I commend the kids for following obvious talents.  Well done.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 5:44am:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:56am: To what extent was it staged? Are we talking a movie set here? If you are waving a gun around in an apparent committal of a crime, and point it at a police officer who stumbles across your idiocy, you are going to get shot. If a member of the public thinks you are committing a serious crime and takes the opportunity to hit you on the head with the nearest heavy object, you won't get much sympathy. Really?  So now the only way to express oneself is to go and take out a council permit to close down a street and declare a movie set?  How about we look as reason here. The kids put together a YouTube video. They had actors. They did it in obvious quiet areas. That's it, that's all there is to it. Cops are being overZealous as always.

Clearly your head is a brain-free zone.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 6:52am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 5:44am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:56am: To what extent was it staged? Are we talking a movie set here? If you are waving a gun around in an apparent committal of a crime, and point it at a police officer who stumbles across your idiocy, you are going to get shot. If a member of the public thinks you are committing a serious crime and takes the opportunity to hit you on the head with the nearest heavy object, you won't get much sympathy. Really?  So now the only way to express oneself is to go and take out a council permit to close down a street and declare a movie set?  How about we look as reason here. The kids put together a YouTube video. They had actors. They did it in obvious quiet areas. That's it, that's all there is to it. Cops are being overZealous as always. Clearly your head is a brain-free zone.

Thank you for thathe constructive opinion armpit.  No need to get upset because you are a useful 1d10t.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 5:44am:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:56am: To what extent was it staged? Are we talking a movie set here? If you are waving a gun around in an apparent committal of a crime, and point it at a police officer who stumbles across your idiocy, you are going to get shot. If a member of the public thinks you are committing a serious crime and takes the opportunity to hit you on the head with the nearest heavy object, you won't get much sympathy. Really?  So now the only way to express oneself is to go and take out a council permit to close down a street and declare a movie set?  How about we look as reason here. The kids put together a YouTube video. They had actors. They did it in obvious quiet areas. That's it, that's all there is to it. Cops are being overZealous as always.

I admit I haven't seen a lot of random pedestrians in the videos. But if you only have one cameraman, and a cop or concerned citizen can't see that it is staged, things could go bad very quickly. The 'making of' videos I have (briefly) seen do not show any effort to prevent this.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 6:57am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 5:44am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:56am: To what extent was it staged? Are we talking a movie set here? If you are waving a gun around in an apparent committal of a crime, and point it at a police officer who stumbles across your idiocy, you are going to get shot. If a member of the public thinks you are committing a serious crime and takes the opportunity to hit you on the head with the nearest heavy object, you won't get much sympathy. Really?  So now the only way to express oneself is to go and take out a council permit to close down a street and declare a movie set?  How about we look as reason here. The kids put together a YouTube video. They had actors. They did it in obvious quiet areas. That's it, that's all there is to it. Cops are being overZealous as always. I admit I haven't seen a lot of random pedestrians in the videos. But if you only have one cameraman, and a cop or concerned citizen can't see that it is staged, things could go bad very quickly. The 'making of' videos I have (briefly) seen do not show any effort to prevent this.

It's like any prank out there. In fact others are worse for actually using unaware participants.  There is no damage to public property and there is no showing of public indecency or nuisance.   The cops should've treated it as nothing more then a misunderstanding.   Instead, perhaps to save face, but more likely to warn others of doing similar videos, the cops are proceeding to punish people for expressing their art.  It's like we are living in putin Russia. 

Maybe the cops could use these guys as part of their terrorist training exercises?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 7:07am:

Maybe the cops could use these guys as part of their terrorist training exercises?

Maybe the cops should spend their resources doing things that matter? I'm still waiting for them to process fingerprints from when my house was robbed.  It's only been 2 years.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2016 at 11:06pm:

The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank???? http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driveby-shooting-prank-is-cousin-20160226-gn4zxn.html Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens.

only an absolute flogger would defend these wannabe terrorists..

I hope they get whats coming to the smart assed greasy maggots...

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 7:28am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26th, 2016 at 11:06pm: The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank???? http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driveby-shooting-prank-is-cousin-20160226-gn4zxn.html Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens. only an absolute flogger would defend these wannabe terrorists.. I hope they get whats coming to the smart assed greasy flogs...

You don't even understand the subject so please just go back to sleeping it off.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 7:25am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 7:07am: Maybe the cops could use these guys as part of their terrorist training exercises? Maybe the cops should spend their resources doing things that matter? I'm still waiting for them to process fingerprints from when my house was robbed.  It's only been 2 years.

the cops obviously know about you already and hence their no show...

what would you have that anyone would want?

your filthy crack pipe?

dickhead..  ::)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 7:01am:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 6:57am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 5:44am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:56am: To what extent was it staged? Are we talking a movie set here? If you are waving a gun around in an apparent committal of a crime, and point it at a police officer who stumbles across your idiocy, you are going to get shot. If a member of the public thinks you are committing a serious crime and takes the opportunity to hit you on the head with the nearest heavy object, you won't get much sympathy. Really?  So now the only way to express oneself is to go and take out a council permit to close down a street and declare a movie set?  How about we look as reason here. The kids put together a YouTube video. They had actors. They did it in obvious quiet areas. That's it, that's all there is to it. Cops are being overZealous as always. I admit I haven't seen a lot of random pedestrians in the videos. But if you only have one cameraman, and a cop or concerned citizen can't see that it is staged, things could go bad very quickly. The 'making of' videos I have (briefly) seen do not show any effort to prevent this. It's like any prank out there. In fact others are worse for actually using unaware participants.  There is no damage to public property and there is no showing of public indecency or nuisance.   The cops should've treated it as nothing more then a misunderstanding.   Instead, perhaps to save face, but more likely to warn others of doing similar videos, the cops are proceeding to punish people for expressing their art.  It's like we are living in putin Russia.

It is not at all like any prank out there. Very few pranks would inspire a cop to pull his gun, or a concerned citizen to hit someone over the head with a table.

Nor are they being charged with indecency or destruction of property. It seems to me that your problem is you still don't realise what the issue is here.

we should take up a collection to fly these delinquent tools to America to do the same "Prank" throughout Texas...

they wouldn't get passed the first town without getting their brains blown out...

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 7:28am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26th, 2016 at 11:06pm: The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank???? http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driveby-shooting-prank-is-cousin-20160226-gn4zxn.html Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens. [highlight]only an absolute flogger would defend these wannabe terrorists..[/highlight] I hope they get whats coming to the smart assed greasy maggots...

Absolutely right.

They should be locked up for 6 months, no question!

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 7:31am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 7:25am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 7:07am: Maybe the cops could use these guys as part of their terrorist training exercises? Maybe the cops should spend their resources doing things that matter? I'm still waiting for them to process fingerprints from when my house was robbed.  It's only been 2 years. the cops obviously know about you already and hence their no show... what would you have that anyone would want? your filthy crack pipe? dickhead..  ::)

It wouldn't surprise me that you're a beneficiary of our lacking forensic resources.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 7:38am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 7:01am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 6:57am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 5:44am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:56am: To what extent was it staged? Are we talking a movie set here? If you are waving a gun around in an apparent committal of a crime, and point it at a police officer who stumbles across your idiocy, you are going to get shot. If a member of the public thinks you are committing a serious crime and takes the opportunity to hit you on the head with the nearest heavy object, you won't get much sympathy. Really?  So now the only way to express oneself is to go and take out a council permit to close down a street and declare a movie set?  How about we look as reason here. The kids put together a YouTube video. They had actors. They did it in obvious quiet areas. That's it, that's all there is to it. Cops are being overZealous as always. I admit I haven't seen a lot of random pedestrians in the videos. But if you only have one cameraman, and a cop or concerned citizen can't see that it is staged, things could go bad very quickly. The 'making of' videos I have (briefly) seen do not show any effort to prevent this. It's like any prank out there. In fact others are worse for actually using unaware participants.  There is no damage to public property and there is no showing of public indecency or nuisance.   The cops should've treated it as nothing more then a misunderstanding.   Instead, perhaps to save face, but more likely to warn others of doing similar videos, the cops are proceeding to punish people for expressing their art.  It's like we are living in putin Russia.  It is not at all like any prank out there. Very few pranks would inspire a cop to pull his gun, or a concerned citizen to hit someone over the head with a table. Nor are they being charged with indecency or destruction of property. It seems to me that your problem is you still don't realise what the issue is here.

And the issue is?

https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/160225/250216m_terrorprank_1280x720-1bctekq.jpg

Look at this smarmy smacking nice person (left).  That's every arabs mentality summed up in one facial expression - we don't want them.

... wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 8:14am:

https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/160225/250216m_terrorprank_1280x720-1bctekq.jpg Look at this smarmy smacking nice person (left).  That's every arabs mentality summed up in one facial expression - we don't want them.

What, a smartass teenager? Not only are the videos, but the smiles themselves are 100% western.  Seems you're completely living in 1820 wes.   :(

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 1:13am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression.

is piddling up a lamppost in broad daylight also artistic? I wonder! ::) ::) ::)

seems to me we can all put handles like that on anything we do...

society is all about drawing lines in the sand...

so if someone decided they wanted to go down your street throwing flour bombs from their car over yours and every car in the street...

that would be OK because its all about freedom of speech.. >:( >:( >:(

and ART!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 8:17am:

... wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:14am: https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/160225/250216m_terrorprank_1280x720-1bctekq.jpg Look at this smarmy smacking nice person (left).  That's every arabs mentality summed up in one facial expression - we don't want them. What, a smartass teenager? Not only are the videos, but the smiles themselves are 100% western.  Seems you're completely living in 1820 wes.   :(

Arabs never grow out of the smartass teenager phase, they just get fatter and smellier.

cods wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. is piddling up a lamppost in broad daylight also artistic? I wonder! ::) ::) ::) seems to me we can all put handles like that on anything we do... society is all about drawing lines in the sand... so if someone decided they wanted to go down your street throwing flour bombs from their car over yours and every car in the street... that would be OK because its all about freedom of speech.. >:( >:( >:( and ART!

Were the flour bombs done as part of a filming?  We're participants made aware and consent sought?  Was damage covered?

You seem to misunderstand the entire topic cods.

... wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 8:31am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:17am: ... wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:14am: https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/160225/250216m_terrorprank_1280x720-1bctekq.jpg Look at this smarmy smacking nice person (left).  That's every arabs mentality summed up in one facial expression - we don't want them. What, a smartass teenager? Not only are the videos, but the smiles themselves are 100% western.  Seems you're completely living in 1820 wes.   :( Arabs never grow out of the smartass teenager phase, they just get fatter and smellier.

I hope to never grow out of being a smartass.  As for fatter and smellier I think you're referring to married men in general.

Actually quite a few studies show smartasses are better people in general.  If I were to use anecdotal evidence, compare me with the mechanic.  I'm a smartass. He isn't.   The mechanic is obviously a loser in life.  And so far I've done reasonably okay in life.  Without bursting my own bubble, of course.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 8:32am:

... wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:31am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:17am: ... wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:14am: https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/160225/250216m_terrorprank_1280x720-1bctekq.jpg Look at this smarmy smacking nice person (left).  That's every arabs mentality summed up in one facial expression - we don't want them. What, a smartass teenager? Not only are the videos, but the smiles themselves are 100% western.  Seems you're completely living in 1820 wes.   :( Arabs never grow out of the smartass teenager phase, they just get fatter and smellier. I hope to never grow out of being a smartass.  As for fatter and smellier I think you're referring to married men in general.

Probably married men in general.  But if it's 60% of men, 75% of married men, it's 98% of arabs.

We don't want them.

... wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 8:36am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:32am: ... wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:31am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:17am: ... wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:14am: https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/160225/250216m_terrorprank_1280x720-1bctekq.jpg Look at this smarmy smacking nice person (left).  That's every arabs mentality summed up in one facial expression - we don't want them. What, a smartass teenager? Not only are the videos, but the smiles themselves are 100% western.  Seems you're completely living in 1820 wes.   :( Arabs never grow out of the smartass teenager phase, they just get fatter and smellier. I hope to never grow out of being a smartass.  As for fatter and smellier I think you're referring to married men in general. Probably married men in general.  But if it's 60% of men, 75% of married men, it's 98% of arabs. We don't want them.

If it's 98% arabs it's also 98% aussies, surely.   We get fatter and stinkier from 30 onwards.

"We", as in russian jews?  Or "we" as in the people who were gracious enough to allow you to live among them?

... wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 8:40am:

"We", as in russian jews?

I'm an Aussie  just like you, wes. :)  we are both proud and loud, fat stinky a$$ aussies!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 8:31am:

cods wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:29am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. is piddling up a lamppost in broad daylight also artistic? I wonder! ::) ::) ::) seems to me we can all put handles like that on anything we do... society is all about drawing lines in the sand... so if someone decided they wanted to go down your street throwing flour bombs from their car over yours and every car in the street... that would be OK because its all about freedom of speech.. >:( >:( >:( and ART! Were the flour bombs done as part of a filming?  We're participants made aware and consent sought?  Was damage covered? You seem to misunderstand the entire topic cods.

no dear its you thats confused..


no  one knew these were fake until these boys were arrested...

up until then you and everyone else believed them for what they were.....

they even lied on TV....

you want a bet each way as per usual... ::)

it was all in the name of art.....

just as well no one had a major heart attack WHAT?..

Come now wes, you should feel gracious that my family agreed to come and fill in shortages in skills that were deteriorating Australia.   If not for families like mine, Australia would have way too many 'the mechanics'.  But...who would treat them when these 'the mechanics' fell ill with worms after eating raw meat because they didn't know how to cook it?  Who would fix their teeth and teach 'the mechanic' how to floss? Who would interpret the laws? Who would...oh you get it.

cods wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 8:43am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:31am: cods wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:29am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. is piddling up a lamppost in broad daylight also artistic? I wonder! ::) ::) ::) seems to me we can all put handles like that on anything we do... society is all about drawing lines in the sand... so if someone decided they wanted to go down your street throwing flour bombs from their car over yours and every car in the street... that would be OK because its all about freedom of speech.. >:( >:( >:( and ART! Were the flour bombs done as part of a filming?  We're participants made aware and consent sought?  Was damage covered? You seem to misunderstand the entire topic cods. no dear its you thats confused.. no  one knew these were fake until these boys were arrested... up until then you and everyone else believed them for what they were..... they even lied on TV.... you want a bet each way as per usual... ::) it was all in the name of art..... just as well no one had a major heart attack WHAT?..

Who had a major heart attack? What part of this was all staged is hard to understand?

I refuse to share the outrage - I thought they were quite well done and as funny as Hell.

What DOES piss me off is the reaction of the police, the media, and the usual cohort of
brain-dead wowsers this country seems to be infested with these days.

Get a sense of humour, have a good laugh, and move on.

Kat wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 9:05am:

I refuse to share the outrage - I thought they were quite well done and as funny as Hell. What DOES piss me off is the reaction of the police, the media, and the usual cohort of brain-dead wowsers this country seems to be infested with these days. Get a sense of humour, have a good laugh, and move on.

My sentiment exactly.

The same people who laugh at pie in face pranks get upset because it happens to be a prank about terrorism.  Except it's entirely staged vs. The other which is preying on the unsuspecting.   And while neither should get our panties into a knot, which is the one that is deemed inappropriate?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 8:12am:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 7:38am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 7:01am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 6:57am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 5:44am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:56am: To what extent was it staged? Are we talking a movie set here? If you are waving a gun around in an apparent committal of a crime, and point it at a police officer who stumbles across your idiocy, you are going to get shot. If a member of the public thinks you are committing a serious crime and takes the opportunity to hit you on the head with the nearest heavy object, you won't get much sympathy. Really?  So now the only way to express oneself is to go and take out a council permit to close down a street and declare a movie set?  How about we look as reason here. The kids put together a YouTube video. They had actors. They did it in obvious quiet areas. That's it, that's all there is to it. Cops are being overZealous as always. I admit I haven't seen a lot of random pedestrians in the videos. But if you only have one cameraman, and a cop or concerned citizen can't see that it is staged, things could go bad very quickly. The 'making of' videos I have (briefly) seen do not show any effort to prevent this. It's like any prank out there. In fact others are worse for actually using unaware participants.  There is no damage to public property and there is no showing of public indecency or nuisance.   The cops should've treated it as nothing more then a misunderstanding.   Instead, perhaps to save face, but more likely to warn others of doing similar videos, the cops are proceeding to punish people for expressing their art.  It's like we are living in putin Russia.  It is not at all like any prank out there. Very few pranks would inspire a cop to pull his gun, or a concerned citizen to hit someone over the head with a table. Nor are they being charged with indecency or destruction of property. It seems to me that your problem is you still don't realise what the issue is here. And the issue is?

The issue was pointed out in the original article and repeated many times in this thread. I am not sure why it is obscure to you.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 9:26am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:12am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 7:38am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 7:01am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 6:57am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 5:44am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:56am: To what extent was it staged? Are we talking a movie set here? If you are waving a gun around in an apparent committal of a crime, and point it at a police officer who stumbles across your idiocy, you are going to get shot. If a member of the public thinks you are committing a serious crime and takes the opportunity to hit you on the head with the nearest heavy object, you won't get much sympathy. Really?  So now the only way to express oneself is to go and take out a council permit to close down a street and declare a movie set?  How about we look as reason here. The kids put together a YouTube video. They had actors. They did it in obvious quiet areas. That's it, that's all there is to it. Cops are being overZealous as always. I admit I haven't seen a lot of random pedestrians in the videos. But if you only have one cameraman, and a cop or concerned citizen can't see that it is staged, things could go bad very quickly. The 'making of' videos I have (briefly) seen do not show any effort to prevent this. It's like any prank out there. In fact others are worse for actually using unaware participants.  There is no damage to public property and there is no showing of public indecency or nuisance.   The cops should've treated it as nothing more then a misunderstanding.   Instead, perhaps to save face, but more likely to warn others of doing similar videos, the cops are proceeding to punish people for expressing their art.  It's like we are living in putin Russia.  It is not at all like any prank out there. Very few pranks would inspire a cop to pull his gun, or a concerned citizen to hit someone over the head with a table. Nor are they being charged with indecency or destruction of property. It seems to me that your problem is you still don't realise what the issue is here. And the issue is? The issue was pointed out in the original article and repeated many times in this thread. I am not sure why it is obscure to you.

It's an irrelevant issue because it was all staged.

No other objections then?

If people don't realise it is staged, then it is relevant. If the kid or someone else gets shot by a cop, the fact it was staged won't make it hurt any less.

As far as I can tell they made no effort at all to prevent people stumbling across their 'stage'.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 5:49am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 5:09am: I thought the videos were real. I didn't know that everyone in them was an actor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDM20YLtGyA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5Vefa_AGXM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OdfsBxgKFM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slh_cq9K7u8 Yes, if it was a proper sketch show, everyone would be applauding. But because it's a garage production and the cops got a little upset we all have to be outraged. I commend the kids for following obvious talents.  Well done.

I suppose Hollywood might pick them up as comic geniuses...... or they might get into NIDA on AA.... world's their oyster.....  :-?

Kat wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 9:05am:

I refuse to share the outrage - I thought they were quite well done and as funny as Hell. What DOES piss me off is the reaction of the police, the media, and the usual cohort of brain-dead wowsers this country seems to be infested with these days. Get a sense of humour, have a good laugh, and move on.

of course you do...

you laugh like mad at all those who lampoon refugees.... RIGHT?....funny as hell.



sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 8:47am:

Who had a major heart attack? What part of this was all staged is hard to understand?

the first part sunshine....

where you and everyone else thought they were for real...


its like April Fool day... when it all becomes clear it was a JOKE....you can laugh about it..

can I ask again..


are you okay with someone having an ART DAY in your street where they throw flour bombs at all the cars and windows followed by the eggs just to make it REAL ART....


and then a week later they come along and say


oh it was ART we were having FUN....

you know FUN..... at your expense of course.. ::) ::)

just answer the question sirdick...

yes or NO...no need for deflecting....

lets see! these boys may have started a new trend..

coming to a street near you and Kat real soon.....

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 9:48am:

If people don't realise it is staged, then it is relevant. If the kid or someone else gets shot by a cop, the fact it was staged won't make it hurt any less. As far as I can tell they made no effort at all to prevent people stumbling across their 'stage'.

its ok kat and sir think it was in the name of humorous ART...

if some unsuspecting id.iot happened along.. thats their hard luck..

it was FUNNY.... ::)

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 9:48am:

If people don't realise it is staged, then it is relevant. If the kid or someone else gets shot by a cop, the fact it was staged won't make it hurt any less. As far as I can tell they made no effort at all to prevent people stumbling across their 'stage'.

If a cop killed the kid with a fake gun the likelihood is the cop would be charged with manslaughter. Cops are trained to assess situations and given the kids are smart enough to stage the entire thing I doubt they'd let the situation escalate to the point the cops felt they needed to shoot.

And they did best effort.  1) it was all entirely staged 2) clearly the streets are not busy.  And if people did stumble on its still not a criminal act. In the end if I walked around blowing a horn and some unsuspecting passerby got scared it's hardly a criminal act by me.  This is entirely the same. If a person overreacts seeing fake bearded children with a camera then I'm sorry but the unsuspecting person is foolish to say the least.

cods wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 9:56am:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 9:48am: If people don't realise it is staged, then it is relevant. If the kid or someone else gets shot by a cop, the fact it was staged won't make it hurt any less. As far as I can tell they made no effort at all to prevent people stumbling across their 'stage'. its ok kat and sir think it was in the name of humorous ART... if some unsuspecting id.iot happened along.. thats their hard luck.. it was FUNNY.... ::)

A person is not a criminal because of what ifs.  The kids should be commended for providing comedy and taking steps to ensure their actions were as safe as possible, yet also appearing to look real.  Great effort!

cods wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 9:54am:

Kat wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 9:05am: I refuse to share the outrage - I thought they were quite well done and as funny as Hell. What DOES piss me off is the reaction of the police, the media, and the usual cohort of brain-dead wowsers this country seems to be infested with these days. Get a sense of humour, have a good laugh, and move on. of course you do... you laugh like mad at all those who lampoon refugees.... RIGHT?....funny as hell. sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 8:47am: Who had a major heart attack? What part of this was all staged is hard to understand? the first part sunshine.... where you and everyone else thought they were for real... its like April Fool day... when it all becomes clear it was a JOKE....you can laugh about it.. can I ask again.. are you okay with someone having an ART DAY in your street where they throw flour bombs at all the cars and windows followed by the eggs just to make it REAL ART.... and then a week later they come along and say oh it was ART we were having FUN.... you know FUN..... at your expense of course.. ::) ::) just answer the question sirdick... yes or NO...no need for deflecting.... lets see! these boys may have started a new trend.. coming to a street near you and Kat real soon.....

I already answered your question dear.  It's a failed comparison because no cop would charge the flour bombers as criminals.

However, if the flour bombers were to seek my permission and ensure I was not inconvenienced then i wouldn't care. If I was disturbed by their actions I'd be annoyed, but it isn't a criminal act. So I'd mutter swear words, get passive aggressive, and move on with life after a few hours of being angry.

Quote:

If a cop killed the kid with a fake gun the likelihood is the cop would be charged with manslaughter. Cops are trained to assess situations and given the kids are smart enough to stage the entire thing I doubt they'd let the situation escalate to the point the cops felt they needed to shoot.

It can escalate in a second. If a cop drew his weapon on what he thought was a crime in progress, and the kid turned around and in doing so pointed what appeared to be an automatic weapon at the cop, the cop would have no choice but to shoot. It does happen. Cops occasionally confuse all sorts of things for guns, so a fake gun is hardly out of the realm of possibility. They usually get away with it too.

It would not take long for someone who stumbled across the prank kidnapping to decide to king hit the kid, or worse, and they are hardly going to negotiate with them first.

Do you think charging the cop with manslaughter would make it hurt any less?


Quote:

And they did best effort.  1) it was all entirely staged 2) clearly the streets are not busy.

That is not "best effort". That is no effort at all. Filming in public is often done with actors at times when there are less people around. They do this for a simple reason - because it is easier to film that way.


Quote:

If a person overreacts seeing fake bearded children with a camera then I'm sorry but the unsuspecting person is foolish to say the least.

As far as I can tell there was only one camera, often at some distance, which would be easy enough to miss, even if someone did have line of sight to it.

Does netting your neck snapped by a fool instead of a smart person make it hurt any less?      

Free speech? Since when is  threatening people with a firearm free speech?  Lock these little bastards up.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:08am:

Quote: If a cop killed the kid with a fake gun the likelihood is the cop would be charged with manslaughter. Cops are trained to assess situations and given the kids are smart enough to stage the entire thing I doubt they'd let the situation escalate to the point the cops felt they needed to shoot. It can escalate in a second. If a cop drew his weapon on what he thought was a crime in progress, and the kid turned around and in doing so pointed what appeared to be an automatic weapon at the cop, the cop would have no choice but to shoot. It does happen. Cops occasionally confuse all sorts of things for guns, so a fake gun is hardly out of the realm of possibility. They usually get away with it too. It would not take long for someone who stumbled across the prank kidnapping to decide to king hit the kid, or worse, and they are hardly going to negotiate with them first. Do you think charging the cop with manslaughter would make it hurt any less?

Cops being trigger happy is entirely a different thing and isn't solved by punishing kids for having a fun prank.  You don't fix a cop who is trigger happy by locking up all the potential things that could cause the cop to shoot first and ask second. 

And all of your what ifs still don't mean this ought to be a criminal act.  There are many what ifs that can happen - doesn't mean we need to criminalise practically everything. If we did your type of "common sense" rationale then we'd all end up like a Singapore. No thanks.  People need to be treated as responsible. Not treated by what ifs.  It is only being targeted because it happened to involve humour about terrorism.  Big deal. We wouldn't be talking about it if it was about a pie in the face. Or those fake "kidnapping" pranks. Or pants pull downs. Etc etc.  your what ifs exist only in this case because it's hit a touchy subject.  And in a truly liberal society even touchy subjects are not exempt from freedom of expression and speech.

Belgarion wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:13am:

Free speech? Since when is  threatening people with a firearm free speech?  Lock these little bastards up.

they didn't threaten anyone.  Ffs!! Read before commenting.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:13am:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:08am: Quote: If a cop killed the kid with a fake gun the likelihood is the cop would be charged with manslaughter. Cops are trained to assess situations and given the kids are smart enough to stage the entire thing I doubt they'd let the situation escalate to the point the cops felt they needed to shoot. It can escalate in a second. If a cop drew his weapon on what he thought was a crime in progress, and the kid turned around and in doing so pointed what appeared to be an automatic weapon at the cop, the cop would have no choice but to shoot. It does happen. Cops occasionally confuse all sorts of things for guns, so a fake gun is hardly out of the realm of possibility. They usually get away with it too. It would not take long for someone who stumbled across the prank kidnapping to decide to king hit the kid, or worse, and they are hardly going to negotiate with them first. Do you think charging the cop with manslaughter would make it hurt any less? Cops being trigger happy is entirely a different thing and isn't solved by punishing kids for having a fun prank.  You don't fix a cop who is trigger happy by locking up all the potential things that could cause the cop to shoot first and ask second.  And all of your what ifs still don't mean this ought to be a criminal act.  There are many what ifs that can happen - doesn't mean we need to criminalise practically everything. If we did your type of "common sense" rationale then we'd all end up like a Singapore. No thanks.  People need to be treated as responsible. Not treated by what ifs.  It is only being targeted because it happened to involve humour about terrorism.  Big deal. We wouldn't be talking about it if it was about a pie in the face. Or those fake "kidnapping" pranks. Or pants pull downs. Etc etc.  your what ifs exist only in this case because it's hit a touchy subject.  And in a truly liberal society even touchy subjects are not exempt from freedom of expression and speech.

We already have plenty of rules based on what-ifs. It is illegal to carry a knife in public without good reason - and self defense doesn't count.

Someone getting hurt or killed because you staged a serious of what appear to be violent crimes in public is is hardly an unforeseen consequence, and the kids would be liable for their stupidity under common law if something bad did happen.


Quote:

your what ifs exist only in this case because it's hit a touchy subject

Yet again you fail to see the obvious point. It has nothing to do with the subject being touchy. Staging a fake bank robbery with the reckless disregard shown by these kids would be just as stupid and just as likely to get you charged, or killed.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:18am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:13am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:08am: Quote: If a cop killed the kid with a fake gun the likelihood is the cop would be charged with manslaughter. Cops are trained to assess situations and given the kids are smart enough to stage the entire thing I doubt they'd let the situation escalate to the point the cops felt they needed to shoot. It can escalate in a second. If a cop drew his weapon on what he thought was a crime in progress, and the kid turned around and in doing so pointed what appeared to be an automatic weapon at the cop, the cop would have no choice but to shoot. It does happen. Cops occasionally confuse all sorts of things for guns, so a fake gun is hardly out of the realm of possibility. They usually get away with it too. It would not take long for someone who stumbled across the prank kidnapping to decide to king hit the kid, or worse, and they are hardly going to negotiate with them first. Do you think charging the cop with manslaughter would make it hurt any less? Cops being trigger happy is entirely a different thing and isn't solved by punishing kids for having a fun prank.  You don't fix a cop who is trigger happy by locking up all the potential things that could cause the cop to shoot first and ask second.  And all of your what ifs still don't mean this ought to be a criminal act.  There are many what ifs that can happen - doesn't mean we need to criminalise practically everything. If we did your type of "common sense" rationale then we'd all end up like a Singapore. No thanks.  People need to be treated as responsible. Not treated by what ifs.  It is only being targeted because it happened to involve humour about terrorism.  Big deal. We wouldn't be talking about it if it was about a pie in the face. Or those fake "kidnapping" pranks. Or pants pull downs. Etc etc.  your what ifs exist only in this case because it's hit a touchy subject.  And in a truly liberal society even touchy subjects are not exempt from freedom of expression and speech. We already have plenty of rules based on what-ifs. It is illegal to carry a knife in public without good reason - and self defense doesn't count. Someone getting hurt or killed because you staged a serious of what appear to be violent crimes in public is is hardly an unforeseen consequence, and the kids would be liable for their stupidity under common law if something bad did happen. [quote]your what ifs exist only in this case because it's hit a touchy subject

Yet again you fail to see the obvious point. It has nothing to do with the subject being touchy. Staging a fake bank robbery with the reckless disregard shown by these kids would be just as stupid and just as likely to get you charged, or killed.[/quote]

Not a controlled fake bank robbery.

How can it be foreseen that some overzealous individual comes in and decides to act before asking questions? The onus is on that individual, not on people who have taken appropriate steps to control their performance.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:14am:

Belgarion wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:13am: Free speech? Since when is  threatening people with a firearm free speech?  Lock these little bastards up. they didn't threaten anyone.  Ffs!! Read before commenting.

Yeah, whatever you say........ ::)

Belgarion wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:29am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:14am: Belgarion wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:13am: Free speech? Since when is  threatening people with a firearm free speech?  Lock these little bastards up. they didn't threaten anyone.  Ffs!! Read before commenting. Yeah, whatever you say........ ::)

Who did they threaten?

Quote:

Not a controlled fake bank robbery.

What were these controls? You keep going on about the effort these kids supposedly went to to prevent things getting out of hand. The only examples of this effort you have presented is that they had a camera, were acting, and the videos do not show a lot of other people. They have "making of" style videos which also show no effort to control the situation.

If a floor cleaner in a supermarket can have the sense to put out a signing warning people they might slip over, do you really think these kids made their "best effort" to avoid an unintentional shootout with police, by doing even less?


Quote:

How can it be foreseen that some overzealous individual comes in and decides to act before asking questions? The onus is on that individual, not on people who have taken appropriate steps to control their performance

.

It's called the "reasonable person" test. A reasonable person could foresee it. Even an idiot could foresee it.

Police are not instructed to ask questions when faced with a violent crime in progress. They are trained to draw their weapon. If a kid rushes around the corner with an automatic weapon, that kid is probably going to die.

If a member of the public attempts to stop a kidnapping, there is no onus on them to warn the kidnappers fist that they are going to intervene, or to check their surroundings for hidden cameras.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2016 at 11:06pm:

The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank???? http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driveby-shooting-prank-is-cousin-20160226-gn4zxn.html Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens.

Wow that is your definition of free speech..........????

These guys are nothing more than a bunch of clowns that need to be disciplined....!!!!

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:30am:

What were these controls? You keep going on about the effort these kids supposedly went to to prevent things getting out of hand. The only examples of this effort you have presented is that they had a camera, were acting, and the videos do not show a lot of other people. They have "making of" style videos which also show no effort to control the situation. If a floor cleaner in a supermarket can have the sense to put out a signing warning people they might slip over, do you really think these kids made their "best effort" to avoid an unintentional shootout with police, by doing even less?

It's not a shootout when only one party is doing all the shooting.  And if the cops are trigger happy to the point that they don't first assess the situation, see the camera, the fake beards, and the fake guns, then I'm sorry but our society must have a much bigger problem then some kids performing a prank.

What would you suggest we do? All live a beauracratic life?  Everything we do is stamped and approved before we do it? They did reasonable best effort: everyone was an actor. Streets were practically empty and where they aren't empty you can see the participants either uninterested or giggling. No one seems to be threatened.

And I love your wet floor sign examples. Guess what: if a person fails to put out a wet floor sign, but mops, it can be foreseen that someone trips and dies.  Guess what - it would most likely be deemed an accident and a civil matter between business and plaintiffs.  Doubtful the moppee would be found of a criminal act.  And guess what, not having a wet floor sign is NOt a criminal act. Yet what about all those what ifs? That poor grandma with her bad hip?

Ajax wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:37am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26th, 2016 at 11:06pm: The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank???? http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driveby-shooting-prank-is-cousin-20160226-gn4zxn.html Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens. Wow that is your definition of free speech..........???? These guys are nothing more than a bunch of clowns that need to be disciplined....!!!!

Freedom of speech is being able to express one self without being persecuted. 

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2016 at 11:06pm:

The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank???? http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driveby-shooting-prank-is-cousin-20160226-gn4zxn.html Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens.

Cops have been programmed to hate Muslims.

This case will evaporate in ignominy with police humiliated for crass bigotry and Islamophobic prejudice.

Quote:

It's not a shootout when only one party is doing all the shooting

Good point. Would that make it hurt less when the kids get shot by cops or hit over the head with a heavy object?


Quote:

And if the cops are trigger happy to the point that they don't first assess the situation, see the camera, the fake beards, and the fake guns, then I'm sorry but our society must have a much bigger problem then some kids performing a prank.

Earth to Alevine - people get shot by police for far less, and there is no "check for hidden cameras first" section in the police manual. If the camera is off in the distance or on the other side of a tree or pole, it won't be seen.


Quote:

What would you suggest we do? All live a beauracratic life?

You just finished explaining that the kids took "appropriate steps." You obviously think they should have done something other than paperwork to reduce the risk.

How onerous would a few "filming in progress" signs be?


Quote:

They did reasonable best effort: everyone was an actor. Streets were practically empty and where they aren't empty you can see the participants either uninterested or giggling. No one seems to be threatened.

They did a reasonable effort to make a video. They made no effort at all to reduce the risk of someone misinterpreting it. You might as well argue that getting out of bed first is making an effort.


Quote:

And I love your wet floor sign examples. Guess what: if a person fails to put out a wet floor sign, but mops, it can be foreseen that someone trips and dies.

You just finished explaining how difficult it is for you to foresee a fairly obvious outcome.


Quote:

Guess what - it would most likely be deemed an accident and a civil matter between business and plaintiffs.  Doubtful the moppee would be found of a criminal act.  And guess what, not having a wet floor sign is NOt a criminal act. Yet what about all those what ifs? That poor grandma with her bad hip?

What criminal acts are these kids being charged with?

Do you see an apparent violent crime in progress as being just as risky as a wet floor?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:43am:

Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:37am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26th, 2016 at 11:06pm: The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank???? http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driveby-shooting-prank-is-cousin-20160226-gn4zxn.html Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens. Wow that is your definition of free speech..........???? These guys are nothing more than a bunch of clowns that need to be disciplined....!!!! Freedom of speech is being able to express one self without being persecuted.

So if you're dressed in a tux with the misses in evening attire and waiting for the green man to cross the road, and these clowns roll up and throw raw eggs at you and the boss.

This is free speech.............???

Or a stupid act by a bunch of clowns that just ruined your night.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:50am:

Quote: It's not a shootout when only one party is doing all the shooting Good point. Would that make it hurt less when the kids get shot by cops or hit over the head with a heavy object? [quote]And if the cops are trigger happy to the point that they don't first assess the situation, see the camera, the fake beards, and the fake guns, then I'm sorry but our society must have a much bigger problem then some kids performing a prank.

Earth to Alevine - people get shot by police for far less, and there is no "check for hidden cameras first" section in the police manual. If the camera is off in the distance or on the other side of a tree or pole, it won't be seen.


Quote:

What would you suggest we do? All live a beauracratic life?

You just finished explaining that the kids took "appropriate steps." You obviously think they should have done something other than paperwork to reduce the risk.

How onerous would a few "filming in progress" signs be?


Quote:

They did reasonable best effort: everyone was an actor. Streets were practically empty and where they aren't empty you can see the participants either uninterested or giggling. No one seems to be threatened.

They did a reasonable effort to make a video. They made no effort at all to reduce the risk of someone misinterpreting it. You might as well argue that getting out of bed first is making an effort.


Quote:

And I love your wet floor sign examples. Guess what: if a person fails to put out a wet floor sign, but mops, it can be foreseen that someone trips and dies.

You just finished explaining how difficult it is for you to foresee a fairly obvious outcome.


Quote:

Guess what - it would most likely be deemed an accident and a civil matter between business and plaintiffs.  Doubtful the moppee would be found of a criminal act.  And guess what, not having a wet floor sign is NOt a criminal act. Yet what about all those what ifs? That poor grandma with her bad hip?

What criminal acts are these kids being charged with?

Do you see an apparent violent crime in progress as being just as risky as a wet floor?[/quote]

So your argument is in order to protect the kids from being shot by cops one ought to criminalise what the kids are doing?  Really? 

Like I said, cops being trigger happy is a problem in its own.  Protecting people from trigger happy cops is to retrain the trigger happy cops.

I actually see the wet floor as being more risky than kids in fake beards with a fake gun scaring other kids who are in full knowledge of what is going on, in a street that's basically empty. 

And from the angles of the camera it's hardly hidden. Especially when it's all staged.

Ajax wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:52am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:43am: Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:37am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26th, 2016 at 11:06pm: The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank???? http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driveby-shooting-prank-is-cousin-20160226-gn4zxn.html Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens. Wow that is your definition of free speech..........???? These guys are nothing more than a bunch of clowns that need to be disciplined....!!!! Freedom of speech is being able to express one self without being persecuted.  So if you're dressed in a tux with the misses in evening attire and waiting for the green man to cross the road, and these clowns roll up and throw raw eggs at you and the boss. This is free speech.............??? Or a stupid act by a bunch of clowns that just ruined your night.

You can sue for civil actions if you like to get the suit cleaned. But no cop would bring criminal charges for that.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 11:01am:

Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:52am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:43am: Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:37am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26th, 2016 at 11:06pm: The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank???? http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driveby-shooting-prank-is-cousin-20160226-gn4zxn.html Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens. Wow that is your definition of free speech..........???? These guys are nothing more than a bunch of clowns that need to be disciplined....!!!! Freedom of speech is being able to express one self without being persecuted.  So if you're dressed in a tux with the misses in evening attire and waiting for the green man to cross the road, and these clowns roll up and throw raw eggs at you and the boss. This is free speech.............??? Or a stupid act by a bunch of clowns that just ruined your night. You can sue for civil actions if you like to get the suit cleaned. But no cop would bring criminal charges for that.

But how is this free speech..??

Its just a stupid act by dumb people..!!

Ajax wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 11:05am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 11:01am: Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:52am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:43am: Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:37am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26th, 2016 at 11:06pm: The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank???? http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driveby-shooting-prank-is-cousin-20160226-gn4zxn.html Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens. Wow that is your definition of free speech..........???? These guys are nothing more than a bunch of clowns that need to be disciplined....!!!! Freedom of speech is being able to express one self without being persecuted.  So if you're dressed in a tux with the misses in evening attire and waiting for the green man to cross the road, and these clowns roll up and throw raw eggs at you and the boss. This is free speech.............??? Or a stupid act by a bunch of clowns that just ruined your night. You can sue for civil actions if you like to get the suit cleaned. But no cop would bring criminal charges for that. But how is this free speech..?? Its just a stupid act by dumb people..!!

If the tux was made out of leopard skin then it would be free speech.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 11:00am:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:50am: Quote: It's not a shootout when only one party is doing all the shooting Good point. Would that make it hurt less when the kids get shot by cops or hit over the head with a heavy object? [quote]And if the cops are trigger happy to the point that they don't first assess the situation, see the camera, the fake beards, and the fake guns, then I'm sorry but our society must have a much bigger problem then some kids performing a prank. Earth to Alevine - people get shot by police for far less, and there is no "check for hidden cameras first" section in the police manual. If the camera is off in the distance or on the other side of a tree or pole, it won't be seen. [quote]What would you suggest we do? All live a beauracratic life?

You just finished explaining that the kids took "appropriate steps." You obviously think they should have done something other than paperwork to reduce the risk.

How onerous would a few "filming in progress" signs be?


Quote:

They did reasonable best effort: everyone was an actor. Streets were practically empty and where they aren't empty you can see the participants either uninterested or giggling. No one seems to be threatened.

They did a reasonable effort to make a video. They made no effort at all to reduce the risk of someone misinterpreting it. You might as well argue that getting out of bed first is making an effort.


Quote:

And I love your wet floor sign examples. Guess what: if a person fails to put out a wet floor sign, but mops, it can be foreseen that someone trips and dies.

You just finished explaining how difficult it is for you to foresee a fairly obvious outcome.


Quote:

Guess what - it would most likely be deemed an accident and a civil matter between business and plaintiffs.  Doubtful the moppee would be found of a criminal act.  And guess what, not having a wet floor sign is NOt a criminal act. Yet what about all those what ifs? That poor grandma with her bad hip?

What criminal acts are these kids being charged with?

Do you see an apparent violent crime in progress as being just as risky as a wet floor?[/quote]

So your argument is in order to protect the kids from being shot by cops one ought to criminalise what the kids are doing?  Really? 

Like I said, cops being trigger happy is a problem in its own.  Protecting people from trigger happy cops is to retrain the trigger happy cops.

I actually see the wet floor as being more risky than kids in fake beards with a fake gun scaring other kids who are in full knowledge of what is going on, in a street that's basically empty.  [/quote]

It is perfectly understandable for a cop to shoot someone in that situation. After all, they are deliberately making it look like a violent crime is being committed.

I do not want to criminalise what these kids are doing. The end product is fine. the concept is fine. I only have a problem with what I see as reckless endangerment.


Quote:

And from the angles of the camera it's hardly hidden

You haven't put much thought into this have you?

All it takes is for it to be hidden, or merely not seen, by a cop or member of the public.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 11:23am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 11:00am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:50am: Quote: It's not a shootout when only one party is doing all the shooting Good point. Would that make it hurt less when the kids get shot by cops or hit over the head with a heavy object? [quote]And if the cops are trigger happy to the point that they don't first assess the situation, see the camera, the fake beards, and the fake guns, then I'm sorry but our society must have a much bigger problem then some kids performing a prank. Earth to Alevine - people get shot by police for far less, and there is no "check for hidden cameras first" section in the police manual. If the camera is off in the distance or on the other side of a tree or pole, it won't be seen. [quote]What would you suggest we do? All live a beauracratic life? You just finished explaining that the kids took "appropriate steps." You obviously think they should have done something other than paperwork to reduce the risk. How onerous would a few "filming in progress" signs be? [quote]They did reasonable best effort: everyone was an actor. Streets were practically empty and where they aren't empty you can see the participants either uninterested or giggling. No one seems to be threatened.

They did a reasonable effort to make a video. They made no effort at all to reduce the risk of someone misinterpreting it. You might as well argue that getting out of bed first is making an effort.


Quote:

And I love your wet floor sign examples. Guess what: if a person fails to put out a wet floor sign, but mops, it can be foreseen that someone trips and dies.

You just finished explaining how difficult it is for you to foresee a fairly obvious outcome.


Quote:

Guess what - it would most likely be deemed an accident and a civil matter between business and plaintiffs.  Doubtful the moppee would be found of a criminal act.  And guess what, not having a wet floor sign is NOt a criminal act. Yet what about all those what ifs? That poor grandma with her bad hip?

What criminal acts are these kids being charged with?

Do you see an apparent violent crime in progress as being just as risky as a wet floor?[/quote]

So your argument is in order to protect the kids from being shot by cops one ought to criminalise what the kids are doing?  Really? 

Like I said, cops being trigger happy is a problem in its own.  Protecting people from trigger happy cops is to retrain the trigger happy cops.

I actually see the wet floor as being more risky than kids in fake beards with a fake gun scaring other kids who are in full knowledge of what is going on, in a street that's basically empty.  [/quote]

It is perfectly understandable for a cop to shoot someone in that situation. After all, they are deliberately making it look like a violent crime is being committed.

I do not want to criminalise what these kids are doing. The end product is fine. the concept is fine. I only have a problem with what I see as reckless endangerment.


Quote:

And from the angles of the camera it's hardly hidden

You haven't put much thought into this have you?

All it takes is for it to be hidden, or merely not seen, by a cop or member of the public.[/quote]
You don't have a problem with a cop shooting first an asking second?  Really? I have a massive problem with it. Yes, cops have a tough job. But as part of that job they have to properly assess a situation. And if I found out that as part of assessing a situation where kids with a camer, FAKE BEARDS and FAKE guns were shot at then I'd be asking if the cops were drunk on duty. Sorry but give me a break. That is a ridiculous assertion and hardly anyone's life is being put in danger. Less so than a wet floor.  Cops have a responsibility to make sure they have no other alternative to shooting.  to me it sounds like you're just trying to come up with something because deep down you agree that this is all farcical by the cops.

Alevine I noticed that you have stopped making the argument that these kids took appropriate measures to reduce risk, given the obviously foreseeable consequences. Does that mean you have come to your senses?


Quote:

You don't have a problem with a cop shooting first an asking second?  Really?

In the appropriate circumstances, no. And even in your case where you do have a problem, charging the cop will not unshoot the idiot kid.


Quote:

But as part of that job they have to properly assess a situation. And if I found out that as part of assessing a situation where kids with a camer, FAKE BEARDS and FAKE guns were shot at then I'd be asking if the cops were drunk on duty.

Yes, these are the sort of questions you should ask. Another question - how long did the cop have to "properly assess" the situation. If the answer is less than a second, then fake beards, fake guns, a camera on the other side of that tree won't add up to much of a case, and the conclusion will be a candidate for the Darwin awards.


Quote:

Cops have a responsibility to make sure they have no other alternative to shooting.

They have no choice but to respond to the situation at hand. They can only take as long to assess the situation as the situation allows, and in the case of automatic weapons, that means zero seconds. Looking around for cameras and checking to see if the beards are fake (what difference would that make anyway? Never heard of a crim wearing a disguise while committing a crime?) is not in the picture when there is a gun being pointed at you or a person is being dragged off into a car.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 11:48am:

Alevine I noticed that you have stopped making the argument that these kids took appropriate measures to reduce risk, given the obviously foreseeable consequences. Does that mean you have come to your senses? Quote: You don't have a problem with a cop shooting first an asking second?  Really? In the appropriate circumstances, no. And even in your case where you do have a problem, charging the cop will not unshoot the idiot kid. [quote]But as part of that job they have to properly assess a situation. And if I found out that as part of assessing a situation where kids with a camer, FAKE BEARDS and FAKE guns were shot at then I'd be asking if the cops were drunk on duty.

Yes, these are the sort of questions you should ask. Another question - how long did the cop have to "properly assess" the situation. If the answer is less than a second, then fake beards, fake guns, a camera on the other side of that tree won't add up to much of a case, and the conclusion will be a candidate for the Darwin awards.


Quote:

Cops have a responsibility to make sure they have no other alternative to shooting.

They have no choice but to respond to the situation at hand. They can only take as long to assess the situation as the situation allows, and in the case of automatic weapons, that means zero seconds. Looking around for cameras and checking to see if the beards are fake (what difference would that make anyway? Never heard of a crim wearing a disguise while committing a crime?) is not in the picture when there is a gun being pointed at you or a person is being dragged off into a car.[/quote]
If a cop makes a decision to shoot in 1 second of arriving at the scene then take that cops gun away. 

And unshoot the idiot kid? Or just nominate him for the Darwin awards?

Yes they probably would as a matter of procedure.

"More suppression of free speech" - Where's this happening?

Certainly not in Britain.

link

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 11:54am:

And unshoot the idiot kid? Or just nominate him for the Darwin awards? Yes they probably would as a matter of procedure.

One doeset protect from  trigger happy cops by criminalizing and banning everything.

Sounds more than a bit unfair to suggest that a cop confronted by someone with what looks like an automatic weapon has the time to consider fake beards and such.  In this climate of recent murders by tent wearers, these kids were utterly stupid.  Why blame the cops?

Anyone remember Parramatta police HQ and the IT guy shot dead?  How many would at first find it impossible to believe that kid was going to shoot the guy?  How many would first think it was a stunt or a movie being made?  What was any cop arriving before the shooting took place to assume?  That it was all a stunt?

What about Mad Man Monis?  Oh - it's just a reality TV show..... ho, ho..... or it's a counter-terrorism exercise... ho, ho, ho... oh, somebody's making a movie about a siege....

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 12:16pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 11:54am: And unshoot the idiot kid? Or just nominate him for the Darwin awards? Yes they probably would as a matter of procedure. One doeset protect from  trigger happy cops by criminalizing and banning everything.

True. But not pointing a plastic gun at them while pretending to commit a violent crime would be a bloody good idea, don't you think Alevine? Perhaps the sort of thing the Darwin awards are targeted at?

Whatever happened to those "reasonable steps" you were banging on about? Does it no longer count as a "good effort" to film your brother getting shot by a trigger happy cop? So long as you have the evidence to hold against the shooter and justice is done, everything is OK, right?

But how is this free speech..??

Its just a stupid act by dumb people.



some people think KIDS should have FREEDOM TO EXPRESS THEIR ART....

if kids want to play cops and robbers wearing sheets...and carrying what appears to be AK47s....

then we should allow it....or we are suppressing their creativity or something..

BTW these werent KIDS as such......


how about FAKE home invasions sir???>..

would your sense of ARTISTIC  humour stretch that far??..

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 11:00am:

And from the angles of the camera it's hardly hidden. Especially when it's all staged.

In a real film set there would be over a dozen people filming a simple scene. There would be a professional camera, maybe as large as 1 meter long, about 30 cm wide, as much as 50 cm high, plus on top of that it would probably be sitting on a large stand/post. There would be someone with a microphone boom arm, a director, probably a lot of audio visual equipment with possibly a van or two sitting close, and there would probably be artificial lighting posts set up as well. It would be so obvious it was a film scene, especially since parts of the street would be cordoned off.   

What were these guys using? A cam corder? Maybe only a mobile phone? If it was a phone you may not even know they were recording the scene even if you were looking at them. Plus with everyone being youtube journalist these days, even if the scene was real you would expect at least someone to be standing filming it on their phone.

I seriously can't see how in the heat of the moment it would be obvious to a cop that it was film set. In fact, it wouldn't even be a shock that such an event would be filmed by a group of terrorist anyway. You can see plenty of internet films of terrorist actions captured by the terrorist themselves. Why would any cop assume such a scene was just a home video for fun?      

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 4:31am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 4:23am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 2:51am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:24am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:13am: Swagman wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:59am: ...that's not free speech.   Just like a fake triple 0.  Throw the book at the wenkers It is freedom of speech because it is artistic expression. ..so ringing triple 0 as a prank, is artistic expression in your book?   :-? is it ringing triple 0 or pretending to ring triple 0 but actually ringing a staged triple 0, for the purposes of artistic expression? Get off it swag - for a guy who claims to want small government you are happy to see government interfere in absolutely ridiculous areas.  Such as charging kids for making a youtube video. You miss the point. What if Police had driven past and seen them doing that? They could've been shot dead. Not to mention how traumatised members of the public can be by such an idiotic prank. If the police saw them and decided to shoot instead of restrain then it would be murder.  And again, no trauma - it was all stAgggged.  Plus why do you care about trauma? You're one of those "ooooh racism is so pc today".  You know how many people are left traumatised be caused of racism?  Be consistent!!

No one has the right to not be traumatised, Alevine.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2016 at 11:06pm:

The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank???? http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driveby-shooting-prank-is-cousin-20160226-gn4zxn.html Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens.

Oh yes , all so merry. what a prank, pretending to kill and bomb people. heres the thing, if I thought my life or someone elses life was in immediate danger and I was able to, I wouldnt hesitate. Killing someone  to stop them doing harm would be appropriate and highly explainable in the coroners court. Some people are trained to run towards danger and stop it, by any means available, not run away from it like you. Thats what these fools dont understand. Like you I dont think these people should be charged, i just think they should be allowed to do it until they come across the wrong person.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 12:44pm:

Sounds more than a bit unfair to suggest that a cop confronted by someone with what looks like an automatic weapon has the time to consider fake beards and such.  In this climate of recent murders by tent wearers, these kids were utterly stupid.  Why blame the cops? Anyone remember Parramatta police HQ and the IT guy shot dead?  How many would at first find it impossible to believe that kid was going to shoot the guy?  How many would first think it was a stunt or a movie being made?  What was any cop arriving before the shooting took place to assume?  That it was all a stunt? What about Mad Man Monis?  Oh - it's just a reality TV show..... ho, ho..... or it's a counter-terrorism exercise... ho, ho, ho... oh, somebody's making a movie about a siege....

agreed

Those artists should have  tried one of their pranks on a plane;that would have been epic. Nothing like seeing asswipes getting armbarred.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 1:25pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:16pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 11:54am: And unshoot the idiot kid? Or just nominate him for the Darwin awards? Yes they probably would as a matter of procedure. One doeset protect from  trigger happy cops by criminalizing and banning everything. True. But not pointing a plastic gun at them while pretending to commit a violent crime would be a bloody good idea, don't you think Alevine? Perhaps the sort of thing the Darwin awards are targeted at? Whatever happened to those "reasonable steps" you were banging on about? Does it no longer count as a "good effort" to film your brother getting shot by a trigger happy cop? So long as you have the evidence to hold against the shooter and justice is done, everything is OK, right?

what about plastic knives? Should it be illegal for me to hold a plastic knife in a picnic area in the event the cops feel threatened and decide to shoot first before properly assessing the situation?  I mean the laws are not there to be used I address the lack of training and poor judgement of police officers. 

Quantum wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 5:12pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 11:00am: And from the angles of the camera it's hardly hidden. Especially when it's all staged. In a real film set there would be over a dozen people filming a simple scene. There would be a professional camera, maybe as large as 1 meter long, about 30 cm wide, as much as 50 cm high, plus on top of that it would probably be sitting on a large stand/post. There would be someone with a microphone boom arm, a director, probably a lot of audio visual equipment with possibly a van or two sitting close, and there would probably be artificial lighting posts set up as well. It would be so obvious it was a film scene, especially since parts of the street would be cordoned off.    What were these guys using? A cam corder? Maybe only a mobile phone? If it was a phone you may not even know they were recording the scene even if you were looking at them. Plus with everyone being youtube journalist these days, even if the scene was real you would expect at least someone to be standing filming it on their phone. I seriously can't see how in the heat of the moment it would be obvious to a cop that it was film set. In fact, it wouldn't even be a shock that such an event would be filmed by a group of terrorist anyway. You can see plenty of internet films of terrorist actions captured by the terrorist themselves. Why would any cop assume such a scene was just a home video for fun?

Typical attempts to try and falsely rationalise because we have to be subservient to authority. 

It would be incredibly unusual for a police man to drive around the corner, guns blazing.  Your scenario would more likely play out by the kids seeing the cops, dropping the fake guns and corporating.  And if the cops shot the kids after that then throw away the key at the cops.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 5:42am:

Those artists should have  tried one of their pranks on a plane;that would have been epic. Nothing like seeing asswipes getting armbarred.

There is an actual law against fake alerts for planes.  But only from a logistical perspective.  I would suggest again that freedom of speech ought not be limited and thus such actions maybe can have civil action, but never criminal.

ian wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 11:47pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26th, 2016 at 11:06pm: The cops are insane in this issue - why are we wasting time and money on what is obviously a prank???? http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-were-all-actors-jalals-admit-girl-in-driveby-shooting-prank-is-cousin-20160226-gn4zxn.html Their insistence to charge these pranksters is nothing more than an attempt to suppress acts of free speech from ordinary citizens. Oh yes , all so merry. what a prank, pretending to kill and bomb people. heres the thing, if I thought my life or someone elses life was in immediate danger and I was able to, I wouldnt hesitate. Killing someone  to stop them doing harm would be appropriate and highly explainable in the coroners court. Some people are trained to run towards danger and stop it, by any means available, not run away from it like you. Thats what these fools dont understand. Like you I dont think these people should be charged, i just think they should be allowed to do it until they come across the wrong person.

100% false.  Even if we were to believe that you would immediately jump to being a hero and killing everyone with your bare hands, it would be deemed manslaughter and likely you would be charged and jailed. 

But the more likely scenario is that you would throw children in front of you and run faster than the speed of sound, in the opposite direction.

Is April 1st early this year?

The Heartless Felon wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 6:52am:

Is April 1st early this year?

Do you ask yourself that every time you watch gotcha shows?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 5:54am:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:25pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:16pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 11:54am: And unshoot the idiot kid? Or just nominate him for the Darwin awards? Yes they probably would as a matter of procedure. One doeset protect from  trigger happy cops by criminalizing and banning everything. True. But not pointing a plastic gun at them while pretending to commit a violent crime would be a bloody good idea, don't you think Alevine? Perhaps the sort of thing the Darwin awards are targeted at? Whatever happened to those "reasonable steps" you were banging on about? Does it no longer count as a "good effort" to film your brother getting shot by a trigger happy cop? So long as you have the evidence to hold against the shooter and justice is done, everything is OK, right? what about plastic knives? Should it be illegal for me to hold a plastic knife in a picnic area in the event the cops feel threatened and decide to shoot first before properly assessing the situation?  I mean the laws are not there to be used I address the lack of training and poor judgement of police officers.

Yes you should be allowed to, and you are.

Now let me guess, you cannot tell the difference between that and what these idiot kids did, other than that it is a "touchy subject"?


Quote:

Typical attempts to try and falsely rationalise because we have to be subservient to authority.

No Alevine, he is just highlighting the absurdity of your argument that a single camera off in the distance should have made it obvious to a policeman or member of the public that it is a staged film set. It is just as absurd as your argument that criminals never wear disguises while committing a crime.


Quote:

It would be incredibly unusual for a police man to drive around the corner, guns blazing.  Your scenario would more likely play out by the kids seeing the cops, dropping the fake guns and corporating.  And if the cops shot the kids after that then throw away the key at the cops.

True. They had good odds of surviving. They were probably more likely to come to grief from an untrained member of the public. So tell us Alevine, what likelihood of someone dying would you be willing to tolerate, per stunt? 1 in 1000? 1 in 100000?

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:03am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 5:54am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:25pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:16pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 11:54am: And unshoot the idiot kid? Or just nominate him for the Darwin awards? Yes they probably would as a matter of procedure. One doeset protect from  trigger happy cops by criminalizing and banning everything. True. But not pointing a plastic gun at them while pretending to commit a violent crime would be a bloody good idea, don't you think Alevine? Perhaps the sort of thing the Darwin awards are targeted at? Whatever happened to those "reasonable steps" you were banging on about? Does it no longer count as a "good effort" to film your brother getting shot by a trigger happy cop? So long as you have the evidence to hold against the shooter and justice is done, everything is OK, right? what about plastic knives? Should it be illegal for me to hold a plastic knife in a picnic area in the event the cops feel threatened and decide to shoot first before properly assessing the situation?  I mean the laws are not there to be used I address the lack of training and poor judgement of police officers.  Yes you should be allowed to, and you are. Now let me guess, you cannot tell the difference between that and what these idiot kids did, other than that it is a "touchy subject"?

I can't actually. What is it so bad that they did?

Should it be illegal to run with someone while holding a cricket bat?  The cops might confuse The situation and start killing immediately.

I mean sorry but it's a ludicrous argument to suggest that something that poses no danger should be for some reason illegal. And it's ridiculous to try and rationalise it with wild what ifs.

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:03am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 5:54am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 1:25pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:16pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 11:54am: And unshoot the idiot kid? Or just nominate him for the Darwin awards? Yes they probably would as a matter of procedure. One doeset protect from  trigger happy cops by criminalizing and banning everything. True. But not pointing a plastic gun at them while pretending to commit a violent crime would be a bloody good idea, don't you think Alevine? Perhaps the sort of thing the Darwin awards are targeted at? Whatever happened to those "reasonable steps" you were banging on about? Does it no longer count as a "good effort" to film your brother getting shot by a trigger happy cop? So long as you have the evidence to hold against the shooter and justice is done, everything is OK, right? what about plastic knives? Should it be illegal for me to hold a plastic knife in a picnic area in the event the cops feel threatened and decide to shoot first before properly assessing the situation?  I mean the laws are not there to be used I address the lack of training and poor judgement of police officers.  Yes you should be allowed to, and you are. Now let me guess, you cannot tell the difference between that and what these idiot kids did, other than that it is a "touchy subject"? Quote: Typical attempts to try and falsely rationalise because we have to be subservient to authority. No Alevine, he is just highlighting the absurdity of your argument that a single camera off in the distance should have made it obvious to a policeman or member of the public that it is a staged film set. It is just as absurd as your argument that criminals never wear disguises while committing a crime.

What's absurd is to assume cops don't first assess a situation before starting to shoot, and that somehow kids who have taken precautions like staging an act and doing it in a basically empty street would all of a sudden refuse to obey police instructions to the point of holding their fake guns at the cops and being confused for criminals who ought to be killed.

But keep coming up with these what ifs to try and justify the overzealous actions of the police force. It's quite fun.

If you can see the obvious difference, why bring it up?

A cop will not shoot you if you merely have a cricket bat. Compared to an automatic weapon, the urgency to disarm you is not there. If you have an automatic weapon, the cop is pretty much obliged to shoot first in the interests of public safety. And if you do not appear to be committing a crime, there is also far less urgency.

Are you just pretending to not see the difference? How many different ways do we need to explain this to you?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 5:58am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 5:42am: Those artists should have  tried one of their pranks on a plane;that would have been epic. Nothing like seeing asswipes getting armbarred. There is an actual law against fake alerts for planes.  But only from a logistical perspective.  I would suggest again that freedom of speech ought not be limited and thus such actions maybe can have civil action, but never criminal.

I will ask you again.. sir...

what about "FAKE" HOME INVASIONS????>..

all in the name of ART...

we had 3 youngish men play acting at terrorism..and putting it on the web....

where they did in fact horrify everyone...

for a few days it was thought to be a FACT.

these 3 youngish males even lied about it on TV...

when asked if it was a set up......they said NO..

it wasnt until the police were involved they confessed it was all staged....

had the police not arrested them we would still be guessing if it  was FACT or FICTION .....


so if we witness what appears to be a HOME INVASION>....should we all turn a blind eye in case its these same youngish men... ::) ::)

working on ART. >:(

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:12am:

If you can see the obvious difference, why bring it up? A cop will not shoot you if you merely have a cricket bat. Compared to an automatic weapon, the urgency to disarm you is not there. If you have an automatic weapon, the cop is pretty much obliged to shoot first in the interests of public safety. And if you do not appear to be committing a crime, there is also far less urgency. Are you just pretending to not see the difference? How many different ways do we need to explain this to you?

hes deflecting... hes losing the plot over the fake terrorism b eing  all in the name of ART..

sir is well known for deflecting.. try to keep to the topic...

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:12am:

If you can see the obvious difference, why bring it up? A cop will not shoot you if you merely have a cricket bat. Compared to an automatic weapon, the urgency to disarm you is not there. If you have an automatic weapon, the cop is pretty much obliged to shoot first in the interests of public safety. And if you do not appear to be committing a crime, there is also far less urgency. Are you just pretending to not see the difference? How many different ways do we need to explain this to you?

Where do you get this? Cops get Intel before rushing into a situation.  No cop is going to rush into a gun fight. Hence this belief that they'll confuse a fake gun with a real gun is ridiculous.  Especially when there are no bullets flying but noises being made.  Gee that isn't suspicious.

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:15am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:12am: If you can see the obvious difference, why bring it up? A cop will not shoot you if you merely have a cricket bat. Compared to an automatic weapon, the urgency to disarm you is not there. If you have an automatic weapon, the cop is pretty much obliged to shoot first in the interests of public safety. And if you do not appear to be committing a crime, there is also far less urgency. Are you just pretending to not see the difference? How many different ways do we need to explain this to you? hes deflecting... hes losing the plot over the fake terrorism b eing  all in the name of ART.. sir is well known for deflecting.. try to keep to the topic...

Actually I'm not. I just feel sorry for free diver that he's been so immersed in Hollywood action films that he's forgotten reality.

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:16am:

Alevines arguments so far: * criminals never wear disguises * crimes are never caught on film * if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving * a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises * a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.

That's a nice summary, but not quite accurate now is it? ;)

My argument remains consistently as it was before: people exercising their freedom of speech should not be held liable for their actions because of some what if scenarios obtained from either irrational fear or Hollywood plots.

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:13am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 5:58am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 5:42am: Those artists should have  tried one of their pranks on a plane;that would have been epic. Nothing like seeing asswipes getting armbarred. There is an actual law against fake alerts for planes.  But only from a logistical perspective.  I would suggest again that freedom of speech ought not be limited and thus such actions maybe can have civil action, but never criminal. I will ask you again.. sir... what about "FAKE" HOME INVASIONS????>.. all in the name of ART... we had 3 youngish men play acting at terrorism..and putting it on the web.... where they did in fact horrify everyone... for a few days it was thought to be a FACT. these 3 youngish males even lied about it on TV... when asked if it was a set up......they said NO.. it wasnt until the police were involved they confessed it was all staged.... had the police not arrested them we would still be guessing if it  was FACT or FICTION ..... so if we witness what appears to be a HOME INVASION>....should we all turn a blind eye in case its these same youngish men... ::) ::) working on ART. >:(

Once again dear, a fake home invasion staged and recorded on video, where participants are aware of everything, would not be deemed illegal or criminal.

You need to understand the issue,cods.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:18am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:16am: Alevines arguments so far: * criminals never wear disguises * crimes are never caught on film * if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving * a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises * a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket. That's a nice summary, but not quite accurate now is it? ;) My argument remains consistently as it was before: people exercising their freedom of speech should not be held liable for their actions because of some what if scenarios obtained from either irrational fear or Hollywood plots.

Yes, you do seem to have dropped the more idiotic ones. Good for you.

Freedivers argument so far: kids partaking in pranks that use a fake weapon should be charged and imprisoned because the likely outcome is a cop will arrive at the scene, ignore to assess the situation, jump out of the car, do a somersault, start shooting, before realising that while the fake guns were making a noise, somehow he survived the automatic gun fire because there were no bullets.

Yeh, completely rational.

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:21am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:18am: freediver wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:16am: Alevines arguments so far: * criminals never wear disguises * crimes are never caught on film * if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving * a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises * a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket. That's a nice summary, but not quite accurate now is it? ;) My argument remains consistently as it was before: people exercising their freedom of speech should not be held liable for their actions because of some what if scenarios obtained from either irrational fear or Hollywood plots. Yes, you do seem to have dropped the more idiotic ones. Good for you.

The idiotic ones were used to highlight how preposterous your argument was.

Where is the public nuisance?  Which public was inconvenienced? Or annoyed?  Seems to me the cops overreached. and because they are trying to suppress freedom of speech.

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:16am:

Alevines arguments so far: * criminals never wear disguises * crimes are never caught on film * if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving * a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises * a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.

it makes sense to him!

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:27am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:16am: Alevines arguments so far: * criminals never wear disguises * crimes are never caught on film * if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving * a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises * a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket. it makes sense to him!

Alevine do you think suicide by cop is a fundamental human right?


sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:24am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:21am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:18am: freediver wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:16am: Alevines arguments so far: * criminals never wear disguises * crimes are never caught on film * if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving * a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises * a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket. That's a nice summary, but not quite accurate now is it? ;) My argument remains consistently as it was before: people exercising their freedom of speech should not be held liable for their actions because of some what if scenarios obtained from either irrational fear or Hollywood plots. Yes, you do seem to have dropped the more idiotic ones. Good for you. The idiotic ones were used to highlight how preposterous your argument was.

How did that work out for you Alevine? Did you get your point across?

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:29am:

cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:27am: freediver wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:16am: Alevines arguments so far: * criminals never wear disguises * crimes are never caught on film * if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving * a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises * a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket. it makes sense to him! Alevine do you think suicide by cop is a fundamental human right? sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:24am: freediver wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:21am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:18am: freediver wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:16am: Alevines arguments so far: * criminals never wear disguises * crimes are never caught on film * if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving * a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises * a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket. That's a nice summary, but not quite accurate now is it? ;) My argument remains consistently as it was before: people exercising their freedom of speech should not be held liable for their actions because of some what if scenarios obtained from either irrational fear or Hollywood plots. Yes, you do seem to have dropped the more idiotic ones. Good for you. The idiotic ones were used to highlight how preposterous your argument was. How did that work out for you Alevine? Did you get your point across?

It worked out fine I thought. I truly hope you understood the point.

No, I believe killing oneself is a right, but not by means that impact others.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:26am:

Where is the public nuisance?  Which public was inconvenienced? Or annoyed?  Seems to me the cops overreached. and because they are trying to suppress freedom of speech.

you are so weird...........the cops thought it was REAL.

it wasnt until they were ARRESTED....they confessed it was all set up..

what is it about you? you dont understand that part??????........

they were then charged with PUBLIC NUISANCE

after appearing on TV shows....



Quote:

Once again dear, a fake home invasion staged and recorded on video, where participants are aware of everything, would not be deemed illegal or criminal. You need to understand the issue,cods.

trouble is dear... you dont know they are FAKE....


what issue is it you have in mind?...

the one where it is all on the web...

and where those involved claim it ISNT FAKE....on TV..

or the one where they are ARRESTED and then confess its all a set up??>.


you started this thread.. AFTER THEY CONFESSED.. ::) ::) ::)

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:34am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:26am: Where is the public nuisance?  Which public was inconvenienced? Or annoyed?  Seems to me the cops overreached. and because they are trying to suppress freedom of speech. you are so weird...........the cops thought it was REAL. it wasnt until they were ARRESTED....they confessed it was all set up.. what is it about you? you dont understand that part??????........ they were then charged with PUBLIC NUISANCE after appearing on TV shows.... Quote: Once again dear, a fake home invasion staged and recorded on video, where participants are aware of everything, would not be deemed illegal or criminal. You need to understand the issue,cods. trouble is dear... you dont know they are FAKE.... what issue is it you have in mind?... the one where it is all on the web... and where those involved claim it ISNT FAKE....on TV.. or the one where they are ARRESTED and then confess its all a set up??>. you started this thread.. AFTER THEY CONFESSED.. ::) ::) ::)

So why proceed with a charge when they showed it was all staged?

The issue is that this isn't about trying to cause public harm. All the kids did was stage a prank. With actors. In empty streets.

But because it's about terrorism, our tax payer money was used to charge these kids.  For what?  Absolutely nothing.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:32am:

No, I believe killing oneself is a right, but not by means that impact others.

can you really kill yourelf...without impacting others???


goodness me no end to what you know sir?...


what advice would you give to anyone contemplating doing that???

I see where you wouldnt try to talk them out of it... ::) ::)... as its their right... along with acting out terrorist shootouts.in any old street.. ::) ::)

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:38am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:32am: No, I believe killing oneself is a right, but not by means that impact others. can you really kill yourelf...without impacting others??? goodness me no end to what you know sir?... what advice would you give to anyone contemplating doing that??? I see where you wouldnt try to talk them out of it... ::) ::)... as its their right... along with acting out terrorist shootouts.in any old street.. ::) ::)

Grief is not the same as involving someone directly in your death.

And of course suicide can be performed independently.  Of course I won't discuss the measures here.

But freediver, what is the point if I may ask?

I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if  staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops  have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems.

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:38am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:32am: No, I believe killing oneself is a right, but not by means that impact others. can you really kill yourelf...without impacting others??? goodness me no end to what you know sir?... what advice would you give to anyone contemplating doing that??? I see where you wouldnt try to talk them out of it... ::) ::)... as its their right... along with acting out terrorist shootouts.in any old street.. ::) ::)

No I of course would show empathy and try to rationalise and help the person.  But I don't think it should be an illegal act in the event a person ends up doing it. 

Having a right, and promoting the exercise of an act are separate things cods. I find it absurd that you would try to suggest otherwise.

For instance, I believe drugs should be deemed legal. Doesn't mean I would encourage taking drugs.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:37am:

cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:34am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:26am: Where is the public nuisance?  Which public was inconvenienced? Or annoyed?  Seems to me the cops overreached. and because they are trying to suppress freedom of speech. you are so weird...........the cops thought it was REAL. it wasnt until they were ARRESTED....they confessed it was all set up.. what is it about you? you dont understand that part??????........ they were then charged with PUBLIC NUISANCE after appearing on TV shows.... Quote: Once again dear, a fake home invasion staged and recorded on video, where participants are aware of everything, would not be deemed illegal or criminal. You need to understand the issue,cods. trouble is dear... you dont know they are FAKE.... what issue is it you have in mind?... the one where it is all on the web... and where those involved claim it ISNT FAKE....on TV.. or the one where they are ARRESTED and then confess its all a set up??>. you started this thread.. AFTER THEY CONFESSED.. ::) ::) ::) So why proceed with a charge when they showed it was all staged? The issue is that this isn't about trying to cause public harm. All the kids did was stage a prank. With actors. In empty streets. But because it's about terrorism, our tax payer money was used to charge these kids.  For what?  Absolutely nothing.

a lot of people were fooled by this.....dont you get it...

a PUBLIC NUISANCE....the only people that knew it was a prank were those involved.....


just supposing someone looked out of their window and witness what they thought was a terrorist attack....and rang the cops ....and the town it was staged in went in to melt down....


wouldnt that also have been a massive waste of taxpayers funds..

it didnt happen.. but had they not appeared on TV and were still doing it... it was only a matter of time...

do you not think its a good idea the cops stop copycats.... by proving you will be caught????>..

or are you all for more idiots being out there expressing themselves????

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:41am:

I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if  staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops  have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems.

Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn.

The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal.  I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject.  There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away.

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:43am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:37am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:34am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:26am: Where is the public nuisance?  Which public was inconvenienced? Or annoyed?  Seems to me the cops overreached. and because they are trying to suppress freedom of speech. you are so weird...........the cops thought it was REAL. it wasnt until they were ARRESTED....they confessed it was all set up.. what is it about you? you dont understand that part??????........ they were then charged with PUBLIC NUISANCE after appearing on TV shows.... Quote: Once again dear, a fake home invasion staged and recorded on video, where participants are aware of everything, would not be deemed illegal or criminal. You need to understand the issue,cods. trouble is dear... you dont know they are FAKE.... what issue is it you have in mind?... the one where it is all on the web... and where those involved claim it ISNT FAKE....on TV.. or the one where they are ARRESTED and then confess its all a set up??>. you started this thread.. AFTER THEY CONFESSED.. ::) ::) ::) So why proceed with a charge when they showed it was all staged? The issue is that this isn't about trying to cause public harm. All the kids did was stage a prank. With actors. In empty streets. But because it's about terrorism, our tax payer money was used to charge these kids.  For what?  Absolutely nothing. a lot of people were fooled by this.....dont you get it... a PUBLIC NUISANCE....the only people that knew it was a prank were those involved..... just supposing someone looked out of their window and witness what they thought was a terrorist attack....and rang the cops ....and the town it was staged in went in to melt down.... wouldnt that also have been a massive waste of taxpayers funds.. it didnt happen.. but had they not appeared on TV and were still doing it... it was only a matter of time... do you not think its a good idea the cops stop copycats.... by proving you will be caught????>.. or are you all for more idiots being out there expressing themselves????

Who was fooled by it?  After it appearing on YouTube From known pranksters you thought it was real? I don't think people should be jailed for your naivety, cods. Sorry.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:45am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:41am: I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if  staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops  have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems. Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn. The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal.  I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject.  There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away.

I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:43am:

cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:38am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:32am: No, I believe killing oneself is a right, but not by means that impact others. can you really kill yourelf...without impacting others??? goodness me no end to what you know sir?... what advice would you give to anyone contemplating doing that??? I see where you wouldnt try to talk them out of it... ::) ::)... as its their right... along with acting out terrorist shootouts.in any old street.. ::) ::) No I of course would show empathy and try to rationalise and help the person.  But I don't think it should be an illegal act in the event a person ends up doing it.  Having a right, and promoting the exercise of an act are separate things cods. I find it absurd that you would try to suggest otherwise. For instance, I believe drugs should be deemed legal. Doesn't mean I would encourage taking drugs.

really.... ok if you say so..

empathy... hahahaha.. yeah but you just said its their right to leave this world..

you want a bet each way... dont we all.. >:( >:( >:(

everything we do has a consequence to it....

if you b elieve it is someone right to take their own life....... then you let them do it...


you also said as long as they do it without impacting on anyone else....???

explain how they can do that if you would.

I would think even the person who finds their body would be impacted on..

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:45am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:41am: I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if  staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops  have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems. Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn. The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal.  I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject.  There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away. I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it.

yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested..

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:45am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:41am: I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if  staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops  have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems. Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn. The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal.  I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject.  There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away. I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it.

You're obviously lying because there was one onlooker who didn't even seem to care what was going on.

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:50am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:47am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:45am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:41am: I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if  staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops  have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems. Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn. The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal.  I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject.  There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away. I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it. yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested..

So what?????  It doesn't make a person a criminal that they reveal it was staged after an overzealous police force decides to waste tax payer money!!

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:50am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:47am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:45am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:41am: I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if  staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops  have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems. Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn. The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal.  I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject.  There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away. I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it. yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested..

This is from the article-

Interviewed on Channel Ten's The Project on Wednesday, the brothers denied suggestions that the people presented as unsuspecting members of the public in their videos were in on the joke??????

:(
cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:49am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:43am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:38am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:32am: No, I believe killing oneself is a right, but not by means that impact others. can you really kill yourelf...without impacting others??? goodness me no end to what you know sir?... what advice would you give to anyone contemplating doing that??? I see where you wouldnt try to talk them out of it... ::) ::)... as its their right... along with acting out terrorist shootouts.in any old street.. ::) ::) No I of course would show empathy and try to rationalise and help the person.  But I don't think it should be an illegal act in the event a person ends up doing it.  Having a right, and promoting the exercise of an act are separate things cods. I find it absurd that you would try to suggest otherwise. For instance, I believe drugs should be deemed legal. Doesn't mean I would encourage taking drugs. really.... ok if you say so.. empathy... hahahaha.. yeah but you just said its their right to leave this world.. you want a bet each way... dont we all.. >:( >:( >:( everything we do has a consequence to it.... if you b elieve it is someone right to take their own life....... then you let them do it... you also said as long as they do it without impacting on anyone else....??? explain how they can do that if you would. I would think even the person who finds their body would be impacted on..

It is a persons right in my opinion. Doesn't mean i would encourage them to exercise their right.

You don't seem to appreciate the difference, cods.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:50am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:47am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:45am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:41am: I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if  staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops  have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems. Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn. The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal.  I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject.  There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away. I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it. yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested.. This is from the article- Interviewed on Channel Ten's The Project on Wednesday, the brothers denied suggestions that the people presented as unsuspecting members of the public in their videos were in on the joke??????

Now keep reading.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:55am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:50am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:47am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:45am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:41am: I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if  staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops  have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems. Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn. The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal.  I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject.  There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away. I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it. yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested.. This is from the article- Interviewed on Channel Ten's The Project on Wednesday, the brothers denied suggestions that the people presented as unsuspecting members of the public in their videos were in on the joke?????? Now keep reading.

Freedom of speech?? What message were they getting across by the way?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:37am:

So why proceed with a charge when they showed it was all staged? The issue is that this isn't about trying to cause public harm. All the kids did was stage a prank. With actors. In empty streets. But because it's about terrorism, our tax payer money was used to charge these kids.  For what?  Absolutely nothing.

Still pushing this excuse that they made an effort are you?

This is the first video on their facebook page:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5Vefa_AGXM

In the very first scene, you see two cars drive by in the background.

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.
* Doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort".

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:58am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:37am: So why proceed with a charge when they showed it was all staged? The issue is that this isn't about trying to cause public harm. All the kids did was stage a prank. With actors. In empty streets. But because it's about terrorism, our tax payer money was used to charge these kids.  For what?  Absolutely nothing. Still pushing this excuse that they made an effort are you? This is the first video on their facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/jalalbros/videos/773206006156323/ In the very first scene, you see two cars drive by in the background. Alevines arguments so far: * criminals never wear disguises * crimes are never caught on film * if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving * a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises * a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket. * Doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort".

I bet if you interviewed the two car drivers they wouldn't have even realised they were in the area at the time.

Keep going, it's fun watching you try and rationalise such a waste of tax payer money.  Good to see the police are protecting the community by locking up pranksters.  Great job.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:57am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:55am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:55am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:50am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:47am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:45am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:41am: I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if  staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops  have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems. Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn. The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal.  I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject.  There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away. I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it. yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested.. This is from the article- Interviewed on Channel Ten's The Project on Wednesday, the brothers denied suggestions that the people presented as unsuspecting members of the public in their videos were in on the joke?????? Now keep reading. Freedom of speech?? What message were they getting across by the way?

I took from it the absurdity and lunacy of terrorists.  They expressed it in their work of art.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:57am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:55am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:55am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:50am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:47am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:45am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:41am: I suppose it's okay to dress up as a KKK member and abduct and black person if  staged according to Alevine. Or a little kid being abducted by a priest if staged?? When things like this are done in public somebody will ring the police. Then the cops  have to go out there. Some old lady almost has a heart attack from the excitement etc etc etc. These silly pranks cause problems. Some old lady can have a heart attack from the sound of a horn. The point is that if people are in on the prank then there is no nuisance. And while one may not agree with the subject matter, it doesn't mean it's illegal.  I'll defend a persons right to act out a subject even if I don't agree with the Subject.  There's a reason for that - if we start rationalising every freedom then eventually we will rationalise them all away. I watched their pranks and onlookers were obviously shocked and had know idea what was happening. They obviously weren't in on it. yes they were.... but we didnt find that out until they were arrested.. This is from the article- Interviewed on Channel Ten's The Project on Wednesday, the brothers denied suggestions that the people presented as unsuspecting members of the public in their videos were in on the joke?????? Now keep reading. Freedom of speech?? What message were they getting across by the way? I took from it the absurdity and lunacy of terrorists.  They expressed it in their work of art.

;D ;D ;D ;D What a pile of crap. As I understand it was a money making venture.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 8:01am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:58am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:37am: So why proceed with a charge when they showed it was all staged? The issue is that this isn't about trying to cause public harm. All the kids did was stage a prank. With actors. In empty streets. But because it's about terrorism, our tax payer money was used to charge these kids.  For what?  Absolutely nothing. Still pushing this excuse that they made an effort are you? This is the first video on their facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/jalalbros/videos/773206006156323/ In the very first scene, you see two cars drive by in the background. Alevines arguments so far: * criminals never wear disguises * crimes are never caught on film * if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving * a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises * a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket. * Doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort". I bet if you interviewed the two car drivers they wouldn't have even realised they were in the area at the time. Keep going, it's fun watching you try and rationalise such a waste of tax payer money.  Good to see the police are protecting the community by locking up pranksters.  Great job.

So you were lying about the streets being empty, and about them making an effort to stop people stumbling across their pranks, but that is OK because the two or more people captured in the very first scene probably didn't realise?

Out of the many arguments you have tried to make to defend these idiots, is there a single one that hasn't turned out to be BS?