Posted on 02/15/2004 11:25:28 AM PST by KangarooJacqui
Thirty police hurt in riot February 16, 2004 6.10AM AEDT
THIRTY police officers were injured as they were pelted with bricks and Molotov cocktails during an overnight riot in inner-Sydney sparked by a youth's death.
Police reinforcements from across Sydney were called to Redfern after the riot by 100 youths broke out at about 6pm (AEDT) yesterday.
A police spokeswoman said the riot ended early today and four people were in custody, with police still at the scene.
It appears the incident was sparked by the death of a 17-year-old boy who was impaled on a metal fence after falling from his bicycle on Saturday.
Thomas Hickey died in hospital yesterday morning from his injuries.
His mother says her son was pursued by police, but they deny the allegation.
The police spokeswoman said 30 officers were injured but it was not yet clear how many required hospital treatment.
"Thirty police officers were injured to varying degrees," she said.
Reinforcements brought in from across Sydney included police rescue, the dog squad and highway patrol officers.
"I can confirm Molotov cocktails were used and there were bricks and bottles and such," the spokeswoman said.
The four people arrested are yet to be charged.
The spokeswoman said the arrests came during a police sweep of the area and were not directly related to the riot.
Redfern railway station has been reopened after being shut for several hours during the standoff.
AAP
As I said, they're a different breed, apparently more docile.
This so called 'riot' is nothing but a bunch of Eveleigh St kids running amok like they have for the last 50 years.I used to have to walk to work past Eveleigh St every weekday and these kids were brats,but far from hardened criminals.The cops just need to leave them alone to be kids,instead of going in jackbooted and treating them like murderous crims.The only crimes they commit are against each other.Eveleigh St is Sydneys only 'ghetto',now try walking through a ghetto in LA or Chicago and do the comparison.
Why must all non-Sydneysiders resent us?Is it because of the beaches?Affluence?Harbour?Cuisine?Or just because Justin Timberlake owns a house here?:P
You need to go to the 99% of Sydney that is beautiful.East,North or Inner West.Why are you staying in the South-West anyway?Its like the dull Melbourne of Sydney.
Ah, so those crimes don't count. And when they bust your head, we'll just say "He must have been one of them"
Let's face it-- it's just my opinion. Yours may differ.
Make that any city; Any area with a population density of 5 per sq mile or more or any area that prohibits concealed carry.
god bless those yanks,but please take away the minoritys misguided,condescending attitudes.You all would be just perfect without them.
This is a long-standing argument against the second amendment here in America. However, our police and military consist of patriotic individuals. They are frequently some of our strongest second amendment advocates. If our Constitution were usurped by a tyrannical potentate, we presume we could count on them to stand for freedom, not against it.
The point remains: once you are disarmed, you have no choice. Our Founding Fathers knew that, and that is why our firearms rights are so sacred to us. This belief is also steeped in a fight for independence that began the moment the English decided to try to subdue Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. They concluded the British chapter of that war with the Oath of Culloden that disarmed the Jacobites. However, we won that war for independence in America, and we do not aim to fight it on our own soil again any time soon.
The following is an excerpt from an interview with Holocaust survivor Theodore Haas conducted by Aaron Zelman for JPFO. He makes it clear that an armed populace is much more resistant to totalitarian evils:
QUESTION: Did the camp inmates ever bring up the topic, "If only we were armed before, we would not be here now"?Disarmament is prelude to oppression. Australia is being disarmed. We're free to draw our own conclusions. Meanwhile we have our own problems here in America, but we're doing everything we can about it now -- before it's too late.
ANSWER: Many, many times. Before Adolph Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools we were. It truly frightens me to see how the government, media, and some police groups in America are pushing for the same mindset. In my opinion, the people of America had better start asking and demanding answers to some hard questions about firearms ownership, especially if the government does not trust me to own firearms, why or how can the people be expected to trust the government?
The Port Arthur massacre in 1996 that led to the move to disarm Australians is a familiar prelude to seizing weapons. But those who desire security at the expense of freedom deserve neither, as our Benjamin Franklin so aptly wrote.
When I lived in the suburbs of the US Northeast, I had a similar perspective. Owning a gun was perceived as unsophisticated, something simply not done in polite society. Besides, we all thought, didn't we pay civil servants to provide protection for us anyway? And so on, (you can probably fill in the rest...)
It was only later that I became aware of the real statistics. Guns still find there way into "gun-free" societies. Police emergency response times almost never are fast enough to stop a crime in progress. States and counties with concealed carry laws show a marked reduction in violent crime. Women, especially benefit from concealed carry laws.
As is the case with many topics, the press tends to be one-sided on the issue of guns. I assume this may be the case down in Oz as well. You may want to read some of the data in John Lott's two books on the subject. It is possible that upon seeing some of the data on gun-ownership that you have not been exposed to, you might choose to reevaluate some of your positions on the subject.
I happen to be a proud Australian who has always believed much the same thing... and unlike the US, where I saw "I shoot and I vote" bumper stickers, showing up on polling day is compulsory in this country, and most of us don't (and didn't) carry firearms. "I vote Conservative, I don't shoot..." and nationally, we're the majority.
Does the concept of compulsory voting raise any red flags with you? Is it really a good thing for people who feel disinterested or resentful of the whole political process to vote in it? Do we believe that the compulsed voter will do the meaningful research on the issues and candidates to benefit the process, or would such voters have the lowest possible standard of responsible voting?
You have a beautiful and wonderful country, but I worry for your freedom as I do ours!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.