Victoria Police failed Bourke St massacre victims

There are many points of failure by the authorities with regards to the actions of Dimitrious Gargasoluas that lead to the mowing down of innocent people in Melbourne's busy Bourke St mall on Friday the 20th of January 2017.

Police state that when dealing with criminals apparently Victoria Police has "time" on their side, as written in an email by Deputy Commissioner Andrew Crisp.

How long are we talking about a week, half a year, why not five?

Does Victoria Police not have a Policy Manual?

Does Victoria Police not have  Code of Ethics and Conduct instructions?

Does it say anywhere that "time is on your side"?

Since Gargasoulas was already committing criminal offences, Victoria Police 

• FAILED to "preserve the peace",

• FAILED to "protect life and property",

• FAILED to "prevent offences".

Even though it has been mentioned in the mainstream media, the masses may not be aware that the employees of the corporation known as Victoria Police are not in the business of getting hurt on the job, as the State of Victoria will deny duty of care to injured employees of Victoria Police.

So victims are created as a result of police inaction due to Victoria Police not being able to (financially) burden the State of Victoria if they get hurt.

It all about the money (from the bail justice to the actions of Victoria Police) and not about the lives of the public the police are supposed to "protect".

Now the false reports justifying police actions will take form over the course of the year.

Grab yourself a copy of the Victoria Police manual at:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21_coIgIYu2TmF5UDNTNnNTZUE

While you're at it grab yourself a copy of the Victoria Police business Style Guide at:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21_coIgIYu2ajNpUFVMdGJhMHc

Much more can be written on Victoria Police, their actions or corporate status where some of this information can be found elsewhere in the blog.

Victoria Police should be sued by the families of the victims.

One word to note is nonfeasance.

Do not fear, as any official inquiries will cover up any police wrongdoing, where police will even be exonerated.

See contents of article from 6 July 2014 by theage.com.au of the headline:

State denies duty of care to injured police

The state government and Victoria Police are using an arcane legal technicality to block seriously injured police officers from suing the force for compensation, claiming they owe no duty of care to members hurt in the line of duty.

The use of the contentious tactic comes as Victoria Police are fighting at least three lawsuits from former officers who allege they received permanent physical and psychological injuries on the job.

In a bid to avoid a payout, the government is claiming that police officers are not technically employees of the state but ‘‘public officers’’ conducting ‘‘independent duties’’, absolving the government of civil liability for their injuries.

The defence has been filed in a lawsuit brought by former mounted police officer Justin Boyer, who alleges he sustained severe psychological trauma at the hands of fellow officers after he reported allegations of corruption to authorities.

The government’s argument is based on an interpretation of the wording of a police oath written more than 56 years ago which sees Victorian officers sworn into service of ‘‘our Sovereign Lady the Queen’’.

‘‘[The government] denies that [Mr Boyer] was employed by [the government], and says further that at all material times [Mr Boyer] was executing independent duties cast upon him by reason of his oath taken under the Police Regulation Act 1958,’’ the defence filed in the Supreme Court says. 

‘‘[The government] denies that it owed a duty of care to [Mr Boyer].’’

Police Minister Kim Wells and Chief Commissioner Ken Lay have refused to comment on whether they personally authorised the defence used by the external law firm hired to represent the government because the matter is currently before the court.

A source said the government has used the defence in the past in a bid to block civil claims despite police officers being apparently recognised as employees in some industrial relations legislation and by WorkSafe.

But Giuseppe Carabetta, senior lecturer at the University of Sydney Business School, said the government’s defence could be difficult to refute because police have long been recognised in law as “office-holders” rather than employees.

“Essentially the Crown is denying that the plaintiff is an employee in the strict common law sense. As the law currently stands, the Crown will, in my view, succeed,” he said.

The decision to fight the claim also comes despite the government acknowledging Mr Boyer had received a ‘‘serious injury certificate’’ early last year.

Mr Boyer claims to suffer from a knee injury and severe post-traumatic stress disorder and depression after being subjected to a campaign of  ‘‘harassment, discrimination, vilification, intimidation and bullying’’ by fellow officers for reporting allegations of misconduct and corruption. He is seeking more than $250,000 in damages.

The government has denied the allegations but also claimed that Mr Boyer could be ‘‘guilty of contributory negligence’’ for failing to report to superiors that he was allegedly being victimised.

The Police Association has declined to comment on the government’s defence because the case involves a former officer making claims that include other members of the force.