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:
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.
