While we await an internal police review and coroner’s inquiry into the siege of the Lindt Café by gunman Man Haron Monis last month evidence has been seeping into the press and questions are being raised about police tactics and what happened. Earlier media reports are reflected in the Wikipedia entry:
It was reported that hostage Tori Johnson’s attempt to wrest the gun from Monis may have triggered the police response.[41] However, a survivor told his family that the shot that prompted the police response was a warning shot fired when the hostages kicked down a door in an attempt to escape. Video evidence appears to show that Johnson was shot by Monis after police stormed the café. Police said they would not be commenting until the investigation was over.[42]
Hostage Katrina Dawson was killed by a police bullet, probably a ricochet,[43][40] although initially a police spokesman reported that she died of a heart attack on the way to hospital.[44]
Last Saturday Nick Ralston in the SMH advised that “multiple police sources have told Fairfax Media that Ms Dawson, 38, was struck by police fire that was not a direct shot and possibly a ricochet, when they stormed the cafe…” (emphasis added).
On Monday Rick Feneley reported that there was division over police tactics.
Early in the piece police devised a direct action plan to storm the building and take Monis by surprise. The suggestion is that this was countermanded, with such action to be reactive only.
Despite the risks, the advantage of a direct action plan is that police seize control and decide the time rather than react in split seconds to the gunman’s action.
Fairfax Media has learned there is some anger among police at the front line of the siege about the decision not to proceed with the direct action plan.
Also:
Police rejected the offers of many in the Muslim community to help them negotiate with the gunman. It is understood they would be loath to allow third parties, with no experience in hostage negotiations, to talk to a gunman – because they may be unable to control what they say or how the hostage taker might react.
Among those to offer their services were the Grand Mufti of Australia, Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammad, but he was not called in – neither to help negotiate nor to advise police.
Feneley further reports that the police had little or no contact with Monis – “in fact we’re not dealing directly with him” and “At this stage we do not have direct contact with the offender.”
Guy Rundle at Crikey takes up these and other issues.
Rundle is concerned that the apparent lack of effort to communicate with Monis may have stemmed from his self-proclaimed status as an IS representative. Police may have taken a “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” attitude, in effect militarising the situation.
Were any professional hostage negotiators even summoned? How many of these do Australian police forces have, and how good is their training? Are there clear protocols for hostage situations in place and do they categorise purportedly political events differently to “civil” situations? Do they differentiate between rational, purposeful violent political acts, and disorganised and confused political or pseudo-political acts and actors?
Why were the offers from Muslim community leaders to speak to Monis rejected, when it is a common practice to use in that way figures whom a hostage-taker might respect? Did police distrust the bona fides of Australian Muslims, believing their loyalties would be to Muslims, including Monis, rather than to the wider community?
Rundle also asks whether there was any political interference in the operation, formal or informal.
Finally:
Political opportunists tried to enrol Johnson as a “hero” who had tried to grab Monis’ gun, and died for it. He may simply have been executed — and that may have occurred because of compromised or incompetent police procedure. That Dawson died laying her body over that of a pregnant fellow hostage appears established. That she died from a police bullet does not alter that. But if it resulted from needlessly compromised procedure, then the police are partly culpable for a needless death. To turn anyone killed into a “hero” is a denial of the possibility of victimhood, of innocence, and thus of unconditional worth of any human being. To do so on the basis of clearly false information is an act of disdain. To use it as a means by which future such crises will be shaped and distorted, is actively evil. The unscrupulous love to wrap themselves in a flag whatever the event. They’re happy to use it as a shroud for any number of us, if that’s what it takes.
As you can see Rundle really bores in, but he is demanding that the facts be established by meticulous examination of the details of the last minutes before wider meaning is assigned to events.
Our earlier post on the siege is here.
Well let us hope that the inquiries are objective and honest.
And may it be that we don’t go into some soul-sapping cringe mode where we ring our hands and rue that we did not handle it better. May we just learn what we can about response options and accept that those people in command, on the ground at the time of the siege made well reasoned decisions about how the siege should be played out, even if hindsight suggests otherwise.
It is almost a certainty that “errors” in the handling of the siege will be recorded. They will be discovered by well-meaning intelligent people who from the comfort of their offices, the assistance of their staff, sufficient funds and all the time necessary to take a reasoned view of events. Let’s hope they understand the immediacy facing the police strategists and the intense pressure generated by the broadcast (via Channel 7) streaming to the world in real time.
The wizened journalists who have commented critically thus far may or may not be fully informed but you can expect that for much of the Press the real goal is to sell media, not ventilate truth.
Political pressure during the siege? Likely but only as further background noise. The real political pressure I would expect will emerge during or right after the inquiries.
Sounds like Katrina Dawson was a real hero in this event and should get a posthumous award for her bravery.
Apart from that I agree with Geoff:
By and large the media is looking for a story and rarely have any significant on the ground experience in dealing with emergencies.
I thought, for example, that Rundle got it wrong when he complained about the police failure to use the Grand Mufti. The Grand Mufti may have been the right man to use but the type of negotiating we are talking about takes a particular set of skills and a particular personality. The skills required to make a Grand Mufti are not necessarily the same as those required for this type of negotiation. Being a very important person may be a disadvantage if the person being negotiated with has a gripe against the establishment.
I hope the enquiry is not given to the legal profession. This article I wrote on the Black Saturday investigation highlighted the problems caused when the counsel assisting wanted a particular outcome and a scalp or two to boost his reputation.
And may it be that we don’t go into some soul-sapping cringe mode where we ring our hands and rue that we did not handle it better. May we just learn what we can about response options and accept that those people in command, on the ground at the time of the siege made well reasoned decisions about how the siege should be played out, even if hindsight suggests otherwise.”>To the Black Saturday enquiry
It is hardly surprising that someone was killed by a ricochet – that is an ever-present risk when a fire-fight happens in an urban environment with a lot of hard smooth surfaces. Deaths and injuries from “friendly fire” are common enough in both police and military operations. Military forces, until lately, have usually been able attribute them to enemy fire and thereby save a lot of awkward questions. Police, however, have always had to answer a Coroner’s questions at the very least.
I was very annoyed by some of the unbelievable stupid comments that came out of the Australian news media. It is embarrassingly obvious that few Australian journalists have ever been in or near a fire-fight where real ammunition is being used – and the situation lacks all the wonderful clarity and charming simplicity of a TV show or a computer game.
That the Police declined to call in community leaders to negotiate is hardly surprising.
I suggest that it has far less to do with not being able to control what community leader might say and inadvertently exacerbate the situation – than with Police desperately trying to reclaim their own turf as the experts in policing.
Look at what has happened over the past quarter-century: Police are no longer seen as the experts on policing: Police may have the practical experience but, with due respect to those serving as media liaison officers, they lack both eloquence and academic prestige – whereas – the thundering herd of “experts” who now take the main stage on policing matters are commonly short of practical experience but have eloquence, academic prestige and glamour in spades.
If my suggestion is correct, Police would be loathe to weaken their position in the public view any further.
I don’t think any reform of policing culture and attitudes in this sort of situation will be possible until Police regain their confidence through regaining their position as the primary authorities on policing matters – and peripheral experts remain just that: peripheral experts and not media celebrities.
I agree with most of the commentary above. I thought the two Fairfax journalists I linked to did OK but Rundle was a bit over the top.
John D. @ 2: Thanks a lot for that link to the Black Saturday discussion; heck of a lot of wisdom in that discussion ((still can’t figure out how H-Maryvale changed avatars half-way though)).
What we need from the inquiry into the Martin Place tragedy is an impartial and dispassionate summary of what happened and what we can all do to prevent a repeat of that sort of tragedy.
Whilst I would be happy to hear of any recommendations for personal bravery medals, I do not want to hear any blame laying or blame shifting at all.
The perpetrator was a tragic figure himself; he has been thoroughly vilified by our glorious disinformation media so no good purpose whatsoever will be served by further vilifying him. ((Disclosure: having been on the periphery of deadly shooting tragedy in Australia myself, I don’t take kindly to the over-simplistic demonizing of the perpetrator or the blaming of the victim – or both! Doing so might sell papers but it definitely hinders learning anything useful at all out of the tragedy.))
As for scalp-hunting show-ponies pretending to be lawyers and Walkley-chasing story spinners: I’ll be happy to donate a couple of lengths of sturdy inch-and-a-half manilla with unusual knots in them for single use only: I’ll buy some next time I’m in civilization.
Unfortunately, if previous inquiries are anything to go by – it will probably be “The Circus Is In Town!”. ggggrrrr.