Sydney siege live: Tributes flow for victims killed in Martin Place Lindt cafe shootout

[✨ Ass Fat ✨]

Hundreds of floral tributes have been left in Sydney's Martin Place for the victims of a 16-hour siege which ended when police stormed the Lindt Chocolate Cafe early this morning.

"It is almost as if a beating heart of the city is being put in place. It is showing us that this city is alive," Premier Mike Baird said after laying some flowers.

Barrister and mother of three Katrina Dawson, 38, and Lindt cafe manager Tori Johnson, 34, were killed in the siege, along with 50-year-old gunman Man Haron Monis.

"Our hearts go out to the families of Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson. These were decent, good people, who were going about their ordinary lives," Prime Minister Tony Abbott said.

[Ogre Shrek]

R.I.P. to the two innocent victims who lost their lives because of the senseless act of a criminal.

 

How the hell was he allowed out on bail in the first place?  

[Gloupsidou]

This is really so, so sad. I hope the other victims get help. R.I.P.

[Joyz]

 i cant anymore with this world...

 

rip

[ishouldbestudying]

My heart goes out to the family and friends of the two victims, and all those involved in this ordeal. As sad as it makes me to think about it, I'm also grateful that the majority of Australians seem to be doing the opposite of what these people want, by banding together and supporting each other regardless of race and religion.

 

R.I.P. to the two innocent victims who lost their lives because of the senseless act of a criminal.

 

How the hell was he allowed out on bail in the first place?  

 

This. I understand that bail is intended to uphold the presumption of innocence (which of course is fundamental to the justice system), but in light of his past record (sending offensive letters to the families of soldiers, being implicated in the death of his ex-wife) how could someone so clearly unstable go unwatched? We've had quite a few bail-related issues recently, it seems like we may need some major reforms in the near future...

[letsrewindit]

RIP.

[imjaejennie]

Such a lovely but at the same time sad photo. I have a flower bouquet there that I've asked my cousin from Sydney to put on my behalf. So good to see this tribute. I hope the media will give the families of those affected by this event some time and privacy. Amay they rest in peace.

 

My heart goes out to the family and friends of the two victims, and all those involved in this ordeal. As sad as it makes me to think about it, I'm also grateful that the majority of Australians seem to be doing the opposite of what these people want, by banding together and supporting each other regardless of race and religion.

 

 

 

This. I understand that bail is intended to uphold the presumption of innocence (which of course is fundamental to the justice system), but in light of his past record (sending offensive letters to the families of soldiers, being implicated in the death of his ex-wife) how could someone so clearly unstable go unwatched? We've had quite a few bail-related issues recently, it seems like we may need some major reforms in the near future...

Great words! To think there are many more people on bail that are similar to him. It's ridiculous really. I am all for innocence until proven guilty but one must draw a line between what is fact (he clearly did) and not allow bail? Am I noob to ask is it all about the legal system accepting bail money?

[mgl]

This is tragic. RIP.

[ishouldbestudying]

Great words! To think there are many more people on bail that are similar to him. It's ridiculous really. I am all for innocence until proven guilty but one must draw a line between what is fact (he clearly did) and not allow bail? Am I noob to ask is it all about the legal system accepting bail money?

Thank you. Don't worry, not at all! Bail is supposed to discourage people from running away, so basically you give them the money and if you come back for the trial you get the money back. If you run and try to evade the law, you don't get the money back.

 

There's a lot of factors that judges look at when deciding to grant bail. Is the accused likely to run (look at whether they have family/connections/employment in the area)? What crime are they accused of (graffiti, shoplifting, assault, murder, etc.)? Have they been convicted of a crime before/what is the chance they will do it again?

 

There are other factors relevant to the individual in play (mental/physical illness, if they're the sole carer of children, etc.), and judges generally don't want to put unconvicted people in jail. Just in case they're not guilty, or only guilty of a small crime, putting them in with other more serious criminals might lead to them getting to know these people and getting into more serious crime.

 

From public record, this guy was guilty of sending the letters, had an overseas criminal record, was suspected of being involved in the stabbing and burning of his ex, and was going on trial for sexually assaulting six girls...I know he wasn't convicted of the charges related to his ex (insufficient evidence), but surely the judge should have seen a pattern? He'd clearly shown a propensity for flouting the law, what made them think he wouldn't do it again? I think most people have said that he shouldn't have been offered the choice of bail at all, and should have just been held in remand.

 

I guess we'll never know. It's too late for him and the people he hurt anyway. Sorry for the impromptu lecture, hehe. ^^

[imjaejennie]

 

Thank you. Don't worry, not at all! Bail is supposed to discourage people from running away, so basically you give them the money and if you come back for the trial you get the money back. If you run and try to evade the law, you don't get the money back.

There's a lot of factors that judges look at when deciding to grant bail. Is the accused likely to run (look at whether they have family/connections/employment in the area)? What crime are they accused of (graffiti, shoplifting, assault, murder, etc.)? Have they been convicted of a crime before/what is the chance they will do it again?

There are other factors relevant to the individual in play (mental/physical illness, if they're the sole carer of children, etc.), and judges generally don't want to put unconvicted people in jail. Just in case they're not guilty, or only guilty of a small crime, putting them in with other more serious criminals might lead to them getting to know these people and getting into more serious crime.

From public record, this guy was guilty of sending the letters, had an overseas criminal record, was suspected of being involved in the stabbing and burning of his ex, and was going on trial for sexually assaulting six girls...I know he wasn't convicted of the charges related to his ex (insufficient evidence), but surely the judge should have seen a pattern? He'd clearly shown a propensity for flouting the law, what made them think he wouldn't do it again? I think most people have said that he shouldn't have been offered the choice of bail at all, and should have just been held in remand.

 

I guess we'll never know. It's too late for him and the people he hurt anyway. Sorry for the impromptu lecture, hehe. ^^

I understood everything you wrote! of course with a few exception of some words in which i needed google's assistance lol. 

 

No need for apologies cos your lectures are free and I'm actually learning something! haha. I surely hope out of this event, the legal system change some of their old ways of dealing with people like him. I highly doubt that, but I guess we can only hope this is a one time incident. 

 

What happen is still very surreal! oh and thanks for replying!, :D