Tyler Cassidy : Suicide-by-cop?

The suicide-by-cop thesis look like it’s getting a good run… while the claim by Dr James Saleam of the ‘Australia First Party’ that Corrupt Political Police ‘Intelligence’ Killed Tyler Cassidy appears not to have been taken seriously: proof, if any was needed, that corrupt political police ‘intelligence’ killed Tyler Cassidy.

Suicide by cop
Farah Farouque
The Age
March 23, 2011

Police shootings scrutinised
Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker
The Age
March 23, 2011

Police chief worried about ‘suicide by cop’
March 16, 2010

When the police are the wrong people to investigate
Emily Howie
The Age
March 16, 2011

Tyler Cassidy’s death ‘suicide by cop’, coroner told
Mark Dunn
Herald Sun
March 11, 2011

Coroner retires to consider finding in police teen shooting inquest
Alison Caldwell
March 11, 2011

Tyler wanted to kill, inquest told
Farah Farouque
The Age
March 11, 2011

Cassidy death inquest adjourned
March 11, 2011

Family denies ‘suicide by cop’
Stuart Rintoul
The Australian
March 11, 2011

Police killing was assault, not suicide, says family
Farah Farouque
The Age
March 11, 2011

Tyler Cassidy’s death homicide, not suicide, inquest hears
Mark Dunn
Herald Sun
March 11, 2011

Coroner urged to consider suicide finding in police shooting
Alison Caldwell
March 10, 2011

Victorian cops lacked ‘good sense’ in teen death
Herald Sun/AAP
March 10, 2011

Tyler’s death ‘was homicide’, inquest told
Farah Farouque
The Age
March 10, 2011

Cops ‘partly to blame’ for shooting death of Tyler Cassidy, inquest told
Herald Sun/AAP
March 10, 2011

Coroner asked to consider Cassidy suicide finding
Guy Stayner
March 10, 2011

Suicide finding sought on Tyler
Farah Farouque
The Age
March 8, 2011

About @ndy

I live in Melbourne, Australia. I like anarchy. I don't like nazis. I enjoy eating pizza and drinking beer. I barrack for the greatest football team on Earth: Collingwood Magpies. The 2024 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in Death, State / Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Tyler Cassidy : Suicide-by-cop?

  1. Ah, well now, you see this is an excellent example of why you have significant difficulty gaining traction in the old credibility department ‘@ndy’. ‘Bad taste’ just don’t cover it. While you weep, tear at your hair and gnash your teeth in impotent rage at the alleged ‘outrageous injustices’ in the Jock Paltry Man case you summarily damn a mixed up kid as a ‘Neo Nazi’ beast who pretty much got what he ‘deserved’.

    This is why I really struggle to discern your particular line of logic in this matter. If indeed there even is, or can be, one. For example, it is one thing, for the purposes of your peculiar political ideology, to demonise an adult, openly declared and active White Nationalist but surely it is callous in the extreme to condemn a clearly troubled kid as a monster.

    Then there’s the other shameful and heavily implied angle in much of your previous commentary that manipulative or even predatory adults in the so-called ‘Neo-Nazi’ movement exploited, manipulated and basically ‘groomed’ this kid for destruction like some disposable soldier in their war against the establishment. Of course, that sort of fairy tale suits your overall agenda of disinformation and your ultimate intent is to see others in the larger Leftist Movement extrapolate on this even further once you’ve applied enough ‘spin’ to the original lie.

    It’s just too convenient to stand back and apply ‘plausible deniability’ or even ‘shock and dismay’ as others nurture your ‘seed’ lie and, after suitable embellishment, broadcast it far and wide. You’re the Johnny (Rotten) Apple seed of the Australian Left ‘@ndy’.

    But where is your instinctive Left Wing equalitarian liberal compassion, your selfless Humanist empathy, your Marxist ‘rage against the machine’ support for a youth who, judging by the basic and established FACTS of the incident, was yet another victim of the wicked and tyrannical system, brutally shot to death by a heavily indoctrinated posse of what one would normally assume to be YOUR natural and hated enemies, the State Police?

    Perhaps all ‘yoof’ are NOT equal, eh ‘@ndy’?

    Perhaps the ‘correct’ sort of ‘yoof’ are the only ones worthy of your compassion? Those with a self loathing, iconoclastic ideology, filthy, matted dreadlocks, raggedy clothes, bodily scarification and a tragic lack of personal hygiene are worth more than the ones with an enhanced sense of identity, a more disciplined approach to dress and personal grooming?

    What happened to being ‘blind’ to surface appearance and ‘we’re all the same under the skin’ @ndy?

    Hmmm! I sense hypocrisy.

    Most of the time ‘@ndy’ you are, perhaps unintentionally, mildly amusing, but sometimes you just overstep the bounds of human decency. This is one of those occasions.

    Thankfully, judging by some of the comments over the years, not many on the Left buy your cynically contrived faux militancy and rabble rousing hatred. Several have also agreed with us that you are very likely either a State agent or a ‘source’ for the Security/Intelligence Agencies. It is difficult to believe all the inconsistencies in your comments are simply muddled thinking. You’ve been at this politics thing for far too long. Either you ARE ‘that stupid’ or you are ‘that evil’.

    Which one could it be ‘@ndy’?

  2. @ndy says:

    G’day Peter,

    As a member of the reality-based community, I think the following is germane:

    Jock Palfreeman‘s case is summarised here;
    • I’ve never described Tyler Cassidy as “a ‘Neo Nazi’ beast who pretty much got what he ‘deserved’”;
    • Older neo-Nazis do indeed manipulate impressionable young White boys;
    • I never stated this was the case with Tyler;
    • What I wrote at the time was the following:

    First, “So the media has revealed Tyler Cassidy‘s connection to the Southern Cross Soldiers…” (Southern Cross Soldiers’ first casualty, December 12, 2008).

    This was followed by several further posts: Tyler Cassidy and the Southern Cross Soldiers (December 12, 2008) and Southern Cross Soldiers, Tyler Cassidy and the far right (December 16, 2008).

    In the first post I wrote:

    Clearly then, many SCS members are motivated by ethnic and racial antagonism towards those who are not ‘White’, and who therefore — in the eyes of SCS — do not qualify as being authentically ‘Australian’.

    This was based, inter alia, on the fact that the group’s members celebrated Cronulla for its violence towards ‘Lebs’, and that ‘Ash’–a self-described ‘enforcer’–wrote the following (on his since deleted Myspace page): “SPECIAL THANKS TO CRONULLA BOYS AND GIRLS / FUCK YOU TO THE GREASY WOG CUNTS YOU DESERVED IT / AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE OI OI OI”.

    There’s plenty of other instances of this kind of sentiment being expressed by SCS at the time.

    The link between SCS and ‘neo-Nazis’ was made by ‘Adds’, who stated the following:

    Melbourne SCS co-leader Adds said members included criminals and self-described neo-Nazi skinheads, and some had relatives in the Hell’s Angels.

    Adds also featured in a subsequent article in the SMH (December 14, 2008).

    If at any time you wish to stop lying, you’re free to do so Peter.

  3. Lumpen says:

    Then there’s the other shameful and heavily implied angle in much of your previous commentary that manipulative or even predatory adults in the so-called ‘Neo-Nazi’ movement exploited, manipulated and basically ‘groomed’ this kid for destruction like some disposable soldier in their war against the establishment.

    Peter, if you’d actually read the blog, you might’ve noticed that the extant neo-nazi movement in Australia fell over themselves trying to secure the SCS into their ranks. Their failure to do so has been the source of some amusement and this has been pointed out here and in the media, I believe, and unambiguously by the SCS themselves. Honestly, what you describe is a little more than I would give existing neo-nazis credit for.

    Several have also agreed with us that you are very likely either a State agent or a ‘source’ for the Security/Intelligence Agencies.

    Does anyone ever point out how wrong your detective work is? Like, do other wingnuts say ‘Hmm, he has been so hilariously wrong in the past, he may not be a trustworthy source’? Or is there a white supremacist thing that means that a complete fantasist such as yourself is given an infinite amount of chances because of your skin colour? Seriously. I want to know. All your statements are either meaningless conjecture or factually wrong, and easily disproven. Does that worry you? Or does no-one on your side keep score?

  4. Hey, Lump Head, thanks for your interest.

    Firstly some advice, utilising words with five syllables or more does not necessarily or summarily confer scholarly status upon one. Sorry, just an observation on your clumsy pretensions.

    Do you happen to play ‘touch footy’? I only ask because you are SO evasive and sidestep EVERY significant point in my post while indulging in waxing lyrical upon utterly irrelevant observations. Also, it’s quite amusing to see you and ‘@ndy’ either directly quoting or referring in general terms to the turgid claptrap spruiked by the Mainstream Meeja. Jeez! We thought you really hated those blokes as much as we do, except of course, when one of them happens to share your ‘pedigree’.

    Your primitive linguistic ‘skills’ and rudimentary efforts at expression simultaneously amuse and perplex me, Lump Head.

    For example, isn’t ‘extant’-‘neo-nazi’ an intrinsically contradictory term? How can we be Paleo ‘Nazis’ AND New Boys? English Grammar and Etymology not strong suits with you, are they Lump Head?

    ‘Wingnuts’, in common Australian parlance, refers to Military, particularly Army types and, specifically, their haircuts. I believe the ‘version’ of the word you are struggling to employ is American in origin. Are you American?

    ‘Supremacist’? Do you Reds receive bonus points for every instance you manage to employ that ridiculous term?

    ‘White skin’? Yes indeed, but you know as well as I do that skin complexion is the least relevant marker for Race. I personally have some genes that originated in the Iberian Peninsula, from which I obtain the ability to tan rather than burn. So what?

    Skin texture, eye colour, jaw and dental characteristics, nasal features, and general physiognomy as well as temperament are all hugely variable across the Races. ‘Superiority’ is self evident. That can be ascertained by merely rating achievements and potentials. Deliberately provocative and hopefully (for your part) controversial and divisive terminology and assumptions are peripheral at best to the subject.

    Your greatest weakness ‘Lump Head’ is an extremely poor understanding of your chosen enemies. In this aspect you are typical rather than exceptional, so don’t feel too bad about it. Ironically (perhaps) the Left is more greatly guilty of stereotyping and simplifying their political adversaries than any other animals on the political spectrum.

  5. Lumpen says:

    I’ll take that as a “no” then.

    Re: quoting the mainstream media, it’s about employing the ability to critically assess information. You know about that, right?

    Oh, and you tan after you burn, not instead of.

    Um, yeah. “Extant neo-nazis” means the neo-nazis that are around – the ones who haven’t moved on, killed themselves or been killed by other neo-nazis. I don’t think you understand that “neo-nazi” means “a member of an organisation that has extreme racist views and may model themselves on the Nazis.” “Neo” is Greek for “new” – so it’s like saying “new nazis”. So I can have neoclassical paintings, but it isn’t necessarily a new classical painting, you feel me brah?

    Etc, etc.

  6. Aussie!-Guru? says:

    Did it ever occur to you pair, that you started off making a point, then turned it into some kind of IQ test.

    P.S. Guru?, Andy, please!, give all the credit to the person who tried to put his fire out with more fire, only to realise…

  7. @ndy says:

    If you meet a Buddha, kill him.

  8. Aussie says:

    Out of all the things you could have said, you picked that.

    Anything else? why not elaborate?, or should i say, enlighten me 😉

    Here is a question: Do you think you hate nazis more than they hate blacks?

  9. @ndy says:

    Here’s another question: Is it wetter underwater if you’re there when it rains?

  10. Aussie says:

    Ooo, thats a tricky one, im going to go with, yes!

    Your turn.

  11. @ndy says:

    Wherever you go, there you are.


  12. Aussie says:

    Well to discuss that [statement] i would say this…

    The reason people find that [statement] interesting is because they think [too] much, therefore missing the moment of where they ‘are’ for most of [their] life. Mostly i suppose because [their] brain always wants more. If most people asked themselves, if where they ‘are’ is good enough, their brain would [probably] say something like: i’m not rich yet! or i can’t afford plastic surgery yet to make my missus look new again!. [W]hen this [happens], i will be happy!. If it [weren’t] for this silly human brain stuff, that [statement] wouldn’t have a place in the world. [H]ow [disappointing] 🙁

    As far as Tyler Cassidy goes…

    The only bit i can get about what you are saying is, fifteen year old kids get influenced by people easily. Do we really need a story to understand that?. It just gives me a sick feeling as to why it was necessary to reduce the value of a person[‘]s life, because someone thinks they make a good example, an example that fits their personal viewpoint. ([O]r whatever your intentions are.)

    The world seems to be getting worse, on the contrary it is also getting better at the same time. It’s debatable where blogs like this fit into that [scenario]. I don’t mean to be against you all the time, but like you and everyone else, i don’t mind giving my completely pointless opinion.

  13. Consumer 3452 says:

    The turtle tried to describe to the fish what it was like to walk on the land.

  14. Aussie says:

    Yeh, it’s less complicated than it sounds, due to my bad explaining, ill try again, if i fail, ill give up.

    You said “Wherever you go, there you are”. (Why you said that i don’t know.)

    So i discussed it.

    My point is, your statement is very simple and logical, yet people find it interesting. Why?

    The reason is because people unnecessarily think for around 90% of their day.

    Thinking about something implies you are more interested in being somewhere else or find something else more interesting than where you are, therefore you are not completely where you ‘are’. Because of this, most of your life becomes a thought, not a reality (well it becomes a very distorted view on reality). People don’t just simply enjoying being where they ‘are’.

    Because most people do this so often (some more than others), life becomes closer to a dream than a reality. People constantly think about past and future, they, judge, analyse, compare, label, hope, want, complain (and the list goes on) to the point past and future are almost real.

    A wise man once said, “The human condition: lost in thought”.

    People think about it so much it makes your statement sound interesting when it is really, just an obvious fact, thats all.

    It makes more sense if you stop trying to understand it and stop for a while and realise it in yourself.

    Recognition also allows room for change.

    Im assuming this is the bit that “makes no sense at all”?

    P.s: Tyler Cassidy was lost in thought, so were the police.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.