BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Free Martin Bryant!!!

 
 
black mask
01:29 / 21.04.04
Hi. It's late. I need to hammer this out before I go to bed. Some of the facts maybe scrambled, but bear with me.

Martin Bryant is registered disabled, due to his IQ (66) and psychiatric tests carried out in his late teens. He's a functioning moron. A fantasist. Clumsy, gormless, gauche, naive and stupid. He's currently serving a life sentence for the murders of 35 people, among other charges. It is alleged that he took two assault rifles to a Tasmanian heritage holiday attraction, went to a cafe and opened fire, with devastating accuracy. Killing a bunch of people. All head or neck shots. Some double hits. According to eyewitness reports from survivors he was shooting combat-style, an AR15 and an SLR, from his right hip. Martin Bryant is left-handed, he had previously only ever fired a .22 single action rifle. He then prowled the car park, killing more holiday-makers. He hijacked a car, killed a passenger and locked a hostage in the trunk. He then murdered a woman and her two young children. He drove to a nearby guest house. Here he kept police and Australia's terrorist response unit at bay in an overnight siege. Testimony from officers on the scene say that gunfire was coming from different parts of the besieged building at the same time. Remember, this clumsy, left-handed, imbecile was working alone. Next morning, smoke billows from the guest house, the building is burning. Martin Bryant runs from the fire into the arms of the police. He has, apparently burst out of a burning building, from a fire he set himself. He has burns on his arse and lower back. No burns on his head, arms or hands. He is taken into police custody and put into solitary. Charges are brought. He pleads 'not guilty', repeatedly, for quite a while. His only contact is his lawyer. His lawyer quits, he is appointed a state lawyer and a psychiatrist. Shortly thereafter he pleads guilty. While this is happening the scenes of the crime, the cafe and the guest house, are destroyed. The Prime Minister overrides the rule of law and declares a coroner's enquiry unnecessary. Because Bryant pleads guilty there is no hearing, merely a review of the state's case and a sentencing. All the time Bryant is in custody there is no line-up. no identity parade. In fact no positive identification of him is ever made. In fact, testimony of witnesses (who are never called) state that the man they saw shooting up Tasmania was significantly dissimilar to the guy in the dock.

There's all kinds of other incongruities.

Anyway...

I wanted to know if anyone was familiar with this case, had any new or enlightening information, had an opinion they'd like to share.

Tell me.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
11:43 / 21.04.04
Well, if he was in America he would have fried by now. Is there any suspicions as to who did the killings if not him?
 
 
Abigail Blue
15:29 / 25.04.04
Maybe it's just because I've worked extensively with people with intellectual/developmental disabilities, and developed close friendships with some of them, but I find the tone of black mask's post more than a little offensive.

I mean, "He's a functioning moron. A fantasist. Clumsy, gormless, gauche, naive and stupid.", and idiot in the thread title?! Would Barbelith really accept references this stereotypical and cruel to any other group?
 
 
black mask
17:38 / 25.04.04
So, you're more concerned with insensitive nomenclature than with the fact that an idiot might be fitted up? Touching.
 
 
Abigail Blue
18:23 / 25.04.04
No. I'm concerned that someone who finds it appalling that a vulnerable individual should be imprisoned for a crime he did not commit should, at the same time, be seemingly unable to refer to that same individual in terms denoting even the most rudimentary form of respect.
 
 
black mask
19:03 / 25.04.04
I don't find it appalling that a vulnerable individual should be imprisoned for a crime he did not commit, I find it appalling that anybody should be imprisoned for a crime they did not commit. The fact that he's a moron is purely coincidental. Now, do you have an opinion on the case or are you just going to whine on about Morons' Rights?
 
 
Abigail Blue
19:33 / 25.04.04
So, if you were starting a well-meaning thread on the wrongful imprisonment of Mumia Abu-Jamal, you would think that it was okay to refer to him as a nigger throughout it? Or to refer to the West Memphis Three as white trash?

The fact that he's a moron is purely coincidental

Fact is, actually, that you started a thread about a man with an intellectual disability who has been wrongfully imprisoned, and the fact of his disability is central to your argument that he couldn't have done it. You can't divorce his disability from his circumstances, and so your offensive language is totally fair game.
 
 
black mask
19:41 / 25.04.04
The fact that you are a moron is purely coincidental, too. Perhaps, you could ask some of your 'special' friends what they think about automatic weapons. I'd like some feedback on something 'cause you're obviously not interested in addressing the theme of the thread.

P.S. You totally nailed me on the racist thing. (It's fun when you get to use the 'n' word and you can pass it off as illustration of your argument, isn't it?)
 
 
black mask
19:49 / 25.04.04
I've just reached over and grabbed my copy of the Collins English Dictionary. I hate doing this, it smacks of pedantry, but... there you go.

idiot n. 1. a person with severe mental retardation.

moron n. 1. a foolish or stupid person. 2. a person having an intelligence quotient between 50 and 70, able to work under supervision.
 
 
Abigail Blue
19:56 / 25.04.04
I only used the racism card since you clearly didn't seem to understand anything less heavy-handed.

That bit of defensiveness aside, I've kept my commentary civil and (even though you would disagree) related to the topic at hand. I wish I could say the same for you.
 
 
black mask
19:58 / 25.04.04
But, you will concede that you were wrong, won't you?
 
 
Abigail Blue
20:00 / 25.04.04
Wrong about what? It's still technically correct to call people negroes, but you'd be considered rude, if not racist, if you went about doing it.
 
 
black mask
20:03 / 25.04.04
Why? Why would calling a negro a negro be considered racist? You seem to be getting hysterical again. (Also, you don't actually have an opinion on this case, do you?)
 
 
black mask
20:05 / 25.04.04
Sorry. I understand, now. You've never actually met a real black person, have you?
 
 
Abigail Blue
20:10 / 25.04.04
I'm not going to engage in a 'who's blacker' contest with you, black mask. Nor am I going to try to have a discussion with someone who can't seem to keep personal insults out of their posts.

I'm sorry that you don't feel as if you can address my comments without attacking me, making speculations about my personal life, or just plain being a dick.
 
 
black mask
20:11 / 25.04.04
That would be a 'No', then?
 
 
Hieronymus
20:46 / 25.04.04
Black, despite whatever merit your query about the man's fate may have, your knack of presentation is shredding it to pieces.

Do you have any links to Mr. Bryant's case? I'd be curious to know more.
 
 
Mazarine
21:11 / 25.04.04
And for the record, could we try to stick to debate based on cited facts, rather than ad hominem attacks and hostility?
 
 
black mask
21:31 / 25.04.04
Sure. Here.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:33 / 25.04.04
Welcome to Barbelith, Black Mask. Barbelith is a bit different to The Moon Online in a number of ways. One of those is that we try to avoid threadrot. Another is that we are, in the Revolution areas (Head Shop, Switchboard and Lab, primarily) often a bit sensitive, some would say oversensitive, about terminology.

Now, in this instance I think there is a case for arguing that your use of moron was justified (although if you are cleaving to the use of terms such as "cretin" and "moron" to describe different IQ levels then I think your use of "imbecile" is incorrect, an imbecile having a mental age of around five, which I think would correspond with an IQ below 66). However,your response to Abigail Blue's ambivalence comes across as childish, strident and tiresomely Usenetty, and I'm afraid that you have to take a fair share of the responsibility for rotting this thread into a mess of pejoratives.

Sooo... I'm drawing a line here. If anyone wants to move back onto the issue of the guilt or otherwise of Martin Bryant, and feels able to do so in a manner sensitive to the delicate subject matter, then I look forward to it. Otherwise, this thread may slide slowly down the ranks. Or it could carry on as a pie-throwing contest, in which case I will move it for deletion and perhaps another thread will be able to address the same subject in a more focused manner.
 
 
Mazarine
21:33 / 25.04.04
Your link doesn't work.
 
 
black mask
21:43 / 25.04.04
Your board is broke.
 
 
black mask
21:48 / 25.04.04
And pompous. And precious.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:49 / 25.04.04
Not sure why the link doesn't work - I will have a tinker. It may be the target qualifier - Barbelith uses a cut-down version of HTML rather than the full monty. The page it is meant to go to is here.

So - if not Bryant, then who? And also why? Ian McNIven's site talks about it in terms of a "cover up", but is that a cover up to protect the actually guilty man, or to protect the subsequent conviction?

Ian McNiven seems to be arguing a rather partial case, at first viewing. He seems to see the case as a fit-up against "shooters' rights", but presumably it is the case at least that 35 people *were* shot, notwithstanding the possibility that Martin Bryant may not have done it, I'm not sure what the angle is.

To be honest, this seems a bit conspiracy theorist:


For the past week this website has not been accessable to both the editor or viewers due to some form of interference with it between September 5th and 12th. It will take a few days to become fully operational again.

This fact further adds weight to the fact of a coverup at Port Arthur as obviously the information on this site is something someone doesn't want publically available.

It is conincidence this occurred while PM John Howard was in the United States.

This site has also been sent numerous e-mail viruses but they were intercepted. It demonstrates the lengths the criminals behind this incident and those in the anti-gun movement will go to try and muzzel the facts of their criminal acts perpetrated against members of the Australian public and firearms owners.


TBH, anyone worried about their website being inaccessible on September 11 2001 I suspect is in need of a perspective transfusion...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:54 / 25.04.04
Oh dear. So, black mask, are you actually able to have an intelligent discussion, or are we going to have some toy-pram action and a bit of light trolling? If you have suggestions about how the board should change to make you happier, I'd suggest looking at and contributing to the wishlist thread in Policy and Help. Tom's always eager to improve the board.

Now, last call on this thread. It seems even its originator is both reluctant to contribute to it and eager to see it deleted or locked - anyone else want to run with it?
 
 
black mask
22:05 / 25.04.04
Why don't you just delete it? We don't want any unpleasantness fouling up your pristine boards, do we?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:13 / 25.04.04
Not unpleasantness, really - more stupidity. The idea that one can be so dim as to rot one's own thread is a little discombobulating, but I suppose we can add it to the bloopers tape.

I'll move to lock this thread, I think, so that anyone wanting to start fresh on the Martin Bryant case can draw from it if they need to. I hope that your fourth thread will be a little more successful than your third, black mask, and that you will not insult the entire board because a couple of people failed to be impressed by your inability to stay on topic in your own... oh. Too late. Ah well. Happy trails!
 
 
Tom Coates
22:26 / 25.04.04
Agreed - I'm getting pretty bored of having the argument about whether using words like nigger or negro is racist, and while I'm not that fussed about the particular use of moron in this context (sounded like incredulity and hyperbolae to me) your inability to actually calm down and talk to other board members like a human being has pretty much lost you any sympathy you might have otherwise had. If you'd defended your position calmly, or apologised to anyone you might have offended (particularly given that Abigail works with disabled people) or even refused to engage (repeating calmly - for example - that it was more important to concentrate on the specifics of the case) then you'd have probably got more people on your side and got more people thinking about the case. I think it's important to say that again: if your purpose was to get people to seriously think about this issue, then your handling of this discussion has meant you have failed. I think that's a terrible shame and it was eminently avoidable.
 
  
Add Your Reply