For better or for worse, following the London Tube bombings I became a trained negotiator (perhaps in hindsight a poor thing on the domestic front as every disagreement with my girlfriend she thinks I am analysing her and using 'mind games' to get my way).
Waiting is often the low risk approach but for terrorists the prize is to remain in the spotlight of the media for as long as possible as a scare tactic. Waiting is certainly low risk for those not actually held hostage and creates a calm sense for the terrorist prior to springing a surprise hostage rescue. By letting the other party take the first action is give you justification to move in and come out clean.
But, as I have said, you can't reason with someone who thinks the outcome is martyrdom, terrorists only have a win win situation and the police have a win or loose outcome.
It's always easy to back the lowest risk practise of waiting but what were they waiting for; him to fall asleep or make the first move which justifies what ever action comes next, it takes courage to be the one making the decision to move first.
Without being there in command it's only my opinion.
Matt
The 3 am option may have been planned of course. From the accounts one of the reasons for action when it happened, was that he was starting to fall asleep, some taking advantage of this and either them leaving or the cafe manager seeking to attack/restrain him may have been what precipitated the shooting. So the waiting until he was tired/asleep may have been on the cards but unfortunately events overran it.It just seems that once he start shooting the preferred option was gone. If it was me I would've planned to go in just after midnight (12:36 say) or around 3 am (based on my memories of getting up for sentry duty at that hour).
The 3 am option may have been planned of course. From the accounts one of the reasons for action when it happened, was that he was starting to fall asleep, some taking advantage of this and either them leaving or the cafe manager seeking to attack/restrain him may have been what precipitated the shooting. So the waiting until he was tired/asleep may have been on the cards but unfortunately events overran it.
Personally I still think the police did a good job and its always easy to sit on the sidelines and second guess other options.
I doubt they were waiting for him to make the first move. It just seems that once he start shooting the preferred option was gone. If it was me I would've planned to go in just after midnight (12:36 say) or around 3 am (based on my memories of getting up for sentry duty at that hour). Any such plan was taken away from the police once actions started happening.
I'll say no more.
Once it became clear they weren't likely to talk him down, why couldn't they just snipe him through the window. There were a number of clear shots.
AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements
What makes you think they can shoot accurately through glass???
Once it became clear they weren't likely to talk him down, why couldn't they just snipe him through the window. There were a number of clear shots.
3 sharp shooters one of whom is back up.
From what I have seen from the ch7 video and some accounts in the paper.
At 2am appears the manager again grabs the gunman and another bunch of people sprint for it (he also reportedly did the same thing at the earlier escape and then got beaten up). He then seemingly is shot and the sniper in the 7 premises reports "Window 2. Hostage down". Based on preagreed scenarios police immediately enter (I suspect on the basis that one hostage is down things will escalate in any event).
Somewhere in the next 30-odd seconds a number of other hostages and a policeman are shot (unclear whether by the gunman or crossfire), and one further hostage dies of a heart attack enroute to hospital.
All very sad, and one very troubled individual