Talk:Martin Bryant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
|
Click [show] for further details |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on May 26, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy
How does a retarded guy shoot 35 people with military precision? There needs to be more detail on this page about the controversy surrounding Martin Bryant, as, in my mind, this is the most important part of his life. But I'm not really that well informed. Alas.
58.169.25.66 10:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- He was mentally retarded, not physically..... D 8th June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.169.42 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- What is it with this assumption that a disabled person can't handle a gun to that extent? That's a presumptious call. If they are trained or are interested in it (or both) there is no reason why they couldn't do it. It's not rocket science. It just needs physical strength, and Bryant had that. Frankly this remark reeks of a lack of understanding of disabilities in general. Curse of Fenric 12:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Crude assumption there. And where exactly was this 'military precision' mentioned?ACK-OA Alkoholicks 12:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I dont know where i know this from, but im pretty sure he was obsessed with weapons and practised alot. Im also quite certain he had commited previous killings... —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 05:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
How is it a crude assumption? The shooting which was done on that infamous day was of a kind which requires highly practiced training. His shot to fatality ratio was exceedingly high AND almost all of the fatalities were the result of head shots which were shot from the hip. He allegedly executed a skilled shooting technique called a 'Beirut Triple', which uses three shots to stop a car and kill the driver. I'm sorry, but a person such as Martin Bryant would have enormous difficulty in any of these things. Even if he was into guns and militaria, he simply hadn't acquired even the slightest training or experience. Ask any expert in on the matter. It takes much more than physical strength to perform these kinds of combat shooting maneuvers. And these are only a few of the questionable matters in the case.
It really bugs me when apparently intelligent people won't use their head except to refute sensible people. Frankly, if you can't address the comment without resorting to some kind of apologia for the shotting skills of the handicapped, you're lost.
The issue is that there IS controversy, and I agree that it should be addressed.
And no, he hadn't done any previous killings.59.167.144.5 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- There were a very large number of eyewitnesses who can testify to the fact that Bryant acted alone. It is paranoid nonsense to even imply otherwise.59.167.59.181 08:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD discussion
Forget it. You guys don't want truth. 203.26.206.129 08:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Please can you reference the Childhood section, as I believe that the entire section is patent nonsense, and creates a misleading depiction of this man. The adulthood section should also include references to his diagnosis of Schizophrenia, and to the many psychiatric reports that were conducted during his adulthood, which were required in order for him to qualify for a disability pension (you don't just get one for having a low IQ). In the Port Arthur Massacre and Aftermath section, you incorrectly state his "believed reasons" for committing the murders, when these are unreferenced, and in fact he stated very explicitly in the psychiatric report conducted after the offences that those were not reasons for him doing it. At the very least, please be consistent with the sources that you are quoting. In the Media Coverage section, you should include more information in relation to the methods that the media used to paint a picture of the man as a killer, and also to the methods that were used in changing the legal system to accommodate his crimes (his entire fortune was given to the victims), and to the media outcry in this law being applied with retrospect, as well as to many other injustices that occurred with regards to the legal process. It may also be a good idea to reference the actual statements that were made by different eye witnesses (which I can provide links to if you like) that state specifically what they said, and furthermore that the outcry did not come from eye witnesses, but from relatives of the victims. The ones who wanted Martin Bryant to die were the ones that weren't there at all, but had friends and relatives die. This should be referenced, as it is highly relevant. It should also note the synopsis of the theory from Joe Vialls, which is that the person was a trained killer or killers gone mad, and that this theory existed well before the gun law ban. The NRA's theory was a different theory that was created with reference to Joe Vialls' theory, which used the same evidence, but with a very different conclusion - that the government deliberately aimed to kill these people so as to create outcry and ban automatic weapons. This theory is very different to that of Joe Vialls, and it is the NRA's theory that was ridiculed, not Joe Vialls' one. People could believe that a government agent had gone mad and killed so many people and further that the government had wanted to hide this, but they could not believe that it was a deliberate plot and that the government wanted these people to die. It is important to differentiate the 2 theories. Oh, and as a final thing, the Tasmanian Director of Public Prosecutions, until November 1996, was Damian Bugg QC. From November 1996 to present, he has held the position of Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. You can look this up on the DPP website. His promotion was primarily due to his work on prosecuting this case, and was stated as such when it was announced. 203.26.206.129 08:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- Likewise, I have concerns with some parts of the Adulthood section too - I'm surprised at the reference to "Child's Play" given that police searching Bryant's home did not find the expected porn or violent videos, but instead just a big collection of Walt Disney videos. I will try to find a citable online reference for this. There seems to be a desire to paint him as some sort of psychopath stereotype, which is irresponsible and dangerous in itself.59.167.59.181 08:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Recording that there was an attempt to list this page on Votes for Deletion by Internodeuser and various sockpuppets. As a bogus nomimsation not made in good faith, it is not recorded here in the usual way, but it might be worth putting this note on the talk page. Tannin 11:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
That was a *GENUINE* nomination, as this page is created in a terribly inaccurate fashion, Mr VANDALISM! You're vandalism was not made in good faith, but that nomination was. STILL this page remains incredibly inaccurate, with no attempts to try to make it proper. So why is it that my nominations are not as good as anyone else's? And why is it "Not in good faith" when this article is easily worth nominating for deletion? If you hadn't abused your powers and manipulated things, saying that I was a "bad user", I can bet that it would have been deleted, or at least merged. This is just ridiculous bullying behaviour by Tannin and others to try to get whatever perverse thing that they want. So can you stop now and start acting maturely for a change? 203.26.206.129 15:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
To prove that Tannin is lying, see here:
Talk:Port_Arthur_Massacre#Own_page_for_Bryant
Martin Bryant was a redirect from Port Arthur Massacre until April 2005. And so it should go back to that, in my opinion, as this one here is very sloppy.
Ergo, genuine thing. Not an "attempt". It is you, Tannin, who are using this for political gains. I am trying to fix up major blunders in this encylopaedia. 203.26.206.129 15:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] A porn in a much larger game?
"There has been a book published RE: martin bryant not being alone in this massacre, there are controversial stories that he was used as a porn in a much larger game to have semi automatic weapons destroyed and disarm australia."
Did we not mean a pawn? Fruedian slip anyone? Kamajii 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Rightwing paranoid nonsense - these "stories" are fairytales gun nuts tell their kids when they want them to grow up equally paranoid. 59.167.59.181 08:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed text
"and reportedly hired prostitutes every month to compensate for the absence of a girlfriend."
Can we find a source for this assertion? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/psycho.html
"As you read this report you will come across the words "in my opinion" which seems to compensate for any bias assumption. So I will also cover myself by saying that in my opinion Paul E. Mullen had clearly decided that Martin Bryant was guilty of the Port Arthur massacre before this report was ever presented to the court. In my opinion, it distinctly shows his prejudice against Martin Bryant..."
"Mr Bryant's first sexual encounters were with prostitutes and escorts. He apparently paid for an escort every month or so in the years prior to obtaining his inheritance." 24.132.34.209 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Poor Quality / Missed Opportunity
I'm very dissapointed with the quality of this article, considering this was an illustration of the media really going out of control to demonise and tamper with the character of this individual. Never has a person been painted so violent nor has so much opinion, speculation and blatent defamation been poured from the presses in Australia. It is odd that no one has championed this article and the political implications the Bryant case rose.
Not to mention the fact there is still grave misgivings, especially now ten years on (even by the psychiatrist who initially examined him and established him mentally fit to undergo trial), as to whether Bryant was capable of carrying out the killings or the man behind them. There were, at the time of the crime, if my memory services me correctly, many mysterious events and occurences not to mention conspiracy theories. Perhaps if someone has the free time this could be delved into in more detail?
Jachin 10:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- The fact is that he was violent, having killed more people than in any other Australian crime committed by a single person. He pleaded guilty to this and it is hardly unfair for the media to depict him as violent when Bryant himself admitted it. The conspiracy theories have been debunked several times over and are given suitable room in the article(s). They remain the opinion of a very small minority and under NPOV need to be given no more than a mention. Perhaps there is an article on these conspiracy theories where the subject may be explored at more length. --Surgeonsmate 11:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Where have any of the questions been debunked? What, in the official leg pull they call an investigation? The idea that the Nazi's were no good was the opinion of a small minority until they started invading their neighbors. Some of you people are just unbelievable morons. Go audit a few lectures on basic logic.
-
- By the way. I, having spent plenty of time in Hobart, know that he wasn't the demon the media painted him out to be. I've spoken to several people who knew him or attended school with him, and based on their direct interaction with him, don't believe that he did it by himself, if at all. But they could be wrong. After all, the news media says he's a demon. Must be just what they say.59.167.144.5 17:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Theories versus Facts
I think it's all very well to argue what is fact, what is theory and so on. It's an endless argument because the reality is there is only theory and opinion. Last I heard, Martin Bryant wasn't talking to anyone - at all. To the prison psychiatrist or even his own mother. There is one undeniable fact - NO ONE knows why he did it. I'm not even convinced if Bryant himself knew why. He knows he did it, and he showed no remorse (taking into account the possible media bias that has been mentioned) - but it has NEVER gone any further than that.
I heard a story about a year after the massacre that he may have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome but this can not be verified otherwise I would add it to the article.
This is the problem. The lack of real facts that can be verified. We all have theories, but theories don't amount to a proper Wikipedia article. However, Bryant is definitely a person of note. His notoriety will live forever and it should certainly be recorded.
That "forever" is sloppy usage. What, precisely, do you mean? Kipholbeck 06:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
When I join Wikipedia in October (I don't have time right now) I will be interested to see what we can find here. 61.68.133.220 11:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- While it hasn't been released why he did it, his lawyer does know alot more and I believe is writing a book. The Lawyer clearly gave the opinion that Bryant was a copy cat killer of the earlier spree which was his main motive.--Dacium 00:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is also supported by other information from his legal team. Like he asked what the hoddle street murder pled to pick between guilty and innocent. He often asked if he 'got a record' for the most kills etc.--155.144.251.120 22:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Asperger's syndrome was suggested as a possiblity by Dr. Ian Sale in 1996, in this report.[1] But Dr. Sale's opinion was disputed by other report authors, on the basis that people with Asperger's are totally disinterested in social relationships (this is not correct) and that Bryant had a language delay in childhood. Also, Bryant has an IQ of 66, well below of Asperger's (IQ >85). Of the rare cases where people with Autism Spectrum Disorders have broken the law...obsessive, brooding and long standing grudges, that others have long forgotten, are typical (read J. Arturo Silva). Also, compare Bryant with Cho Seung Hui, who exhibited traits suggestive of autism. --Diamonddavej 03:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Simple version
The simple version needs a look at. Andjam 00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moved from article
58.170.197.110 says: "There has been a book published RE: martin bryant not being alone in this massacre, there are controversial stories that he was used as a porn in a much larger game to have semi automatic weapons destroyed and disarm australia." Barrylb 02:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unenforcable licences?
Curse of Fenric, when reverting my edit, you gave the following explanation for doing so:
rv - irrelevant information as the gun licences of Tasmania were apparently unenforceable
I would like you to not only elaborate on this "unenforcable licence" business, but also provide me with a source. Can you provide me with a source, as well as an elaboration on your claim? CeeWhy2 07:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, I have proof that gun laws restricting the ownership of long arms (rifles, etc.) did exist (and licenses were a part of them) in Tasmania as early as 1991, 5 years before the massacre. Here:
Re the above: "evidence" is a better word than "proof", because proof implies that there can be absolutely no doubt, which I think almost never occurs in the realm of human experience. Kipholbeck 06:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Look at the following statement. I bolded the parts you should look at:
Tasmania had few significant gun laws prior to 1991, when it introduced gun controls for rifles and shotguns. These controls were limited, basically introducing a system of lifetime licensing of gun owners.
The fact of the matter is, any way you look at it, there were enforcable licencing laws applicable to rifles in Tasmainia prior to the Port Arthur Massacre. CeeWhy2 07:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at those laws properly, CeeWhy, you'll see about 100 holes in them. As you said yourself - the controls were limited. That was why they were unenforceable. That very limitation. That's why the laws were strengthened nationwide in the upshot of Port Arthur, with the government in Canberra leading the charge.
Your comment stands as irrelevant - and I stand by my reversion. Curse of Fenric 13:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hm... You make a good argument. I have one last question for you before I stop reverting your edits on this page. We've both agreed on one thing: The controls were limited. However, what exactly was this limitation? Can you clearly define it? If you can't, I will continue to stand by my edit; though I acknowledge your right to stand by yours, too. I wish to avoid an edit war, however, so how about this: Have both of our viewpoints expressed in the article. One statement saying that the firearms used were technically illegal, while having another statement highlighting the possible irrelevance of licenses at the time because of lax enforcement. It would allow both of us to state important facts in the matter without having to go through this whole revert war business. CeeWhy2
- The limitation is demonstrated in the fact that Bryant was able to get a gun and keep it and use it at Port Arthur. The argument you put in your edit is that he shouldn't have had the gun and should have had it taken off him - as far back as 1991 (if he had it that long). He wasn't. Now ask yourself why? Because the police didn't have the power to take it off him. That is the limitation. The law changes in 1996 as a result of Port Arthur made that possible - and it's why the farmers were up in arms over the whole thing because they were affected by this change. The clear difference between the laws prior to Port Arthur and after Port Arthur are defined well enough in the current edit. Anything else is - to quote a previous reversion by a sysop (I think) - unneccesary flourish. OK, maybe that's not the right word, but it is most certainly irrelevant. I hope that explains why not only should the page be left alone in this respect - but I would also remind you that Wikipedia expressly forbids personal opinions (or viewpoints as you put it). We'd both be in the wrong if we did what you suggested in that regard. Curse of Fenric 00:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Very well. I will no longer me making any furthur moves on this article. I just have one last thing to say in my defence before I go. You say that, had the gun laws now in effect in Australia existed back then, Martin Bryant would not have been able to obtain those firearms. Yet you ignore the fact that, even today, 85% of firearms-related crime in Australia is committed with ilegally obtained firearms. [3] If weapons can still be obtained and held illegally, then your argument is virtually null and void. Who is to say that Martin Bryant just wouldn't have gotten those rifles of his off of the black market instead of a store? CeeWhy2 03:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Martin Bryant never had the smarts or the savvy to get ahold of the firearms he would have wanted that way without getting himself killed. So he wouldn't have got the weapons. Curse of Fenric 10:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- You say that he wasn't smart enough to do it, hm? Is that all? I believe that I have proven the relevance of the statement I placed in my edit earlier, when I first edited this article. Here is my statement again, just so you can check:
- Martin Bryant never had the smarts or the savvy to get ahold of the firearms he would have wanted that way without getting himself killed. So he wouldn't have got the weapons. Curse of Fenric 10:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- this move is controversial, however, as Martin Bryant had no firearms licence at the time of the massacre, and had therefore been holding the weapons illegally in the first place
-
-
-
- What has that got to do with the black market, CeeWhy? You didn't prove any relevance at all. This pretty much proves that you are seeking to inject your own opinion into the article - which is against Wikipedia rules. Curse of Fenric 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is a fact that Martin Bryant dis not have a firearms licence; ergo, it is also a fact that, as a direct result of this, that he had been holding the weapons illegally at the time.
- But he was able to get them easily without going to the black market before 1996!
- Furthermore, it is a fact that the Howard Government's legislation has brought about controversy; hell, most gun legislation does: one need only look as far as here to know that. As far as I could tell, everything in my statement was factual.
- No, it is your opinion that the move was controversial and frankly you are overstating the controversy to the extent of irrelevance. Curse of Fenric 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- You questioned the relevance of these facts, though. Though I disagreed with you on this, I respect your boldness and commitment to Wikipedia. It is important that there are always people who monitor what happens around here, making sure that nothing too irrelevant gets thrown around. But I digress. You questioned the relevance of my statement. You said that it was because you believed that the weapons legislation in Tasmania was flawed in such a way in that possession of a firearm license was irrelevant; at the time of the shooting, at least. When I pressed you on this statement, more specifically, how you thought the firearms licencing was insufficient, you said that, if today's weapons legislation was in place, he would not have had the ability to commit the heinous crimes for which he is now convicted. I objected to this, providing a report showing how, even with today's laws, the vast majority of firearms crimes are committed through the use of illegal weapons.
- You are completely missing the point. The average man in the street (and that includes Martin Bryant) can NOT commit these acts under the current laws. Pre Bryant it was possible without going to the black market. Now one HAS to go to the black market. Hardened criminals can do that and always have because they are more comfortable doing it that way. You clearly don't understand what the 1996 legislation was designed to do judging by this commentary. Curse of Fenric 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It is this piece of evidence which not only defeats your initial argument, but also proves the relevance of mine. Therefore, I have come to a conclusion. I am going to edit this page again. I feel that I have proven the relevance of my initial statement to a degree which warrants this action. However, I know that you may never truly agree with me on this; as such, I have devised a compromise which may allow for both of us to agree on the matter of what is or is not relevant to this page without breaching Wikipedian policy: Instead of making my statement outright as I did before, I will instead provide a link to the Gun politics in Australia page, in the interest of providing further information about the legislation, in the following context:
-
-
-
- In response to the massacre, the Howard government banned semi-automatic centerfire rifles, high-capacity repeating shotguns and high-capacity rifle magazines. In addition to this, heavy limitations were also put into place on low-capacity repeating shotguns and rimfire semi-automatic rifles; this has resulted in much controversy among political observers, however (See Gun politics in Australia for more information on the 1996 legislation).
-
-
-
- I hope that this is a satisfactory compromise, Curse of Fenric. You are a most enthusiastic Wikipedian, and I look forward to your Wikipedian work in the future. For now, however, I hope we can just agree on this article, stop arguing and get back to work on this website. Cheerio. CeeWhy2 11:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No. I decided not to revert (because of the link you provided which can be used in this context), but rather reword it to put the controversy level at an appropriate point. As stated earlier you are over stating it's existence (that's where your opinion interferes with fact) and I felt it was needed to calm that down with cold hard fact drawn from the very article you linked to. I didn't mention Queensland because it was irrelevant to Martin Bryant. Curse of Fenric 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Very well. CeeWhy2 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- No. I decided not to revert (because of the link you provided which can be used in this context), but rather reword it to put the controversy level at an appropriate point. As stated earlier you are over stating it's existence (that's where your opinion interferes with fact) and I felt it was needed to calm that down with cold hard fact drawn from the very article you linked to. I didn't mention Queensland because it was irrelevant to Martin Bryant. Curse of Fenric 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Lopes Centre
Has it been confirmed that Bryant has been moved to the Lopes Centre? Andjam 00:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] News reports
Radio news reports in Perth tonight are saying that he has been hospitalised after a suicide attempt. Gnangarra 13:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it was a suicide attempt, but he was admitted to hospital with what is said to be slashed wrists. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1881089.htm. Pyreforge 23:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] About removal of incorrect school info
The article as it is now (not fact, my opinion) has only sparse information about Bryant's childhood. I can't properly source this at the moment, but I'm fairly sure Bryant never went to school outside Tasmania. From memory (and again without proper sourcing) he spent his primary school years on the Tasman Peninsula, and in his secondary school years at some stage went to that very fine school, Newtown High. Marcellin College is now (and was at the time Bryant was secondary school age) in Bulleen, Victoria.
However, I am reasonably sure that the edits - there are more from IPs and editors with accounts than I list here - stating Bryant was at some time a student at Marcellin are spurious. See the contribs here, and here. --Shirt58 12:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
ps: while I wrote this, 60.226.105.210 has edited the Port Arthur massacre article. 60...210's edits may possibly need attention. --Shirt58 12:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question
Hello,
When his father died, ambulance officers described Bryant as quite excited by the search and unconcerned about the death. - What is this supposed to mean? "quite excited by the search" - ist this some sort of australian-english slang? I ask an american friend, even he has no clue what is the message. Can anyone tell what does it mean?
Cheers, --Lofor 11:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Bryant's father was missing for some time before being found dead. Persumably, Bryant was excited by the search for his father. No slang here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.131.76 (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Martin Bryant's parents
I heard that Martin Bryant inherited $500,000 after the death of his father. Does anyone know any information regarding what both Martin's parents did for a living?
Spokenwordsegment (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Bryant inherited his wealth from a close friend who died in a car accident. The money didn't come from either of his parents. The article speaks of this already under the Adulthood section. -- Longhair\talk 02:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Number of injured
Are there any official documents that support the claim of 37 injured or is this just a guess based on the fact that 72 charges were filed against him? Most of the newspaper articles of that time you can find via Google News either talk about 18 or 19 people wounded. Here's an article of 2007 which also says 19 people were injured. (Lord Gøn (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC))
