Two Daughters. Two Mothers. Questions That Still Hurt.

There is something heartbreaking about two mothers finding friendship because their daughters are dead. Nobody imagines joining that particular club. Nobody raises a little girl thinking that, one day, another grieving mother will be the person who understands her life best. I don't know what I would do...

Phoebe Handsjuk was 24 when she died in Melbourne in 2010. Baillee Schneider was 25 when she died in 2018. Phoebe’s death was ruled accidental; Baillee’s was ruled suicide. 

Both had dated Antony Hampel, whom coroners cleared of involvement (which was bloody easy for them...) Their mothers, Natalie and Sabine, remain troubled by aspects of the investigations and have formed a close friendship. Those are the reported facts. Their concerns are not proof of a crime. They deserve to be heard nonetheless.

What gets me is the expectation we so often place on grieving people: accept the explanation, find some closure and somehow get on with it. Closure. What a neat little word for something that can tear the rest of your life to pieces. As though grief comes with a lid you can click shut once the paperwork is finished.

I want a system that can explain itself clearly. When a family questions an investigation, they should be able to understand what was examined, how conclusions were reached and what remains uncertain. An honest acknowledgement of uncertainty has more value than reassurance that leaves someone feeling unheard.

And please, can we stop treating a young woman’s struggles as though they tell us everything worth knowing about her? A person can have difficult days, make mistakes and need help while still being funny, loving, talented and full of possibility. Vulnerability should bring greater care. It should never diminish the value placed on a life.

There is room to respect a coronial finding and care about a family’s continuing distress. There is room to ask careful questions without appointing yourself detective, judge and jury from behind a keyboard. These women deserve better than becoming entertainment for people who will move on to the next mystery tomorrow.

Their mothers don’t get to move on so conveniently.

What they carry is the absence of a daughter in ordinary moments: an empty place at a table, a birthday, something funny with nobody to send it to. That is where the enormity of a young death lives, long after public attention has wandered elsewhere.

Phoebe and Baillee deserved long lives. Natalie and Sabine deserve compassion, clear explanations and the freedom to speak about what still troubles them.

Listening to them should be the bloody least we can do.

ICE: A Badge Doesn’t Make This Less Horrifying

A five-year-old child was in the back seat when an ICE officer shot and wounded a man during an attempted arrest in New York. Five years old. An age when your biggest worry should be whether some kid has stolen your favourite crayon, rather than whether the armed adults outside your car are going to kill your father. 

Apparently, the child escaped physical injury. That is a relief, but it's a bloody low bar set for a successful encounter with government officers.

According to New York’s police commissioner, plainclothes federal officers approached Oscar Belgal’s car, one with a gun drawn. When the car moved forward, an officer fired seven rounds, striking Belgal below his left ear. Federal officials say he rammed ICE vehicles and endangered their officers. That allegation needs investigation. It does not settle whether firing was justified, and it certainly does not make scrutiny optional.

I am sick of the suggestion that putting someone’s criminal history in a press release answers every question about what officers did to them. It doesn’t. A conviction is not permission for unlimited force. An allegation is not a verdict. And immigration status does not strip a human being of the right to have government violence examined!

The government says its officers did not know the child was inside. Well, that deserves serious scrutiny too. What could they see? What precautions did they take? How was this operation planned? “We didn’t know” should begin an investigation into what went wrong, rather than serve as the final word on why nobody should be held responsible. 

Hell, they don't know if a child is there - don't shoot unless they do!

There is something revolting about political leaders rushing to defend an agency while the public is still trying to establish what happened. Apparently, we are supposed to accept the official explanation, swallow the language of enforcement and stop making a fuss. Meanwhile, a small child has been caught inside an encounter that ended with his father wounded by gunfire.

And spare me the chest-thumping about being tough. Carrying a weapon gives you the power to cause irreversible harm. The public is entitled to demand restraint, sound judgement and an honest accounting of every decision to use it. Those demands become more urgent when officers operate around families.

Release the footage. Preserve the evidence. Have investigators outside the agency examine the shooting and the decisions that led to it. If the evidence establishes misconduct or unlawful force, there must be consequences. A badge should increase your accountability because of the authority it gives you.

My disgust is directed at an institution whose leadership expects public trust while responding to a horrifying shooting with excuses and political blame. Trust has to be earned through conduct and scrutiny. It cannot be demanded at gunpoint.

A five-year-old was in that car. 

Whatever the investigation establishes about the adults involved, that child deserves to remain at the centre of this conversation. He shouldn't become a footnote under another government statement congratulating itself on being tough.

Stop The World; I Want To Get Off!

Crazy. I'm buggered! I got up buggered and haven't improved! It's only 3pm and I'm ready for bed!

I will walk the dog... See if that helps.

Imagine Looking at Bondi and Seeing Inspiration

Most of us see a terrorist attack and think about the people. The lives cut short. The families left waiting for someone who will never come home. Then there are those who apparently look at the same horror and think: I’d like to do that.

According to a report, the FBI has foiled an alleged plot to attack Minnesota’s Mall of America. An eighteen-year-old is accused of planning a mass shooting in support of Islamic State and citing previous massacres, including the Bondi Beach attack, as events he wanted to emulate. 

“Emulating Bondi.” What a revolting ambition. Imagine having your whole life ahead of you and deciding that your great contribution to the world should be destroying somebody else’s. 

Imagine looking at grief and seeing an opportunity to make a name for yourself. There is nothing impressive about mowing down people out having a good time. Any pathetic coward can dream about it when facing a group of ordinary people.

A shopping centre is full of people doing ordinary things. Buying shoes. Meeting a friend. Working a shift. Taking the kids out because everyone needs to get out of the house for a few hours. Nobody should have to calculate whether a trip to the shops might leave their family identifying their body. Yet terrorists want precisely that fear. They want their hatred to follow the rest of us into every ordinary corner of our lives.

And I am thoroughly sick of the grand language that gets wrapped around this crap. Pledges. Causes. Glorious missions. Strip away the theatrical rubbish and consider what the proposed act actually involves: someone with a weapon attacking people who have no chance to defend themselves. All that swagger, all that supposed conviction, directed at strangers who simply happened to be there.

I don't get it. If I lived to be a thousand I don't think I'd get it.

Islamic State’s glorification of violence deserves absolute contempt. So does the mentality that turns murdered people into a score to beat. These were human beings with families, plans, private jokes and unfinished conversations. Their deaths are not material for some aspiring tosser's fantasy of importance.

If these allegations are proved, I want serious punishment that reflects the seriousness of planning mass murder. The fact that authorities intervened should be a reason to thank them, rather than a reason to shrug at what was allegedly intended. Prevention matters because the alternative is another collection of photographs, another vigil and another family trying to survive the unbearable.

For once, the headline tells us a plot was stopped. Thank God for that. Somewhere, people are getting on with their lives who might otherwise have become the subject of the next heartbreaking news report.

They deserve to remain ordinary people having an ordinary day. And anyone who dreams of taking that away deserves our contempt, a thorough investigation and, where guilt is proved, the full force of the law.

Very Tough. Until Mike Tyson Walks In...

There is something particularly revolting about a man in uniform displaying his physical authority against a young woman. The badge, the backup, the equipment - and somehow, we still end up with a cheerleader on the ground. What a magnificent advertisement for keeping the public safe.

The footage reportedly shows Arizona State University cheerleader Eryn Bonner being shoved down and later restrained against a bicycle during a July encounter with Tempe police. Police allege she interfered with an arrest and punched an officer. Those allegations matter and should be examined. So should the force used against her. One does not conveniently cancel out the other.

But apparently, we are supposed to see a uniform and immediately switch off every functioning brain cell. “She should have stayed back.” Yes, perhaps she should have. That still leaves the rather large question of whether a trained police officer handled the situation with the restraint we ought to expect from someone entrusted with that much power.

Training should mean something beyond learning how to put someone on the pavement. Judgement. Composure. The ability to manage a chaotic situation without making it considerably uglier. Otherwise, what exactly are we paying for? A short temper with a pension?

Which brings me to Mike Tyson. Imagine this officer being thrust in for two rounds of supervised boxing with him. Suddenly, I suspect, the enthusiasm for physical confrontation might evaporate. There would be a touching new appreciation for negotiation, personal space and resolving differences through calm discussion. Possibly a previously undisclosed hamstring injury.

Funny how appealing restraint becomes when the other person can flatten you.

My disgust is directed at the apparent force in this encounter, and I want it properly scrutinised. Bonner’s lawyer has called the force excessive; Tempe police say the incident is under administrative review. That review needs to produce a credible explanation and meaningful consequences if misconduct is established.

I am tired of “a difficult job” being offered as though it ends the conversation. Plenty of people do difficult jobs. Nurses deal with frightened and aggressive patients. Teachers manage volatile classrooms. Carers cope with distress, confusion and unpredictable behaviour. We still expect them to control themselves.

Police should face that expectation too, especially given the authority they carry. The public should be able to question an officer’s conduct without being accused of wanting criminals to run the streets. Demanding professional policing is a fairly modest request.

A badge ought to come with enough accountability to make its wearer think carefully before using force. If this officer crossed the line, he should have to answer for it without the uniform cushioning the landing.

And if he considers that unfair, perhaps he could explain his position to Mike Tyson. From a sensible distance, naturally. Suddenly, distance might seem very important.

She Matters Podcast | Sherele Moody