Can anyone explain ...

135

Comments

  • Laudable wrote: »
    @orfeo
    My last post was actually directed @Bishops Finger, but never mind.

    Well how am I supposed to know that? I mean, sure, I'd actually considered that possibility, but then decided to just plow on regardless anyway rather than wait and see or make contingency plans.
  • My apologies for being slow off the mark.
  • Amongst other things.

    You don't appear to be able to concede the point - the point made clear by the actual prosecutor - that the police officer gone done fucked up. He went Leeeeeeeeeeeroy Jenkins into a situation where there was a meticulous plan, and someone got killed.

    Yes, police officers and other emergency responders face violence they haven't warranted or asked for. But in this particular case - he's culpable of something, if not murder. Can you not accept that, or are you simply saying that people in uniform can't make mistakes?
  • Telford wrote: »
    Courts found it perfectly aceptable for officers to agree their notes. It can only have been to ensure accuracy. There could not be any other reason.
    Telford wrote: »
    That would depend on how you define 'contemporaneous' It would , for instance, be totally impractical for Police officers to write up their notes during a violent arrest. As far as I am aware, the rules are that they write up the notes as soon as practicable afterwards.

    I accept that I was wrong about civilians. I disagree with everything else If you are going back to 1990.

    For the record, @Telford is a self-declared ignoramus about America in general, American policing more particularly, and the Breonna Taylor case specifically. His claim to be "totally certain about how it would work with Police officers" should be viewed through the lens of his self-admitted staggering level of ignorance about both the generalities of American policing and the specifics of the Breonna Taylor case.
  • @Laudable has said:

    ...the communities of these kinds of people are their own worst enemies. Their behaviour invites aggressive response.

    and

    The police and the medics were confronted by people whose second nature is to resist arrest.

    I hope I'm not the only person reading this thread who finds these remarks offensive and distasteful.
    He is a racist piece of shit. Whilst best practice is to avoid interactions, the best action in case of an encounter is to scrape him off one's shoes.
    Maybe not. It's the way you portray it which is offensive.
    His portrayal is fucked up for many reasons. The blatant racism, obviously. But also the systemic oppression by white people being the factor as to being the reason there are few emergency services. In other words, eeg flatlined, racist fuckwads, like the poorly named shit stain you responded to are the reason services are not easily available in aboriginal communities.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Accurate?
    :flushed:

    Maybe...or perhaps to the account that suits them best...

    Courts found it perfectly aceptable for officers to agree their notes. It can only have been to ensure accuracy. There could not be any other reason.
    Oh, no, it couldn't possibly to get their stories straight in the face of overwhelming evidence against them - as in, for example, the Breonna Taylor murder incident.

    It is interesting to note that many (no, not all) police officers started out as garden-variety bullies who acquired a badge and service revolver.
    Yea, not all police officers are inherently bullies. But almost all of them line up behind those who are.

  • Telford wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    This is just one notorious example of what can happen when officers “agree their notes”.

    I can’t answer for today, but thirty years ago when I was in regular practice in magistrates courts it was routine for officers to be asked to confirm that their notes were (a) contemporaneous with the events they recorded and (b) the officer’s own unaided recollection, and not shaped by consultation with others.

    That would depend on how you define 'contemporaneous' It would , for instance, be totally impractical for Police officers to write up their notes during a violent arrest. As far as I am aware, the rules are that they write up the notes as soon as practicable afterwards.
    And the longer between the incident and account further increases the number of variation between accounts, further cementing the fact that identical statements are lies.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    @Laudable has said:

    ...the communities of these kinds of people are their own worst enemies. Their behaviour invites aggressive response.

    and

    The police and the medics were confronted by people whose second nature is to resist arrest.

    I hope I'm not the only person reading this thread who finds these remarks offensive and distasteful.
    He is a racist piece of shit. Whilst best practice is to avoid interactions, the best action in case of an encounter is to scrape him off one's shoes.
    Maybe not. It's the way you portray it which is offensive.
    His portrayal is fucked up for many reasons. The blatant racism, obviously. But also the systemic oppression by white people being the factor as to being the reason there are few emergency services. In other words, eeg flatlined, racist fuckwads, like the poorly named shit stain you responded to are the reason services are not easily available in aboriginal communities.

    Thank you @lilbuddha - you express my thoughts rather more pungently than I would normally do, but racist was certainly one of the words I had in mind...
    :grimace:

    Knowing this now, I shall ignore his rather un-laudable posts...

  • @lilbuddha

    I don’t know your background, but you obviously understand nothing about outback Australia.

    The violence in the community in question has nothing to do with “systemic oppression by white people” (as your cant would have it).

    It dates from a death in 2010 for which one group has sought - and continues to seek - revenge upon another group, with never-ending payback. Even the children are involved.

    The elders admit that they don’t know what to do, and the police and the medics are caught in the middle.

    As this is Hell, you will use what language suits you, but do me a favour, and keep your ignorance to yourself.
  • Keep you to myself? Not something I would want to do, even if we did share the same continent.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Keep you to myself? Not something I would want to do, even if we did share the same continent.

    Childish.
  • Well, that is one thing on which we can heartily agree.
  • Laudable wrote: »
    My apologies for being slow off the mark.

    'You kind of people' sometimes are. Maybe exceptions can be made for 'your sort'? ;-)
  • laudable (and anyone else with Aussie knowledge)--

    You mentioned:
    ...the communities of these kinds of people are their own worst enemies

    I don't know the situation, and I haven't yet read the links on this thread. But I do want to check on a possible culture clash. In the US, "these kinds of people", "these/those people", and "you people" are almost always put downs. Not always *consciously* intended. Some people are clumsy with their wording, and some haven't yet learned what those words mean.

    So how are those phrases received in Oz? Do they simply designate (neutrally) a group of people that doesn't include you? Or do they designate (negatively) a group of people that doesn't include you, that you wouldn't hang out with for a million dollars, and that you wouldn't call an ambulance for if they collapsed on the other side of the street?

    I'm asking because I don't know.

    Thx.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Keep you to myself? Not something I would want to do, even if we did share the same continent.

    Childish.
    Seriously? Ignorance is the most kind thing one could say about the shit that shit shat on this thread.

  • Golden Key wrote: »
    laudable (and anyone else with Aussie knowledge)--

    You mentioned:
    ...the communities of these kinds of people are their own worst enemies

    I don't know the situation, and I haven't yet read the links on this thread. But I do want to check on a possible culture clash. In the US, "these kinds of people", "these/those people", and "you people" are almost always put downs. Not always *consciously* intended. Some people are clumsy with their wording, and some haven't yet learned what those words mean.

    So how are those phrases received in Oz? Do they simply designate (neutrally) a group of people that doesn't include you? Or do they designate (negatively) a group of people that doesn't include you, that you wouldn't hang out with for a million dollars, and that you wouldn't call an ambulance for if they collapsed on the other side of the street?

    I'm asking because I don't know.

    Thx.

    Followed by "... are their own worst enemies" makes it a put down anyway.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Yes, quite so.
  • When the discussion is about a particular community that (from Wikipedia) is characterised as being largely composed of First Peoples, "communities of these kinds of people" reads as a generalisation about First Peoples ... to then say "are their own worst enemies" makes it an attack on people based on their ethnicity and culture. You might as well say "the darkies deserve it" and not pretend you're not being racist.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    laudable (and anyone else with Aussie knowledge)--

    You mentioned:
    ...the communities of these kinds of people are their own worst enemies

    I don't know the situation, and I haven't yet read the links on this thread. But I do want to check on a possible culture clash. In the US, "these kinds of people", "these/those people", and "you people" are almost always put downs. Not always *consciously* intended. Some people are clumsy with their wording, and some haven't yet learned what those words mean.

    So how are those phrases received in Oz? Do they simply designate (neutrally) a group of people that doesn't include you? Or do they designate (negatively) a group of people that doesn't include you, that you wouldn't hang out with for a million dollars, and that you wouldn't call an ambulance for if they collapsed on the other side of the street?

    I'm asking because I don't know.

    Thx.

    Followed by "... are their own worst enemies" makes it a put down anyway.

    Whatever group it is you’re talking about.

    Whenever Rev T and I mentioned we were serving at a church in a predominantly white, working class, super deprived area we’d get similar comments. Plus concern about the impact on the Tubblet. Seriously 😑
  • I think it more than reasonable to assume racism in this case. For one, racism towards First Peoples is quite popular in Australia. For another, racism is why First Peoples are deprived in Australia. There is racism in not knowing that in this day and age, even IF the shit meant class instead of race. And the worthless piece of trash could have clarified at the start that it is classist, not consciously racist. Not that classism is immune from similar vitriol.
  • @lilbuddha

    When you have recovered from your fit of name-calling and cursing, you might take the trouble to read here, and here reports from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on the self-engendered violence in the community in question.

    The situation has not arisen through racism or classism or deprivation. It is plain lawlessness arising from an implacable animosity between two groups: an animosity comparable to that which existed between the Hatfields and the McCoys, or - if you would like an earlier example - the Montagues and the Capulets.

    And there is no Prince Escalus to resolve the quarrel.

  • Jesus you are either stupid or invested in your racism to think those links prove your point.
    Welp, I shall take my own advice regarding you.
    scrape...scrape...
  • I have supplied you with evidence. I cannot supply you with understanding.
  • I think the point you are missing @Laudable , is that the stresses placed on a community from long term marginalisation act as the setting conditions in which these kind of conflicts arise.

    Such marginalisation is a result of the structural factors @lilbuddha mentions.

    In the same way many social problems are highly correlated with deprivation - you then ask the question, why are so many members of this community experiencing deprivation ?

    The reason people are identifying your comments as racist, is you appear to be to locating the cause of these problems as some inherent difference/inferiority of that ethnic/cultural group.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    In the US, "these kinds of people", "these/those people", and "you people" are almost always put downs. Not always *consciously* intended. Some people are clumsy with their wording, and some haven't yet learned what those words mean.

    So how are those phrases received in Oz? Do they simply designate (neutrally) a group of people that doesn't include you? Or do they designate (negatively) a group of people that doesn't include you, that you wouldn't hang out with for a million dollars, and that you wouldn't call an ambulance for if they collapsed on the other side of the street?

    I'm asking because I don't know.

    Thx.

    A cartoon for you... It's another not-racist day in Australia
  • @Doublethink

    I criticise criminal behaviour that has persisted in a community for a decade, and is recognised - even by the leaders of that community - as being destructive of that community.

    @lilbuddha refuses to address - or even to consider - what the leaders have to say, and sees any such criticism as racist, despite the absence of any reference to race.




  • @Laudable as I said, the reason people are identifying your comments as racist, is you appear to be to locating the cause of these problems as some inherent difference/inferiority of that ethnic/cultural group.

    You may want to consider why your phrasing gives that impression, if that is not what you think or wish to convey.
  • Wise words. @Laudable, read and heed.

  • @Doublethink

    The problems are not inherent in a particular cultural group.

    In the case under discussion there are two factions within a community that are at enmity with each other, and are given to various acts of lawlessness that are damaging to the whole community.

    To blame some is not to blame all.




  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Laudable wrote: »
    To blame some is not to blame all.

    You've been talking about the entire community as a group up to this point, with bullshit like the comment about it being their second nature to resist arrest, so yeah, you've been blaming them all.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    not all police officers are inherently bullies. But almost all of them line up behind those who are.

    What that says to me is "siege mentality"...
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Laudable wrote: »
    @lilbuddha

    When you have recovered from your fit of name-calling and cursing, you might take the trouble to read here, and here reports from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on the self-engendered violence in the community in question.
    Mr Granites says it is out of control - no longer about the death, but fuelled by alcohol and other drugs like cannabis.

    ...

    "The payback system in the old days was done properly. Nowadays it's through grog, ganja, and the civilised things that are being bought into a lot of our people."

    And behind this are centuries of pain: destruction of cultures, loss of languages, stolen children ...

    It is a shameful lie to say the members of this community are their own worst enemies.
  • Russ wrote: »
    not all police officers are inherently bullies. But almost all of them line up behind those who are.

    What that says to me is "siege mentality"...

    Only in the very loose sense of being under threat. Same as politicians closing ranks when corruption has been exposed.
  • @Ruth

    Shameful lie?

    Is there to be no requirement for personal responsibility?

    You might recall the song “Gee, Officer Krupke” from the movie of Leonard Bernstein’s West Side Story in which the character Riff interjects “I’m depraved on account I’m deprived”.

    Are we to accept satire as truth?

    I think that I must leave this thread: to quote from the movie My Week With Marilyn “It’s like trying to teach Urdu to a badger”.
  • You are being a Pratt.
  • Laudable wrote: »
    You might recall the song “Gee, Officer Krupke” from the movie of Leonard Bernstein’s West Side Story in which the character Riff interjects “I’m depraved on account I’m deprived”.

    Are we to accept satire as truth?
    I think the satire in that line is not directed quite where you think it is. Certainly the song is not endorsing Officer Krupke.

  • @Laudable said:
    I think that I must leave this thread...

    Good idea.
    :wink:
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Laudable wrote: »
    @Ruth

    Shameful lie?

    Is there to be no requirement for personal responsibility?

    ...

    I think that I must leave this thread: to quote from the movie My Week With Marilyn “It’s like trying to teach Urdu to a badger”.

    Yes, please do quit this thread, like the pathetic worm that you are. You have nothing to teach anyone. You don't have what it takes to deal with the opprobrium you own words have earned for you. So much for personal responsibility.
  • Laudable wrote: »
    Is there to be no requirement for personal responsibility?

    If you wear a uniform, apparently not. You've not addressed any of the substantive issues, just beat down on First Nations people at every opportunity. You may want to recalibrate your ethics.
  • And from the Dept. of Tangled Webs:

    "Ballistics report doesn't support Kentucky AG's claim that Breonna Taylor's boyfriend shot cop" (USA Today).

    ISTM the main details are scattered throughout the article, but it's not very long.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    All of Laudable's protestations about the nature of the community, as a way of justifying his/her comments, roundly ignore that this only emphasises that the policeman who shot a man instead of successfully arresting him should have known better.

    Indeed, I'm just going to say it again: the whole point of the prosecution case is that it was known to be a potentially dangerous situation.

    So by all means, given it's Hell, keep pestering Laudable on the racism, because it just makes it harder to defend the policeman that Laudable initially piped up to defend.

    I don't actually know that the policeman is guilty, but it's entirely appropriate in my view that he's been charged because then a court can determine whether his level of recklessness is criminal or merely just colossal non-criminal stupidity. But all of Laudable's "defences" of the policeman and how it's someone else's fault do nothing more than emphasise that the situation was known to be risky (the specific situation, rather than because it involved "those kinds of people") and the policeman who was supposed to take account of those risks roundly ignored them.

    It's not often that a Shipmate who finds themselves in a hole wants to keep showing everyone else how high the walls are.
  • Laudable wrote: »
    The situation has not arisen through racism or classism or deprivation. It is plain lawlessness arising from an implacable animosity between two groups: an animosity comparable to that which existed between the Hatfields and the McCoys, or - if you would like an earlier example - the Montagues and the Capulets.

    Of course, the Hatfields, McCoys, Montagues and Capulets were all white.

    So why the fuck you ever felt the need to talk about "these kinds of people" just becomes a deeper mystery. You've just admitted that indigenous communities don't have a lock on the sort of behaviour you're attributing to an indigenous community.
  • Trivia: The Hatfields and the McCoys ended their generations-long feud. IIRC, there was an intermarriage that sealed it.
  • Same thing happened with the Montagues and Capulets.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Golden Key wrote: »

    Does it matter who fired which bullet?

    AFAIK, the following facts are not in dispute:

    1. Officers executed a "no-knock" warrant on Breonna Taylor's home in the middle of the night.
    2. Officers were armed and in plain clothes
    3. Kenneth Walker (Taylor's boyfriend) fired his weapon (a legally-owned 9mm handgun)
    4. Officers fired a large number of shots (32) in multiple directions.
    5. Breonna Taylor, who was lying in bed, was hit six times and died of her wounds.
    6. For those people keeping count, 26 shots hit nobody*, and no shots hit the person with the gun.
    7. No body camera footage is said to exist (consistent with the officers being in plain clothes)


    *There may not be agreement about who fired the shot that hit Sgt Mattingly in the leg. Depending on what happened, that's either 26 shots hitting nobody, or 25 hitting nobody, and one hitting a fellow cop in the leg.

  • 1. Officers executed a "no-knock" warrant on Breonna Taylor's home in the middle of the night.

    5. Breonna Taylor, who was lying in bed, was hit six times and died of her wounds.

    Seems reasonable. If you wanted to shoot at someone in the middle of the night, the bed would be a good guess.


  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Same thing happened with the Montagues and Capulets.

    Except Romeo and Juliet both died, due to circumstances.
  • A person of colour was murdered in a UK police station a few days ago.

    A quick search shows that it has not yet been mentioned on SoF

  • Which 'person of colour'?
  • Matui Ratana
Sign In or Register to comment.