The 2020 George Floyd/BLM/Police Brutality Protests Discussion Thread

FPV MIC

Premium
3,561
Australia
Australia
GT-MIC
Which completely and utterly ignores the majority of the act which clearly states that you don't have to have been arrested, charged or even found guilty for this to happen.

They are talking about suspects here.

I even quoted you directly the part of the act that shows you they can mistakenly charge you, you get get acquitted and they still can seize your assets. And once again, no it is not easy to prove that you didn't gain them illegally, I've cited the burden of proof from the actual act, I've cited Australian layers saying its not easy. That you have a bank account and audit trail doesn't automatically make it easy, as with Money Laundering you also have both, and based on the standard and burden required, the law could claim that and it would be on you to prove that's not the case (and you don't get to prove it to a balance of probability, that's their (low) hurdle to pass.
And I agreed with you on that point. See...
I'm in agreeance with you here that it should still be up to the police to prove your guilt (by forensic account or similar), not the other way around.
(account was supposed to read accountant)
Take the guy growing weed for personal use. The criminal court agreed that he never made a penny in profit from doing so, that it was all for personal use, they agreed 100% that the house wasn't a proceed or crime, at a later hearing a judge actually agreed that the house shouldn't be classed as the location of a crime to the standard required to seize it. The act is however written in such a manner that the same judge was powerless to return the house, the homeowner and his family never got the property back and the amount of compensation received (as it was a civil matter) didn't come close to covering his mortgage (he still had to pay that) or legal fees. So case law and the legal system show that it's not easy at all to prove this and even if you do it doesn't mean you will get your property back, yet you expect us to believe it's in fact easy because of?
You previously left that rather important bit out and as there was no link how was I to know this? It changes a lot, but it still reeks of 'play stupid games' though. He did after all knowingly put himself in that position by using his house to commit a crime and it could still have been argued that he used his house to conceal the crop. I don't think it's a coincidence that I've never seen a rental property seized from it's owners here when used in this manner.

Edit: Apologies for stuffing this quote up but I'm still struggling with the new format on this site. And I've had to re-do this twice now due to this whole edit disappearing :confused:

''Does it appear less likely to be abused in Australia/UK than in the US? It has one extra step, so potentially yes, however what also became clear was that the requirements to record and report statistics on it in the UK and Australia are almost non-existent, and if as a tool it's being mainly used against marginal groups (and I suspect it is), then we may simply not be hearing about it to the same degree we do in the US.

You're at the point now where it's honestly coming across that you don't 'want' this to be true, rather than being able to present any actual reasoned reply.''


Another possibility is that the statistics actually are almost non-existent unlike in the US. I can also certainly see why the media wouldn't report on something that doesn't seem to be happening.

Regarding the marginal groups these laws have been brought in to target, you're right, I have absolutely no sympathy for them if the property/money was in fact proven to be proceeds of crime or unlawful wealth. And by proven I mean by the police and prosecutors (I missed the prosecutors earlier because of being time poor at the moment and not being able to give this topic as much attention as I probably should), not the other way round.
 
Last edited:

Scaff

Moderator
27,862
United Kingdom
He/Him
ScaffUK
ScaffGTP
And I agreed with you on that point. See...

(account was supposed to read accountant)

You previously left that rather important bit out and as there was no link how was I to know this? It changes a lot, but it still reeks of 'play stupid games' though. He did after all knowingly put himself in that position by using his house to commit a crime and it could still have been argued that he used his house to conceal the crop. I don't think it's a coincidence that I've never seen a rental property seized from it's owners here when used in this manner.

Edit: Apologies for stuffing this quote up but I'm still struggling with the new format on this site. And I've had to re-do this twice now due to this whole edit disappearing :confused:

''Does it appear less likely to be abused in Australia/UK than in the US? It has one extra step, so potentially yes, however what also became clear was that the requirements to record and report statistics on it in the UK and Australia are almost non-existent, and if as a tool it's being mainly used against marginal groups (and I suspect it is), then we may simply not be hearing about it to the same degree we do in the US.

You're at the point now where it's honestly coming across that you don't 'want' this to be true, rather than being able to present any actual reasoned reply.''


Another possibility is that the statistics actually are almost non-existent unlike in the US. I can certainly see why the media wouldn't report on something that's not happening.

Regarding the marginal groups these laws have been brought in to target, you're right, I have absolutely no sympathy for them if the property/money was in fact proven to be proceeds of crime or unlawful wealth. And by proven I mean by the police and prosecutors (I missed the prosecutors earlier because of being time poor at the moment and not being able to give this topic as much attention as I probably should), not the other way round.
Apologies, I thought it was in one of the previous links.
 

Scaff

Moderator
27,862
United Kingdom
He/Him
ScaffUK
ScaffGTP
Last edited:

Brett

May the Force be with you
Premium
8,378
United States
Oklahoma
Over a thousand cases at risk diet to a group of cops racist, homophobic and antisemitic text messages


Hands up who's shocked.
shocked philip j fry GIF
 

Blitz24

Chromalusion Member
Premium
17,399
United States
NJ/USA
Blitzbay
Blitzbay
Calls for a judge to resign after offensive comments:

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Then again, she also realizes that if judges are voted for, it would take someone running against her in order to have her job rescinded, so she's pretty much got tenure unless she commits an actual crime.
 

UKMikey

Premium
10,470
United Kingdom
West Drayton
UKMikeyA
UKMikeyA
To be fair though, she'd taken a sedative at the time. Not sure whether it had any Ambien content or caused her "sugar to spike". Anyway, she's been suspended and her son kicked off the local U's track team.
 
Last edited:

Blitz24

Chromalusion Member
Premium
17,399
United States
NJ/USA
Blitzbay
Blitzbay
To be fair though, she'd taken a sedative at the time. Not sure whether it had any Ambien content or caused her "sugar to spike". Anyway, she's been suspended and her son kicked off the local U's track team.
Ah, the Roseanne defense. Although I'm not sure how punishing family members is useful unless they stupidly proclaimed they support her view.
 

Scaff

Moderator
27,862
United Kingdom
He/Him
ScaffUK
ScaffGTP
Ah, the Roseanne defense. Although I'm not sure how punishing family members is useful unless they stupidly proclaimed they support her view.
He was in on the action as well, seems the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

I always find the 'I was on X' defence an utterly odd one. No matter how hammered I've been it's never once triggered the emergence of racist behaviour!
 
Last edited:

UKMikey

Premium
10,470
United Kingdom
West Drayton
UKMikeyA
UKMikeyA
Last edited:
23,792
United States
Here to Eternity
TexRex72
So the defense that lethal force was justified fell kinda flat, huh? Makes sense. If lethal force really is justified, the appropriate response is to pull a firearm rather than mistakenly pull a firearm instead of a taser while repeatedly yelling "taser" and sobbing that pulling a firearm was unintentional.
 
Last edited:

UKMikey

Premium
10,470
United Kingdom
West Drayton
UKMikeyA
UKMikeyA
So the defense that lethal force was justified fell kinda flat, huh? Makes sense. If lethal force really is justified, the appropriate response is to pull a firearm rather than mistakenly pull a firearm instead of a taser while repeatedly yelling "taser" and sobbing that pulling a firearm was unintentional.
Potter's attorney Earl Gray must be feeling as steamed as his hot beverage namesake right now.
 
41,188
Australia
The Bronx
Australian police are less corrupt than it seems like American police are, so you're far less likely to even be in the situation in the first place. I think it would require the police having some sort of vendetta against you for it to happen here, whereas in the US it just seems to happen randomly as a matter of their daily duties.
That’s even if the police are around. Can’t remember the last time I saw police walking around… oh, yes I do… they were trailing a coal protest group, marching past my building. Other than that, coppers don’t exist in my neighbourhood. And that’s with the police station several blocks away! Maybe if they smell some hot chips, that’ll bring ‘em out. Love this place.
 

TJ13

Dark Theme. Thank you.
Premium
4,498
United States
Minnesota
TJ136
I don't think it was right of Kim Potter to be charged. Yes it was a mistake and the factors and whatnot, but even then if he didn't resist the situation would be different.
Use of lethal force yes a bit much but also could of counter with he was in a vehicle and was attempting to flee putting them and others safety at risk.
To me I would say it was more of a pressured to convict or the city will be unrest.

Now a lot of people are saying that Alec Baldwin should also get the same conviction.
Daunte had record and was killed by accident but was resisting.
Alec mistaken a prop with a real weapon and killed a stage hand that has no record and wasn't fleeing.

At what point does a real genuine accident become a crime and when does a crime become just an accident?
 

Northstar

The Original Party Worm
Premium
23,759
United States
Anoka, MN
At what point does a real genuine accident become a crime
When it's your job to not have those accidents it's not a "real genuine accident", it's just plain gross negligence.

Now a lot of people are saying that Alec Baldwin should also get the same conviction.
Daunte had record and was killed by accident but was resisting.
Alec mistaken a prop with a real weapon and killed a stage hand that has no record and wasn't fleeing.

Alec Baldwin is an actor, it's not his job to make sure a weapon isn't loaded (that's not to say he shouldn't have checked), that's on the armorer or prop master (who didn't follow proper protocol). Kim Potter is a cop, it is very much her job to make sure the taser she is grabbing from her belt is a taser and not a gun.
 
Last edited:
3,075
United States
St.Pete, FL
NotThePrez
NotThePrez
I don't think it was right of Kim Potter to be charged. Yes it was a mistake and the factors and whatnot, but even then if he didn't resist the situation would be different.
This is just me (and apparently Kim Potters jury), but "he resisted" isn't a good defense for a negligent discharge.
Use of lethal force yes a bit much but also could of counter with he was in a vehicle and was attempting to flee putting them and others safety at risk.
That's an incredibly big "what if" in regards to justifying lethal force. Imo lethal force should only be used if all other reasonable options have been exhausted/are deemed impractical, and that it's very safe to assume that the person in question is actually an immediate threat to officers and/or other citizens nearby (or course, what officers consider to be an "immediate threat" to themselves is something that I feel needs to be looked at in general).

Given the situation Kim Potter found herself in, I do actually think a taser shot would've been a reasonable use of force. However, her mistake came at a very high price, and had the potential to do a lot more immediate damage than if Daunte White decided to flee.
Now a lot of people are saying that Alec Baldwin should also get the same conviction.
Daunte had record and was killed by accident but was resisting.
Alec mistaken a prop with a real weapon and killed a stage hand that has no record and wasn't fleeing.
As @Northstar pointed out, Alec Baldwin is an actor, and as such it's not his responsibility to make sure his weapon is safe (though he had the capability of doing so), that falls primarily on his armorer, or generally whoever's job it is to actually maintain the firearms on set.

With Kim Potter, she alone is responsible for how her weapon is used, as it's issued to her and kept on her person at all times while on duty. In this case, she handled her weapon poorly and it resulted in an unnecessary accidental death. That's not the kind of thing that should be brushed under the rug. And Daunte White having a previous record doesn't automatically give the all clear for lethal force (accidental or otherwise), at least not by itself.
At what point does a real genuine accident become a crime...
When an accident that is done out of negligence (on purpose or otherwise) results in a totally unnecessary death.
...and when does a crime become just an accident?
Not sure what this is supposed to mean, exactly. Ideally, that's something that should be determined by a jury based on the evidence of the situation at present. Treating crimes committed by police as "accidents" has typically resulted in things be worse in the long run, to say the least. Kim Potter being found guilty communicates that, at least somewhere, there is a desire to hold police to a higher standard, and that they are not immune to the laws that they've also sworn to protect. We need more of this if we want police to A) be more effective, and B) want to actually have people trusting officers.
 
23,792
United States
Here to Eternity
TexRex72
As @Northstar pointed out, Alec Baldwin is an actor, and as such it's not his responsibility to make sure his weapon is safe (though he had the capability of doing so), that falls primarily on his armorer, or generally whoever's job it is to actually maintain the firearms on set.
So I've thought about this quite a bit (admittedly not recently as news regarding the incident has settled somewhat), and I've been disappointed with how quickly rational* scrutiny of Baldwin ceased and attention was turned to others. Others absolutely should be scrutinized, of course, but I'm also of the belief that firearms should always be handled in a manner consistent with them having the capacity to end life and it's not clear** that Baldwin handled this one in such a manner.

Of course, comparisons between the killings of Halyna Hutchins and Daunte Wright are beyond asinine.

*Emphasis on rational scrutiny here because there's been a lot of scrutiny steeped in viewpoint bias, grievance and general feelings toward Alec Baldwin.

**I'm the first to acknowledge that I don't have all of the details of the incident.
 

buickgnx88

That Guy Over There
Premium
5,720
United States
Anoka, MN
Good

All three have been sentenced to life in prison, with possibility of parole for the guy that was filming.

 
12,883
Australia
Adelaide
GTP_Imari
It also seems like a pretty stark admission of the fact that people with financial means get to partake fairly in the justice system, whereas people without just get taken to town. Why would you take someone's money/assets in order to stop them using those for a defence unless doing so meaningfully weakened their defence?

It's not a justice system if only rich people get to play fairly.
 

Blitz24

Chromalusion Member
Premium
17,399
United States
NJ/USA
Blitzbay
Blitzbay