This from a news article posted two hours ago on the BBC News website:
"Upon police arrival, a female 'slaps' the back of the patrol squad," the search warrant states, according to Minneapolis Public Radio. "After that, it is unknown to BCA agents what exactly happened, but the female became deceased in the alley."
Can anyone top this example of hopelessly inverted American obfuscation? This example bends over backwards so far it meets itself north of the anal orifice.
The police car backed up and ran her over?
Nope. The officer sitting in the front passenger seat fired past his partner sitting behind the steering wheel. The bullet punched through the driver's door and "the female became deceased in the alley."
Was this the Minnesota shooting? I didn't know what BCA was, and thought it was an incident in Britain.
Yes, Minnesota. Still much confusion, chaos, fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD).
Not unexpectedly, some events take far longer to bring to an official accounting than others. The 'the female became deceased in the alley' statement does little to inspire public confidence. Even if that statement was confined to the wording on the search warrant, it seems indicative of an accountability-ducking mentality.
Nobody shot an innocent woman. It was merely an unfortunate incident resulting in a female becoming deceased in an alley. No one's fault, really, but for the sad happenstance of an inglorious location.
Nobody shot an innocent woman. It was merely an unfortunate incident resulting in a female becoming deceased in an alley.
News writing in the US has become quite passive. Things just happen. One of my peeves is about the use 'suspect' and similar words. They can catch the guy, standing over the dead body with bloody knife in hand with multiple witnesses, with him screaming, "I did it!" - and he's still called a suspect. The word means uncertainty but is used where there is certainty of who did it. What is not yet known is whether they'll be convicted of a crime. It's more accurately phrased as, "The gunman, accused of murder in the death of..."
I usually support and respect the police but I take each case on it's own merits. I do think in many cases they've become unnecessarily militarized. What I see in general is police becoming increasing on edge in any encounter with civilians, where defending themselves has become a reflex action.
It's become a vicious cycle, spiraling down, where groups threaten and actually kill police, and then the police become paranoid and lash out against innocents.
Of course, there are some individual officers who are dicks on power trips. There needs to be a better mechanism to weed out the bad ones for sacking. This latest cop in Minnesota had a very poor conduct record with several complaints, and now a woman is dead because of it.
What I see in general is police becoming increasing on edge in any encounter with civilians
The statistics actually show in recent decades there have substantial drops in all types of violent crimes across almost the entire country, but for some isolated pockets of territorial disputes between gangs.
The increasing speed of the 'news cycle' surely makes it appears as if violence is increasing, but it has fallen, a lot.
There's also many with self-serving reasons for wanting a general perception that violent crime is a problem requiring more action from governments.
Even though we may differ politically, I absolutely agree with each and every statement you made.
To put some numbers to it, since the late 1980's violent crime has dropped 70% in the US.
There's also many with self-serving reasons for wanting a general perception that violent crime is a problem requiring more action from governments.
I would rather be a member of a well armed citizenry than a disarmed subject.
I would rather be a member of a well armed citizenry than a disarmed subject.
Last year I read Kurt Schlichter's People's Republic and will soon get to it's new prequel Indian Country. I've been brainstorming my own story which would precede the prequel while staying in the PR universe.
I would rather be a member of a well armed citizenry than a disarmed subject.
NOT DISPUTING your preference, but there is strong evidence the "disarmed subjects" of Australia very approve of others being disarmed too.
We have a complicated, but actually very fair, system of voting for our federal Senate. It uses a proportional representation method where one-seventh plus one of votes in any state secures one of the six seats available. (Sometimes that is one-thirteenth plus one to secure one of twelve seats available)
It also uses preferential voting method. If your first preference is for a candidate with no mathematical chance of securing a quota, your vote is transferred onto your next preference. (Not quite. Recent changes now mean the party which received your first preference decides who your vote will be transferred to. I hate that. I think any mention of political parties in electoral laws tends to make the system less democratic).
In a recent election a candidate from the Motorists' Party was elected after gaining only about 1% of first preferences, but they accumulated enough preferences from others with different first preferences, but preferences ere directed to anyone but the major parties.
Candidates from "single-issue parties" are elected to the Senate quite often. "Christian" candidates have been elected many times. In recent decades our "purple" states often elect two from the major left- and right-of-centre parties, one Green, and Christian or miscellaneous xenophobe.
So, our Senate is where every single-issue lobby group stands its candidates in elections. The preferential system of voting means voters can cast a vote showing their greatest concern is for one issue, but it will not then be "wasted" as votes for Nader, etc. are in the US. With the Australian method of counting, Gore would have beaten Bush, and he would have done so because the majority would have voted for Gore if there were only those two names on all ballot papers.
You can easily find lists of the multitude of small parties which field candidates in Senate elections at aec.gov.au.
If Australia had an organisation with similar objectives as the NRA in America, they would be standing candidates in our Senate elections, and if that organisation was as influential here as it is in America, they'd probably win one seat in most states in most elections. If as few as 3% or 4% considered gun "rights" the most important issue to them when voting that would certainly be enough to consistently win one seat per state.
We don't have any such party. There is a Fishers and Shooters Party (or vice versa) which gets close to 1% of first preferences. Many who vote for that party are only concerned about their right to fish, and campaign against restrictions on minimum sizes and maximum number of their catches.
So, the lack of gun "rights" in Australia is a major issue of concerns for much less than 1% of voters - and our laws are extremely restrictive. A few decades Australia had its only random massacre at a tourist venue. The Federal and all State governments agreed on uniform laws restricting the issuing of permits to own firearms. Permits are only granted to those with a valid reason for owning a firearm. Farmers are presumed to have a valid reason, but a desire to have a weapon for self-protection IS NOT deemed a valid reason!
I'm sure if similar laws were proposed in America and seemed to have any chance of passing their would be 'well-armed militia' out hunting politicians, as opposed to the well-armed militants you have now.
IN AUSTRALIA, ALMOST ALL OF US LOVE IT!
Farmers are presumed to have a valid reason, but a desire to have a weapon for self-protection IS NOT deemed a valid reason!
I disagree. Some eyars ago, well before the rabid idiots stopped general gun ownership, the only reason I was beaten up and robbed in the flat i was living in in an inner city suburb was when I heard them working on the door to my flat to bash it down and come in I grabbed my pump action shotgun and pumped a round into the breech. I heard on say, "Fuck, he's armed," and there was the load noise of people rushing down the stairs. When I looked out the front window there were over a dozen local thugs racing up the street.
There is no reason, and never has been a reason, for the general population to have fully-automatic weapons or handguns, but semi-auto shotguns and rifles with 18 inch barrels or were good to have around for over 200 years.
A friend of mine owns a farm, and he has a devil of a time keeping the rabbits under control now. Prior to the disarmament of Australia lots of family and friends would visit for a week or a weekend and go shoot a few rabbits. None of do now, because it's just too much fucking trouble. he can't loan us a gun unless we have a shooter's licence, you can't get one unless you're a registered member of a gun club or a farmer or spend a significant part of your time on a farm; thus casual shooters can't get a licence. If you join a gun club you have to fork out a few thousand dollars for an approved gun safe to put your rifle in.
Today there are only a few groups in Australia who are armed. Outside of the military and the police about 90% of guns are in the hands of criminals and the majority of them are military grade weapons, prior to the disarmament criminals very rarely paid the money for military grade weapons, but now all illegal guns cost a fortune, so they go for the heavier firepower. All the disarmament did was to make the general population more vulnerable, and to ensure any invading army can run over the local population.
I forgot to include: most people don't do much about it because we recognise both the major political parties are fucked on the issue and it's no going to change until after the situation gets to create the next Ballarat Stockade meeting.
he can't loan us a gun unless we have a shooter's licence
I would agree that is an instance of the Nanny State going too far.
May I ask you to respect my post WAS NOT arguing Australia's policies are correct. Post whatever you like, but please don't direct them at me.
I was arguing this was an issue that is only important enough to influence the votes of a very small number of people, despite a voting system that encourages voters to support single-issue parties.
You know my opinion is the benefits of the policy far out-weight the costs. Your opinion is different and I agree there are valid reasons for others to hold other opinions.
May I ask you to respect my post WAS NOT arguing Australia's policies are correct.
I frequently get pedantic on Twitter and criticize people's logic and reasoning, which they frequently misconstrue as an attack on their conclusion.
I have vowed to avoid discussing my opinions on subjects not related to writing here.
I got myself into too much trouble doing that. I resist fights as long as I can, but I go all-out and I'm very effective when I feel I've been pushed too far. That's never pretty!
There was nothing wrong in what EB posted. I was cautious to state facts not opinions in my post. All's well if we end exchanges between us there.
There was nothing wrong in what EB posted. I was cautious to state facts not opinions in my post.
I recognized that and added my own behavior as an example. Many people in the general public have a problem distinguishing between criticisms of their methods and that of their conclusions.
I believe people will arrive at the correct conclusion, on their own, much more often when they employ sound methodology. I will correct those who's conclusions I both agree and disagree with if their logic or methods are suspect.
So I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, simply concurring and adding, "Me too."
"Me too."
I two!
There's a getting to know you process with newcomers until we all figure out what we may assume each other knows.
It's been polite, calm, and brief with you so far. That's nice.
Of course, there are some individual officers who are dicks on power trips. There needs to be a better mechanism to weed out the bad ones for sacking.
There are far too many defectives on the police farce.
Yes, an unfortunate spontaneous 'deceasing'.
Most of us here in OZ are shaking our heads in the sure and certain knowledge that nobody will be held to account.
It seems to me that the US is looking in the wrong place for terrorists. It has spent and is spending obscene amounts of money to protect oil and normalise regions, all in the name of counter-terrorism, when the sad truth is that the real terrorists in the US are the police forces.
When you look at the statistics over the last 10 years relating to the fatal shooting by police of unarmed people, there are many more deaths there than can be attributed to any 'traditional' terrorist attacks.
What black person, and increasingly white people, is not now terrified of being pulled over by a cop? The cops' default mode seems to be to approach with gun drawn, just as Mohamed Noor seems to have done.
Sadly, Justine Damond made the mistake of thinking like an Australian. She won't make that mistake again.
Most of us here in OZ are shaking our heads
They're a (... more ...) Weird Mob than us, those Americans. Deaths by guns are accepted, while by other causes are considered horrific. They, okay a very vocal enough of them, think gun ownership protects them? But, comparing figures with other countries for deaths by firearms classified as accidental or suicides proves that's not so ... and then, of course, there is their murder rate???
A while back an American posted here they wouldn't take a holiday in Australia because of all our deadly wildlife. It is true we have a large share of snakes and spiders with the most deadly bites in the world, and a long list of creatures which can kill those who swim in our oceans and rivers.
I found a study, over about a ten year period, showing the sum of all deaths from our very-nasties (snakes, spiders, sharks, crocs, wild boar, assorted marine bitey and stingy things) was close to the number killed by horses and cattle! Our very-nasties are very likely to land someone in hospital, where tourists will receive quality treatment free-of-charge because of our universal health care system called Medicare, but the chances of becoming deceased from any of them are actually extremely low.
Being a typical Aussie, and seeing an American (for fuck's sake) claiming Australia was too unsafe a place to take a holiday, I responded with some shit-stirring. It did not provoke the reactions I was hoping for. I posted something like:
You are far more likely to be killed in Redneckville, USA, by the police on suspicion of being suntanned.
I'm always polite.
I try. Others are trying too. Sometimes very trying. Sometimes so very, damn, ... rip-their-livers-out, chainsaw-their-tiny-twisted-minds trying.
Good thing I'm always so capable of maintaining my sense of humour and sense of proportion.
