Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Ignore this at your peril: The USA is going down

Jump to new
PZ99 said:
Clutching at straws is your resort to semantics by going with a probable cause whilst saying you make no assumptions. My post is exactly what is in the video. By suggesting much of it is fabrication you are displaying the same judgmental errors as the officer did.

"We've had some stuff going on in this area" seems adequate to me and unless you live there or have some telepathic link with people who live there I don't think you have a basis for brushing it off as an "idea".

Racism involves nonrandom victimization. Agreed. It also happens without involving racism.

The only difference is nonrandom victimization isn't bolded :)
Click to expand...
"Probable cause" should have been what led to the officer's actions. It is the most basic tenet of lawful policing and in the USA is borne out of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
What you suggest instead is a recipe for disaster, and this video shows how badly things came undone.

Nonrandom victimisation is definitionally consistent with racism, and cannot happen unless some form of discrimination is in play.
 
Discrimination yes. Not confined to racism. Remember the independent review of the police investigation found there was no racism which makes perfect sense to me because I didn't see it in the video and neither did they.

What I suggest instead might be a recipe for disaster for career victims but not real victims.
Where I live, I'll take the recipe for disaster over a crime any day of the week.

Like I said - we had a double stabbing murder here over the weekend. If the murderer had been known to police the debate would've been about why nothing was done to prevent it.
 
PZ99 said:
Discrimination yes. Not confined to racism. Remember the independent review of the police investigation found there was no racism which makes perfect sense to me because I didn't see it in the video and neither did they.

What I suggest instead might be a recipe for disaster for career victims but not real victims.
Where I live, I'll take the recipe for disaster over a crime any day of the week.

Like I said - we had a double stabbing murder here over the weekend. If the murderer had been known to police the debate would've been about why nothing was done to prevent it.
Click to expand...
You can believe what you want.
It was patently clear from the bodycam from the outset that the student was collecting rubbish (the originally linked video does not show the first sighting by the officer).
While this was clear, the report from all all officers read as though he carried a bucket and some kind of blunt weapon - a comedic claim, given everyone would have immediately recognised it was a tool used specifically to pick up trash!
No evidence was provided by the white male (a facilities diractor called Aaron Cooke) who came running out to the student. Aaron eventually calmed the student and said "You`re angry and escalated. It`s likely you got profiled. Okay. So well pick it up at a different time. Not here, not now."

Your claim that the independent review found no racism is incorrect. Their exact words were "As explained below, neither the PSU investigation nor our review revealed a preponderance of evidence that this contact was based on Mr. Atkinson’s race."
In legal parlance it means that race was a likely factor, but other factors contributed to the greater problem. Namely that Officer Smyly continued the contact because (1) he misunderstood the law about what information a citizen must provide, and (2) he erred in believing he had reasonable suspicion that a trespass was occurring.
Aside from the above, the independent review was asked to considered the information it was offered by BPD's PSU, and its terms did not require "race" to be addressed. So the investigation never considered what informed the officer that he should do what he did.
In simple English, the issue of WHY was never addressed.
 
rederob said:
You can believe what you want.
It was patently clear from the bodycam from the outset that the student was collecting rubbish (the originally linked video does not show the first sighting by the officer).
While this was clear, the report from all all officers read as though he carried a bucket and some kind of blunt weapon - a comedic claim, given everyone would have immediately recognised it was a tool used specifically to pick up trash!
No evidence was provided by the white male (a facilities diractor called Aaron Cooke) who came running out to the student. Aaron eventually calmed the student and said "You`re angry and escalated. It`s likely you got profiled. Okay. So well pick it up at a different time. Not here, not now."

Your claim that the independent review found no racism is incorrect. Their exact words were "As explained below, neither the PSU investigation nor our review revealed a preponderance of evidence that this contact was based on Mr. Atkinson’s race."
In legal parlance it means that race was a likely factor, but other factors contributed to the greater problem. Namely that Officer Smyly continued the contact because (1) he misunderstood the law about what information a citizen must provide, and (2) he erred in believing he had reasonable suspicion that a trespass was occurring.
Aside from the above, the independent review was asked to considered the information it was offered by BPD's PSU, and its terms did not require "race" to be addressed. So the investigation never considered what informed the officer that he should do what he did.
In simple English, the issue of WHY was never addressed.
Click to expand...
Thankyou for letting me know I can believe what I want.

I believe that your claim about my claim of no racism being incorrect is incorrect.

To quote their exact words on page 14:
"At no point in the entire Incident did anyone use racial language, slurs, or innuendo"

(other than the Naropa University employee mentioning "profiling")

Nothing from the police officer.

In legal parlance or any other parlance it means that race was no factor.

I'll tell what was said though...

Mr. Atkinson was aware he was being filmed by multiple cameras, and he gestured and narrated specifically for the camera being used by the fellow student filming from inside the dormitory. As that video and the BWCs demonstrate, Mr. Atkinson referred to the officers as "murderers," called them dumbasses, asked them "what are you going to do?", demanded that they get off "his property," told them they were wasting resources, and told them to "go solve some real crimes."

Yeppers... a real keeper of the peace there :rolleyes:
 
PZ99 said:
I remember the Star Hotel riot shown by the media was without favour or prejudice and demonstrated what the media should be portraying - exactly what happened and nothing else.

Things have changed for the worse since 1979 except for one thing. The rioters and cops went over the whole thing about 40 years later over a few beers :p
Click to expand...

Well, as I sat and watched the whole Star thing unfold right in front of me all those years ago, I can assure you what you see is actually what happened.

The Star was situated on a 6 lane road with a grass median strip in the centre, the other side of the road is higher than the Star side so the median strip provided a natural sloping viewing point.

By the end of the riot there would have been 300-400 people all sitting on the grass watching.

My mate and I were actually heading for the Star for one last drink when all these people came "boiling out" into the street. We stayed where we were on the median strip for the whole show.

Unbelievable to us then that it could happen in Newcastle
 
macca said:
Well, as I sat and watched the whole Star thing unfold right in front of me all those years ago, I can assure you what you see is actually what happened.

The Star was situated on a 6 lane road with a grass median strip in the centre, the other side of the road is higher than the Star side so the median strip provided a natural sloping viewing point.

By the end of the riot there would have been 300-400 people all sitting on the grass watching.

My mate and I were actually heading for the Star for one last drink when all these people came "boiling out" into the street. We stayed where we were on the median strip for the whole show.

Unbelievable to us then that it could happen in Newcastle
Click to expand...
Wow - good one! Did you see yourself in the footage? I remember the big guy (Bill) that let everyone out of the paddy wagon. They couldn't hold him. lol
 
Junior said:
A friend of mine is working on major Rail projects in Melbourne...they are desperate for gender equality. Any woman who applies for a job in rail is a shoe-in, amongst a sea of male applicants.
Click to expand...
On one hand it's a separate topic to the thread.

On the other hand, tolerating blatant discrimination anywhere ultimately leads to it being tolerated everywhere which leads down a rather nasty path. Once it's accepted that men and women, or whites and blacks, are not equal and need to be seen differently then it's a slippery slope that doesn't end well.

People are people and apart from a small minority of things such as acting where physical appearance needs to reasonably match the character role, gender and race shouldn't be factors in who gets the job. :2twocents
 
PZ99 said:
Wow - good one! Did you see yourself in the footage? I remember the big guy (Bill) that let everyone out of the paddy wagon. They couldn't hold him. lol
Click to expand...

The camera man (Barry Nancarrow) did not have time to pan across the "audience" there was too much happening !

I remember when the mob turned the cop car over and lit it everyone around me suddenly thought Oh ****, this is getting serious.

Up until then it was all a bit of fun, we were chuckling at all the blokes going in and out of the paddy wagon. Even some of the cops thought it was all a bit of a game, they were being reasonably gentle on most of the people.

That changed when the car caught on fire, the crowd started thinning quick smart after that.

The ratbags stayed but a lot of the people on the footpath among the rioters bolted, a lot of the people on the median strip went back across the road to the Workers Club.

It fizzled out soon after that, no audience
 
PZ99 said:
Thankyou for letting me know I can believe what I want.

I believe that your claim about my claim of no racism being incorrect is incorrect.

To quote their exact words on page 14:
"At no point in the entire Incident did anyone use racial language, slurs, or innuendo"

(other than the Naropa University employee mentioning "profiling")

Nothing from the police officer.

In legal parlance or any other parlance it means that race was no factor.

I'll tell what was said though...

Mr. Atkinson was aware he was being filmed by multiple cameras, and he gestured and narrated specifically for the camera being used by the fellow student filming from inside the dormitory. As that video and the BWCs demonstrate, Mr. Atkinson referred to the officers as "murderers," called them dumbasses, asked them "what are you going to do?", demanded that they get off "his property," told them they were wasting resources, and told them to "go solve some real crimes."

Yeppers... a real keeper of the peace there :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
At no point have you addressed the rationale for the officer's initial actions.
That's because they are textbook pattern behaviours showing how race underpinned everything the officer did.
It is barely credible that a US police officer would not know 4th Amendment rights, and less credible again that he would not understand what constituted a "reasonable suspicion."
It has never been more clear than now that in the USA you do not have to make any racial comment to kill a black man in front of our eyes.
 
The initial actions are all covered in the investigation in your link.

"As Mr. Atkinson sat there, BPD patrol officer John Smyly was on routine patrol driving his police cruiser northbound on Folsom Street. After crossing Arapahoe Avenue, he looked across two small parking lots to his left and saw Mr. Atkinson sitting on the patio. Mr. Atkinson was approximately 287 feet away. Officer Smyly was aware of a number of recent crimes committed in that general area, including attempted bike theft and trespassing. He turned left after passing the parking lots, drove back around, parked approximately 80 feet northeast of the patio, and sat in his cruiser for about a minute watching Mr. Atkinson. This pre-contact phase lasted approximately two minutes."

I don't buy it. You can't read that and conclude it was race motivated and that's why it was never asserted as such.

Wouldn't mind what you think of this though - bit closer to home.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06...ficer-over-arrest-of-indigenous-teen/12310758

Was this a racist police officer ?

Gotta admit it was a decent decking :)
 
Smurf1976 said:
On the other hand, tolerating blatant discrimination anywhere ultimately leads to it being tolerated everywhere which leads down a rather nasty path. Once it's accepted that men and women, or whites and blacks, are not equal and need to be seen differently then it's a slippery slope that doesn't end well.

People are people and apart from a small minority of things such as acting where physical appearance needs to reasonably match the character role, gender and race shouldn't be factors in who gets the job. :2twocents
Click to expand...

I could not have said it better, thanks Smurf!
 
PZ99 said:
The initial actions are all covered in the investigation in your link.
Click to expand...
As has been made clear many times there were no lawful motivations for the police officer's actions.
Those were also the conclusions of the Professional Standards Unit.
The idea that because there have been crimes in an area justifies anything a police officer subsequently does is an absurdity.
I appreciate you do not understand these things so won't comment further.
 
rederob said:
As has been made clear many times there were no lawful motivations for the police officer's actions.
Those were also the conclusions of the Professional Standards Unit.
The idea that because there have been crimes in an area justifies anything a police officer subsequently does is an absurdity.
I appreciate you do not understand these things so won't comment further.
Click to expand...
The Boulder City Attorney was quoted as saying there was “no proof that racial bias was a motivating factor” in the incident.

The investigation and subsequent report found that, “At no point in the entire incident did anyone use racial language, slurs or innuendo.”

I appreciate you do not understand this so yep, thanks for the fun :)
 
Back on the topic proper.
There are no economic forecasters that place the USA ahead of China by 2050.
The only issue is how many years before 2050 China becomes the dominant global economy.
China is already the world's biggest manufacturer of goods and on PPP terms dominates all nations, meaning that its reliance on the USA diminishes each year.
China has been emerging from the COV19 pandemic for 2 months, while the USA remains in disarray. Like it or not, China will be gaining market share from the USA until such time the USA can reassert itself. That looks months away at best.
On the diplomatic front China has sent medical emergency response teams to dozens of nations, having got in early to a number of European nations. The USA has instead continued to indulge in a blame game.
And topping off everything, China's belt and road initiative is assisting the developing world to unlock its potential. America's response is to regard their initiatives as subservisive, and is countering only with megaphone economics, ie China bad America good!
If Australia adopts the Switzerland approach to global affairs it will prosper more than any other western nation.
 
qldfrog said:
Yes it is sick and there is no real news there but another article which still manages to add weapon ownership as another major cause of problem there..seriously? What next?
Click to expand...
It bad at present but it was similar in 1968.

gg
 
It will certainly be an interesting Australia, when we are finally a part of China, it will be good to see how the left and right wings fly.:D
 
PZ99 said:
The Boulder City Attorney was quoted as saying there was “no proof that racial bias was a motivating factor” in the incident.

The investigation and subsequent report found that, “At no point in the entire incident did anyone use racial language, slurs or innuendo.”

I appreciate you do not understand this so yep, thanks for the fun :)
Click to expand...

I find it weird that the attorney would think there needs to be racial language, slurs or innuendo to mean race was a motivating factor.

You don't have to be blatantly calling some one a N****r to have actions that are motivated by race, thats what makes the problem so sinister, it is far more subconscious than that, that people don't even realise the race aspects are motivating their behaviour.

The simple fact is that studies have shown that the Darker the skin, the more likely people (including police) are to think that a persons actions are threatening, aggressive and dangerous.

Police need to be trained to over come these bias if we have any hope to stop what is happening.
 

Similar threads

JohnDe
Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
9K
Telamelo
T
kahuna1
Top of this cycle for ASX 200, cash is king?
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
15K
kahuna1
kahuna1
G
Buy at your peril article... you need to read this
Replies
5
Views
8K
RayG
R
Top