Interesting stuff

D-Rex wrote:

I'm sure people will find an excuse Indo...BTW what chance did the poor copper ever have of a fair trial?

That poor copper? He is a murderer and you are a bootlicker.

The poor copper in any other country would have been cleared. You and I (and even poor dumb hiccups) know that.

At it's most basic level, that was an appalling way to treat another human being and someone who will do that should not get away without serious consequences.

Seems to me it's a natural consequence of having a country with inequality and a gun culture.

D-Rex wrote:

.BTW what chance did the poor copper ever have of a fair trial?

100% agree D-Rex, i don't think he ever had a chance, i think the outcome was already known the trial was basically just going through the motions, just too much at stake for the whole country.

And:

1. Public perception from the video, most people who watched the footage just assume that means he is guilty of the three charges.

So if he got off or even just manslaughter most of the world would think it was a scam, and in most peoples eyes it would confirm a racist legal system.

However if you take the time to understand things from a legal point of view the whole case is not as clear cut as initially appears, hopefully in the next few days those with real legal knowledge give their opinion if the call was correct and break things down from a legal perspective.

2. The Jury would endanger their own life's with any verdict less than murder and not just for now but for the rest of their life's, they would also have the weight on their shoulders of the riots that would follow plus also the weight on their shoulders of the view that the system continues to be racist.

While now they will be viewed in a completely different light, possibly even more as hero's.

Maybe their own moral compass might come into play if they really believed he was 100% innocent, but in any case i think it would be hard to argue for anything less than manslaughter, so they might as well just go the whole hog, ideally prevent riots, change USA racial perception and not have your life under threat..pretty much a no brainer. (i wouldn't rule out corruption money from the Democratic party either to ensure the outcome, just way too much at stake for the whole country)

3. The obvious one: imagine if he got off or even just manslaughter, USA would burn to the ground, things would have been ten times worst than last year.

4. The perception of any change to all this racial stuff would be put way back, while now it's going to be viewed as some turning point by some.

Ultimately no matter from a legal point of view what the right decision was, this is the outcome that had to happen for the good of the USA.

D-Rex: you’re off the scale mate. What part of his trial wasn’t fair?

Indo: “ However if you take the time to understand things from a legal point of view the whole case is not as clear cut as initially appears,” - I’ve got a reasonable grasp of the law. Not sure what part I’m missing. He was found guilty on all three counts. What’s your read on it?

Sometimes, to foist change upon a group, an individual needs to be made an example of. In my opinion, this is one of those times. Regardless of Floyds history or past drug use or medical condition at the time, I reckon the actions of that cop were manifestly excessive. I think he deserved what he got.

The breakdown of this for me is that it is a systemic problem that can be looked at from many angles which I haven't got time to go into. I think the system failed Floyd but also setting my personal feelings aside, it also failed Derek Chauvin.

Blowin wrote:

I don’t know if the copper murdered anyone or not but I do know that he knelt on someone’s neck for an eternity. He’s scum anyway you slice it.

For long enough to have a fair idea that he was eventually going to kill the guy.
If he wasn’t found guilty America would be in complete civil war right now.
He (the cop) acted like a scum bag cnut and got what he deserved.

There’s no reasonable excuse for the actions that Derek Chauvin took, for as long as he took them. It’s basic use of force principles - the minimum force required, for the minimum period required, to achieve the objective.
What’s more, he callously mocked George Floyd when he was telling him exactly what was wrong.

etarip wrote:

D-Rex: you’re off the scale mate. What part of his trial wasn’t fair?

Indo: “ However if you take the time to understand things from a legal point of view the whole case is not as clear cut as initially appears,” - I’ve got a reasonable grasp of the law. Not sure what part I’m missing. He was found guilty on all three counts. What’s your read on it?

This article provides good context on why the American legal system is one to avoid if you can. What should be a cut-and-dried decision never is:

https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/03/30/despite-damning-video-complex-legal...

Good article Ben, it was interesting that the premise was that an acquittal was more likely than not based on US norms. Ultimately the reasons that Chauvin was convicted (x3) lie with the physical evidence presented, and not an acquittal on an interpretation of Police exemptions from overreach, negligence or malpractice.

All of the above comments show that Chauvin was at fault but did he deliberately kill Floyd? Would any sane person deliberately kill another while being filmed on a public road? It is a tough gig being a copper and having no doubt previously dealt with dangerous offenders it is not a stretch to suggest that Chauvin was trying to both restrain and punish Floyd. Not a chance in Hell he would have been found guilty of murder in Australia. A political decision was made to prevent anarchy. Chauvin just happened to be the unlucky fall guy.

zenagain wrote:

The breakdown of this for me is that it is a systemic problem that can be looked at from many angles which I haven't got time to go into. I think the system failed Floyd but also setting my personal feelings aside, it also failed Derek Chauvin.

Agreed. Sam Harris did a lengthy summary of the stats. I think they'll be illuminating for many.

A transcript of that episode is available (link below). Fair warning, it's very long. Much easier to listen to the podcast episode. Though he's quite measured in his words so his particular pace of speaking might; meaning if you're a quick reader (I'm not) then perhaps reading it will take up less of your time than listening to the episode.

https://samharris.org/can-pull-back-brink/

etarip wrote:

Good article Ben, it was interesting that the premise was that an acquittal was more likely than not based on US norms. Ultimately the reasons that Chauvin was convicted (x3) lie with the physical evidence presented, and not an acquittal on an interpretation of Police exemptions from overreach, negligence or malpractice.

And one more, case breakdown with the same law professor:

https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/04/20/cinematic-video-police-condemnation...

QandA's towards the end of the interview surrounding the certainty of an appeal and its likely outcome are v interesting and also comforting.

Gallen just dropped lucas Browne first round- its all over Fark

https://twitter.com/hashtag/GallenBrowne?src=hashtag_click

"I'm not what happened to me, I'm what I choose to become."

Being a cop is undoubtedly a tough job. Hats off to them. Their job isn’t made any easier by growing community distrust through an overly ready recourse to lethal force and a concomitant lack of accountability for their actions. There is a disturbing rate of acquittal, even in the limited number of cases that go to trial.
I’ve not been able to find any hard data on whether a reduction in police shootings results in an increased rate of police officers deaths on duty. There’s a plethora of sources on one or the other, but none that I’ve been able to find that explicitly link the two. Maybe a thesis or doctorate paper in that for someone with more time than me.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/killings-by-police-declined-a...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/protests-spread-over-polic...
https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/officers/national/united-state...

Australian Deaths in custody are a national shame. You can restrain someone without killing them. Hard day at work or not.

Do really needs any study to give you the answer?

Seems to me its just about common sense.

Cop either uses his trained judgement to shoot first to protect himself and anyone else in danger, or he waits for the criminal to shoot first either at him or others and hopes they miss before the cop then takes a shot.

Obviously if you wait for criminal to shoot first, more people will get shot not only cops but others the criminal might be aiming a gun at.

Robwilliams wrote:

Australian Deaths in custody are a national shame. You can restrain someone without killing them. Hard day at work or not.

You do understand that almost all deaths in custody are not at the hands of police. The cases that ate or suss are super rate, mostly ate deaths due to natural causes or suicide and other things for instance even in a police car chase if a car crashes and they die its recorded as a death in custody.

Sorry spelling damn phone

Booker prize-winning author Richard Flanagan has taken a swipe at Tasmania's salmon industry, describing it as "one big lie".

"I realised that Tasmanian Atlantic salmon is just one big lie. It's not clean, it's not green and it's not even healthy."

"What's going on in Tasmania is that these beloved coastal waterways that are so important to everyday Tasmanians are being stolen from them and locked up to benefit a handful of very large corporations," he said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-22/richard-flanagan-allegations-salm...

ever been locked up?

chicken or fish, what next.

Patrick funny how the Salmon farming industry is not even on the agenda in the upcoming election here in Tasmania. Which to me means neither Labour or Liberals intend doing anything about the blight it has become on the natural beauty that is Tasmania.
Like Flanagan says the Liberal govt and big three players are so secretive about the way the industry operates but at the same time portray their product to be so healthy which it is far from.
Anybody currently consuming or contemplating consuming farmed Salmon just have a look at the Seaspiracy docco on Netflix about the Scottish industry and you will never touch the stuff again because this is what you could be eating.

Yep Gary, good point about the two big political parties.

Here's a 22 min doco. I've only watched the first few minutes so far but already it echoes what fishers and divers have told me about the impact on fish, scallop and cray species.

And then there's concerns about the drinking water supplies.
Excerpt from Flanagan's book:
"Coughanowr explains that in 2015, following the opening by Huon Aquaculture of a large smolt hatchery below Meadowbank dam on the Derwent River, green algal blooms began appearing in the river. So extreme were these blooms that they threatened internationally significant seagrass beds and wetlands around Granton, an area sometimes described as the kidneys of the Derwent. At the same time, there was a public outcry about the bad taste and bad smell of Hobart’s drinking water – water locals normally hail as the best-tasting in Australia. But now the water often stank and tasted awful. The bad taste and odour came from the blue-green algal blooms, which have occurred most summers since.

"There is a strong likelihood that the algal blooms were caused by excess nitrogen flowing into Hobart’s water catchment. Coughanowr says that TasWater’s own research came to the same conclusion. The question, she says, is where does the nitrogen come from? There could be several sources, principally either agriculture or the cumulative effect of other sources. But the main agricultural sources lie on the Derwent above the Huon hatchery, where there have never been any significant algal blooms. All the algal blooms occur below Huon Aquaculture’s new hatchery which has, according to Coughanowr, a nutrient discharge similar in size to a sewage plant of a town of 5–10,000 people."

Oops, the doco is here:
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2021/april/1619049158/richard-flanag...

https://www.patagonia.com.au/blogs/roaring-journals/unconscious-and-offs...

Does anybody know if this is going to happen

upload pic

Yeah i saw this the other month a FB friend lives there.

Betting it will, it needs a redevelopment and the new design provides more green space, even if it's at the expensive of some car spaces?

Plus expect the caravan park would be pushing hard to get that green space in front of them.

IMHO it would be a positive, but also get that it would suck in other ways, like not being able to sit in your car and watch waves, ive spent many many hours there as a grommet in my old Kombie (had two) watching waves between surfs.

A ha! That's why Australians are getting screwed when it comes to choosing an electric car

@tubeshooter , not sure they’d sell many after initial test drive .

I'll put this here rather than on the Webber Herring article..

https://surfsimply.com/surfboards/the-fish-aint-no-small-wave-sled/

That video link posted by Patrick would have been much more interesting if it actually told us how these countries dealt with the tax losses without pissing off the public as obviously those revenue loses need to be recovered elsewhere. (not to mention the whole fuel industry and mechanic business are going to be hit, electrical vehicles requite much less maintenance.)

Currently there is just nothing in it for the government to lose both tax revenue on importing electric cars and then lose even more tax revenue from fuel excise tax.

It would be like shooting yourself in the foot not just once but twice, for what?...to say yay we reduced emissions by some tiny figure.

Find a realistic solution to solving the tax revenue problem without pissing everyone off like raising regos to some crazy amount or some other tax and losing an election over it and you might get somewhere.

But really end of the day it doesn't matter too much, eventually the market will sort itself out, prices of electric cars will have to drop substantiality even without cutting imports taxes, otherwise it wont happen.

We are also in early days where tech and things like battery range are still developing, personally as great as it would be have an electric car, i wouldn't buy one now just for the fact whatever you buy now in a a few years will be way outdated and most likely you would have paid overs for it, just like flatscreen TV's when they first came out, but yeah at some point the tech and things like battery range will plateau and prices drop.

Edit function is back - on the forums at least

udo wrote:

Edit function is back - on the forums at least

It has been updated udo - there's a now 10 minute window after you post a comment where you can edit it.

Jono wrote:

udo wrote:

Edit function is back - on the forums at least

It has been updated udo - there's a now 10 minute window after you post a comment where you can edit it.

Cool didn't notice that, I think thats a very good compromise on the edit function, it gives you a chance to edit out spelling, grammar mistakes etc, but stops people from changing post in the long term or others thinking that you have changed a post.

Edit: yeah it works.

I'm a bit late to garyg's party but I hope that John West is rejecting that fish.

https://unwatch.org/un-elects-iran-to-top-womens-rights-body/

WTF?

This world is getting weirder everyday.

Another example of "You couldn’t make this shit up if you tried"

CEO of Youtube gets a freedom of expression award. (Seems from YouTube?)

Check out the comments and like to dislike ratio :D

ID, Norway tax the sale of their resources properly. Unlike Australia. That’s why Australia is like a bunch of hillbilly fuckwits in comparison to more forward thinking nations who don’t need to gouge the working class to subsidise extractive industries.
Read some stuff on MMT on another thread. Again, if Australia didn’t succumb to the scare tactics of the LNP and thier mining industry bosses we wouldn’t even need to talk about MMT.

@soggydog , imagine if our governments had vision. The chevron gorgon project is a classic example of giving it all away . When superannuation was first brought in it was a great idea , the bad move was to privatise the handling of this money . If the government had managed the money then projects like gorgon could have easily been funded and then the returns are spent on health systems , education ,infrastructure, housing etc etc . Before gorgon we had iron ore and instead of that money going to a few that wacked a peg in the ground that wealth could have been the people of Australia. What other country in the world with such huge natural resources gives it away to any foreign country willing to have a go ?

We are a strategic location for the US Blowin, no need to give it all away. The reality is our country has been run by a bunch of visionless kooks