Hong Kong

[Tuthina]

I'd also like to add that when I say "probable cause" I don't mean that if the police were to sue or prosecute the donors they would win in court.

Just that there's enough "reasonable suspicion" that the courts would allow it go forward regardless of whether in hindsight it was justified or not.

If there was probable cause, then even if it turned out you were in the end of innocent, you have no recourse against the police because they were acting within their statutory authority

to give a simple example... assume the police had "probably cause" to search your home because they think you have illegal weapons; they search you and it turns out... NO WEAPONS. Can you sue the police? No because so long as there was probable cause and the formalities of the search were met, they're in the clear.

The test is not "were you, in hindsight, innocent or guilty" the test is... "was there probable cause/reasonable suspicion"

There is one crucial flaw in your argument: the oversight of the Hong Kong Police is abysmal. In the absence of oversight with any teeth, the system you are lauding is open to serious abuse.

IM also shows their ignorance of how Hong Kong's law works (at least in theory), although IM being ignorant of things in Hong Kong is nothing new. If police want to search your home for whatever reason, they will have to procure a valid search warrant from the court, which details what places they can search at what time, and what they can take away as evidence. Then again, it's not like the police cares that much about that law either, and you can't really stop them if they just arrest you and then enter your home anyway.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

I seem to recall a certain very recent election that happened during all those protests, which saw a much greater number of people turning out to participate than any protest in the last few months, whether pro- or anti-government. I also seem to recall that the results of that election was quite decisively favourable to one particular side.

It would seem, however, that there are people that no longer remember this little incident.

All that I recall was that the pro-Dems won many many seats (a majority).

However, that shows that the people aren’t satisfied with the current local governance (they think the protests can be better handled), not that they support the protests.

Basically a simple “you guys didn’t do a good job cleaning the streets, let’s see if the other party does better.”

This happens from time to time. I don’t read much into it.

That is a big lie to try and prove that your point is correct and irrefutable, no matter how many times we attempt to debunk it. Polls that are representative of the majority of Hong Kong (definiteley not including you) show dissatisfaction towards the government and the police for not following the wishes of many, if not an almost absolute majority, of their own constituents. The silent majority you keep trying to justify spoke out in that election. The margin demarcated by the people is clear and police and government have run all the way to Beijing past it.

This is not about which party does a better job at maintaining order and security, which have clearly gone to shit after the CCP intervened via police, this is about which party actually follows their constituents wishes.

Your attempts at justifying these things innumerable times in the thread shows just how much you’re willing to defend these authoritarian, big-brother-knows-all actions made by Carrie Lam and her police force.

I mean if we're going by that extremely narrowed classification that has moved the goalposts so far away that one's in Macau and the other one has been extradited to Taiwan, the pro-government demonstrators have an even shittier claim due to the presence of only a couple of hundred of protesters.

And by that logic basically every single mass protest in history has no claim to represent a majority of the people. Goodbye Color Revolutions.

Historically, that is the case as shown by the number of participants compared to the whole.

The numbers are clear, the police estimates clearly lack at least a few tens of thousands, if not hundred thousands. It’s not easy to swarm a whole boulevard or a park and the adjacent streets isn’t it? Neither is it easy to swarm TST or make a chain from Victoria Mountain and make it all the way around a few districts. Clearly, the police numbers are disproportionate to the actual numbers.

Sure, maybe some of those numbers have been exaggerated but not to the extent the police have done attempting to ascertain the actual number.

[Infected Mushroom]

There is one crucial flaw in your argument: the oversight of the Hong Kong Police is abysmal. In the absence of oversight with any teeth, the system you are lauding is open to serious abuse.

IM also shows their ignorance of how Hong Kong's law works (at least in theory), although IM being ignorant of things in Hong Kong is nothing new. If police want to search your home for whatever reason, they will have to procure a valid search warrant from the court, which details what places they can search at what time, and what they can take away as evidence. Then again, it's not like the police cares that much about that law either, and you can't really stop them if they just arrest you and then enter your home anyway.

Whether a court will give a search warrant or not depends in part on Probable Cause (one of several factors which must be weighed in totality)

In terms of freezing assets, only a Probable Cause is required. It’s one area where common law tends to favor the police. Even where a party does eventually get the freezing of the assets overturned, typically where the police can show even a remote Probable Cause, they are seen as acting within the reasonable and ordinary course of their duties. It would be deemed permissible irrespective of facts revealed in hindsight.

But we’re getting off topic and this isn’t a law study group

...

The point being that this is a very good place for the police to press an advantage

[Infected Mushroom]

All that I recall was that the pro-Dems won many many seats (a majority).

However, that shows that the people aren’t satisfied with the current local governance (they think the protests can be better handled), not that they support the protests.

Basically a simple “you guys didn’t do a good job cleaning the streets, let’s see if the other party does better.”

This happens from time to time. I don’t read much into it.

That is a big lie to try and prove that your point is correct and irrefutable, no matter how many times we attempt to debunk it. Polls that are representative of the majority of Hong Kong (definiteley not including you) show dissatisfaction towards the government and the police for not following the wishes of many, if not an almost absolute majority, of their own constituents. The silent majority you keep trying to justify spoke out in that election. The margin demarcated by the people is clear and police and government have run all the way to Beijing past it.

This is not about which party does a better job at maintaining order and security, which have clearly gone to shit after the CCP intervened via police, this is about which party actually follows their constituents wishes.

Your attempts at justifying these things innumerable times in the thread shows just how much you’re willing to defend these authoritarian, big-brother-knows-all actions made by Carrie Lam and her police force.

Historically, that is the case as shown by the number of participants compared to the whole.

The numbers are clear, the police estimates clearly lack at least a few tens of thousands, if not hundred thousands. It’s not easy to swarm a whole boulevard or a park and the adjacent streets isn’t it? Neither is it easy to swarm TST or make a chain from Victoria Mountain and make it all the way around a few districts. Clearly, the police numbers are disproportionate to the actual numbers.

Sure, maybe some of those numbers have been exaggerated but not to the extent the police have done attempting to ascertain the actual number.

The police numbers are what I’m going with. They have a greater degree of reliability because they are from a government source.

Also, still waiting on the proof that there’s ~4 million protestors. Unless that can be shown, can’t really see how 183,000 protestors give or take can represent the views of 7.5 million HKers. They don’t.

[Heloin]

That is a big lie to try and prove that your point is correct and irrefutable, no matter how many times we attempt to debunk it. Polls that are representative of the majority of Hong Kong (definiteley not including you) show dissatisfaction towards the government and the police for not following the wishes of many, if not an almost absolute majority, of their own constituents. The silent majority you keep trying to justify spoke out in that election. The margin demarcated by the people is clear and police and government have run all the way to Beijing past it.

This is not about which party does a better job at maintaining order and security, which have clearly gone to shit after the CCP intervened via police, this is about which party actually follows their constituents wishes.

Your attempts at justifying these things innumerable times in the thread shows just how much you’re willing to defend these authoritarian, big-brother-knows-all actions made by Carrie Lam and her police force.



The numbers are clear, the police estimates clearly lack at least a few tens of thousands, if not hundred thousands. It’s not easy to swarm a whole boulevard or a park and the adjacent streets isn’t it? Neither is it easy to swarm TST or make a chain from Victoria Mountain and make it all the way around a few districts. Clearly, the police numbers are disproportionate to the actual numbers.

Sure, maybe some of those numbers have been exaggerated but not to the extent the police have done attempting to ascertain the actual number.

The police numbers are what I’m going with. They have a greater degree of reliability because they are from a government source.

The police numbers are flat out lies, you're a liar if you support them.

Also, still waiting on the proof that there’s ~4 million protestors. Unless that can be shown, can’t really see how 183,000 protestors give or take can represent the views of 7.5 million HKers. They don’t.

Because that number 183,000 is almost certainly much, much closer to 800,000. And no one made the claim of 4,000,000 on the street at once, but pretending at this point that the protesters don't have a majority of support in Hong Kong is dishonest.

[Plzen]

This isn’t just Hong Kong. In most developed countries whenever there’s a protest the police estimate is the lowest there is.

[The New California Republic]

The police numbers are what I’m going with. They have a greater degree of reliability because they are from a government source.

About as reliable as the CPC claiming that those facilities with razor wire and armed guards are "schools".

[Infected Mushroom]

The police numbers are what I’m going with. They have a greater degree of reliability because they are from a government source.

The police numbers are flat out lies, you're a liar if you support them.

Also, still waiting on the proof that there’s ~4 million protestors. Unless that can be shown, can’t really see how 183,000 protestors give or take can represent the views of 7.5 million HKers. They don’t.

Because that number 183,000 is almost certainly much, much closer to 800,000. And no one made the claim of 4,000,000 on the street at once, but pretending at this point that the protesters don't have a majority of support in Hong Kong is dishonest.

There's 7.5 million people in HK yet the protestors (who number around 183,000 at this point, to be fair, maybe a few thousands more) claim to represent the people of HK.

So I'd like their supporters to show me evidence of where these 3-4 million hidden protestors are

If they really are a majority, where's the 50%+?

My understanding is that they don't exist

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

That is a big lie to try and prove that your point is correct and irrefutable, no matter how many times we attempt to debunk it. Polls that are representative of the majority of Hong Kong (definiteley not including you) show dissatisfaction towards the government and the police for not following the wishes of many, if not an almost absolute majority, of their own constituents. The silent majority you keep trying to justify spoke out in that election. The margin demarcated by the people is clear and police and government have run all the way to Beijing past it.

This is not about which party does a better job at maintaining order and security, which have clearly gone to shit after the CCP intervened via police, this is about which party actually follows their constituents wishes.

Your attempts at justifying these things innumerable times in the thread shows just how much you’re willing to defend these authoritarian, big-brother-knows-all actions made by Carrie Lam and her police force.



The numbers are clear, the police estimates clearly lack at least a few tens of thousands, if not hundred thousands. It’s not easy to swarm a whole boulevard or a park and the adjacent streets isn’t it? Neither is it easy to swarm TST or make a chain from Victoria Mountain and make it all the way around a few districts. Clearly, the police numbers are disproportionate to the actual numbers.

Sure, maybe some of those numbers have been exaggerated but not to the extent the police have done attempting to ascertain the actual number.

The police numbers are what I’m going with. They have a greater degree of reliability because they are from a government source.

Also, still waiting on the proof that there’s ~4 million protestors. Unless that can be shown, can’t really see how 183,000 protestors give or take can represent the views of 7.5 million HKers. They don’t.

The fact that they are coming from a government known to cover up, blow things out of proportions and lie on numerous topics already makes it a questionable and unreliable source.

[Infected Mushroom]

This isn’t just Hong Kong. In most developed countries whenever there’s a protest the police estimate is the lowest there is.

At least one of your posters has already conceded that the police estimates/counts are used as "operational numbers" for their missions and plans

now do you really think the police would put their own personnel at risk by low-balling the number of potential opponents/threat factors in the field? No, if anything, they're likely to high-ball because it's better to come to the game expecting more opponents rather than less (and being in for a shock)

on the other hand, NGOs and protestors DO have an incentive to grossly over exaggerate counts

the police, have an obligation to make sure their front liners are fully prepared to deal with realistic threat numbers, projected or otherwise

[Novus America]

The police numbers are flat out lies, you're a liar if you support them.


Because that number 183,000 is almost certainly much, much closer to 800,000. And no one made the claim of 4,000,000 on the street at once, but pretending at this point that the protesters don't have a majority of support in Hong Kong is dishonest.

There's 7.5 million people in HK yet the protestors (who number around 183,000 at this point, to be fair, maybe a few thousands more) claim to represent the people of HK.

So I'd like their supporters to show me evidence of where these 3-4 million hidden protestors are

If they really are a majority, where's the 50%+?

My understanding is that they don't exist

Not everyone who supports freedom and opposes the CCP puppet regime goes out and protests in person. Marching down the street is one way to protest, not the only way.

Voting against a government is a form of protest.

[Tuthina]

This isn’t just Hong Kong. In most developed countries whenever there’s a protest the police estimate is the lowest there is.

At least one of your posters has already conceded that the police estimates/counts are used as "operational numbers" for their missions and plans

now do you really think the police would put their own personnel at risk by low-balling the number of potential opponents/threat factors in the field? No, if anything, they're likely to high-ball because it's better to come to the game expecting more opponents rather than less (and being in for a shock)

on the other hand, NGOs and protestors DO have an incentive to grossly over exaggerate counts

the police, have an obligation to make sure their front liners are fully prepared to deal with realistic threat numbers, projected or otherwise

And yet the fact that the number isn't meant to accurately reflect actual participant number does not deter you from using it to base your belief in how many protesters there are. It's almost like you're only picking things that can support your existing view and discarding everything else, with your bizarre thought pattern being the only thing that keeping that from being obvious to others.

You might want to consider making this thread IM-free for the fourth time, and maybe actually sticking to your words for once, since I don't really see there being much point replying to you given that we don't seem to share basic agreement on what reality constitutes. Go play whatever video games that fancy you is probably a better use of time for everyone here involved, to be honest.

[Infected Mushroom]

There's 7.5 million people in HK yet the protestors (who number around 183,000 at this point, to be fair, maybe a few thousands more) claim to represent the people of HK.

So I'd like their supporters to show me evidence of where these 3-4 million hidden protestors are

If they really are a majority, where's the 50%+?

My understanding is that they don't exist

Not everyone who supports freedom and opposes the CCP puppet regime goes out and protests in person. Marching down the street is one way to protest, not the only way.

Voting against a government is a form of protest.

I know countless people who oppose the protests but are also dissatisfied with how Lam and her affiliated parties handled the crisis. The electoral results send mixed signals to me.

My friends for example have said, "Hey I don't approve of the protests. But you want me to vote for Lam or her council members if I could? Hell no. Incompetence shouldn't be rewarded."

This is just the incumbent party taking a blow in a time of crisis, I don't read much into it. The only message that's been sent is that there's a limited degree of dissatisfaction with the current Councilliors's handling of the crisis.

And we already knew that.

[Tuthina]

Not everyone who supports freedom and opposes the CCP puppet regime goes out and protests in person. Marching down the street is one way to protest, not the only way.

Voting against a government is a form of protest.

I know countless people who oppose the protests but are also dissatisfied with how Lam and her affiliated parties handled the crisis. The electoral results send mixed signals to me.

My friends for example have said, "Hey I don't approve of the protests. But you want me to vote for Lam or her council members if I could? Hell no. Incompetence shouldn't be rewarded."

This is just the incumbent party taking a blow in a time of crisis, I don't read much into it. The only message that's been sent is that there's a limited degree of dissatisfaction with the current Councilliors's handling of the crisis.

And we already knew that.

How many people do you know in Hong Kong, again? I doubt it would be more than the people answering surveys.

[Infected Mushroom]

At least one of your posters has already conceded that the police estimates/counts are used as "operational numbers" for their missions and plans

now do you really think the police would put their own personnel at risk by low-balling the number of potential opponents/threat factors in the field? No, if anything, they're likely to high-ball because it's better to come to the game expecting more opponents rather than less (and being in for a shock)

on the other hand, NGOs and protestors DO have an incentive to grossly over exaggerate counts

the police, have an obligation to make sure their front liners are fully prepared to deal with realistic threat numbers, projected or otherwise

And yet the fact that the number isn't meant to accurately reflect actual participant number does not deter you from using it to base your belief in how many protesters there are. It's almost like you're only picking things that can support your existing view and discarding everything else, with your bizarre thought pattern being the only thing that keeping that from being obvious to others.

You might want to consider making this thread IM-free for the fourth time, and maybe actually sticking to your words for once, since I don't really see there being much point replying to you given that we don't seem to share basic agreement on what reality constitutes. Go play whatever video games that fancy you is probably a better use of time for everyone here involved, to be honest.

It's a fact, no matter what numbers you use, that for the month of December, there haven't been 1 million protestors at any one event. Even if you added them all up for December from all events and assuming a unique protestor attended each and every event, you can't even make 1 million.

So to suggest that this group speaks for the 7.5 million HKers... well... it doesn't hold up.

[Tuthina]

And yet the fact that the number isn't meant to accurately reflect actual participant number does not deter you from using it to base your belief in how many protesters there are. It's almost like you're only picking things that can support your existing view and discarding everything else, with your bizarre thought pattern being the only thing that keeping that from being obvious to others.

You might want to consider making this thread IM-free for the fourth time, and maybe actually sticking to your words for once, since I don't really see there being much point replying to you given that we don't seem to share basic agreement on what reality constitutes. Go play whatever video games that fancy you is probably a better use of time for everyone here involved, to be honest.

It's a fact, no matter what numbers you use, that for the month of December, there haven't been 1 million protestors at any one event. Even if you added them all up for December, you can't even make 1 million.

So to suggest that this group speaks for the 7.5 million HKers... well... it doesn't hold up.

I don't think you've joined any of the pro-police assemblies either, so I assume by that logic, they don't speak for you either.

[Heloin]

The police numbers are flat out lies, you're a liar if you support them.


Because that number 183,000 is almost certainly much, much closer to 800,000. And no one made the claim of 4,000,000 on the street at once, but pretending at this point that the protesters don't have a majority of support in Hong Kong is dishonest.

There's 7.5 million people in HK yet the protestors (who number around 183,000 at this point, to be fair, maybe a few thousands more) claim to represent the people of HK.

That number is unreliably at best and a lie more likely.

So I'd like their supporters to show me evidence of where these 3-4 million hidden protestors are

You're the only one making the bullshit claim of 4 million people on the street at once.

If they really are a majority, where's the 50%+?

The proof for majority support is that election. You know, the one you are despret to pretend doesn't mean what everyone know's it means.

My understanding is that they don't exist

Majority support is with, has been with, and will continue to be with the protesters.

[Infected Mushroom]

It's a fact, no matter what numbers you use, that for the month of December, there haven't been 1 million protestors at any one event. Even if you added them all up for December, you can't even make 1 million.

So to suggest that this group speaks for the 7.5 million HKers... well... it doesn't hold up.

I don't think you've joined any of the pro-police assemblies either, so I assume by that logic, they don't speak for you either.

The vast majority of HKers continue to follow HK law; they have stayed loyal. That should show where the people stand.

Out of 7.5 million HKers, the majority show where they stand by following the law and not protesting.

[Novus America]

Not everyone who supports freedom and opposes the CCP puppet regime goes out and protests in person. Marching down the street is one way to protest, not the only way.

Voting against a government is a form of protest.

I know countless people who oppose the protests but are also dissatisfied with how Lam and her affiliated parties handled the crisis. The electoral results send mixed signals to me.

My friends for example have said, "Hey I don't approve of the protests. But you want me to vote for Lam or her council members if I could? Hell no. Incompetence shouldn't be rewarded."

This is just the incumbent party taking a blow in a time of crisis, I don't read much into it. The only message that's been sent is that there's a limited degree of dissatisfaction with the current Councilliors's handling of the crisis.

And we already knew that.

So you admit Lam and her CCP stooge regime are unpopular. Yet you still shill for them.
Your side is still losing.

“The protesters” do not make up a single group. Sure some people voting against the Beijing regime might not agree with everything every protester has done, but they do not support the Lam’s Beijing regime. And want it gone.

That is the key. The majority want her ad her regime out.

Protests are just a means to an end, not the end itself.

Not everyone may agree with everyone on the exact details of the means, but the are on agreement as to the end.

[Tuthina]

I don't think you've joined any of the pro-police assemblies either, so I assume by that logic, they don't speak for you either.

The vast majority of HKers continue to follow HK law; they have stayed loyal. That should show where the people stand.

Out of 7.5 million HKers, the majority show where they stand by following the law and not protesting.

I know you're known for your peculiar way of thinking, but it's still pretty amazing to see you arguing that "most people didn't break the law all the time, hence they support the Hong Kong government". The worst part is probably that by that logic, I'm also not breaking any of the laws in Hong Kong at this moment, and thus I would be considered to be "staying loyal" to the current regime. Now that's a grave insult if I ever see one in this thread.

But back to the topic, the organisation whose bank account is frozen by the police has responded to the news. It seems that they still have some resource available, and is providing help for their members who are arrested. I think we can probably expect future donations for supporting arrested people to go either underground or overseas to keep them out of the police's hand.

[Infected Mushroom]

I know countless people who oppose the protests but are also dissatisfied with how Lam and her affiliated parties handled the crisis. The electoral results send mixed signals to me.

My friends for example have said, "Hey I don't approve of the protests. But you want me to vote for Lam or her council members if I could? Hell no. Incompetence shouldn't be rewarded."

This is just the incumbent party taking a blow in a time of crisis, I don't read much into it. The only message that's been sent is that there's a limited degree of dissatisfaction with the current Councilliors's handling of the crisis.

And we already knew that.

So you admit Lam and her CCP stooge regime are unpopular. Yet you still shill for them.
Your side is still losing.

“The protesters” do not make up a single group. Sure some people voting against the Beijing regime might not agree with everything every protester has done, but they do not support the Lam’s Beijing regime. And want it gone.

That is the key. The majority want her ad her regime out.

Protests are just a means to an end, not the end itself.

Not everyone may agree with everyone on the exact details of the means, but the are on agreement as to the end.

they're not unpopular, they've simply been deemed to have handled the crisis "not as effectively as the people may have hoped" but what that means in great detail, varies from individual to individual

the main avenue to express that disapproval is to vote for the opposition but that doesn't show that there is necessarily support for the position of the opposition, its simply a way to vent off some dissatisfaction

keep in mind that everyone, including the voters, KNOW that the Council members have no power. It's simply a symbolic way to say to Lam... "hey, you need to do your job better."

How? Well, that depends on who you ask. But there's no consensus among those who voted as to what that means, not that I'm aware of.

This is not a Western election where you're voting in a new government. You're not voting for policy so much as trying to communicate to an appointed leader. So its impossible to say really, how much support there is for the party that won in terms of actual support for their policies. Policy content is irrelevant since power is not held in their hands and the voters go in with that assumption and knowledge.

[Necroghastia]

I don't think you've joined any of the pro-police assemblies either, so I assume by that logic, they don't speak for you either.

The vast majority of HKers continue to follow HK law; they have stayed loyal. That should show where the people stand.

Out of 7.5 million HKers, the majority show where they stand by following the law and not protesting.

Implying the protestors are not loyal. Absolutely disgusting. If anyone is disloyal, to Hong Kong and to humanity, it is the HK government and police.

[Heloin]

they're not unpopular...

I'm going to stop you there. They're not just unpopular, they're extremely unpopular and hated by the people of Hong Kong. There is no amount of twisting and wordplay you can pull to make this reality any different.

[Tuthina]

they're not unpopular...

I'm going to stop you there. They're not just unpopular, they're extremely unpopular and hated by the people of Hong Kong. There is no amount of twisting and wordplay you can pull to make this reality any different.

"They're not unpopular; most people just don't like what they're doing!" - IM

[Novus America]

So you admit Lam and her CCP stooge regime are unpopular. Yet you still shill for them.
Your side is still losing.

“The protesters” do not make up a single group. Sure some people voting against the Beijing regime might not agree with everything every protester has done, but they do not support the Lam’s Beijing regime. And want it gone.

That is the key. The majority want her ad her regime out.

Protests are just a means to an end, not the end itself.

Not everyone may agree with everyone on the exact details of the means, but the are on agreement as to the end.

they're not unpopular, they've simply been deemed to have handled the crisis "not as effectively as the people may have hoped" but what that means in great detail, varies from individual to individual

the main avenue to express that disapproval is to vote for the opposition but that doesn't show that there is necessarily support for the position of the opposition, its simply a way to vent off some dissatisfaction

keep in mind that everyone, including the voters, KNOW that the Council members have no power. It's simply a symbolic way to say to Lam... "hey, you need to do your job better."

How? Well, that depends on who you ask. But there's no consensus among those who voted as to what that means, not that I'm aware of.

This is not a Western election where you're voting in a new government. You're not voting for policy so much as trying to communicate to an appointed leader. So its impossible to say really, how much support there is for the party that won in terms of actual support for their policies. Policy content is irrelevant since power is not held in their hands and the voters go in with that assumption and knowledge.

Bull Shit. You are better than this
“A recent public opinion poll places her popularity at just 20.2% with only 11% of those polled saying that they would vote for her if given a vote.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go ... d=66785576

They want her gone, and clearly a majority support a pro Hong Kong democracy, not a pro Beijing replacement.