Hong Kong II - Ragnarök

[Infected Mushroom]

they threw bombs at the police station

there's no dressing up necessary to make that terrorism

throwing bombs at police station = acts of terror

Is beating people to death with a hammer for the "high crime and misdemeanors" of selling fruits also an act of terror then?

depends on the context

if people are violently resisting arrest, then it's part of the operating protocol to restrain suspects when making arrests in line with procedure

[Novus America]

When Hong Kong was ruled by the UK, the HKPF were trained using British police methods, by the British, and of course had a British police type organizational culture.
Ever since Hong Kong was taken under PRC control the PRC has worked to change this, the HKPF getting a PRC Police style training, from the PRC, and an an increasingly PRC police style culture. So of course the HKPF is losing its traditions and becoming increasingly brutal, authoritarian and unaccountable.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Is beating people to death with a hammer for the "high crime and misdemeanors" of selling fruits also an act of terror then?

depends on the context

if people are violently resisting arrest, then it's part of the operating protocol to restrain suspects when making arrests in line with procedure

Is beating people to death with a hammer for the "high crime and misdemeanors" of selling fruits also an act of terror then?
Is finding a hammer to beat the aforementioned to death while he was complying with orders an act of terror?
Yes or no.

[Heloin]

Is beating people to death with a hammer for the "high crime and misdemeanors" of selling fruits also an act of terror then?

depends on the context

if people are violently resisting arrest, then it's part of the operating protocol to restrain suspects when making arrests in line with procedure

You're saying that the police should violently club people to death?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

If the "police" will beat you to death anyway even if you comply with their directives, if the overseeing institutions are utter jokes, if the central regime has no compunctions about employing the tanks of what they claim is the People's Army that "serves the People" to drive over the very same People and machine gun them... then the People have no other recourse than A La Barricade.
Does this make sense, Thread?

[Bombadil]

If the "police" will beat you to death anyway even if you comply with their directives... the People have no other recourse than A La Barricade.
Does this make sense, Thread?

At the heart of it, this is extended to the government itself. If it shows itself resolutely unwilling to even listen, let alone act, to the great majority of the people, and there is simply no means of removing that government by peaceful means.. what options remain for that population?

Anyway, a side effect of all this is that few if any of us have received our tax bills. Normally they arrive October and November with the first payment due in January. However the legislature didn't pass the related bill until November this year, due to three month's closure for repairs, so the Tax Department only started processing tax bills then.. I was actually going to ring the Tax Department to see if they'd sent my bill to a wrong address or something but then I saw the news..

[Infected Mushroom]

depends on the context

if people are violently resisting arrest, then it's part of the operating protocol to restrain suspects when making arrests in line with procedure

You're saying that the police should violently club people to death?

no they should do it to the extent (in response to violence or resistance from law breakers) that it enables them to safely arrest the suspects

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You're saying that the police should violently club people to death?

(Image)

no they should do it to the extent (in response to violence or resistance from law breakers) that it enables them to safely arrest the suspects

There was no resistance in our case. Your point about there being resistance is thus ridiculous. What happened is that a group of thugs in PRC, dressed as policemen and licensed as such by corrupt officials accosted a fruit seller and his family, demanded that he move (which he fully complied) and then beat him to death using whatever weapon they could find. This is Mainland PRC IM. That you continue to defend this behaviour on the basis of "it's ok to beat people to death if they resist" is morally unconscionable and brings your own moral standing into serious question.

This entire exchange establishes that agencies controlled by the Peking regime should be wholly and utterly granted zero trust by the population they rule over, and that any force that employs their monopoly of violence (HKPF included) is in fact in the service of wanton murderers and thugs who do nothing but suck the very blood out of millions of human beings.

[Tuthina]

If the "police" will beat you to death anyway even if you comply with their directives... the People have no other recourse than A La Barricade.
Does this make sense, Thread?

At the heart of it, this is extended to the government itself. If it shows itself resolutely unwilling to even listen, let alone act, to the great majority of the people, and there is simply no means of removing that government by peaceful means.. what options remain for that population?

Anyway, a side effect of all this is that few if any of us have received our tax bills. Normally they arrive October and November with the first payment due in January. However the legislature didn't pass the related bill until November this year, due to three month's closure for repairs, so the Tax Department only started processing tax bills then.. I was actually going to ring the Tax Department to see if they'd sent my bill to a wrong address or something but then I saw the news..

I wonder if it has anything to do with the campaign for paying your tax through PPS, $1 at a time to sap the government of actual revenue due to it having to pay PPS $2 per transaction.

[Infected Mushroom]

no they should do it to the extent (in response to violence or resistance from law breakers) that it enables them to safely arrest the suspects

There was no resistance in our case. Your point about there being resistance is thus ridiculous. What happened is that a group of thugs in PRC, dressed as policemen and licensed as such by corrupt officials accosted a fruit seller and his family, demanded that he move (which he fully complied) and then beat him to death using whatever weapon they could find. This is Mainland PRC IM. That you continue to defend this behaviour on the basis of "it's ok to beat people to death if they resist" is morally unconscionable and brings your own moral standing into serious question.

There appeared to be no resistance but it's all taking place in the context of a greater riot. Cameras don't catch everything, there's the realistic threat that others in the crowd could leap out and attack. The police had to make sure the suspects were 100% restrained, any movement could throw them off balance and lead to a mob attack.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

There was no resistance in our case. Your point about there being resistance is thus ridiculous. What happened is that a group of thugs in PRC, dressed as policemen and licensed as such by corrupt officials accosted a fruit seller and his family, demanded that he move (which he fully complied) and then beat him to death using whatever weapon they could find. This is Mainland PRC IM. That you continue to defend this behaviour on the basis of "it's ok to beat people to death if they resist" is morally unconscionable and brings your own moral standing into serious question.

There appeared to be no resistance but it's all taking place in the context of a greater riot. Cameras don't catch everything, there's the realistic threat that others in the crowd could leap out and attack. The police had to make sure the suspects were 100% restrained, any movement could throw them off balance and lead to a mob attack.

This is nonsense and does not address my main point:
That, this entire exchange establishes that the agencies controlled by the Peking regime should be wholly and utterly granted no trust whatsoever by the population they rule over, and that any force that employs their monopoly of violence (HKPF included) is in fact in the service of wanton murderers and thugs who do nothing but suck the very blood out of millions of human beings.

[Novus America]

no they should do it to the extent (in response to violence or resistance from law breakers) that it enables them to safely arrest the suspects

There was no resistance in our case. Your point about there being resistance is thus ridiculous. What happened is that a group of thugs in PRC, dressed as policemen and licensed as such by corrupt officials accosted a fruit seller and his family, demanded that he move (which he fully complied) and then beat him to death using whatever weapon they could find. This is Mainland PRC IM. That you continue to defend this behaviour on the basis of "it's ok to beat people to death if they resist" is morally unconscionable and brings your own moral standing into serious question.

This entire exchange establishes that agencies controlled by the Peking regime should be wholly and utterly granted zero trust by the population they rule over, and that any force that employs their monopoly of violence (HKPF included) is in fact in the service of wanton murderers.

Also a hammer being used to beat someone to death with a hammer is not appropriate. A hammer is not an appropriate or remotely safe tool for such purposes, and lethal force should only be used as a last resort.
Obviously less brutal methods could have and should have been used if they were legitimate police.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You're saying that the police should violently club people to death?

no they should do it to the extent (in response to violence or resistance from law breakers) that it enables them to safely arrest the suspects

Your apparent safety and security that you so idolise is thus, as we have established so far, an utter lie, a fantasy of immense proportions.
In what safe and secure country can you be accosted by apparent policemen, comply with their directives and still be beaten to death? Every time you meet a PRC'ian policeman you risk being beaten to death. This is what's going on and it's a continuous atrocity of unparalleled proportions.

[Infected Mushroom]

There appeared to be no resistance but it's all taking place in the context of a greater riot. Cameras don't catch everything, there's the realistic threat that others in the crowd could leap out and attack. The police had to make sure the suspects were 100% restrained, any movement could throw them off balance and lead to a mob attack.

This is nonsense and does not address my main point:
That, this entire exchange establishes that the agencies controlled by the Peking regime should be wholly and utterly granted no trust whatsoever by the population they rule over, and that any force that employs their monopoly of violence (HKPF included) is in fact in the service of wanton murderers and thugs who do nothing but suck the very blood out of millions of human beings.

No it doesn't. This is how countries have been governed for thousands of years (China isn't really a historical exception). The government makes laws, the government uses armies/police/paramilitary units to enforce the said laws. This is what governments do (and should be expected to do), enforce the law and protect the people.

This whole protest point about "accountability of the government" really sidesteps the central issue, which is that people are breaking laws in the first place. That's why there has to be a police response. No law breaking = no need for a police response. It doesn't get any simpler than that. It's not about transparency, it's about compliance.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

This is nonsense and does not address my main point:
That, this entire exchange establishes that the agencies controlled by the Peking regime should be wholly and utterly granted no trust whatsoever by the population they rule over, and that any force that employs their monopoly of violence (HKPF included) is in fact in the service of wanton murderers and thugs who do nothing but suck the very blood out of millions of human beings.

No it doesn't. This is how countries have been governed for thousands of years (China isn't really a historical exception). The government makes laws, the government uses armies/police/paramilitary units to enforce the said laws. This is what governments do (and should be expected to do), enforce the law and protect the people.

This whole protest point about "accountability of the government" really sidesteps the central issue, which is that people are breaking laws in the first place. That's why there has to be a police response. No law breaking = no need for a police response. It doesn't get any simpler than that. It's not about transparency, it's about compliance.

In what safe and secure country can you be accosted by apparent policemen, comply with their directives and still be beaten to death?
Answer me this IM.

[Infected Mushroom]

No it doesn't. This is how countries have been governed for thousands of years (China isn't really a historical exception). The government makes laws, the government uses armies/police/paramilitary units to enforce the said laws. This is what governments do (and should be expected to do), enforce the law and protect the people.

This whole protest point about "accountability of the government" really sidesteps the central issue, which is that people are breaking laws in the first place. That's why there has to be a police response. No law breaking = no need for a police response. It doesn't get any simpler than that. It's not about transparency, it's about compliance.

In what safe and secure country can you be accosted by apparent policemen, comply with their directives and still be beaten to death?
Answer me this IM.

This sounds like a trick.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

In what safe and secure country can you be accosted by apparent policemen, comply with their directives and still be beaten to death?
Answer me this IM.

This sounds like a trick.

In what country IM?

Deng, 56, was selling watermelons with his wife in Linwu, Hunan Province, when several officials (known as "chengguan") reportedly confiscated some of their fruits and asked them to relocated to an area approved for street vending. The couple complied, and approximately 50 minutes later the chengguan officers returned. Witnesses said the officials struck Deng with a weight from his scale,[1] and Linwu police said that Deng "unexpectedly fell to the ground and died".[2] According to witnesses on the scene, the officers continue to kick Deng after he fell, and refused to call emergency services.[1]

The hammer thing was:

In 2014, a man filming the Chengguan abusing a female street vendor was brutally beaten with a hammer until he was vomiting blood. He was pronounced dead on the way to the hospital.

[Heloin]

This is nonsense and does not address my main point:
That, this entire exchange establishes that the agencies controlled by the Peking regime should be wholly and utterly granted no trust whatsoever by the population they rule over, and that any force that employs their monopoly of violence (HKPF included) is in fact in the service of wanton murderers and thugs who do nothing but suck the very blood out of millions of human beings.

No it doesn't. This is how countries have been governed for thousands of years (China isn't really a historical exception). The government makes laws, the government uses armies/police/paramilitary units to enforce the said laws. This is what governments do (and should be expected to do), enforce the law and protect the people.

Most of the time people have been around there was no such thing as government. Appealing to history for proof doesn't help you, especially when you're notoriously bad at knowing that history.

This whole protest point about "accountability of the government" really sidesteps the central issue, which is that people are breaking laws in the first place. That's why there has to be a police response. No law breaking = no need for a police response. It doesn't get any simpler than that. It's not about transparency, it's about compliance.

Any first year student of sociology would tell you that you're sidestepping the much more obvious question, why are people committing crimes? People aren't just criminals and often do things for a reason. Compliance as an end to the conversation has little to do with anything aside for a refusal to discuss the cause behind the crime.

[Heloin]

In what safe and secure country can you be accosted by apparent policemen, comply with their directives and still be beaten to death?
Answer me this IM.

This sounds like a trick.

It's only a trick if you refuse to accept the reality of the situation.

[Bombadil]

This whole protest point about "accountability of the government" really sidesteps the central issue, which is that people are breaking laws in the first place.

No, it's at the heart of the issue, no accountability, leading to the complete ignoring of popular will is what led to any law breaking. Let's remember the timeline.

HK government formulates Extradition Law to purportedly deal with the Taiwan murder case, although it later transpires they'd formulated this law on the direct request of the CCP so they could legally extract people from HK rather than illegally kidnap people as they'd previously been doing.
Taiwan rejects the law because it places Taiwanese people in danger
HK government still pushes the law, because it was never really about Taiwan in the first place
Millions turn out peacefully over the weekend to protest the law, HK government ignores them and tables the law for votes the following Tuesday
On that Tuesday, even more millions protest and people then block Legco leading to outbreaks of violence between protestors and police

In fact, in following the demands of the CCP in creating this law the HK government broke Basic Law in the extent to which they allowed CCP interference with the legislation of HK.

Government and police accountability are the very crux of this issue, because without it they can clearly act arbitrarily and break the law themselves with no means of address.

The people of HK have tried to hold them to account, and yet the fact that not one single officer has even been reprimanded despite mountains of evidence where they are breaking the law, shows that the government and police simply do not care, or cannot be seen to care by the CCP.

In the end, the CCP and HK government are breaking international law, their own Basic Law and then everyday law in regard to police conduct.

The response is more than warranted.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

This sounds like a trick.

In what country IM?

Deng, 56, was selling watermelons with his wife in Linwu, Hunan Province, when several officials (known as "chengguan") reportedly confiscated some of their fruits and asked them to relocated to an area approved for street vending. The couple complied, and approximately 50 minutes later the chengguan officers returned. Witnesses said the officials struck Deng with a weight from his scale,[1] and Linwu police said that Deng "unexpectedly fell to the ground and died".[2] According to witnesses on the scene, the officers continue to kick Deng after he fell, and refused to call emergency services.[1]

The hammer thing was:

In 2014, a man filming the Chengguan abusing a female street vendor was brutally beaten with a hammer until he was vomiting blood. He was pronounced dead on the way to the hospital.

Since the Urban Administrative and Law Enforcement Bureau does not actually have the powers of police IM, your point about them enforcing laws is entirely moot. They cannot beat people to death or even arrest them by the very same laws the PRC passed. Yet they do. This is clearly and starkly illegal behaviour. This is sheer thuggery, and there's no ifs and buts about it.

[Infected Mushroom]

No it doesn't. This is how countries have been governed for thousands of years (China isn't really a historical exception). The government makes laws, the government uses armies/police/paramilitary units to enforce the said laws. This is what governments do (and should be expected to do), enforce the law and protect the people.

Most of the time people have been around there was no such thing as government. Appealing to history for proof doesn't help you, especially when you're notoriously bad at knowing that history.

This whole protest point about "accountability of the government" really sidesteps the central issue, which is that people are breaking laws in the first place. That's why there has to be a police response. No law breaking = no need for a police response. It doesn't get any simpler than that. It's not about transparency, it's about compliance.

Any first year student of sociology would tell you that you're sidestepping the much more obvious question, why are people committing crimes? People aren't just criminals and often do things for a reason. Compliance as an end to the conversation has little to do with anything aside for a refusal to discuss the cause behind the crime.

They are committing crimes because they are not loyal to the Hong Kong government and its laws. That much is clear. That is all that needs to be considered.

[Infected Mushroom]

This whole protest point about "accountability of the government" really sidesteps the central issue, which is that people are breaking laws in the first place.

No, it's at the heart of the issue, no accountability, leading to the complete ignoring of popular will is what led to any law breaking. Let's remember the timeline.

HK government formulates Extradition Law to purportedly deal with the Taiwan murder case, although it later transpires they'd formulated this law on the direct request of the CCP so they could legally extract people from HK rather than illegally kidnap people as they'd previously been doing.
Taiwan rejects the law because it places Taiwanese people in danger
HK government still pushes the law, because it was never really about Taiwan in the first place
Millions turn out peacefully over the weekend to protest the law, HK government ignores them and tables the law for votes the following Tuesday
On that Tuesday, even more millions protest and people then block Legco leading to outbreaks of violence between protestors and police

In fact, in following the demands of the CCP in creating this law the HK government broke Basic Law in the extent to which they allowed CCP interference with the legislation of HK.

Government and police accountability are the very crux of this issue, because without it they can clearly act arbitrarily and break the law themselves with no means of address.

The people of HK have tried to hold them to account, and yet the fact that not one single officer has even been reprimanded despite mountains of evidence where they are breaking the law, shows that the government and police simply do not care, or cannot be seen to care by the CCP.

In the end, the CCP and HK government are breaking international law, their own Basic Law and then everyday law in regard to police conduct.

The response is more than warranted.

The extradition bill was good policy. It served a law and order purpose (closing a loophole in the law).

In any event, it was withdrawn so it is no longer a factor at play (though I wouldn't be surprised if it was re-implemented in a few years).

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Since the Urban Administrative and Law Enforcement Bureau does not actually have the powers of police IM, your point about them enforcing laws is entirely moot. They cannot beat people to death or even arrest them by the very same laws the PRC passed. Yet they do. This is clearly and starkly illegal behaviour. This is sheer thuggery, and there's no ifs and buts about it.

And thus we are back at my central argument, if an apparent law enforcement agency of the PRC is so starkly out of bounds and engages in such thuggery, what possible chance is there for the central regime to not subvert other police agencies under their control (including the HKPF) so that they end up in the same, base, "standards"? Then, if PRC'ian police (HKPF included) can wantonly beat the People to death with the approval of the central regime, reinforced by the so-called "People's Army" (as long as these officials all get their gold bullions), whence thy "safety and security"? Should the People then not revolt against such atrocity committed against them?

[Novus America]

Most of the time people have been around there was no such thing as government. Appealing to history for proof doesn't help you, especially when you're notoriously bad at knowing that history.


Any first year student of sociology would tell you that you're sidestepping the much more obvious question, why are people committing crimes? People aren't just criminals and often do things for a reason. Compliance as an end to the conversation has little to do with anything aside for a refusal to discuss the cause behind the crime.

They are committing crimes because they are not loyal to the Hong Kong government and its laws. That much is clear. That is all that needs to be considered.

No, one many people have been attacked by PRC things despite not committing any crime.
And you only have a reason loyal to a government and laws that is generally just and representative.
A government that ceases to be just and representative may justify law breaking up to armed uprisings.