Your twisting and deflecting is not fooling anyone. You are not tricking anyone into thinking that you are making a cogent argument or that you are even capable of doing so. You are quite transparent.
Continually repeating that I won’t address the premise does not make it so. Everyone can see that I have addressed it quite clearly on multiple occasions. I’ve even suggested that your reading comprehension issues may be helped by asking someone more capable to explain it to you or failing that, to gorge on your favourite miracle drugs and see if that helps.
You have expressed unequivacol support for the notion that it is okay for Police Officers to approach a person doing a lawful activity, and to question him as to why he is doing that lawful activity, and then to fine him for not giving adequate reasons for doing that lawful activity..... because you suspect that they suspect he may have been up to no good.
That is correct is it not?
Where is my comprehension at fault?
Just admit you are happy with the practice of Police State tactics - it's nothing to be ashamed of. Plenty of people have an inner totalitarian nature within themselves.
Regards,
Renato
It's in there. You can only be out for one of four things. While exercise is on there, driving to exercise may not necessarily be. (There may be exceptions to that, it might be necessary to drive my 85 year old parents to the local park as the walk there crosses a busy highway.)
See the answer above.
And that's how the law works - often your intent is critical to determining whether you have committed an offence, or what enforcement action might be appropriate.
The law has been that way for hundreds of years, no need to buy polygraphs.
See answer to #1 and #2 above. You can only be out for necessary reasons. You could be in the Bunnings car park to buy a new toilet (necessary), or you could be there just because you felt like a change of scene (to get away from the family). The first is fine, the second is not.
It's been four weeks. And will probably last another eight weeks. Abuse of power? Dystopian 'Handmaids Tale-esque' state? Hardly. Parliament has not been suspended. The justice system is still open. The press is free - as we have seen with all sorts of 'experts' coming out to advocate fr whatever they want, however harmful that might be. Elections are happening.
If we hadn't gone into lockdown and thousands had died, like New York, Italy, UK... the same keyboard warriors would have been out for blood because if inaction. Just like they are on the Ruby Princess.
Your notions are
a. Dichotomous - black or white - a person apparently cannot be in a Bunnings car park both to buy goods and to enjoy being out of the house. A person apparently cannot be out both walking his dog to do exercise and to enjoy looking at pretty girls going down the street.
b. That there is nothing wrong with Police questioning the intent of people unambiguously undertaking a lawful activity.
c. And that Police can read a person's mind and judge the real intent after they heavy him or her.
This leads to.
Police - "Why are you in this pharmac_?"
Honest Person "To buy a fragrance and a spare packet of Panadol" .......$1600 fine.
Dishonest Person "To buy essential packet of Panadol, and picked a fragrance on way out".....Zero fine
Regards,
Renato
I suspect from previous posts, that Renato1 is smack dab in the risk/vulnerable category that Australia is trying to keep safe. Young people have lost their jobs. Or trying to work at home while trying to educate their kids. Which means that less vulnerable people are being forced to do the right thing to keep him safer. And in the main that's what they are doing.
So what is happening here? Someone is complaining about their personal liberty - of a beach for gods sake, while around him, others are wearing the most shocking of penalties. How about acknowledging that amazing and scary complete sacrifice of those younger people trying to keep you safe instead of whinging about not being able to be on the beach?
And we complain about self entitled young people but this takes the cake.
I have noticed that those who seem completely unable to accept what is good for society have been men who are smack bang in this group. They are the ones I've told to back off when they get too close to me. And they look like they have no fin idea of what I'm saying.
Sorry, I'm so angry for what my kids and grandkids and friends are going through now to put up with such rubbish anymore.
While appreciative that the Governments are trying so hard to protect me, I never asked that hundreds of thousands of people be forced to suffer the trauma of being thrown on the dole cue, suffer from stress and mental health issues, have their businesses destroyed and lives stuffed up (if not ruined) - just to protect little old me who has already got enough provisions in the house for four months, an ample supply of N95 masks, and who loves shopping at IGA at 9.30pm or 10.30pm at night when there are about two other shoppers in the whole store.
And who is extremely concerned about government over reach, crystallised in their position on beaches, as one person in this article points out the silliness of.
If your local beach is open you can swim, but don't hang around. That's the message from Police who took to social media to remind beachgoers not to break the rules during the coronavirus pandemic.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Regards,
Renato
And yet again you have got it wrong. Do you ever get tired of it? And more twisting and deflecting because you are unable to express a coherent argument. My position is quite clear, I’m not sure why haven’t engaged the help of someone else to explain it to you yet.
It was determined that this person was not engaged in lawful behaviour. That’s why he got the fine. Just because he whinged to some media outlet and you gobbled up the only side of the story we heard does not mean he did nothing wrong. He is entitled to dispute the fine in court if he believes it was given incorrectly. That will not happen. I wonder why?
Police approach people all the time for all manner of things. That’s called normal police work. It happens every day. It is not “police state” behaviour no matter how many times you want to say it is.
I am quite happy for police to do their job in a normal way and to be suspicious of people when they display suspicious behaviour. You on the other hand appear to want anarchy. You appear to be happy for suspicious behaviour to be ignored regardless of what that might mean for society.
Just admit you would be happy for the virus to spread like wildfire with many more people being infected and dying. That no measures should be taken to manage the impacts to the health system. That everyone should have continued to go about their business as normal without concern for anyone other than themselves - it’s nothing to be ashamed of. Plenty of people are selfish pieces of garbage.
Look I can twist and deflect too.
What was the lawful behaviour that he was not engaged in?
The article gave both sides of the story.
The Police didn't say he was skipping instead of walking, or was casing a place for a robbery, or acting suspiciously - they just said he gave different reasons for why he was walking his dog.
And I asked the fundamental question of how come they even went and questioned him as to why he was undertaking a lawful activity.
He appears to have been fined for unlawful thinking.
I love your strawman arguments.
"
Plenty of people are selfish pieces of garbage."
He is a selfish piece of garbage for walking his dog, but the thousands of other people walking their dogs in the exact same manner are just fine and selfless.
Utter nonsense.
Regards,
Renato
Only really need to respond to this last part because it sums up in a nutshell exactly what your problem is - you simply lack the ability to read and comprehend properly.
I’ll leave it to someone else to explain to you why your last paragraph is so hilarious.
Well, someone else can try explain the unexplainable since you are clearly incapable of doing so, much less the answering the simple question of what was the unlawful activity the man with the dog was engaged in.
I notice that you didn't quote my question where you responded with the abbreviated quotation.
I'd be embarrassed to be be unable to answer that simple question too.
Regards,
Renato
