Daily review 07/06/2019

9 comments on “Daily review 07/06/2019 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. A 1

   7 June 2019 at 6:39 pm

   Happy Friday!

   Please listen to this interview with Martin North + Robbie Barwick discussing how people's savings can be seized to prop up banks, ie a bail in (instead of a bail out which happened around 2008-9). This does apply to NZ too but we are less active in complaining over here.

   Stop the bankers taking our money to cover their irresponsible behavior!
   • A 1.1

     7 June 2019 at 6:41 pm

     Should bail ins happen there will be extraordinary problems. For example, how will you pay rent when you no longer trust your bank, or the banking system?
     • gsays 1.1.1

       7 June 2019 at 6:47 pm

       I think the term our bankster owned media would prefer you to use is haircut as opposed to bail in.
       • greywarshark 1.1.1.1

         7 June 2019 at 7:04 pm

         Incredible idea isn't it. They are in a position of trust and charge us for keeping account of our credits and debits for which we pay them. It isn't our fault if they can't run their business playing with imaginary pieces of eight in a manner that seems rational and right to others in the game.
   • SPC 1.2

     7 June 2019 at 7:29 pm

     The banks don't want to have higher capital reserves, it restricts the profits to their shareholders and money allocated for their management bonuses – why worry when they can grab the deposits if they get into trouble.
2. greywarshark 2

   7 June 2019 at 6:47 pm

   This item came through today. Though it is about USA school shooting it is relevant to us.

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/391487/being-punished-for-not-confronting-a-high-school-shooter

   Former Deputy Scot Peterson, 56, stood outside building 1200 on the campus of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School for 48 minutes as rifle shots rang out from within during the 14 February 2018 massacre.

   The attack claimed the lives of 17 people and left 17 more injured.

   Points stated in the item are:

   1 He stayed outside of the school building for 48 minutes.

   2 He 'warned other responding officers not to approach'.

   3 He had worked at the school for nine years….'About 18 months before the shooting, Mr Peterson attempted to have the accused gunman forcibly committed to a mental hospital, according to US media, but his request was overruled by school health officials.'

   Further:

   Mr Peterson was the closest person to the gunman, former student Nikolas Cruz, but did not arrive outside the building until it was too late to prevent the deaths of 11 people on the ground floor of the school building, investigators say.

   But if he had acted, by confronting the killer rather than taking cover, he could have saved people on the third floor, some parents contend…

   According to the arrest warrant, Mr Peterson made false statements when he told investigators that he only heard two or three gunshots, when in reality, the gunman fired around 75 times after Mr Peterson had arrived…

   According to Florida law, prosecutors must establish that Mr Peterson was the legal caregiver to the the child victims,….

   Mr Peterson's lawyer, Joseph DiRuzzo III, …argued that Mr Peterson cannot be prosecuted as a caregiver, because he was officially acting in a law enforcement capacity…

   Eugene O'Donnell, professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former New York Police Department (NYPD) officer, told Florida's Sun Sentinel newspaper that the charges are built on the presumption that Mr Peterson could have thwarted the killings.

   One expert witness opinion:

   John Baeze, an expert witness for police-related court cases for NYPDTruth.com and a former NYPD police detective now living in Florida, said the school officer had "not only a moral duty, but a departmental duty" to act.

   Even an armed civilian who just happened to be in the area would have felt obligated to intervene, he tells the BBC, adding: "This man was in uniform, with a firearm, on duty, at the school for the very purpose of protecting the children. And he did not go in."

   He blames Mr Peterson's "reprehensible" actions that day on "a culture that is pervasive in police departments across the United States where it is 'officer safety first, citizen second'."

   He adds that this mentality has led to "shoot first, ask questions later cases" in which police have unnecessarily killed suspects…

   (However this statement contains contradictions. Mr Peterson is stated to be in uniform with a firearm and Mr Baeze criticises the fact that he did not go into the school, prepared to use his firearm in the hope of protecting the children. He says that police have become more protective of their own safety than of the public. But then Mr Baeze refers to policeman being too ready to use firearms, and doesn't make allowance for the possibility that Mr Peterson also considered it wrong to resort to firearms.)

   Jeff Bell, the president of the Broward Sheriff's Office Deputies Association union, says the officer is not a coward, but as the attack unfolded, "he absolutely crumbled and he froze" due to his "lack of training and his lack of inner will".

   He says the county has failed to provide officers with an active shooter practice space, a gun range or a driving range – training facilities that are available to other police officers in Florida.

   (Then there is the charge that the 'police' officer or law enforcement officer was actually a caretaker and responsible for taking care of the lives of the children at the school.)

   Mr Bell says: "In the future, does that mean that if we're working an off duty detail at a movie theatre and there happens to be a shooting and there are children in there, does that mean we're all automatically a caretaker?

   "And where does it stop? Does that mean that a firefighter that does not go into a building fast enough is going to be charged with neglect? Or a nurse who failed to triage someone properly? So its a very slippery slope."

   Edit:
   There is the fact that there was a refusal by the health or the school authorities to give the man mental help a year earlier as requested by the experienced officer. The culpability of making a decision not to assist with mental health care which could have prevented the tragedy could be sheeted home to the authority involved, and Mr Peterson is being made a convenient scapegoat who could not prevent the shooting and most of the deaths but might have saved a few children at the end.

   It seems that there should be a protocol established in NZ (if there isn’t one already that is appropriate) for handling a chaotic situation such as happened inside the building. The officer on site should have had been able to call for back-up of a small group of trained and controlled marksmen. I can't see what he could have achieved on his own in the circumstances of repeat shootings by the gunman. It seems that he wanted to prevent any other people entering and risking being further targets. He would not have known just how many people were in the building. (And perhaps there should be a bell indicating risk and classroom doors should be able to be locked.) There should have been an attempt to communicate using a loud hailer calling the man's name, telling him to put his rifle down, and tell the officers the cause of his anger to diffuse his tension. Some lives could have been saved if that had been done. And there should have been someone positioned who could have shot the man cleanly if he had declined to stop shooting.
   • McFlock 2.1

     7 June 2019 at 8:20 pm

     He did call for backup, but very few departments will spend $50k or more each on three squads of expensively-equipped officers to sit around doing nothing other than being in readiness, 24/7.

     This entire case is bullshit, as far as I'm concerned. I'm really having difficulty thinking of an instance where someone was legally required to sacrifice their lives for others. Even soldiers would generally get asked to volunteer (admittedly with varying levels of "ask") if they were to take a pistol up against an assault rifle, let alone one operated by someone 40 years younger and quicker.

     And the shot discrepancy is easily explained by the extreme physical reaction that made him freeze in the first place – tunnel vision and auditory inhibition are literally textbook physiological reactions. He simply only heard two.
   • WeTheBleeple 2.2

     7 June 2019 at 8:53 pm

     Shifting blame from gun culture to a security officer. America the ugly.
3. CHCoff 3

   7 June 2019 at 8:24 pm

   Big shoes to fill, wanted………someone bigger than NZ, someone bigger than the game of rugby itself?

   No, not you again David Moffett.

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/113312358/who-wants-steve-tews-job-as-nz-rugby-chief-executive

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS