Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "ABC News"
channel.
-
401
-
294
-
28
-
19
-
15
-
14
-
10
-
9
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
in situations of threat or high stress the rational brain shuts down, it is fight, flight or freeze. And unless you are trained (military, police) you do not know WHAT would be YOUR reaction. There was a case in Germany where the victim (a lesbian) had friendly rejected the advances of a young man, he seemed okay with it. Later he preyed on her and raped her when she went to the toilet. (And during investigations it came out he had intentionally gone to the event to get in contact with some lesbians, seems like he thought it in his powers to "cure" them - initially he claimed he did not even know what kind of party he was going to and that he would have little chances to pick someone up there. One of his employees heard him talk otherwise before going there).
That younw woman also said she did not expect the attack, she had felt safe at the location, she froze, she was not able to scream, to move, to ward him off - and they had to surgically remove a tampon later - she had her period and he rammed his penis so hard into her.
Anyway: the German law is not clear about the need to fight - except !! for the tampon she had no visible injuries or "proof" of fighting him and she confirmed that she did not scream (there were people nearby who likely would have heard her, but she literally could not find the voice to shout). Given how brazen he was in that setting it is safe to assume that man is a sociapath and this was not the first transgression.
So he got away in the first round in court, the prosecutor would have liked to take the case to the next level - she however could not stand it. So the rapist got away with it.
I also watched a female member of parliament in the UK, who made a statement about rape in session by reporting on what had happened to her as teenager. A meeting at a youth group, young man offering to bring her home (she knew him, not very well, but he was no stranger). They took another route - which did not alert her, then he raped her. She did not shout for help, she also did not tell her parents !!, she just felt ashamed.
many years later she told her husband and went into therapy.
I think part of the problem is the myth that the "big bad stranger" lurks in the bushes and gets you. Such cases often end with murder and get a lot of attention. So women often wrongly assume if they know who a man is, or if he is within their circle of aquaintances that they are (or should be safe) in his company. What man would dare to attack a woman that knows him ? - that is of course true - except for the few brazen predators (and since they likely repeat their actions they do a lot of damage).
So if women are sexually assaulted - like this British politician was in her teenage years - they have this unsubstantiated but strong feeling that THEY did something wrong so that a seemingly safe situation went so wrong.
And the other thing is that physical fighting in girls is discouraged. Also more and more in boys but girls have always been trained to be nice and navigate social interactions with being compliant. And make a nice face even if something does not feel "quite" right - that does not help you when you need to listen to your gut feeling, or to kick, scream and run. Never mind that typical feminine garments and shoes do not help with the running.
I also read a story about a young women with a black belt in karate who was raped by two men. (Her trainer/master/mentor was shocked and went on to create a form of self defense that would actually help a weaker person (especially women) if attacked in real life. Getting the black belt in a highly regulated sports competition environment is nothing like being assaulted in real life. Fighting in real life must be swift, ugly, no hesistance whatsoever to reallly take out the opponent - and that does not come naturally.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
time was important whether or not they had an affair (only for that it was relevant if they left in time to catch the ferry - around 11.15 pm) - the claim that she did not feel well and he brought her to the ferry was not plausible anyway, because she had left keys and purse or wallet behind at the party.
And if he lied and they had left later (when the last ferry had left), so they were nearby the bridge at 30 minutes past midnight, he had 1 hour less to get sober - I very much suspect he was either speeding and/or under the influence.
This was April 6, usually there is no ice at that time of the year, that could trip up an unsuspecting diver, is there ? and with an ice accident, or another surprise (technicals problems, tire suddenly failing) - he would not have needed to delay the reporting, or the people that retunred with him to the scene.
That did not make a difference (in public opinion or regarding the prosecution for manslaughter) - they did not test his blood alcohol after the alleged 10 hours. If he was very drunk, they could have found something. He could of course always have claimed he was in shock and took a drink aftewards ....
He was only charged and plead guilty for leaving the scene.
He DID return - according to a report I read - with ? 2 men from the party, but they could not get to the car. But neither he nor these persons informed the police at least then.
I wonder if those men were charged (obstruction of justice comes to mind).
2
-
2
-
2
-
He was under investigation for exposing himself. MET police has a history of sexual offenses (nothing as bad as a serial killer style murder), but of course a lot of the less gruesome cases are likely swept under the rug. The cases that had some (non-legal) consequeinces were: having sex with rape victims, women in shelters. One had filmed another male while having sex w/o consent in a park. One made comments how he hoped 2 females in a photo would be raped and he wanted to rape them (relatives !).
A lot of sexualized power games most likely. And they often resign, are forced to retire, but they are not prosectued. So they seem to have this culture of tolerance, that a wanna be predator would find attractive.
he joined the MET police in 2018 (no idea what he did before), parliamentary / diplomatic service protection, one would think they would have background checks .... He may have been in uniform, and he had a firearm in his line of duty. (he was active service). So that could have helped him to abduct her. force her to remain silent and then take her to a quiet place.
But it was easy for him to approach her, she would not suspect foul play, if he was in uniform. It was not that late, not a bad area.
2
-
Police are not taught or EXPECTED to RETREAT. - having THAT ingrained in her could have saved both of them. I think she likely was on drugs (cocaine the drug of choice for cops * or stereoides) - If she had been drunk, drugged, tired, just a stupid moment, ... and she had retreated, she would have the time and calm ! to take notice. When in safe distance she could have calmed down. This could have been a stupid mistake, both would be laughing about the next day.
Did he leave the door unlocked ? Which would be a sign that the neighbourhood is not dangerous or they have a concierge in the lobby..
I once read a comment that cops seize drugs during raids and hold some back (after all planting drugs needs some supply, and we know there have been cases).
And that they keep cocaine (or they have cheap sources) - that they like to use cocaine - it gives energy, endurance, they can cope better with long shifts - but it also makes people brazen, reckless, aggressive. All that you do NOT want a cop to be.
Since it is not outright forbidden there is the tempation to cash in on the position as member of the police, doing a security job. The nightclub owner that also employed Derek Chauvin, said the members of police were always skittish when more black people were in the club, always wanted to escalate more, immediately called for backup, ...
.... So if the civilian bouncers were more level headed and professional and got the job done with much less hassle - why did she even hire police (for 16 years) ?
Because she needs the police to come fast sometimes - and if she employs some of them, she creates more goodwill.
In other words: a protection racket.
Or she knew criminals met in her nightclub and there were illegal transactions going on - (along with a lot of civilian patrons, and she could not really sort them out). So the police could have given her trouble by doing more raids - but chose not to, because she also was their employer.
Which brings me back to the issue of conflict of interest if the police has ANY side hustle.
Police unions made sure drug tests have to be announced 2 - 3 days before. Not all drugs are cleared out of the system (weed would show up) but cocaine cannot be found.
That - in combination with easy and low cost (or free) access, and the performance enhancement - makes it an ideal drug for regular use. So the announcement gives them enough time to pass the test, they just have to abstain for 2 - 3 days.
(Another commenter mentioned stereoides being routinely used, I think they also make people aggressive).
Derek Chauvin (and some other cops) worked in a nightclub additionally to their jobs with the police. In other countries members of the police and civil servants are not allowed to have a side hustle. (Chauvin is a psychopath and enjoyed abusing his power, so being well rested would not have solved anything. But if a cop is easily stressed out (and people are different in that resepct) being sleep-deprived can worsen their reaction.
Only ONE job for police (or civil servants) in other countries
a) They are expected to show up well rested, sober and with free time to wind down (in many European countries that includes the mandatory 5 weeks vacation and some paid holidays on top. so people CAN recover from a stressful job
b) and it is an obvious conflict of interest
There is less incentive for cops to look for a boost of energy, they do their 40 hours, some overtime maybe - done. The income must be sufficient, they may make less than cops in the U.S. The community must afford to pay the cops a good wage, and of course they need fewer of them.
In other wealthy nations it is not quite as acceptable to have a permanent underclass - especially in urban areas. Poverty breeds crime, but in communities where people know each other it is much better. So in other countries they do not need that much police to deal with crimes, and the haves will not gladly tolerate and enable an out of control police to suppress and contain the poor:
Their lives and property is safe from the low-income people (who can make do with a safety net), police is expected to be civil, level headed, to not escalate, and to show restraint.
Plus: in other countries firearms are tools, not a fetish - some people have them (but no semi-automatic, they are not allowed). Concealed carry ONLY if you have a good reason. Working in security, maybe some sports. For civilians it is rifles for hunting or sports. Plus maybe revolvers if a person is a collector.
Likewise the criminals do not carry firearms. Burglars and thieves - but you do not expect them to shoot you, if you surprise them in your home. In almost all cases they will flee if detected.
If a family member or a neighbour loses it, there may be physical violence - but usually there are no guns around, to make the escalation worse (more victims, more likely to end with dead people, more dangerous for the police when they intervene. Police in such cases also would rather use batons, tasers, and not their guns).
Police are not shot on duty and they very rarely use firearms too. cops do not expect to be shot during a normal traffic stop and the driver and the police usually interact in a rational manner. So also much less stress for police. .
Drug use or a cocaine habit could account for a lot of insance decisions cops made that ended deadly for a non-violent offender or an innocent victim of their folly.
Why approach slowly and assess - when you can rush in guns blazing. Shoot first, assess later - and if it was a mistake, they will be cleared - sad day for the victim.
If people have stress or are fearful it messes with the rational part of the brain. With memory and with thinking.
Giving yourself time to think at a safe place (retreating, seeking shelter) is the remedy. And good training will provide ROUTINES you can AUTOMATICALLY fall back on (so it does not matter that your critical thinking skills are impaired while the adrenaline rushes through your system). Routines provide the feeling of safety, of being in control and provide a good course of action w/o the need of thinking things through.
Emergency doctors, surgeons, firefighters, athletes, soldiers, people working in dangerous or critical jobs .... also must have their routines in place. When they have to act FAST and / or are stressed out (or have a bad day).
They must have trained those routines, and beyond that must "routinely" use them. You have your intense training, but in everyday life you do it differently ? "But if there ever is a tricky situation I can put the special training to good use" (like cops who do not routinely retreat and deescalate).
No - it does not work like that, whatever is the often repeated course of action will pop up, when people are stressed out or have to rush into action or have a stupid moment. **
(Assessing the situation, situative awareness when something does not seem to be right should be part of the routine for a cop. Spilling over to civilian life)
Then a tired, drunk ?, mentally ill cop could fall back on those routines, when fear hits her or him, when adrenaline rushes through her system. On the job or at home.
**
You always lay down the rifle in a way that points away from you, even if you are absolutely sure there is no ammunition in it. (Sarah Palin did a photo op posing as hunter, neither she nor the photographer were aware of that rule.)
You remove ammunition when you can, or at least have the firearm locked, so it does not really matter (as long as you are aware and you and everybody around you is well functioning).
You do so 1000 times - until one day you (or someone else) are distracted, drunk, stressed .... the ingrained habit of never pointing the rifle at a person (loaded rifle or not) will provide the extra layer of security.
If you forget, and if it goes off, chances are nothing bad will happen. Humans make mistakes (even if they are generally competent), and good habits and erring on the side of caution provide some room for that).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Money creation in a modern economy - pdf by the Bank of England - Highly recommended, they explain QE for the Banks = direct money creation which was done to the tune of trillions - in U.K., U.S. and Euro zone - to pretty up the balance sheets of the banks some time after they had been bailed out.
I think the concept has been used in Japan, the "explanation" for the scheme is a trickle down approach. The banks with the numbers in their balance sheets digitally beautified (it is a legal and accounting exercise to neutralize "bad" debt) would start to give out confidently loans that would boost the real economy. - Or so they said.
Not sure if anyone of the higher ups really believed that narrative or if it was the intellectual fig leaf to justify to shower the banksters with money. QE for the People would have been possible as well and would have directly (not indirectly and maybe) boosted the economy. The effect of QE was small and only after trillions were digitally created, much less money pumped into the real economy (ideally government spending on education, infrastructur, public transportation, healthcare, switch to renewable energy, ... - common good spending)
But the unwashed masses are not supposed to know such possibilities exist for the benefit of the regular citizens. It would undermine the neolibeal order, no chance to push through austerity in the future, and many banks would still be in bad shape. Risks for shareholders, investors - rich and influental people.
The ECB (responsible for the Euro zone) was eagerly waiting for some inflation to show up because of QE for the Banks. Europe had deflationary tendences then. Modest and desired inflation (2 % ideally that is the inflation target of the ECB) would be an indicator of a recovering REAL economy. - Of course the banks were glad to take the help - but they were not eager to use their improved status to boost the economy for the common good.
The banksters were really rewarded for the criminal risks they took. The BoE sees the world of course from the point of view of Big Finance - so they stop shy of mentioning QE for the People or Debt and Interest Free Money of course, but apart from that it is well explained information for the layperson. It introduces you to the idea that commercial banks create money all the time. They just do not explain ALL possible forms of money creation
Other sources:
Dr. Richard Werner Debt and Interest free money
Dr. Stepanie Kelton Deficit Owl, MMT
Prof. Steve Keen
Warren Mosler (MMT)
positivemoney(dot)org
2
-
"We "know" that CoVid lives on hard surfaces." * Acutally a virus does not "live" at all. it is not alive technically speaking, since it needs other cells to replicate and multiply. The buttons of an elevator or SCHOOLS (doors, knobs, rails of the staircase, desks, ...) or surfaces in retail are much more problematic.
The envelope can be shoved into the container without touching the box directly. So no problem- the virus does not spring at you from the surface ! (People can also push light switches, doors and elevator buttons with the ellbow - but how many do that ? It is easier / will happen more commonly that mails is thrown inl without direct contact).
And what about the voting machines and the polling station (incl. door know - and the air INDOORS. Which is always more risky thatn OUTDOORS where the virus particles are instantly diluted, by a breeze or wind. There is always fresh air, not recycled air that is moved in a ventilation system indoors.
Simply by entering a pollings station people can get infected. But not outdoors, even if 5 minutes ago a person shed virus. That is immediately diluted, carried away. Virus load matters, even if a person should contract some virus - it matters how much your immune system has to deal with. (severity of symptoms, or only a immune response and no symptoms at all).
* It is true that he virus stays longer viable (that is the word, not "alive") on hard surfaces. As compared to absorbant surfaces like carton or fabric. That said the infection risk via surfaces is not that high, most spread happesn in the following manner: droplets / aerosols / direct contact between family members.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ Blank Stare Whataboutism on stereoides. they've dunnit 15,000 years ago, too ! natives (!) were the FIRST settlers - coming here in the ice age. - On which right wing site did you hear that nonsense meant to justify and deflect from European stealing the land over the course of the last few hundred years. Treaties were made - and broken in the later 19th century.
" But they have done it, too they came illegally 15,000 years ago" - News falsh: there was no one in the country !
To use the word "gentrified" is rich. - Your use of language is very revealing - you are trying too hard !
Each tribe had their territory, where they hunted. Later agriculture or a mix. They mostly did not go to war with each other. More likely joined forces with neighbouring tribes for the summer hunt on wandering herds (where that was the economic model).
They did not follow the bison herds then into the prairies - they could not. That meant it was extremely important that they got the animals when they were in reach and cooperating with other tribes increased the chances for a good outcome.
The herds were so huge that there was enough for everyone - but it was a desaster if they missed out on them.
Followin the bisons to the plains came later when the horses that had been released by the Mexicans spread over the continent, and the natives learned to tame them and to use them. That provided relief from the pressure of the European settlers for some time (for instance for the Lakota moved on adapted the horse and changed their culture).
They did not go much to war - except for drastic climate change and not out of greed but for survival.
There were trade connections going on between Canada and Central America. That passage must have been relatively safe. the goods found were "luxury goods". And they travelled on foot w/o domesticated animals (the lama was not suited and the horses had become extinct, and bisons are not fit to be tamed for transport purposes). All of that indicates that they found peaceful arrangements at the Northern part of the continent.
The wars between tribes really started when the Europoean started driving them away and some tribes moved on to areas were the colonist had not yet settled and tried to displace other tribes in their fight for survival.
It got worse when French and British handed them firearms to have their help when the Europeans fought each other (that was in the North).
Divide and conquer.
During that time the habit of taking scalps developed, it was promoted by the Europeans.The scalps were proof for the kills so for instance the French paid them in form of firearms, alcohol or whatever when they came up with the scalps of British soldiers, settlers or tribes that helped them. The way the victims had worn their hair made sure mostly the "right" kind of people were killed.
I do not mean they were all so kind spirited. Their economic model did not allow them the luxury of unnecessary war. So as long as they were not attacked and not exceptional circumstances they usually kept peace with their neighbours.
In the areas where winter gets cold or at least cool and wet, the season for war would be summer. Well that was also the time to go after the wandering herds to stock up food for the poor season. The season of wildfires, too (in the drier areas).
So if a gang of men in their prime - walking - would have gone to raid the neighbour camps (quite a walk, hunter and gatherers need large ! territories !) - who guaranteed them that their tribe was not being attacked, their stocks plundered, or their families had to face the dangers of wildfire w/o the most capable to fight it around ?
They did not decimate the large animals (you conflate that with the Europeans that slaughtered the bisons for nothing). They were hunting on foot and the country before there were any humans had panthers, wolves and other predators.
So any kind of prey that could withstand those predators for sure could deal with humans as well. Especially with humans who had no horses.
2
-
2