Singh family complaining about the police

[Winston001]

Because they've (Police) been so caned in the last few years by the Sisterhood and the PC brigade, that they are now so scared of making the wrong decision, that they make no decisions at all.

Exactly. The police are under so much pressure to get it right 100% of the time that they are frozen by systems, protocols, and procedures. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Apart from that, the delay in moving this seriously wounded man looks like a preventable tragedy. Triage medicine focuses on the Golden Hour which is the period immediately following trauma that gives the greatest chance of successful treatment. Much of that was frittered away in this case.

[98tls]

What i still dont get is if has been stated the guy was walking around after being shot and they were so certain the shooter had left why didnt they put him in a car and get him to hospital themselves,i dont know Auckland ie distances to the hospital but i think under such circumstances that would have been the first thing i would have done,Why piss about ringing anyone why not just get on with it?

[Ixion]

Exactly my point. the reason they didn't (well, one reason anyway), was that they called the police (natural enough). And the 111 then put them through to the ambulance people (also natural enough). And the ambulance people said "stay there: an ambo will there in minutes " (normally true). So, they did. fair enough, if the ambulance arrival time had been "normal" (normally, they are on site bloody fast - only the fire brigade are faster), that would have been the right decision. They didn't know the ambulance was going to fortify up round the corner (and yes, I know that decision was the cops, not the ambos)

And when the ambo didn't front they kept ringing back. And got told "No, stay, it will only be another minute or so". Rinse, lather , repeat.

[Forest]

They profit from the sale of take away alcohol, and moan when the shit hits their premises instead of the homes where it could be consumed.

Congratulations! Your is both offensive and wrong.

[jrandom]

Congratulations! Your is both offensive and wrong.

Actually, I've sorry, but I feel I have to say this...

... he raises a valid point.

If a cannabis dealer was robbed and shot, how would the masses react?

Certainly not with the undiluted sympathy being shown to the Singh family.

Now, I still feel that Coldrider deserves some censure for using the death of an innocent man to make a point regarding the irrationality of our drug laws and society's attitudes toward recreational substances. Such an approach is horribly tactless.

But the fact remains that the principle is validly illustrated.

Alcohol does immense harm in our society, but its sale and use is normalised and accepted, and when a shopkeeper is robbed and murdered for his stock, the simple fact of someone being driven to such crime to get hold of that drug is not examined in the way that it certainly would be were any other psychoactive substance involved.

[Forest]

Actually, I've sorry, but I feel I have to say this...

... he raises a valid point.

If a cannabis dealer was robbed and shot, how would the masses react?

Certainly not with the undiluted sympathy being shown to the Singh family.

Now, I still feel that Coldrider deserves some censure for using the death of an innocent man to make a point regarding the irrationality of our drug laws and society's attitudes toward recreational substances. Such an approach is horribly tactless.

It isn't just tactless. Blaming the storekeeper for his own demise is both unhelpful and morally repugnant.

Would you hold a rape victim responsible for getting raped?

But the fact remains that the principle is validly illustrated.

Alcohol does immense harm in our society, but its sale and use is normalised and accepted, and when a shopkeeper is robbed and murdered for his stock, the simple fact of someone being driven to such crime to get hold of that drug is not examined in the way that it certainly would be were any other psychoactive substance involved.

They didn't murder the shopkeeper to get access to the grog (he was cooperating with the robbers and they could have just picked it up and walked off with it).

They murdered the shopkeeper because they had no respect for his life, or for the lives of his family members.

[Ixion]

Actually, I've sorry, but I feel I have to say this...

... he raises a valid point.

If a cannabis dealer was robbed and shot, how would the masses react?

Certainly not with the undiluted sympathy being shown to the Singh family.

Now, I still feel that Coldrider deserves some censure for using the death of an innocent man to make a point regarding the irrationality of our drug laws and society's attitudes toward recreational substances. Such an approach is horribly tactless.

But the fact remains that the principle is validly illustrated.

Alcohol does immense harm in our society, but its sale and use is normalised and accepted, and when a shopkeeper is robbed and murdered for his stock, the simple fact of someone being driven to such crime to get hold of that drug is not examined in the way that it certainly would be were any other psychoactive substance involved.

Your analogy is overstretched though.

A cannabis dealer , is engaged in an illegal activity. Those who elect to undertake such activities must needs expect less sympathy from the public.

If a cannabis dealer , following some legalising legislation, was quietly and lawfully standing in his shop, selling cannabis, and was shot down, I (and I hope the public) would be equally outraged,.

A better analogy might be the shooting of an abortion doctor (as happens in the USA).

A few people who strongly disagreed with abortion might applaud. The majority would be outraged.

Regardless of ones personal opinions about alcohol (and it could be argued that sellers of petrol cause at least as much societal havoc), it is a lawful activity.

[jrandom]

Would you hold a rape victim responsible for getting raped?

Would you hold a heroin dealer responsible for getting shot by a junkie?

Perhaps not entirely, but you would certainly not instinctively feel the same toward a dead heroin dealer as you do toward Mr Singh.

Ah, you say, but heroin is far more of a social evil than alcohol!

And thereby you shoot yourself in the foot, because you admit (as we know is the case) that alcohol is also a social evil.

And Mr Singh made his living by selling it.

They murdered the shopkeeper because they had no respect for his life...

... or was it because they were either drunk or hung over, or desperate to become so?

Now, I know I'm being slightly silly when I say that, but the point is not that Mr Singh deserved to be murdered. Of course he didn't. Nobody ever does.

The point is that we, as a society, see alcohol as somehow different from other recreational psychoactive substances, and its purveyors as somehow different from the purveyers of other such substances.

[jrandom]

illegal.. less sympathy... lawful activity.

Personally, I am outraged whenever anyone is murdered in cold blood, and I realise that my statements above constitute a reductio ad absurdum.

I was explaining and expanding on what Coldrider wrote, because Forest (and presumably others) didn't appear capable of seeing it as the stimulus toward reconsideration of their prejudices that it was intended as.

I should also point out that you, in your post there, come dangerously close to the circular logic of arguing that something is wrong because it is illegal (the fact that you speak of the reaction of the masses, rather than actually arguing for the validity thereof, saves you from a rebuttal).

[tgb_novice]

Would you hold a heroin dealer responsible for getting shot by a junkie?

Perhaps not entirely, but you would certainly not instinctively feel the same toward a dead heroin dealer as you do toward Mr Singh.

Ah, you say, but heroin is far more of a social evil than alcohol!

And thereby you shoot yourself in the foot, because you admit (as we know is the case) that alcohol is also a social evil.

And Mr Singh made his living by selling it.



... or was it because they were either drunk or hung over, or desperate to become so?

Now, I know I'm being slightly silly when I say that, but the point is not that Mr Singh deserved to be murdered. Of course he didn't. Nobody ever does.

The point is that we, as a society, see alcohol as somehow different from other recreational psychoactive substances, and its purveyors as somehow different from the purveyers of other such substances.

So my earlier statement as below would be entirely valid!!!

No And the governments that have allowed this to be legally sold through the ages have to be commended and anyone who votes for next election has to be as they have voted for a government that allows this criminal activity to continue

[jrandom]

So my earlier statement as below would be entirely valid!!!

No, it's very silly, but it handily illustrates the schizophrenic approach of many people toward alcohol as opposed to other recreational substances.

[tgb_novice]

No, it's very silly, but it handily illustrates the schizophrenic approach of many people toward alcohol as opposed to other recreational substances.

Not any sillier than saying that because he sold alcohol, it was somehow alright to be killed.

If you / we or all the other people have a issue with alcohol, then lets start a new thread / party / government / dictatorship and stop the sale of it. Not a blame a death of an innocent person on it....

[Forest]

Would you hold a heroin dealer responsible for getting shot by a junkie?

No I wouldn't hold the dealer responsible.

Perhaps not entirely, but you would certainly not instinctively feel the same toward a dead heroin dealer as you do toward Mr Singh.

How I would feel would depend entirely on the circumstances.

Ah, you say, but heroin is far more of a social evil than alcohol!

And thereby you shoot yourself in the foot, because you admit (as we know is the case) that alcohol is also a social evil.

And Mr Singh made his living by selling it.

Alcohol is not a social evil. The abuse of alcohol is a social evil.

... or was it because they were either drunk or hung over, or desperate to become so?

Your argument is specious.

If they were desperate for alcohol, then they could easily acquire it at a low price.

It costs almost nothing to get hammered. You can easily get three people drunk on an $18 bottle of spirits.

Now, I know I'm being slightly silly when I say that, but the point is not that Mr Singh deserved to be murdered. Of course he didn't. Nobody ever does.

The point is that we, as a society, see alcohol as somehow different from other recreational psychoactive substances, and its purveyors as somehow different from the purveyers of other such substances.

Who gives a shit about other substances? Mr Singh was selling a regulated legal product in a legal manner to consenting adults.

Mr Singh was murdered for no apparent reason. He presented no resistance to the robbers and his death provided absolutely no benefit to the scumbags that robbed his shop.

[jrandom]

For what it's worth, guys, the alcohol-analogy argument was Coldrider's, not mine. I was expanding on it because the valid point behind it was being ignored and/or misunderstood.

I don't necessarily support his statements.

I agree that a new thread on the subject would be appropriate, and that discussion of it herein is not.

[HenryDorsetCase]

The point is that we, as a society, see alcohol as somehow different from other recreational psychoactive substances, and its purveyors as somehow different from the purveyers of other such substances.

This is the nub of your argument, and you're WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Alcohol IS different from other psychoactive substances: Why? because we as a society have said "It is lawful (in certain circumstances) to sell this product to a defined section of our society"

The KEY difference is that your other psychoactive substances have been decided (by us as a society) that they are not to be sold to any person under any circumstances.

That isn't semantics big boy, that is the crux of your argument.

It is a whole different argument about whether it is reasonable or what controls to place on, the sale of other psychoactive substances. I have an opinion about that, but this thread is the incorrect place to air that view.