STOP SAYING "A FEW BAD APPLES".
The problem is that the "few bad apples" theory is false. It's been proven again and again and again......the vast majority are BAD. Not a few.
Look at what happened when two police officers put a 75 year old man in critical condition recently. The two "bad cops" were suspended......and then 57 other cops in that unit QUIT to show support.
So all 59 of them were bad?!?
Good cops......get fired or killed by other cops. Google it.
Sigh.....one last attempt to get through to you.
If MOST cops were GOOD....then they'd gang up on the BAD ones. They'd FIRE the bad ones....and THROW the book at them for tarnishing their good name and bringing shame on the department.
But the opposite is true. Police stick up for....protect....and bend over backwards....for the bad cops.
When a cop RAPES a woman.....if the woman presses charges she's likely to have the ENTIRE police force bullying her and threatening her.
You have bad cops......and silent cops.....good ones get fired. If you know someone who says they are a good cop.....ask them how many police they've ticketed/arrested/reported....if the answer is zero....then they aren't good.
My father was a police officer. He told me you're lucky if you can find one in a hundred that doesn't abuse his power daily. (my father used to drive drunk and shoot out the tires on parked cars for fun...and he was one of the better cops in his dept)
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「tarnishing」的推薦目錄:
- 關於tarnishing 在 Mordeth13 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於tarnishing 在 華人民主書院 New School for Democracy Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於tarnishing 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於tarnishing 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於tarnishing 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於tarnishing 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於tarnishing 在 Time-lapse Photography of Silver Tarnishing - YouTube 的評價
tarnishing 在 華人民主書院 New School for Democracy Facebook 的最讚貼文
[Statement on the Hong Kong SAR Government Invoking the Emergency Regulations Ordinance]
1. The Hong Kong SAR Government has invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (“ERO”) to implement the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation (“PFCR”) which will come into force at midnight on 5 October 2019. The PFCR will ban anyone from covering their faces in full or partially for mere presence in lawful rallies and marches, unlawful or unauthorised assemblies, or riots. The definition of “covering” includes surgical masks, gas masks, and other materials such as face paint. The PFCR also gives the police the power to order anyone to remove such covering.
2. The ERO is an outdated and vague piece of legislation that dates back to the 1920s. Its outdatedness makes it non-compatible with modern notions of civil liberties and rule of law. Its vaguesness confers enormous discretionary powers to the executive branch, which in turn makes it open to abuse especially in the current political climate where the government is under mounting pressure to put an end to the social unrest at any cost.
3. The ERO grants extensive powers to the executive branch to enact any regulation on the pretext of “public emergency” and “public danger", neither of which is defined under the ERO and can be broadly interpreted. More disconcertingly, the ERO contains no sunset clauses or other limits as to when such emergency or disorder would cease to exist. These decisions are to be made solely by the Chief Executive in council, who may go on to enact other regulations on a similar pretext, including curfews, martial law, censoring of social media and other communications or seizure of personal property. This slippery slope raises serious accountability and abuse of power concerns.
4. The PLG believes that the invocation of the ERO bypasses the legislative branch and undermines the constitutional checks and balances on the executive branch. The government's move represents a brazen disregard of the Legislative Council and further erodes Hong Kong's well-established separation of powers.
5. More crucially, the invocation of the ERO does nothing to quell the current social unrest or address the protesters' demands that have fueled months of violent clashes with the police. If anything, the PFCR will incite protesters even more and lead to further escalation of the movement.
6. Contrary to the government's claim that the PFCR is aimed at addressing violence, the fact that it applies equally to peaceful and violent demonstrators is a direct contradiction of that pretext. This is especially troubling considering that nonviolent protest participants are facing increasing pressure and threats of reprisal from their employers and are subject to random mobile phone checks at mainland border controls. Furthermore, without face masks, participants will be more exposed to tear gas and pepper spray during street demonstrations, both of which contain harmful toxins with potentially long term health effects. As such, the PFCR is expected to have a chilling effect on even legal protests and violate citizens' right to privacy and freedom of assembly.
7. What is more unjust and arbitrary is that according to the Secretary for Security, the PFCR exempts police officers from the face covering ban. Over the past four months, the city has witnessed increasingly violent and abusive behaviour on the part of law enforcement. The one-sidedness of the PFCR may result in increased impunity among officers and encourage them to step up violent crackdown of protesters who, apropos, have been demanding a more accountable police force among other things.
8. Broad and unchecked powers beget abuse, and any abuse of power threatens the rule of law. The invocation of the ERO today is a signal that the current administration is not interested in engaging the public in a constructive dialogue but that it continues to rely on the blunt instrument of law enforcement to solve a political crisis, even at the cost of tarnishing Hong Kong's reputation as a free port and financial hub.
9. The PLG calls on the government to immediately withdraw the PFCR and issue an apology for such an ill-conceived and unjustified attack on the rule of law and civil liberties.
The Progressive Lawyers Group
4 October 2019
(PDF: https://tinyurl.com/y5fvpdok)
tarnishing 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的最佳解答
[Statement on the Hong Kong SAR Government Invoking the Emergency Regulations Ordinance]
1. The Hong Kong SAR Government has invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (“ERO”) to implement the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation (“PFCR”) which will come into force at midnight on 5 October 2019. The PFCR will ban anyone from covering their faces in full or partially for mere presence in lawful rallies and marches, unlawful or unauthorised assemblies, or riots. The definition of “covering” includes surgical masks, gas masks, and other materials such as face paint. The PFCR also gives the police the power to order anyone to remove such covering.
2. The ERO is an outdated and vague piece of legislation that dates back to the 1920s. Its outdatedness makes it non-compatible with modern notions of civil liberties and rule of law. Its vaguesness confers enormous discretionary powers to the executive branch, which in turn makes it open to abuse especially in the current political climate where the government is under mounting pressure to put an end to the social unrest at any cost.
3. The ERO grants extensive powers to the executive branch to enact any regulation on the pretext of “public emergency” and “public danger", neither of which is defined under the ERO and can be broadly interpreted. More disconcertingly, the ERO contains no sunset clauses or other limits as to when such emergency or disorder would cease to exist. These decisions are to be made solely by the Chief Executive in council, who may go on to enact other regulations on a similar pretext, including curfews, martial law, censoring of social media and other communications or seizure of personal property. This slippery slope raises serious accountability and abuse of power concerns.
4. The PLG believes that the invocation of the ERO bypasses the legislative branch and undermines the constitutional checks and balances on the executive branch. The government's move represents a brazen disregard of the Legislative Council and further erodes Hong Kong's well-established separation of powers.
5. More crucially, the invocation of the ERO does nothing to quell the current social unrest or address the protesters' demands that have fueled months of violent clashes with the police. If anything, the PFCR will incite protesters even more and lead to further escalation of the movement.
6. Contrary to the government's claim that the PFCR is aimed at addressing violence, the fact that it applies equally to peaceful and violent demonstrators is a direct contradiction of that pretext. This is especially troubling considering that nonviolent protest participants are facing increasing pressure and threats of reprisal from their employers and are subject to random mobile phone checks at mainland border controls. Furthermore, without face masks, participants will be more exposed to tear gas and pepper spray during street demonstrations, both of which contain harmful toxins with potentially long term health effects. As such, the PFCR is expected to have a chilling effect on even legal protests and violate citizens' right to privacy and freedom of assembly.
7. What is more unjust and arbitrary is that according to the Secretary for Security, the PFCR exempts police officers from the face covering ban. Over the past four months, the city has witnessed increasingly violent and abusive behaviour on the part of law enforcement. The one-sidedness of the PFCR may result in increased impunity among officers and encourage them to step up violent crackdown of protesters who, apropos, have been demanding a more accountable police force among other things.
8. Broad and unchecked powers beget abuse, and any abuse of power threatens the rule of law. The invocation of the ERO today is a signal that the current administration is not interested in engaging the public in a constructive dialogue but that it continues to rely on the blunt instrument of law enforcement to solve a political crisis, even at the cost of tarnishing Hong Kong's reputation as a free port and financial hub.
9. The PLG calls on the government to immediately withdraw the PFCR and issue an apology for such an ill-conceived and unjustified attack on the rule of law and civil liberties.
The Progressive Lawyers Group
4 October 2019
(PDF: https://tinyurl.com/y5fvpdok)
tarnishing 在 Time-lapse Photography of Silver Tarnishing - YouTube 的必吃
... <看更多>