On my way to school, I saw beautiful flowers
Filed under:politics | Tags:1989, sixfour, tiananmen
Add comments
My Daughter, who is in the first grade, was reading her homework to me, “On My way to school, I saw beautiful flowers. Some flowers were hanging on stems …”
“That’s very good” I said.
“Others felt on the grass after a thunderstorm, but they are still beautiful” She continued.
“Yes, they are.”
Every life is a flower. Twenty years ago, in the morning of June 4th, I saw flowers fell.
At the end of May, 1989, like many other university students in Beijing, I already left the TAM square after participating numerous protests big and small and a long hunger strike.
On the night of June 1, I was sitting on a bench outside our campus, chatting with several students. Suddenly I heard someone was shouting: “the devil has come to the village; the devil has come to the village” (this is a phrase used to refer the Imperial Japanese invasion army in movies). I saw three or four student-looking people shouting and riding rapidly south on bikes.
The army was ready to enter the city. The previous evening, I saw squadrons of motorcycles cycling around the Tiananmen Square, with riders chanting “defend the students!”
The following night I heard the crowd had blocked several buses carrying plain-clothes soldiers. There was physical confrontations and violence.
At the noon of June 3rd, I heard rumors that the 27th army and the 38th army had begun fighting outside the city and a civil war had started. In the evening, announcements were broadcast in radio and TV advising everyone to stay home to ensure their personal safety. It seemed that the army was ready to expel the students from the square.
I went to Renming University with two of my classmates. We heard from loudspeakers set up by student organizations that the army had opened fire. One girl in her tearful voice said that her boyfriend was shot and taken to the hospital.
I thought he was hit by rubber bullets. They could be dangerous too. What is going on? As an active participant of the early protests and the hunger strike, my heart was still with this movement and I determined to see in my own eyes.
I went back to my dormitory and took my bike. I rode south towards the Chang’An Avenue and picked up a student along the way. We can gradually hear gunshots from a distance. I also faintly smelt of burning rubber. I thought it must be the smell of rubber bullets.
<update: a map shows BMY’s bike route>
When we were getting closer to Muxudi (木樨地), the sound of gunshots became clear and the smell of burning rubber got intense.
Near Muxudi, I saw there was fire. Gunshots and the cries of the crowd were coming from there, and ambulances were roaring out one after another. In the middle of the road, a Uighur student was shouting and waving, trying to direct the traffic.
I got off from my bike. The student I picked up waved goodbye to me and disappeared into the crowd. I dared not to go any further. Two times, people crouched and I stood there at a loss. There might be bullets flying overhead. I still need to be careful even though they are rubber bullets, I thought. So I hid behind a tree.
The sound of gunshots moved gradually eastward. I then went to the Muxudi intersection. I saw two burning cars and two buses used to block the road. The smell was coming from the burning cars. There were several bullet holes on the wall of the subway station. There was also a bullet hole on the metal fence of the pedestrian crossing in front of the subway station. I finally realized that the bullets were real. About a dozen meters down the road, there was a cart with broken yogurt glass bottles in and around it. Clearly, those yogurt bottles were used as weapons.
Concerned about my own safety, I went through an alley to the Xuanwumen avenue, a street parallel to the Chang’an avenue, and continued to ride east towards the square.
Very soon, I saw a long line of military trucks full of soldiers stopped along the road. Some Beijingers were talking to the soldiers, saying that the students are not causing turmoil, they just want to get rid of corruption. The soldiers lowered their heads and did not say a word. A few of them shook their heads. I thought they must be ordered to not talk. There are several officers were talking with civilians along the road.
I stayed for a while, and then moved on. I saw there were a bus parked sideways and some other road blockers ahead of the leading military vehicle. Some residents were removing smaller road blockers.
I arrived at the southwest corner of the Square at the early dawn. I saw the area between the Memorial Hall and the Qian Gate was filled with sitting soldiers. Not far away, a group of men were shouting indignantly against the soldiers, “1, 2, fascist! 1,2, fascist!”
I also saw the last group of students filing out to the southeast corner of the square with their banners. Behind them, there is a phalanx of armored vehicles slowly moving from north to south to fill the void left by the students.
It was broad daylight now. I can see the faces of every soldier in front of me. They were of similar age as me, wearing helmets, griping rifles and sitting facing south. Many soldiers look like country boys with naive eyes and rosy faces.
Several Beijingers and I whispered to the soldiers, “Students are not engaged in unrest.” A soldier retorted, “look what a mess you have made”. Other soldiers kept silent. A middle-aged military officers suddenly stood up and shouted toward a woman next to me, “no pictures, hand over the camera and it is confiscated.” He stepped forward and grabbed the camera. The lady begged,” could you please take away the film but return the camera.” The officer shouted, “All confiscated.”
All of a sudden, a series of gunshots erupted behind me. Soldiers in front of me all stood up and looked to the direction of my back. I quickly turned around and saw another group of soldiers sitting eastward about 10 meters away. There were one official and a soldier stood. The official yelled at a group civilians mixed in age and gender about 2-30 meters away. The soldier was firing upwards.
Then suddenly an ambulance came and someone was taken into it. The ambulance rushed away in sirens. An old gentleman pointed at the officer and said something indignantly.
Feeling unsafe, I wanted to go back to the campus. I rode westward and at the first intersection, I decided to go back along the Chang’an avenue. I turned north into an alley. At the end of it, a tank was parked there with its cannon pointing toward the alley. Two or three soldiers wearing helmets were standing beside the tank. I rode past them nervously along with a few civilians and entered the Chang’an avenue.
There were already some people riding on the Chang’an Avenue. An armored vehicle traveling from the west going super fast and the people were scattered to avoid it. I felt angry at the recklessly APC driver.
I felt lethargic while riding the bike. A student wearing black plastic framed glasses was shouting something. I stopped. Beside him, there were two mangled bicycles. There were also two bodies whose faces and upper bodies were covered. Between the bikes and the bodies, there was a pool of red and a pool of white. I had never seen corpses before. I felt even dizzier and my breathing became difficult. I was two meters away from the shouting student and I could see tears dripping down on his cheeks. Yet I still could not quite understand him. On the back of my mind I thought he was shouting “could somebody help me?” “Could someone help me move the bodies?” I did not have the courage to move the body. I left in humiliation, without saying a word or looking back. I felt I was a coward.
I rode my bike like a robot and a person rode along with me asking, “Student, do you know what happened last night?” I did not answer. I cried.
Near Muxudi , I saw a body lay in the middle of the road with its face covered.
And not far away, a few people were yelling and chasing a person in military uniform.
I did not stop.
Going north, on the road near the Purple Bamboo Park, I saw a lonely tank with its hatch door open. I did not see the troops.
It was almost 11 o’clock when I finally came back to the dormitory. My roommate asked me where I had been. I replied that I took a walk, and then I went to sleep.
At noon in June 5, I went to Muxudi again; the bullet holes were still visible. I went to the nearby hospital (复兴医院). There was a notice posted outside, requesting family members to claim bodies. A crowd gathered outside and I followed the flow of people walking inside. I saw from a window that there were about a dozen corpses lay on the floor with face covered.
On the utility pole near the entrance of our university, a bulletin was posted stating two students in our institute were killed. Mourning halls were set up for them. I went to the one for a sophomore. I bowed 3 times in front of his portrait.
It was rumored that the army was going to be stationed on campus. Some students swore to defend the campus with their lives. Others wanted to empty the campus in protest. Once when I passed through the Beijing University, I saw two young men in black clothes rode on the street, with axes strapped around their waists.
Classmates started to go home one after another. Teachers came to request us leaving.
My two classmates and I were the last three students in our class to leave campus. On June 9, in a campus used to be full of vim and vigor, there were only 3 of us, walking lonely for 15 minutes from the dormitory to the school gate.
When our bus passed the Capital Indoor Stadium, I saw the courtyard was filled with heavily armed soldiers, their helmets glittering under the sun. Most passengers turned to watch the soldiers, silently.
In the morning of June 11, after lost touch with my family for several months, I finally went back home. My dad said slowly, “You must be hungry, go get your breakfast.” My mom, with tears flashing in her eyes, turned back her face.
There were many other parents waiting for their children to come home. For some of them, the wait was in vain.
There are currently 1 comments highlighted: 40255.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:33 am
A bunch of students occupied the center of Beijing, disrupting city operations for months, erecting barriers intended to stop necessary government operations. And all bloodshed could’ve been avoided if they’d simply left when soldiers arrived. Instead, they refused to leave the square, and instead of nonviolent protest erected more barricades, rioting, and fighting against the soldiers who most likely sympathized with them. Anyone who’s seen the video of the tank man knows the soldiers didn’t want to kill anyone.
My father was involved in some of the countrywide incidents at that time, as were many of his friends. When I was little, and they thought I wasn’t listening, I would hear them curse some of the other supposed “leaders” at their get togethers for their selfishness and recklessness that led people to die. And these were people that had gone to jail for them.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:13 am
First of all, thanks admin who encouraged me to write down a recollection which I’d never really tried to do. I wrote a little as a comment in June last year under a different handle and Buxi asked if I could finish but I didn’t want to . This time I finally wrote down what I saw at the night of 6/3 and in the morning of 6/4 twenty years ago.
Second of all, thanks Admin again who translated from my Chinese version to English. Admin, who also has a day job and family , is superior productive.
Thirdly, I have to clarify that after 20 years there are few details which I can not remember exactly. One is I can’t recall if it was FuXingMen Avenue I rode through and arrived in the square. It was a street south parallel of ChangAn Avenue . I googled a Beijing Map few days ago and I think it was FuXingMen Avenue. Another one is which one I saw first on my way back: the speeding APC, the two bodies, and the single body. I remembered the three but can not recall which one I saw first.
Regardless of the argument from both sides, I see the same strong sense of duty among the protesters who demanded better policies and change, the soldiers who tried to restore the order, the medicine workers who risked their own life and rushed into the scene to rescue others. The sense of duty was for the country and others but ended into a tragedy.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:00 am
Thank you, BMY, for the recollection. I have to admit that I did not want to translate it at first. For one, I was worried that my ability to provide a decent rendition. Secondly, I am not that productive. However, it’s such a touching story. So here it is.
By the way, the following is Nicholas Kristof’s updated account on what led to the final crackdown.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/international/countriesandterritories/china/tiananmen-square/index.html
June 5th, 2009 at 5:06 am
Thank you, BMY. Lets hope it will never happen again.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:41 am
Thanks BMY.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:36 am
BMY, thanks for sharing. Could I ask your views on the subject I raised in my last thread, as to the need for public dialogue? Thanks.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:59 am
@admin
Thx for the link.
Nicholas Kristof’s article about Zhao’s power struggle and the fact that the student leaders couldn’t come to their senses to support him seem very real. Look at how people like Wuer Kaixi and Cai Ling turned out, obviously that’s not a surprise.
@BMY
Thx for sharing your experience with us.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
@huaren
Actually I have a quite uncharitable view of Zhao, despite he has been heaped with praises outside China. Many people forget or are unaware of that, Zhao was actually the target of public anger in the early stages of the movement. He played a role in Hu’s removal; he was responsible for the hyperinflation at that time, and his two sons allegedly made huge fortunes using their privileges.
Zhao had the opportunity to defuse the crisis early on to meet the students on Apr. 22 when students knelt down outside the Great Hall to submit a petition, but instead he went to play Golf. He was asked to cancel his trip to North Korea but he went anyway. He approved the 4.26 editorial but tried to disavow it later. His advisers, including his personal secretary, actively involved in the movement and leaked info to the students. Basically, I think Zhao was a shewed politician tried to leverage the student movement to wrestle power from Deng, but he overplayed his hand.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:39 am
The NYT has been pretty active on posting articles and materials related to June-4th of 1989. Below is another link. Comments from those well-known liberal dissidents are quite usual and boring. The most interesting and thoughful comments I would like to point out are from several readers however.
1) >> “Why continue to call the Tiananmen protests a pro-democracy movement when it clearly wasn’t? The protests were triggered by economic reasons when inflation reached 30% in major cities after state owned enterprises laid of millions of workers. People were frustrated that only officials were gaining from the move into capitalism while corruption and cronyism was rampant so they came out in droves to protest the situation calling for change and greater liberlization. To be sure pro-democracy protesters joined in calling for change but the bulk of the million plus protesters weren’t calling for democracy. By labeling Tiananman solely as a pro-democracy movement it distorts the reasons of what was really happening. It seems counter productive to call for press freedom and freedom if you can’t even accurately portray one of the most pivotal events of the 20th century.
— Auscbach”
2) >> “I am still in shock over a conversation I had a few years ago with a fellow new Ivy League grad student from China – which probably shows how little I understand about China and Chinese people my own age (30).
She called the student protestors “terrorists” and explained that everyone had seen footage of the students doing horrible things to soldiers on television – for example, beheading them. So she felt that the mass slaughter of the students was justified.
I asked whether it was possible the government had exaggerated or lied, and she was offended by the suggestion. She explained that the government told the truth because it wanted to protect its people from “terrorists”.
It was sort of an out-of-body experience – someone telling me that their experience of an event was completely opposite of how it’s commonly thought of.
— Beth”
3) >> “Funny “pro-democracy” zealots
I wanted to donate some money to a “pro-democracy” Chinese organization before. I did a small test on them. I chose a pro-democracy activist’s blog (by the way, this activist is one of the discussants on this page). I posted a comment highly extolling her, and a comment challenging her data (no inappropriate words). Interestingly, the first comment was approved by her and was released to the public. However, the second comment was rejected by her and was never published on her blog. I did this kind of test on many “pro-democracy” zealots’ blogs before. All of them dared not face even a very small criticise. Finally I gave up the idea of donating them. Although they love to chant “democracy” and “freedom” everywhere, they actually don’t know what “democracy” and “freedom” really mean.
I think that most general Chinese hold the same opinon as mine: the Chinese Communist Party may not be perfect, but those “pro-democrcy” activists are even worse.
— Zachary”
4)>> “As an average urban citizen born and raised in China for my entire life, I don’t trust the overseas dissidents one bit. They have done nothing to help expand my freedom.
I got where I am today by studying hard in school, working hard after graduation, and actively trying to help people around me and strangers through donating to charities (I just donated another 100 yuan last week to a Mothers in Poverty charity, a sub program of the Hope Project) and assisting local animal shelters.
China’s progress has been won by its 1.3 billion ordinary people who struggle everyday to make their lives better, despite all the harping and cold judgments in the western media that paint them as a ginormous army of mindless, pathetic drones running around killing Jews (why else would the western media call China a Nazi country before the Olympics?)
The NYT finally stopped hiding its elitist stance by interviewing scholars living in ivory towers instead of ordinary citizens and students.
I wouldn’t vote for the CCP if China became a democracy. Neither would I vote for those overseas dissidents who I most certainly look down upon. I and million of orginary folks live in this country and fight for a better future every day, what did they do?
— wooddoo”
5) >> “I live in China,and i think i have a happy life .Do these reporters truly believe that all people in China agree all what have reported here?
why those foreigners care more about us than ourselves?puzzled….
— jason”
China’s New Rebels
By The Editors
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/chinas-new-rebels/
June 5th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Add more …
6) >> “I have been to Beijing recently. As some of the Chinese who have posted here have pointed out, there is unprecedented liberty in the economic sphere there today. It cannot be denied that the standard of living has substantially improved for a great number of people in the past twenty years. And with this economic growth, there is also a growing educated middle-class that is increasingly conscious of environmental issues and intolerant of corruption. Overall, Chinese people appear generally quite satisfied with what they have achieved, and where they are going. They are therefore distrustful of changes in the political sphere advocated by foreigners.
I have to say that I was dismayed by the blatant suppression of free speech; most Chinese get all their news and views from the state-sponsored CCTV and state-controlled newspapers; and an amazingly large number of external websites are censored (including youtube, and most recently twitter). But it is important to understand their motivation, even if one disagrees with the action. By sheltering its population from many (but not all) opposite and inconvenient news and opinions, and continually reinforcing a nationalistic, pro-government narrative, the Chinese government seeks to create a harmonious and orderly society. This is considered particularly important in a country with a long and violent history of internal division and external oppression.
Yet, while such a society may be justifiable from a utilitarian (greatest good for the greatest number) perspective, it can be extremely harsh towards the minority that happens to disagree with the government’s vision of what the right policies are.
Personally, I think it is sad that the government of a country of more than a billion should treat its citizens as little children in this regard, and maintain such strict control over what they read and listen to, what they think and say. Bearing in mind that this lack of political freedom does not inconvenience the vast majority of Chinese today, one still hopes that future developments allow greater liberties so that minority voices of dissent are not automatically equated with treason and harshly suppressed, but are instead treated with respect as possible motivators of constructive change.
— WoQuGuoBeijing”
7) >> “China’s Practice of Democracy
Clearly democracy works very well in Western nations. That is because democracy has been practiced in Western nations for many years. Westerners have learned lessons from many bloodsheds (e.g. French revolutions, American ethnic conflicts). Now, they known how to achieve a compromise without ending up a bloodshed. China does not have such tradition of democracy. Nowadays China adopts the Western-style democracy in county, country, and township level. But one will feel very disappointed if he/she looks closely on those elections. A typical election in a Chinese village is like that: “I never vote for the candidate whose last name is not WANG”, “LI families should get privileges on controlling resources because the village head is voted by us”, etc.
Don’t assume that the general Chinese don’t know what is “democracy” or “election”. Actually they know it but unfortunately many of them have bad impressions on “democracy”. However, sometimes when the general Chinese see how chaotic Taiwan’s democracy, South Korean democracy and Thailand’s democracy are, they will think that “not bad in China, at least we don’t have a nation-wide chaos and fighting”. “Democracy” is a good thing but is very costly. Westerners have paid too much price and thousands of lives for it. The Chinese don’t want to pay such a high price. So they practice democracy step by step, from village level to nation-wide level gradually. I believe that China will become very democratic in the future. But we should give enough time to the general Chinese, who need to learn “compromise”, “tolerance”, “mutual-respect”, “laws”, and “justice” from the grass-root democracy.
— Zachary”
8) >> “The US media are going crazy for the 20th anniversary of the 6/4 event in China. They are remembering it on “behalf” of the Chinese people, and keep complaining about the silence in China. The difference in perception of this issue between the US and China, as I believe, may reflect the fundamental changes in the two cultures in the last 20 years, which may be responsible for the reversal of the economic fortunes of the two countries today. In China, people who have gone through and suffered different political movements in the past, have been becoming genuinely tired of any political movement. The 6/4 event was no different. They believe that these movements alone are not going to bring any changes to their lives. It is only through hard work and economic reform that can bring change, which is exactly what the Chinese government has done for them, and has made China an economic superpower today. On the hand, the US has become more and more political with idiotic idealisms. Democracy and freedom of this and freedman of that have made people complain about this and complaining about that. Complaining and a sense of entitlement without hard work will bring nothing but economic collapse as we witness today. Therefore, just like they did not like the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese people now don’t like the 6/4 event either. In the same way, they may not like or care about other political slogans like “democracy” and “freedom of speech”, which are much advocated in the US, because all these things are political. The Chinese people like practical things and hard working, which bring them a happier and richer life. Therefore, I beg you Western media please stop commemorating the 6/4 event, and please don’t throw salt into the wounds of the Chinese people.
— John”
June 5th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Some more comments here:
i) To Beth.
My only suggestion to you is that try to talk to more Chinese students in the US. “Ivy League” means nothing from my point of view. Try to talk to people from Beijing or other big cities who experienced 1989. I and many other friends at the same age hold different opinions with hers apparently. I can also understand that girl who got “brainwashed”. I bet she did not see anything by her own and listened too much from the media at that time.
a Chinese girl
— Chinese girl
ii) I was a high school senior in Shanghai during the June 4th movement. I’ve been in the US for more than a decade. The bottom line is that no government should open fire and use tanks against its own civilians. PERIOD. CCP’s certainly made some progress over the years, but I’m afraid in essence it’s very much the same. I hope that people in China can one day enjoy the freedom and democracy that they deserve, but I’m a pessimist in that regard. It may take a very long time for that to happen.
— XZ
iii) I have been to Beijing recently. As some of the Chinese who have posted here have pointed out, there is unprecedented liberty in the economic sphere there today. It cannot be denied that the standard of living has substantially improved for a great number of people in the past twenty years. And with this economic growth, there is also a growing educated middle-class that is increasingly conscious of environmental issues and intolerant of corruption. Overall, Chinese people appear generally quite satisfied with what they have achieved, and where they are going. They are therefore distrustful of changes in the political sphere advocated by foreigners.
I have to say that I was dismayed by the blatant suppression of free speech; most Chinese get all their news and views from the state-sponsored CCTV and state-controlled newspapers; and an amazingly large number of external websites are censored (including youtube, and most recently twitter). But it is important to understand their motivation, even if one disagrees with the action. By sheltering its population from many (but not all) opposite and inconvenient news and opinions, and continually reinforcing a nationalistic, pro-government narrative, the Chinese government seeks to create a harmonious and orderly society. This is considered particularly important in a country with a long and violent history of internal division and external oppression.
Yet, while such a society may be justifiable from a utilitarian (greatest good for the greatest number) perspective, it can be extremely harsh towards the minority that happens to disagree with the government’s vision of what the right policies are.
Personally, I think it is sad that the government of a country of more than a billion should treat its citizens as little children in this regard, and maintain such strict control over what they read and listen to, what they think and say. Bearing in mind that this lack of political freedom does not inconvenience the vast majority of Chinese today, one still hopes that future developments allow greater liberties so that minority voices of dissent are not automatically equated with treason and harshly suppressed, but are instead treated with respect as possible motivators of constructive change.
— WoQuGuoBeijing
iv) I’m an American living in China and have been here for 6 years. One thing I feel I absolutely need to comment on is how most, if not all, the comments here from Chinese praising the CCP and who claim to “love” their government are those who are lucky, and wealthy, enough to have access to a computer and an education that is good enough to allow them to communicate in English. This is simply not true for a very high percentage of Chinese people. Even the least expensive computer costs an average worker a month’s salary at least. (One can go to an “Internet cafe” of course, but ID is required.) Most Chinese attend schools where up to 80 students are jammed into classes where true mastery of English is nearly impossible to achieve. (I’m an English teacher. I know of what I speak.) Why do you suppose the government doesn’t block sites like this one? Because it knows full well only those who are reaping the benefits of China’s economic “miracle” will be able to read and understand it. You can bet if the government concludes the truly unhappy here could read this site it would be blocked today, just like Hotmail, Twitter and Youtube have been. (As an example the “Initiatives for China” English website is not blocked here but the Chinese version is.) To those Chinese who post here about about how Chinese “love their country” I can only respond that of course Chinese like YOU do. “The system” works. For you. But for hundreds of millions of utterly voiceless Chinese it does not. One feature of China that utterly disgusts a lot of foreigners living here is the near contempt “haves” here hold for “have-nots.” You see it every day on the street. The “haves” here are definitely happy and simply can’t fathom why the “have-nots” aren’t. It’s only the “haves” who post here, trust me. The have-nots are working 80 hours a week, if they’re working at all, and their deficient education precludes them from posting here in English. Please, take every English posting here from a Chinese person with a boulder of salt.
— chris
v) The comments on this article are absolutely fascinating and really do highlight many of the insecurities in modern China. There is so much dissonance between the near total economic freedom and the almost complete lack of political representation. This is augmented by a love/hate relationship with the West, particularly the United States.
I’m an American based in China and have lived in the 3 largest cities over the past 4 years. There is a much greater breath of opinion here than many people in the U.S. realize, but that’s not to say that the majority of the population is particularly well-informed about political history. Even some of the brightest minds in the country (the students I met at Beijing University, for example) are uncomfortable with differing viewpoints, and they cannot engage in a debate about their “motherland” (what term could be possibly be more anachronistic?) without jumping to defend the same crooked cronies they mock anonymously on the blogs and messageboards.
There remains an inferiority complex with regards to the West, as well as a fundamental inability to constructively debate politics. Just look at how many commentors said something to the effect of “Westerners cannot discuss China because they are not Chinese.” Or the other perennial fenqing favorite: “American democracy is imperfect/failing, etc so Americans have no right to comment about China.” It’s such an irrational distrust and seems to indicate a fear of the outsider. Yet, China openly embraces capitalism, Western brands, Western media and cultural products, Western food…It doesn’t take long here before you discover all the “European” brands for sale with ambiguously “European” names and taglines such as “France well-known product” and ads with Caucasian models.
In fact, the divide between China and the West is neatly encapsulated in the different ways in which the U.S. and China regard foreigners. Go anywhere in China, and the Chinese will never let you forget you are foreign. Yet, go to New York City, and there is no such thing as a foreigner. What New Yorker would ever stop and stare at a Chinese person?
Finally, the arguments that “everyobody in China is getting richer” and that pragmatism trumps democratic principles are pure hogwash. If the CCP is so great, they should have nothing to fear from free and open elections. If they really are the saviors of China and so universally loved, why not let the people vote them into power? If their ideas are so wonderful, let them be tested in open political debate.
In the long run, a country cannot survive with such a massive disconnect between economic and political liberties. Those that contend China will prove different are bound to be mistaken.
— RG
June 5th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
RG’s comment is interesting. On one hand he tells educated Chinese ‘s inability to handle political debates and on the other hand he calls for elections and debates to be granted to the people who can not handle it. I see. China definetely can not survive this.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
admin.
The students did hold Zhao responsible for Hu’s removal.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
The notion that we student (we because I was an active participant then) didn’t want democracy or didn’t want to overthrow the government is utterly non-sense.
The only thing I wanted by then was the toppling of the government, at least that was I and all the other I knew of wanted. The “democracy” we wanted was the idea propagated by VOA (so much so that the first I did was to lead a group to seize the university broadcasting station so that we could beam VOA 24/7).
I don’t regret what I did then and I won’t appologise for wanting to topple the government, because that’s what I believed the right thing to do in 1989, by which I was a student and my family had next to nothing to lose.
Today I had a reasonable life, which I earned through hard works (not a penny from the government or its affiliates, like some of the Chinese liberals “freedom fighters” who are still on government payroll – for example that scumbag Xu Youyu). For this simple fact I definitely won’t go to the street again whatever the western liberal hypocrites say. And should I be grateful that the government put down the chaos we caused 20 years ago? I don’t want to say yes but I feel I have to say yes.
Call me selfish if you like, but mind you that I’ve done my bit 20 years ago (and unlike those “student leaders” I did stay, only narrowly escaped arrest afterward). Where were you then?
June 5th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
@admin
Very interesting information on Zhao. I am learning a lot.
NPR had a segment on yesterday with 2 experts – one who wrote the foreward for the book and another guy – I fogot what his connection was – but related to 6.4. I think a highlight NPR made was that Zhao’s book sheds light on the internal politics of the Chinese government.
The thing that was kind of disappoiting for me is NPR had no one on the Chinese perspective to balance the other views. To me, NPR is kind of the gold standard in journalism in the USA.
It also tells me that the US population’s view of the 6.4 is so simplistic and that even NPR is not ready to challenge the “party line”.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Kui, BMY, thank you for posting your thoughts on TAM, and some sorely needed counter POVs that we in the west have largely ignored, blind to, manipulated for the past 20 years. IMHO it is no longer simply passive journalism or weakness in reporting – at this point it is deliberate act.
Is it honest dialog to ignored the initially unarmed troops that were killed by angry, violent protesters armed with molotov cocktail? Western media did report those APCs being burned, soldiers killed – yet yesterday’s 20 year anniversay reporting few, if any, mentioned this fact. Or worse twist it around to justify the violence that laws in the West wouldn’t tolerate.
Again, thank you for talking about your experiences, as difficult as it may be. Perhaps your sentiments will bring some balance to the TAM narrative that’s been tilted unfairly against 1.2 billion Chinese who are voiceless in our society.
“If we only see … from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth.”
– Barak Obama
June 5th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
@Imagebilly,
That’s an interesting insight you have. When you say that you and your family don’t have anything to lose, what do you mean? Is it because China had wronged you or because of economic reasons. I understand that it is a personal question and you don’t have to answer.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
BMY,
Thanks for a powerful, emotional, sad, and beautiful story ! Your writing and Admin’s translation is absolutely beautiful ! It will be a classic of Fools Mountain, I suspect. I can only imagine the intensity of your experience on that fateful night.
June 6th, 2009 at 3:35 am
“…There is a much greater breath of opinion here than many people in the U.S. realize, but that’s not to say that the majority of the population is particularly well-informed about political history. Even some of the brightest minds in the country (the students I met at Beijing University, for example) are uncomfortable with differing viewpoints, and they cannot engage in a debate about their “motherland” (what term could be possibly be more anachronistic?) without jumping to defend the same crooked cronies they mock anonymously on the blogs and messageboards.
There remains an inferiority complex with regards to the West, as well as a fundamental inability to constructively debate politics…”
The author of above argument seems frustrated at the fact that many educated and well-informed Chinese do not take Western views at face value, and they express different opinions from his or hers own. By labeling people who have different opinions as “having inferior complex” and incapable of constructive politics debate, the author has committed an error in Logic 101: resorting to personal attacks.
The lesson of June 4th is that people should respect law and order – if you block troops from enforcing martial law, there will be tragic consequences. And if you are killed or injured, your family is going to have a hard time to demand compensation, because all insurance policies exclude compensation for injury or death caused by criminal activity or war.
June 6th, 2009 at 3:46 am
As I was taught from early age in China, and confirmed when I went to law school in US: An Universally adopted rule of law:
If you don’t get out of the way of a fire truck on its way to a fire, and you get run over, it’s your own fault. No compensations from any government.
And you don’t get to challenge the whether the FIRE was real enough.
June 6th, 2009 at 4:29 am
Thank you, admin, for hosting.
Thank you, BMY, for posting.
Thank you, others, for the education I have received from reading your comments.
I am an American who will visit Shanghai, Beijing, and Chengdu very soon. I have learned a little about various Chinese points of view by following your discussion. While reading the above exchange of opinions, I was convinced of the authenticity of each person’s perspective. Just like anywhere else, there’s a little truth in every person’s opinion.
So I really don’t know who is right in the issues pertaining to economic freedom and political freedom. I hope to learn more when I get there. I do have this impression, though, of Chinese people: they seem to prefer order over expression. From my American perspective, they seem, in that respect, more like Republicans than Democrats. Since I’m a Republican, maybe they’ll not think me too strange when I go around asking questions.
Carey Rowland, author of Glass half-Full
June 6th, 2009 at 5:30 am
Rowland, your comment really cracked me up. Just so that you know, actually I have heard quite a few times people comparing CCP and Republicans. Yeah, you definitely should visit China. Just keep an open mind, and your life experience will be enriched.
June 6th, 2009 at 6:51 am
@pug_ster,
Because we were all poor, so we didn’t have much to lose.
Today I have a decent apartment in Beijing, a family and a good job (all through years of honest, private sector works). I will defend what I have today against any destablising forces, even if that means I have to support the CCP, which I conspired to overthrow 20 years ago.
Trust me, if the day comes that I have to defend my life, my rights and my family against a liberal mob, I’m perfectly willing to take arms and to KILL!
June 6th, 2009 at 6:56 am
@Carey Rowland,
I would be a hardcore Republican if I were a US citizen. I keep a bookmark of http://www.forwhichitstands.org/ and draw strength from it.
For me, it’s not about supporting the CCP, it’s about defending liberty of all those Chinese people who have earned their life through hard works in the past twenty years.
June 6th, 2009 at 7:55 am
@Carey Rowland,
To this day I’m convinced that liberalism is a disease against liberty, anywhere in the world be it in the US or in China.
A case in point is the Chinese education “reform” that inflated massively the university entries quota, completely devalued high education and destroyed a thousands-year Chinese heritage of social mobility.
Guess who articulated that and cheated the CCP into their way … the Chinese liberals, many of which are the so-called pro-democracy-human-rights idiots. They say university education is a human right so every high school student should be able to go to university.
See the similarities? Liberals are the same everywhere – they are poisonous to society.
June 6th, 2009 at 8:12 am
To R4000:
“If you don’t get out of the way of a fire truck on its way to a fire, and you get run over, it’s your own fault. No compensations from any government.” – unless, of course, the fire truck driver was driving recklessly and with disregard for other peoples’ safety. Just because you’re heading to a fire doesn’t mean you can randomly run someone over.
June 6th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Mind you the fact that many of the Chinese liberals, despite their harsh rhetoric against the CCP, occupy positions in government think tanks and are on government payroll.
That scumbag Xu Youyu is a research analyst of the Chinese Academy of Social Science – a 100% government institution but a traditional stronghold of the liberals. He is a Chinese government employee.
Bao Tong is still on government pension and lives in government housing (his is an apartment for high-ranking communist cadres). Note that government pension is different from social pension – it is much higher than the meagre social pension. Most Chinese (including me) don’t have government pension and can only hope for social pension that promises to pay you 200 RMB per month once you retire.
Ding Ziling, as much as I sympathise with her loss of son, is also on government pension and lives in government housing. Her recent petition was for the CCP to give government pension to some of the other “Tiananmen parents”.
Another prominent dissident recently complained loudly that the government is relocating her (in fact the whole block) to another apartment to make room for a school. The problem is that the apartment she currently lives is a government compound of the People’s Daily. The new apartment the government tries to move her in, on the contrary, will be of her private ownership and is at a good location at least by the standard of we common folks.
WTF those liberals are up to truly amaze me.
June 6th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Here is an article from John Pomfret of Washington Post. His writing used to be pretty dry and as-matter-of-facts. In this one however he seems to have regained his sparks. But quite certainly, liberalists will not be impressed by his article.
After Tiananmen, China Wedded Force With Freedom
By John Pomfret
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060501970_pf.html
June 6th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
@imagebilly,
If you come to America, you will make a good right-wing idiot. You will find many like you here, constantly whining about “liberals”. Their definition of a liberal, like yours, is “anyone smarter or better educated than I am.” One thing, though…your spelling is too good for an average right-wing poster. Please try to dumb it down a bit, hill…I mean imagebilly.
June 7th, 2009 at 6:47 am
@Ih8libz,
Yes I know that I’m of the right-wing. But I’m not an idiot. The liberals, with their patronising, high ideologies, have done much damage to China – the inflationary “education reform” is there for every Chinese to see. People thought it was a wonderful idea that every student, no matter of good or bad grade, can go to university … until later they found that an university degree has become useless, for brilliant students and lamers alike.
The Chinese liberals, much like the American liberals, control the media through subtly imposing their high ideologies. They label anyone who doesn’t agree with them as “fengqing” (angry youth) and, despite loudly complaining about the CCP’s censorship (which only applies to certain words but not the liberals’ core ideas), never hesitate to use their media outlets to demand the CCP to shutdown other opinions (such as the leftist Wu You Zhi Xiang).
China will have democracy one day, but we first have to expose to the people the ugly face behind the lofty talks of the liberals, lest they trick us back to socialism and tyranny disguised as democracy.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:36 am
SKC (26), yeah even if you are on official business/an emergency service you need to look out for other people. Good point.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:54 am
Raj,
You state absolute NONSENSE on LAW.
Emergency services have ABSOLUTE immunity to any type of lawsuits resulting from their OFFICIAL DUTIES. China, US, or Europe, (and probably everywhere else).
“Need to look out for other people”??
What authority did you get this from? What “VOTE” from WHICH “democracy” made that rule??
June 8th, 2009 at 3:58 am
“unless, of course, the fire truck driver was driving recklessly and with disregard for other peoples’ safety. Just because you’re heading to a fire doesn’t mean you can randomly run someone over.”
I didn’t agree with such irrelevant distinction. I don’t know any “reckless” fire truck drivers. Thus, I’m ignoring your argument as irrelevant.
Try again. Take your time.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:09 am
If I’m heading to a fire, I’m not “randomly running” people over. I’m on official business. I’m doing it for a reason!!!
By US law, emergency vehicles on “emergency business” don’t have to observe any traffic rules.
In the Great Fire of San Francisco, police were authorized to dynamite buildings that were NOT on fire to prevent spread of fire. Yes, they could PURPOSEFULLY destroy property and endanger lives, and still NOT be liable. (and NO, they didn’t have pay damages/value for what they destroyed!)
June 8th, 2009 at 5:52 am
To R4000:
“Emergency services have ABSOLUTE immunity to any type of lawsuits resulting from their OFFICIAL DUTIES. ”
— if that were even remotely true, then just as one example, those 4 cops in LA who worked Rodney King over would never have seen the inside of a courtroom. Before you say that, yes but, they were acquitted, being charged and found not guilty is not the same as immunity of any kind, absolute (in caps no less) or otherwise. Are you sure you’ve been to law school?
“I don’t know any “reckless” fire truck drivers.”
— the hilarity continues. You should do stand-up, or something, if this law thing doesn’t pan. Whether you know of any such drivers or not is truly irrelevant, unless your claim is that, since you don’t know any, it is impossible for there to exist a reckless fire truck driver. In which case, I am truly amazed at how many fire truck drivers you must know.
In my jurisdiction, an ambulance driver was convicted of reckless driving causing death, because, while on his way to an emergency, he crossed an intersection on a red light, without his lights and sirens on, and hit and killed a motorist who entered the intersection on a green light. Let me guess…your response will be that, since an ambulance driver is not the same as a fire truck driver, your point is still good. I can’t wait…
“If I’m heading to a fire, I’m not “randomly running” people over.”
— – what if a guy has pulled over to allow an emergency vehicle to pass. But that emergency vehicle, even though in the process of discharging official duties, is travelling excessively and recklessly fast, and loses control and runs into the guy who had pulled over? If that emergency responder is not at fault, then I better be really careful the next time I drive in SF.
“police were authorized to dynamite buildings that were NOT on fire to prevent spread of fire. Yes, they could PURPOSEFULLY destroy property and endanger lives, and still NOT be liable.”
— purposefully/intentionally is not the same as recklessly. You can have not a hint of intent in the world of hurting someone, but if you did so while behaving recklessly, you’re still on the hook. Did you pass law school?
June 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
“if that were even remotely true, then just as one example, those 4 cops in LA who worked Rodney King over would never have seen the inside of a courtroom. Before you say that, yes but, they were acquitted, being charged and found not guilty is not the same as immunity of any kind, absolute (in caps no less) or otherwise. Are you sure you’ve been to law school?”
Yes it is TRUE. And no, cops are NOT on official duty, when they use excessive force/authority than authorized by law!!! When they behave OUTSIDE of their authority allowed by law, then they are NOT acting under the force of law!!
You obviously do not READ the laws, if you can’t understand “OFFICIAL DUTY”!!!
I’m sure that YOU never been to law school.
And just for your education, such a LAWSUIT in LA was on the question of whether they ACTED within their police authority.
Guess what, the JURY found them to be in POLICE authority!!
LEARN the LAW!! Instead of making up BS theories about what YOU want the law to be!!!
June 8th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“purposefully/intentionally is not the same as recklessly. You can have not a hint of intent in the world of hurting someone, but if you did so while behaving recklessly, you’re still on the hook. Did you pass law school?”
Who said it was the same?
Who said anything about “gross negligence” or “negligence” in Tiananmen? I didn’t.
You and Raj are just going off half-ass on irrelevant points again.
I graduated from Law School, since you asked. You didn’t. Don’t bother me with your ridiculous assumptions about laws.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
“what if a guy has pulled over to allow an emergency vehicle to pass. But that emergency vehicle, even though in the process of discharging official duties, is travelling excessively and recklessly fast, and loses control and runs into the guy who had pulled over? If that emergency responder is not at fault, then I better be really careful the next time I drive in SF.”
“traveling excessively and recklessly fast, in the process of discharge official duties”??! What kind of silly standard is that??!
UH, they don’t have to observe traffic rules! There is NO such thing as “traveling excessively and recklessly fast” for Emergency vehicles responding to emergencies!!! (Except limited by local laws).
I have seen them go over 80 Miles Per Hour through a residential area!!
Yeah, you better be careful!!! Your ignorance of the law is really going to hurt you some day.
Are you sure you “vote”?? Apparently, you have no idea what your “reps” are passing as laws on your “behest”!
Perfect, I guess they will run you over, BEFORE you “turf” them out!! LOL!!
June 8th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“the hilarity continues. You should do stand-up, or something, if this law thing doesn’t pan. Whether you know of any such drivers or not is truly irrelevant, unless your claim is that, since you don’t know any, it is impossible for there to exist a reckless fire truck driver. In which case, I am truly amazed at how many fire truck drivers you must know.
In my jurisdiction, an ambulance driver was convicted of reckless driving causing death, because, while on his way to an emergency, he crossed an intersection on a red light, without his lights and sirens on, and hit and killed a motorist who entered the intersection on a green light. Let me guess…your response will be that, since an ambulance driver is not the same as a fire truck driver, your point is still good. I can’t wait…”
“Reckless fire truck drivers” are in the minority, and according to your logic, therefore, they are IRRELEVANT!! Your logic, not mine!! Deal with it.
And I don’t respond to a hypothetical case that you cite without any reference. As far as I am concerned, you are not a lawyer, you don’t know the law, you have no specific knowledge of any cases, other than what you heard on “news”.
God knows you don’t read very carefully.
June 8th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
@Raj, SKC
“SKC (26), yeah even if you are on official business/an emergency service you need to look out for other people. Good point.”
Geez, and that’s a “Good point”? Are you thinking such common sense is supposed to be enlightening?
Don’t put words in raventhorn4000’s mouth.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Most of Western commentators are living in a terrible denial of their failure to get China in their way, badly or well intended. No doubt they are patronising but they now look so worried and anxious that they even lost the ability of reasoning.
Ironically the few people who can make a more or less subjective assessement are those who were in Beijing experiencing the event, such as NYT’s Kristof and Washing Post guy. Why they are not listened by the majority of Westerners? Denial indeed makes one feel better than taking the bitter truth.
A wee comment on 4 June – liberals tend to be reckless, no matter in US or China. Chairman Mao once said “liberalism kills people”. How true.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:36 am
@Li Qiang: Liberalism is quite a different thing in the US as compared to the rest of the world. As I get it, in US it’s mostly used to describe social liberalism. As to why it is so vilified there, I guess it has to do with the US right-wing leanings. In Europe it’s an accepted ideology almost everywhere, and it’s quite similar to Hu Jintao’s concept of the Harmonious Society.
As for Chairman Mao and killing, he was quite good at it himself.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:51 am
“In my jurisdiction, an ambulance driver was convicted of reckless driving causing death, because, while on his way to an emergency.”
Apparently, SKC does not know that ambulance drivers are employed by private companies, AND it’s NOT an “emergency” in LAW, when it’s just “individual/personal emergencies”.
Yeah, you might be dying, SKC, but that’s not an “emergency” for society. LOL!!!
No, no, SKC, for the last time, you having an heart attack is NOT going to be declared a STATE of “EMERGENCY”!!
The Ambulance driver is NOT driving for the OFFICIAL BUSINESS, under OFFICIAL AUTHORITY of a government.
GET a clue for once, before you pound out these non-sense with your head slamming on the keyboard!!
June 9th, 2009 at 2:57 am
Does somebody actually care about the comment rules (or perhaps I should say F%$#$@NG COMMENT RULES???)?
June 9th, 2009 at 7:31 am
To R4000:
“And no, cops are NOT on official duty, when they use excessive force/authority than authorized by law!!!”
— excuse me? Those cops stopped Rodney King for a traffic violation if memory serves. They were in uniform. I think most sane people would agree that they were on official duty.
You said this in #32 (“Emergency services have ABSOLUTE immunity to any type of lawsuits resulting from their OFFICIAL DUTIES.”) which, as i said before, is patently ridiculous. Being on official duties has NOTHING to do with it. It’s their conduct as they discharge those duties that’s in question.
“When they behave OUTSIDE of their authority allowed by law, then they are NOT acting under the force of law!!”
— yes, that’s obviously true. But that is mutually exclusive with the question of whether they were on official duties.
The point is that being on official duty doesn’t give you carte blanche. There are still laws and rules you must abide by. Which is why your statement from #32, as a blanket statement, is nuts.
I’ve never been to law school, but I can certainly understand “official duty”; you, however, despite an apparent legal education, attach a lot more latitude to such duties than me.
“JURY found them to be in POLICE authority!!”
— exactly. And again, if they had ‘ABSOLUTE immunity’, as you say, they never would have faced a jury. Does a lay person like me need to explain to a lawyer like you what immunity means?
““purposefully/intentionally is not the same as recklessly.”; “Who said it was the same?”
— no one did, I’m glad you agree. My point was focused on the recklessness of one’s actions. You brought in the concept of “purposefully”. I just wanted to make that distinction, and for once, I’m glad we agree.
“Who said anything about “gross negligence” or “negligence” in Tiananmen? I didn’t.”
—me neither. But I presume this whole vein of discussion is in parallel to TAM, so I’ll come back to that.
“There is NO such thing as “traveling excessively and recklessly fast” for Emergency vehicles responding to emergencies!!! (Except limited by local laws).”
— I’m speechless. You say NO such thing, then gave your own exceptions. So in fact, there is such a thing. Despite that, I actually don’t think there is a hard and fast definition of what is and isn’t reckless; I think it’s actually adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, depending on individual circumstances.
Therefore: “I have seen them go over 80 Miles Per Hour through a residential area!!”
— at noon on a school day, sunny, dry roads, maybe not reckless. Noon on a weekend, with kids playing on the side of the street, possibly reckless. Middle of the night, in the snow, probably reckless.
““Reckless fire truck drivers” are in the minority, and according to your logic, therefore, they are IRRELEVANT!! Your logic, not mine!! Deal with it.”
— it truly scares me that you might have to rise in court, and defend your client. So I hope you do something clean and tidy like IP law, and not something messy like family law, or worse yet, criminal law. Yes, reckless fire truck drivers are in the minority, but how are they irrelevant? Irrelevant to what? Oh, i get it, now you’re bridging back to our discussion on democracy, and voting. First, I never said the minority is irrelevant, but it’s true that the minority in a vote will not get their way. So now you’re taking that, and applying it to reckless fire truck drivers being in the minority, so therefore…their vote doesn’t matter? OMG, how on earth did you pass law school? That’s not even apples and oranges; that’s apples, and something that’s not even a fruit.
“SKC does not know that ambulance drivers are employed by private companies” – notice that I said “in my jurisdiction”. And here, where i live, and in fact in all of Canada as far as I’m aware, ambulance services are a provincial responsibility. So while ambulances are “private” in the states, not so here. You can try to dispute that, and you’d have the same amount of success as you’ve had on the other points so far.
“No, no, SKC, for the last time, you having an heart attack is NOT going to be declared a STATE of “EMERGENCY”!!”
—once again, you amaze and amuse me, and i feel sorry for your clients. OK, so you apparently passed law school. Have you actually been called to the bar, especially after the local bar association caught a whiff of your work? We’re talking about fireman, policeman, ambulance attendants. Since when were we talking about a state of emergency? Or a societal emergency (what the heck is that, anyway?)? When would your hypothetical fire truck driver respond to a societal emergency?
“The Ambulance driver is NOT driving for the OFFICIAL BUSINESS, under OFFICIAL AUTHORITY of a government.”
—as I said, I’ll grant you that in the US, they may not be government workers. But since I referenced a Canadian scenario, you are simply, absolutely, and unequivocally wrong. Did you go to a fly-by-night law school? I know lawyers, and you don’t speak, behave, or argue like one. Maybe I should qualify that by saying that I know good smart lawyers.
So, as promised, relating this fascinating discussion to TAM: granted that the government had a need and a right to clear the square, was sending in the PLA a reckless act? (to completely spell it out for R4000, the parallel is that the government’s decision was in discharge of her official duties, but if the decision was made recklessly, or the decision itself was reckless, there might be potential liability there. Is that clear enough for you?)
June 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
“— excuse me? Those cops stopped Rodney King for a traffic violation if memory serves. They were in uniform. I think most sane people would agree that they were on official duty.
You said this in #32 (”Emergency services have ABSOLUTE immunity to any type of lawsuits resulting from their OFFICIAL DUTIES.”) which, as i said before, is patently ridiculous. Being on official duties has NOTHING to do with it. It’s their conduct as they discharge those duties that’s in question.”
Yeah, by your definition, EVERYTHING a police in uniform does must be “official duty”??
Well, shows how much you know about LAW, and what you are “voting” for. Well, your statement here is patently ridiculous!!!
Here are some examples of NON-official activities that many policemen do:!!!
1. eating lunch, WHILE IN UNIFORM!!
2. Driving HOME while in UNIFORM!!
“any sane person”??? You are not that “sane”.
““When they behave OUTSIDE of their authority allowed by law, then they are NOT acting under the force of law!!”
— yes, that’s obviously true. But that is mutually exclusive with the question of whether they were on official duties.”
“The point is that being on official duty doesn’t give you carte blanche. There are still laws and rules you must abide by. Which is why your statement from #32, as a blanket statement, is nuts.”
You obviously think “official duty” is a blank check. You are patently ridiculous. What is “official duty” depends on the situation. You are NUTS for thinking EVERYTHING police does in uniform is “OFFICIAL DUTY”!!!
“I’ve never been to law school, but I can certainly understand “official duty”; you, however, despite an apparent legal education, attach a lot more latitude to such duties than me.”
NO you don’t understand. You use “official duty” as if it’s a layman’s term. It is NOT. Stop pretending you know what it means, and then say I’m wrong about it, when you are one MAKING UP ridiculous assumptions about the term!!!
““JURY found them to be in POLICE authority!!”
— exactly. And again, if they had ‘ABSOLUTE immunity’, as you say, they never would have faced a jury. Does a lay person like me need to explain to a lawyer like you what immunity means?”
MORE ridiculous assumptions and statements from SKC! Why am I not surprised???! “IMMUNITY” doesn’t mean you don’t have to go to court!! Even if you think you have IMMUNITY, you still have to go to court to PLEAD immunity as “affirmative defense”. The other side can challenge the FACT of your immunity. Which then may result in a trial!!
“Absolute Bar” doesn’t mean that you don’t have to go to court! It just means if Court finds that you have IMMUNITY, the lawsuit/case would be thrown out. If it is a JURY trial finds IMMUNITY, then it results in acquittal or no liability.
You DON’T know what IMMUNITY means, SKC!! Get it through your thick skull and STOP making up these ridiculous statements!!
“““purposefully/intentionally is not the same as recklessly.”; “Who said it was the same?”
— no one did, I’m glad you agree. My point was focused on the recklessness of one’s actions. You brought in the concept of “purposefully”. I just wanted to make that distinction, and for once, I’m glad we agree.”
YOU are making a point about NOTHING. I don’t care.
““Who said anything about “gross negligence” or “negligence” in Tiananmen? I didn’t.”
—me neither. But I presume this whole vein of discussion is in parallel to TAM, so I’ll come back to that.”
You brought up “reckless and disregard”, which is the definition of “GROSS NEGLIGENCE”!!!
““There is NO such thing as “traveling excessively and recklessly fast” for Emergency vehicles responding to emergencies!!! (Except limited by local laws).”
— I’m speechless. You say NO such thing, then gave your own exceptions. So in fact, there is such a thing. Despite that, I actually don’t think there is a hard and fast definition of what is and isn’t reckless; I think it’s actually adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, depending on individual circumstances.”
I said LIMITED, not a definition of “excessively and recklessly fast”. You make up ridiculous terms about laws that you have NO clues about. OF COURSE it’s case by case, but it does NOT adjudication EVERY TIME!! If there are no LIMITING LAWS, why would you need a trial???
“Therefore: “I have seen them go over 80 Miles Per Hour through a residential area!!”
— at noon on a school day, sunny, dry roads, maybe not reckless. Noon on a weekend, with kids playing on the side of the street, possibly reckless. Middle of the night, in the snow, probably reckless.”
What LAW says this?? Why are you continuing to make up crap??!!
“““Reckless fire truck drivers” are in the minority, and according to your logic, therefore, they are IRRELEVANT!! Your logic, not mine!! Deal with it.”
— it truly scares me that you might have to rise in court, and defend your client. So I hope you do something clean and tidy like IP law, and not something messy like family law, or worse yet, criminal law. Yes, reckless fire truck drivers are in the minority, but how are they irrelevant? Irrelevant to what? Oh, i get it, now you’re bridging back to our discussion on democracy, and voting. First, I never said the minority is irrelevant, but it’s true that the minority in a vote will not get their way. So now you’re taking that, and applying it to reckless fire truck drivers being in the minority, so therefore…their vote doesn’t matter? OMG, how on earth did you pass law school? That’s not even apples and oranges; that’s apples, and something that’s not even a fruit.”
Yes, you did say minority is irrelevant. I point to your post on ignoring the examples of “monarchies” in “sovereignty” issue. You said “I don’t live in a kingdom, you don’t. Why is that relevant?”
OMG, how do you even “vote”, when you can’t even remember your own statements!
““SKC does not know that ambulance drivers are employed by private companies” – notice that I said “in my jurisdiction”. And here, where i live, and in fact in all of Canada as far as I’m aware, ambulance services are a provincial responsibility. So while ambulances are “private” in the states, not so here. You can try to dispute that, and you’d have the same amount of success as you’ve had on the other points so far.”
Obviously, I don’t give a crap about YOUR exceptional cases. Canada can choose to let itself get sued for whatever. Doesn’t apply to the rest of the world. You are in the MINORITY. I don’t care!
“No, no, SKC, for the last time, you having an heart attack is NOT going to be declared a STATE of “EMERGENCY”!!”
—once again, you amaze and amuse me, and i feel sorry for your clients. OK, so you apparently passed law school. Have you actually been called to the bar, especially after the local bar association caught a whiff of your work? We’re talking about fireman, policeman, ambulance attendants. Since when were we talking about a state of emergency? Or a societal emergency (what the heck is that, anyway?)? When would your hypothetical fire truck driver respond to a societal emergency?”
FIRE in any city block is a PUBLIC emergency, because it can spread!!! Do you NOT comprehend that basic nature of “FIRE”!!!
““The Ambulance driver is NOT driving for the OFFICIAL BUSINESS, under OFFICIAL AUTHORITY of a government.”
—as I said, I’ll grant you that in the US, they may not be government workers. But since I referenced a Canadian scenario, you are simply, absolutely, and unequivocally wrong. Did you go to a fly-by-night law school? I know lawyers, and you don’t speak, behave, or argue like one. Maybe I should qualify that by saying that I know good smart lawyers.”
I don’t care about Canada. You are in the minority, and therefore IRRELEVANT!! You also have NO CLUE about the legal concept of “sovereign immunity”! Do you even understand the differences in EMERGENCIES relating to individual medical emergency and a FIRE??!!
Come back when you UNDERSTAND “FIRE”!!!
“So, as promised, relating this fascinating discussion to TAM: granted that the government had a need and a right to clear the square, was sending in the PLA a reckless act? (to completely spell it out for R4000, the parallel is that the government’s decision was in discharge of her official duties, but if the decision was made recklessly, or the decision itself was reckless, there might be potential liability there. Is that clear enough for you?)”
DEFINE “reckless”. Are you saying “Gross negligence”, or “merely negligence”?? Because there are BIG legal differences!!
I cannot continue this conversation with you, when you keep making up ridiculous assumptions about legal terms, and pretend as if you know the law.
Do you know how hard it is to prove “GROSS NEGLIGENCE”, or “reckless and wanton disregard for safety”???
Yeah, I’m sure you can try to sue the police for “reckless arrests” of mobs and criminals!! Talk about PRETENDING as if you went to law school!!! Guess what, you can’t, NOT EVEN IN LA, where the police and national guard shot and killed rioters!!!
June 9th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
SKC,
I don’t give a crap about whether you consider my legal education is adequate.
You are NOT a lawyer, you are hardly in the position to question whether I know the laws well enough.
You are NOT a lawyer, and you don’t know the law at all.
Do you know the 5 required elements of proving “negligence”?? Nope.
Do you know what Proximate Cause is? How about “but-for cause”? And what’s the difference?
If you did know, you would realize that the Soldiers’ intentional actions are “supervening events” that break the causation of the government’s decision, as far as “negligence” or “gross negligence”.
Do you know what agency liability that might be applicable for the CCP? NOPE!
Do you know what “duty”, or “standard of care” do the PLA owe to the student protesters who were ordered out of the square?
If you did know, you would realize that there is almost NO DUTY of care owe by policing officials to those whose presence are ILLEGAL. Policing officials have almost NO DUTY of care for “trespassers”.
So much you don’t know, and yet you have the gall to question ME about MY knowledge of the law, by passing your ridiculous assumptions as questions???
*Well, let’s just get back to the 1st FACT: YOU were full of BS when you wrote anything about LAWS!!! And you are STILL FULL OF BS!!
Please, you and Raj are bordering on spamming this forum with these idiotic statements.
Frankly, it’s annoying. Since you already admitted that you don’t know the law, your continual ridiculous assertions are ONLY harassment!
June 9th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Correction, “supervening” should be “intervening”.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:57 am
@raventhorn4000: Please continue posting here, and write even longer comments! I enjoy it immensely.
This quote is a new favorite of mine, btw:
“Do you NOT comprehend that basic nature of “FIRE”!!!”
June 10th, 2009 at 9:15 am
To R4000:
“Yeah, by your definition, EVERYTHING a police in uniform does must be “official duty”??”
—sigh. I must keep my points simple for you. If a policeman in uniform stops someone for a traffic violation, is he/she on official duty? If this policeman, in the company of 4 like-minded policeman, while in the process of investigating this alleged traffic violation, beat the living snot out of the driver without provocation, have they broken the law? If they did break the law, can they themselves be arrested and charged with an offense? If you answered yes to all 3 parts, then congrats, you win a prize! And you MIGHT now begin to understand that an emergency responder does not have absolute immunity even while on official duty. And that only took 3 days.
“You obviously think “official duty” is a blank check.”
— it would appear that’s actually what you think.
“You are NUTS for thinking EVERYTHING police does in uniform is “OFFICIAL DUTY”!!!”
— I would be, if I actually thought that. It seems you’ve spent a lot of time fixating on “They were in uniform.”, and not nearly enough time considering “Those cops stopped Rodney King for a traffic violation” when it comes to determining what “official duty” is.
““IMMUNITY” doesn’t mean you don’t have to go to court!!”
—ok, if this is correct, then I am mistaken. Maybe I’ll ask Allen when he gets back from his extended vacation. My previous understanding of “immunity” was that you are immune even from being charged.
“The other side can challenge the FACT of your immunity. Which then may result in a trial!!”
“If it is a JURY trial finds IMMUNITY, then it results in acquittal or no liability.”
—even if immunity means what you say it means, given these two statements, it hardly seems “absolute”. Seems there’s still plenty of room for someone to be found liable for acts they commit in the discharge of official duties.
“I said LIMITED, not a definition of “excessively and recklessly fast””
— so then what are those “limits”? What are they limiting?
“Middle of the night, in the snow, probably reckless.” What LAW says this??”
— like I said, none. Which is why recklessness is not a hard and fast rule, and needs to be assessed in the context of each unique circumstance.
“Yes, you did say minority is irrelevant.”
— oh come on! How do you come up with this stuff. Speaking about how citizens of monarchies view a sovereign is irrelevant, not only because monarchies constitute a minority in the world, but also because our topic of discussion was US/Canada and China, none of which are monarchies. Reckless fire truck drivers are hopefully in the minority, but they seem very relevant when we’re speaking specifically of the potential liability of those very same reckless fire truck drivers.
“Obviously, I don’t give a crap about YOUR exceptional cases.”
—equally obviously, you don’t have the refinement to at least acknowledge a factual mistake on your part.
“You are in the MINORITY.”
— I wonder. Are ambulances “private” in most of the world, like in the US? Or are they government-operated like in Canada? Mind you, even privately-operated ambulances in the US are considered emergency vehicles, and can break traffic laws when on “official duty”. And their drivers could similarly be found to be liable for reckless acts.
“DEFINE “reckless”. Are you saying “Gross negligence”
— yes. I never said it’s easy to prove, which is why I said “there might be potential liability there” and not “they are liable”.
“You are NOT a lawyer”
—oh, you got me. Which is why I have never claimed to be one.
“Do you know the 5 required elements of proving “negligence”
—duty of care: could it be reasonably foreseen that the PLA entering the city and TAM would cause the protesters harm? I’d say so. Would it be fair to hold them responsible? I dunno. Would it be fair to hold whoever sent in the PLA to be responsible? Therein lies the question.
—breach of duty: could a reasonable person, or government, faced with the TAM situation, have reasonably foreseen the consequences of the PLA moving in? Probably.
—factual cause: But for the PLA moving in, would people have died? I think not.
—proximate cause: the government ordered the PLA in; the PLA moved in; people died. I’d say that’s not too far removed.
—damages: they’re dead. How many? Depends who you ask.
So was there a duty for the PLA to save the protesters from harm? Could the PLA have cleared the square without killing a bunch? Was there a duty to not kill protesters after they’d already left the square? Did the CCP have a duty to save the protesters from harm? I dunno. Those would be questions for a brilliant legal mind like yours.
“you would realize that the Soldiers’ intentional actions are “supervening events” that break the causation of the government’s decision,”
—as I suggested earlier, you seem to now be blaming the soldiers, and absolving the government. So then, we’d have to know what the soldiers’ actual orders were.
Geez, so many questions. I wonder how we might try to answer at least some of them…
June 10th, 2009 at 10:15 am
@SKC: I admire your fortitude and patience. 🙂 Clearly, this guy’s stairs doesn’t reach the attic. I’m getting to understand now why lawyers are so disliked in the US.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
SKC,
You don’t know the law, you don’t know the legal terms.
Hence, you are talking BS using legal terms that you have no understanding.
I don’t care what the “sane person” thinks is “official duty”.
It’s not “law according to the sane person”, nor “law according to SKC”. If you don’t know the legal terms, don’t pretend that you do.
“—proximate cause: the government ordered the PLA in; the PLA moved in; people died. I’d say that’s not too far removed.”
WRONG! LA police may have allow the cops to arrest people, that doesn’t make them negligent in the beating of Rodney King.
“—duty of care: could it be reasonably foreseen that the PLA entering the city and TAM would cause the protesters harm? I’d say so. Would it be fair to hold them responsible? I dunno. Would it be fair to hold whoever sent in the PLA to be responsible? Therein lies the question.”
WRONG! police have NO duty of care toward trespassers, NO more than any homeowner would have in defending himself against a burglar.
You are still talking BS, when you clearly have NO CLUE about the actual laws of US and Canada, (the laws that were passed behest of you).
*Once again, your BS do not correspond to the reality.
I’m not going to respond to your ridiculous questions when you persist in making up BS to cover up your ignorance of the law.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Wukailong,
Yeah, people dislike lawyers in US.
So, I guess we are going to ignore all HR lawyers from US from nowon.
And of course, You and SKC can go around now and start to make up BS about medicine, or other subjects you don’t know about, and complain about Doctors and others.
Please, diagnose yourselves and self-medicate. Be my guest. No lawyers will be around to mess up your lawsuits against yourselves.
Obviously, you don’t need lawyers to make up BS.
Just don’t diagnose and medicate other people with your BS on the public forums. Then you will GET lawyers on you.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Why so many analysis? This June 4th was a uncomplicated brutal killing of unarmed people who participated in a peaceful demonstration in a public place. It has nothing to do with whether the Chinese know about election or democracy or not. Regardless of why and who and what. Just bang bang bang and the People’s Liberation Army fired at its own people at random. Blood! Blood ! and more blood. Who the hell cares about why and what ideologies? Who the hell cares? Imagine your son got shot to death by a bullet through his heart. He was dead. Like a flower that withered away. Gone! Why so many debates and argument? What are we arguing about? That Wang Dan might be gay? Are we getting so stupid just because we became so smart and learned?
June 10th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
@Bai Ding
Your personal view is a classic simplistic type, out of deep hatred from your own guts.
Wang Dan might not be a gay, but he and Chai Ling are clearly redical liberals with self-serving goals. Plenty to prove. End of story.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
This June 4th was a uncomplicated brutal killing of unarmed people who participated in a peaceful demonstration in a public place.
You mean a peaceful demonstration where they throw rocks, Molotov cocktails and setting roadblocks? Sure, in your own twisted logic.
June 10th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
@Wukailong, #51
I thought you cared about the forum rules. Don’t be mean.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a type of immunity that in common law jurisdictions traces its origins from early English law. Generally speaking it is the doctrine that the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution; hence the saying, the king (or queen) can do no wrong. In many cases, governments have waived this immunity to allow for suits; in some cases, an individual may technically appear as defendant on the state’s behalf.
US has legislative immunity and executive immunity.
Legislative Immunity, or the Speech and Debate Clause, is an absolute bar to lawsuit for any action or speech made by any US federal legislators in the course of federal legislative process. Legislators’ aids are also covered by this clause.
Executive immunity in US, is recognized by judicial decisions, is an absolute bar to civil lawsuits for any action taken by the President and his aids while in office.
Canada, like England, has “parliamentary privilege”, which bars lawsuit INDEFINITELY for any members of the Parliament, including the Prime Minister, for any action or speech taken in office. This privilege works very similarly to the US Legislative Immunity. The Current Canadian PM Harper exercised this privilege in 2007.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
You know, It’s getting boring with all these repetitions of “UNARMED” protesters claims.
Everyone knows that they were armed, perhaps crudely, but it wasn’t bare hands.
I have even seen footages of CNN reports where they showed some of the students seizing AK-47’s from army vehicles.
I guess these “human rights” democrats are true believers of Joseph Stalin’s “tell a big enough lie often enough and it becomes the truth”???
UNARMED is the Bonus March Protest. They only had tents and pots and pans, and MacArthur charged them with calvary.
I can tell you, if the Bonus March protesters had occupied center of Washington DC and set fire to even 1 bus or carriage, They would have brought in ALL of the army in Virginia and Maryland.
“Defend the Square” Command Center?? Naming Chai Ling as “Command in chief”??? Are you kidding me??
Anyone who has read anything about the Cultural Revolution would know these students were playing the same exact crap game as the Red Guards. (Antiwar.com even had a photo of some 6/4 students holding up a giant portrait of Mao. Cultural Revolution Part Deux??)
Yeah, Mao held a rally and had 100,000’s of student Red Guards show up in Tiananmen, and thus started the Cultural Revolution against Mao’s perceived political rivals, in EXACTLY the SAME PART of BEIJING.
Tell me that Zhao had no idea what he was playing at. If he didn’t know, he’s a total MORON!!!
Mao told the Red Guard that they had a “right” to voice their opinion. Of course, we all know now that he meant to beat up Deng and others (and force Deng’s son to jump off of a building and break his legs).
*Remind me of the “non-violent” protest in Tibet. And the persistent “non-recession” in US for so many months. And the terms like “rendition”, “collateral damage”.
Ah, political double speak.
When one realizes the extent of “NEWSPEAK” (-1984, George Orwell) in Modern English, one realizes the extent of self-delusion of the modern Democracies. That the “free nations” unable to explain their now openly festering inner nature against their facade of flowery beauty, must be forced to call a mole as a “beauty mark”, or wrinkles as “crow’s feet”.
Only the world is not fooled.
China, at least, didn’t invent all these new terms. And eventually, the new terms will be forgotten, and history will be left with bare facts.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:57 am
@huaren (#57): The forum rules do not just apply to me or SKC. They also apply to raventhorn4000, who’s accusing others of his own behavior, even in the thread about forum rules. I don’t have any problems with his arguments or viewpoints, just with the way he yells, writes incoherently, uses capital letters in almost every sentence and has a nasty attitude in general. Certainly, you can accuse SKC on being sarcastic, but he hardly started this shouting match. This whole thread is here as proof of this – unless you think any sort of behavior is OK as long as it is from people with viewpoints similar to your won, then by all means support, you ought to ask yourself why these rules aren’t taken seriously.
However, I believe in a second chance for everyone. raventhorn do write good comments, like 58. Then 59 comes along and it’s almost like it was another person. Try to be civil, at least, and argue in a level tone. If someone’s wrong about my area of expertise, I point out what’s wrong rather than shouting that the person knows nothing about what I chose to educate myself about.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:01 am
Something’s wrong with the editing function, or my browser, so…
The last sentence in the first paragraph should read:
“This whole thread is here as proof of this – unless you think any sort of behavior is OK as long as it is from people with viewpoints similar to your won, you ought to ask yourself why these rules aren’t taken seriously.”
June 11th, 2009 at 5:36 am
@Wukailong
raventhorn4000 is coherent. You might think SKC has “good” English. Culturally, I find him extremely rude and contemptuous towards readers here – especially those with English as a second language. To me, this is imature. He is provoking.
Sure, its no secret, I have similar viewpoints as raventhorn4000.
But if CAPS and !!! is rude for you – then you should think seriously about sarcasm – Asians in general don’t get them – they always come across as very disrespectful.
And finally, “Clearly, this guy’s stairs doesn’t reach the attic.”
That’s BS. To me, that’s contempt coming from you. You think you are clever with words – but that’s almost the worst type of insults. You can tell me I am insecure. But telling that to someone who’s language is likely his second language, that’s a bit too mean. You thought about debating with raventhorn4000 using Chinese?
June 11th, 2009 at 6:28 am
@huaren: I can’t speak for SKC, really. But I have to admit that I after a while thought about raventhorn4000’s postings as spamming. I haven’t had similar thoughts about your or other people’s postings here, except someone who used to post here last year about conspiracy theories, the Matrix and the like.
“But if CAPS and !!! is rude for you – then you should think seriously about sarcasm – Asians in general don’t get them – they always come across as very disrespectful.”
It’s not rude, it just makes it difficult to read and sounds as if the person is shouting. As for being disrespectful, don’t get me going on this one. Things like “LEARN the LAW!! Instead of making up BS theories about what YOU want the law to be!!!” are not respectful in my book. And that’s just one of a ton of similar examples.
“To me, that’s contempt coming from you. You think you are clever with words – but that’s almost the worst type of insults. You can tell me I am insecure. But telling that to someone who’s language is likely his second language, that’s a bit too mean. You thought about debating with raventhorn4000 using Chinese?” [this in referring to the attic statement]
It’s contempt towards a troll, not against someone from a certain place. I have written similar things to trolls in other places. As for English, it’s not my first language either, though I’ll give you that my mother tongue is closely related to English, like Cantonese to Mandarin. Hopefully, from my past history here, you can see that I almost never say anything sarcastic or mean to people. I have to be heavily provoked to do so.
There’s nothing wrong with raventhorn’s language, as far as I can see, and I’ve never made fun of it. As for debating with him in Chinese, sure, if that was the intention of this webpage.
I don’t think I’m clever with words. I’m not good at puns or word play at all, but I occasionally pick up sayings like that one. The thing with the attic and the stairs is originally from Twin Peaks.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:31 am
In the end, perhaps the best way to sort this thing out is to have admin give some advice on how the various participants are following the forum rules, and if someone should be kicked out. As far as I know, he’s still away, though.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:43 am
To R4000:
Your legal acumen continues to amaze and amuse me. And I’m not even a lawyer. I imagine a lawyer would find you even more amusing.
“WRONG! LA police may have allow the cops to arrest people, that doesn’t make them negligent in the beating of Rodney King.”
— first of all, i was talking about the PLA in TAM, not the LAPD and Rodney King. Second, the LAPD’s existence is not the proximate cause of those 4 or 5 cops working over Mr. King. Third, it’s not the LAPD that allows its officers to arrest people; it’s the law that allows it.
“WRONG! police have NO duty of care toward trespassers, NO more than any homeowner would have in defending himself against a burglar.”
— really? Police can just shoot trespassers? Interesting. Even when those trespassers had left the area of trespass (ie TAM)? I think a homeowner can defend himself and his home, and even shoot intruders if necessary. But that homeowner is not allowed to chase the intruder down the street, and continue shooting.
You are really something. You asked for the 5 factors of negligence. i gave them to you. Now, a normal person would respond to that; and of course, you didn’t do that. Surprise surprise.
Post #58 was good. But was it so nice that you had to post it twice (here, and in another thread)?
To WKL:
can’t generalize about lawyers. Allen’s a lawyer, and he disagrees with me, but I have no problem with him whatsoever. So it’s not being a lawyer, or a divergent POV, that I find disagreeable. I suspect you already know the specifics of what I find disagreeable.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:21 am
@SKC: Sure, I just made a joke about raventhorn and the American dislike for lawyers. Actually, I’ve always liked lawyers more than judges or prosecutors, especially for their verbal and reasoning abilities, though (judging from the recent experience) the latter might not be as common as I expected.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
SKC,
If you can’t understand analogies, then you obviously will never understand law.
“— really? Police can just shoot trespassers?”
Yes, really. Common law tradition permits police and homeowners to use deadly force against intruders and escaping criminals.
(Modern rules have made some exceptions to that tradition, but it’s a Western legal tradition, and some jurisdiction still allow that.)
You may not like it, but that’s the British Common Law tradition.
“Chasing down the street”? You repeat what Raj asserted earlier, but I don’t see either one of you provide any evidence to support that assertion.
You can’t even get 2 out of the 5 factors correct, and I’m tired of correcting you on every little idiotic assumption you want to make.
Look up “independent intervening event”, Contributory negligence, etc. on your own time.
If you can’t even get these factors correctly, you have nothing useful to contribute to the discussion of laws.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
WKL,
I see nothing wrong with emphasis of CAPS every now and then.
No rules against it either.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
WKL,
If anyone tried to pronounce their own idiotic understanding of the law before a judge, frankly, you will get much more unpleasantness than all CAPS coming back to you.
At least, you will get a “Sit down and shut up”.
Worst, you will get contempt charges, fines and jail time.
* I have been more than patient in explaining the rules of laws to SKC, but all I got back were snippy 1 liner insults and more stupid assumptions about the law “according to SKC”.
Well, if anyone feel like it, they are more than welcome to go assert their understanding before a judge, and see how far they can get.
I would never take clients who thinks they know the law better than me.
And judges have little patience for this type of people in court.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Jokes about lawyers from US:
(1) what do you call a lawyer up to his eyeballs in cement? Not enough cement.
(2) A lawyer questions a witness: “so you talked to your son at 6PM?” “yes.” “what time did that happen?”
(3) A lawyer dies and goes to heaven. The other guys ask him, “how did you get in?” “I arranged the plead bargain for God and the Devil.”
(4) A lawyer argues before the Judge, “It was foreseeable that God created the universe and was responsible for everything that happened since. We like to charge God with criminal negligence.”
(5) A property owner asks a lawyer to trace the title of his property back a little more further. Lawyer wrote back, “Georgia Mallows convey title to Sarah Mallows. State of Georgia granted title to Georgia Mallows. Crown of England granted charter title to State of Georgia. God created England.”
June 11th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
SKC,
“Even when those trespassers had left the area of trespass (ie TAM)?”
You do know that Martial Law was declared over MORE than just TAM?!
Well, obviously, you are mistaken to your supporting facts. They were ordered to clear areas further than the TAM, including Changan Avenue and nearby areas.
Curfew was imposed on all major roads in Beijing.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
SKC,
“Second, the LAPD’s existence is not the proximate cause of those 4 or 5 cops working over Mr. King. Third, it’s not the LAPD that allows its officers to arrest people; it’s the law that allows it.”
By your logic, it’s the LAPD that SENT the cops out that night, and gave them authority to arrest people that night.
Your distinction here makes no sense.
*For your information, “foreseeability” is for SPECIFIC set of events, NOT for a whole group of events. Your argument is akin to the logic that God is the Proximate cause for every thing that happened on Earth.
And, regular execution of arrests and warrants, even for riot police, is never “foreseeable” that criminals would resist arrest or fight back. The law presumes that it’s MORE likely that no violent confrontation will occur. Otherwise, Your logic implies that EVERY arrest would be foreseeable to any violent resistance of arrest. That’s simply WRONG!
*Additionally, If the PLA intentional shot at students, then that “intentional tort” is an “independent intervening event” that breaks the Proximate causation. That’s the rule of law in US. The reason is simple, a person cannot be negligent for the intentional act of another person, especially if the intentional act of the other person was lawful.
Additionally, there is legislative sovereign immunity for high officials making that decision as part of their official duty, as similar to US and Canada.
**Once again, you do not know the law. Stop pretending you know “proximate cause” by googling it up. You obviously have no clue how to apply the rule of “foreseeability”.
June 12th, 2009 at 3:45 am
@ Bai Ding.
There is at least grey between black and white. This world is very colorful.
June 13th, 2009 at 10:17 am
To R4000:
“By your logic, it’s the LAPD that SENT the cops out that night, and gave them authority to arrest people that night.”
—but that’s not proximate cause. If that was the proximate cause, and since the LAPD sends cops out every night, you’d expect a Rodney King type incident on a nightly basis. And that’s obviously not the case.
Besides, we’re talking about TAM, so there’s no need to continue with the LA stuff anyhow.
I didn’t realize police can shoot trespassers when they’re no longer trespassing. And I certainly didn’t realize that can be the first option, without consideration for non-lethal force.
“the logic that God is the Proximate cause for every thing that happened on Earth.”
— that is orders of magnitude different from saying that sending troops into TAM is a proximate cause for dying protesters. Besides, I’m a big bang guy anyway.
“And, regular execution of arrests and warrants, even for riot police”
— I didn’t know that was the PLA’s objective, or mandate, that night. Do you?
“If the PLA intentional shot at students, then that “intentional tort” is an “independent intervening event” that breaks the Proximate causation.”
— good to know. But as I said days ago, it seems your position is “fault the soldiers, but don’t fault the government”.
And what if the government ordered them to shoot?
“legislative sovereign immunity ”
— how far down the food chain does this cover?
“you do not know the law.”
— gosh, how many times does a guy need to say he isn’t a lawyer? Again, this isn’t a lawyer blog. So if you want to make legal arguments, it would seem to behoove you to make it understandable for lay folks like me, rather than expect me to graduate law school in 48 hours.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:02 am
SKC,
“By your logic, it’s the LAPD that SENT the cops out that night, and gave them authority to arrest people that night.”
—but that’s not proximate cause. If that was the proximate cause, and since the LAPD sends cops out every night, you’d expect a Rodney King type incident on a nightly basis. And that’s obviously not the case.”
PLA is sent EVERYWHERE in China for all kinds of things. Do you see shootings every night? It’s YOUR logic!
“Besides, we’re talking about TAM, so there’s no need to continue with the LA stuff anyhow.”
Nope, I didn’t agree with that distinction in Laws and example.
“I didn’t realize police can shoot trespassers when they’re no longer trespassing. And I certainly didn’t realize that can be the first option, without consideration for non-lethal force.”
FACTS don’t support your assertion. PLA were ordered to move into the square at least DAYS before 6/4, and they didn’t use any force. Your “first option” assertion is a complete fantasy!
““the logic that God is the Proximate cause for every thing that happened on Earth.”
— that is orders of magnitude different from saying that sending troops into TAM is a proximate cause for dying protesters. Besides, I’m a big bang guy anyway.”
SEE LAPD. You are still mistaken about your application of Proximate cause rule.
““And, regular execution of arrests and warrants, even for riot police”
— I didn’t know that was the PLA’s objective, or mandate, that night. Do you?”
Then you can hardly claim “foreseeability”, when you don’t even know what they were there to do. Certainly, I would say MOST people didn’t expect “shootings” at the time. Hindsight is NOT “foresight”!
““If the PLA intentional shot at students, then that “intentional tort” is an “independent intervening event” that breaks the Proximate causation.”
— good to know. But as I said days ago, it seems your position is “fault the soldiers, but don’t fault the government”.
And what if the government ordered them to shoot?”
Then It’s NOT Negligence!!! If it is INTENTIONAL ORDER to shoot, then it’s “purposeful”, SEE “LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE IMMUNITY”!!!
““legislative sovereign immunity ”
— how far down the food chain does this cover?”
Certainly covers Deng and all the other top party members who participated in the decision. If you are suggesting that some PLA colonel made that choice, that’s a different scenario.
In Canada, it covers all of the members of the Parliament and the PM, and their staff members who helped with the actions. (Or executed the decision according to plans, without any discretions)
In US, Executive immunity has been successfully asserted by many members of the Presidential Cabinet.
““you do not know the law.”
— gosh, how many times does a guy need to say he isn’t a lawyer? Again, this isn’t a lawyer blog. So if you want to make legal arguments, it would seem to behoove you to make it understandable for lay folks like me, rather than expect me to graduate law school in 48 hours.””
Worth repeating, since you keep bringing up your OWN mistaken assumptions about the law.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:45 am
To R4000:
“PLA is sent EVERYWHERE in China for all kinds of things.”
— maybe they are. How often have they been sent specifically into TAM to rid it of protesters? It seems LAPD are sent into the streets of LA 24/7 to enforce the law. The former is proximate; the latter is not.
“Nope, I didn’t agree with that distinction in Laws and example.”
— that’s fine. Are you suggesting that we can compare stuff between China and the US? Cuz some of those might be interesting. But to me, this blog is about China. You (and Charles Liu, for starters) should start a blog for comparing China with the US.
“You are still mistaken about your application of Proximate cause rule.”
—and you’ve yet to tell me why you say so. Remember, you’re the lawyer here.
“when you don’t even know what they were there to do.”
—are you seriously suggesting that their orders were to “arrest people”, and not “clear the square any way you know how”?
“If it is INTENTIONAL ORDER to shoot, then it’s “purposeful”, SEE “LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE IMMUNITY”!!!”
— yes, so I’ve learned. Are you now saying that the government did order the soldiers to shoot? I would then agree that the government has no criminal liability. And I can also better understand why the government wouldn’t want to talk about it.
“If you are suggesting that some PLA colonel made that choice, that’s a different scenario.”
—I was actually just wondering, if the guys at the top are immune from the consequences of their decisions, then are those who carry out such orders similarly immune? I would assume, if a PLA colonel gave the order and not Deng, that he/she would be in hot water, since I can’t see him/her qualifying for sovereign immunity as you’ve defined it.
June 14th, 2009 at 3:01 am
SKC,
““PLA is sent EVERYWHERE in China for all kinds of things.”
— maybe they are. How often have they been sent specifically into TAM to rid it of protesters? It seems LAPD are sent into the streets of LA 24/7 to enforce the law. The former is proximate; the latter is not.”
LAPD was also sent out in the RACE riot afterwards, and people were shot and killed. You seem to have forgotten.
““Nope, I didn’t agree with that distinction in Laws and example.”
— that’s fine. Are you suggesting that we can compare stuff between China and the US? Cuz some of those might be interesting. But to me, this blog is about China. You (and Charles Liu, for starters) should start a blog for comparing China with the US.”
that’s idiotic. If you don’t want to compare, then don’t bring your Westernized Democracy standards into this forum at all.
““You are still mistaken about your application of Proximate cause rule.”
—and you’ve yet to tell me why you say so. Remember, you’re the lawyer here.”
then stop telling me Example X and Analogy Y are irrelevant. All Common laws are based upon comparisons and distinctions between cases. You make ridiculous assumptions, and then you want to stop the comparisons when they don’t suit your assumptions. You obviously have no clue about how to even LEARN the law, let alone the LAW itself.
““when you don’t even know what they were there to do.”
—are you seriously suggesting that their orders were to “arrest people”, and not “clear the square any way you know how”?”
EVERY ARREST is “arrest any way you know how”!!! Including putting the guy down, if he resists!!!
““If it is INTENTIONAL ORDER to shoot, then it’s “purposeful”, SEE “LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE IMMUNITY”!!!”
— yes, so I’ve learned. Are you now saying that the government did order the soldiers to shoot? I would then agree that the government has no criminal liability. And I can also better understand why the government wouldn’t want to talk about it.”
Nope, just 1 of the scenarios. It would NOT be “negligence”, if there was order to use necessary deadly force, and thus IMMUNITY.
““If you are suggesting that some PLA colonel made that choice, that’s a different scenario.”
—I was actually just wondering, if the guys at the top are immune from the consequences of their decisions, then are those who carry out such orders similarly immune? I would assume, if a PLA colonel gave the order and not Deng, that he/she would be in hot water, since I can’t see him/her qualifying for sovereign immunity as you’ve defined it.”
YES, they would be IMMUNE for following orders, because they have NO discretion to disobey or modify the order in any way.
If a PLA colonel gave order to shoot without upper level approval, he would have to face at least a military inquest, which may or may not find sufficient justification for his orders. (See OPPOSITE example, MacArthur and Bonus March).
June 14th, 2009 at 6:09 am
To R4000:
“LAPD was also sent out in the RACE riot afterwards, and people were shot and killed.”
—in fact, i think it was the National Guard (I’m actually pretty sure about that). So that would begin to parallel the PLA/TAM scenario, in the sense that you have military troops deploying onto home soil to restore law and order. And if you want to compare, be my guest. We can hash out your 5 elements as they applied to the LA riots scenario. However, that would still appear more appropriate for the Blog on China vs US than for this one. At the end of the day, what happened in LA won’t justify, explain, or excuse what happened in and around TAM, nor vice versa.
“then don’t bring your Westernized Democracy standards into this forum at all.”
— the difference is I’m not making comparisons. Comparisons, at least in the way you folks like to use them, are simply a euphemism for making excuses.
“Besides, we’re talking about TAM, so there’s no need to continue with the LA stuff anyhow.” (SKC #74)
“Nope, I didn’t agree with that distinction in Laws and example.” (R4000 #75)
“All Common laws are based upon comparisons and distinctions between cases. You make ridiculous assumptions, and then you want to stop the comparisons when they don’t suit your assumptions.(R4000 #78)
—how do you effectively compare the law in one country with that in another? You can barely compare the law in one state with that of its neighbour. But hey, if you want to tell me how the LAPD sending out cops every night makes it the proximate cause for the King incident (as you suggested in #72), and how that applies/compares to determining proximate cause for TAM, well, I’ve got time. Fire away (pun intended).
“EVERY ARREST is “arrest any way you know how”!!! Including putting the guy down, if he resists!!!”
—well golly gee darn! That is sure a curious statement for you to make, especially considering that, 3 days ago, in #72, you said this:
“And, regular execution of arrests and warrants, even for riot police, is never “foreseeable” that criminals would resist arrest or fight back. The law presumes that it’s MORE likely that no violent confrontation will occur. Otherwise, Your logic implies that EVERY arrest would be foreseeable to any violent resistance of arrest. That’s simply WRONG!”
—so in fact, resisting arrest is foreseeable after all, isn’t it? Even assuming that the PLA’s orders were to “arrest” people (which seems patently ridiculous in that circumstance), it seems you acknowledge the foreseeability of violence in the course of such arrests. Looks like duty of care is back, baby. That only took 3 days.
“Nope, just 1 of the scenarios.”
— if the government ordered the troops to shoot, she is covered by immunity. THe troops would’ve been following orders, and presumably also covered. So there’s no criminal liability. But maybe the government would have a tough time selling that to the people, hence they’re not talking about it. OR the government said clear the square, and the troops took it upon themselves to shoot people to do so. Then the troops would seem to have exposure. But if it’s just “rogue” troops, what’s the harm in a public discussion of accountability?
June 14th, 2009 at 7:20 am
raventhorn4000 Says: “I would never take clients who thinks they know the law better than me.”
I think the greater problem for you, if you really are a lawyer, is that clients who really do know more about the law (and, judging by your uninformed comments on this thread alone, that might be the majority) wouldn’t be interested in hiring you in the first place.
Your proclamation that “Emergency services have ABSOLUTE immunity to any type of lawsuits resulting from their OFFICIAL DUTIES. China, US, or Europe, (and probably everywhere else)” is breathtakingly ignorant of the realities of the law in many jurisdictions.
Did they teach you at law school that AGGRESSIVE AND VULGAR CAPITALISATION, coupled with constant abuse of those who see things differently, plus a random splashing of !!!!s and ????s would strengthen a weak argument?
June 14th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Barny,
I’m not worried about lack of clients. And I would know better than you do about the clients. Thank you for your concern, but no thanks. I don’t need this kind of unprofessional advice about my business prospects.
And frankly, if you as a client is that concerned about CAPS, you don’t need a lawyer. Most Judges and lawyers will emphasize their points to you in even stronger terms than I would.
But of course, this is in response to your critique of my business style and my writing style. Not on actual issues.
So, I would smile and smirk to you.
I don’t take much doom saying from people who are merely concerned about my formats.
June 14th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
SKC,
“—in fact, i think it was the National Guard (I’m actually pretty sure about that). So that would begin to parallel the PLA/TAM scenario, in the sense that you have military troops deploying onto home soil to restore law and order. And if you want to compare, be my guest. We can hash out your 5 elements as they applied to the LA riots scenario. However, that would still appear more appropriate for the Blog on China vs US than for this one. At the end of the day, what happened in LA won’t justify, explain, or excuse what happened in and around TAM, nor vice versa.
Nope, they had the LAPD out too. You are mistaken. And your avoidance of the comparison, as usual, come when you run out of arguments. So, you are mistaken on your “proximate cause” application, As I have just demonstrated.
““then don’t bring your Westernized Democracy standards into this forum at all.”
— the difference is I’m not making comparisons. Comparisons, at least in the way you folks like to use them, are simply a euphemism for making excuses.”
Oh yes, you are. You deemed your own system to be absolute, and run away when deficiencies are pointed out. Then, I don’t accept yours as absolute either. Your avoidance of comparison SHOWS the weakness of your own system. You are the one using your tangent of “This is about China only” as an excuse!!
If you want to use Western Democracy standard to criticize China, then we first have to establish what that Western Democracy standard IS!!! You don’t get a free pass on that assumption!!
““Besides, we’re talking about TAM, so there’s no need to continue with the LA stuff anyhow.” (SKC #74)
“Nope, I didn’t agree with that distinction in Laws and example.” (R4000 #75)
“All Common laws are based upon comparisons and distinctions between cases. You make ridiculous assumptions, and then you want to stop the comparisons when they don’t suit your assumptions.(R4000 #78)
—how do you effectively compare the law in one country with that in another? You can barely compare the law in one state with that of its neighbour. But hey, if you want to tell me how the LAPD sending out cops every night makes it the proximate cause for the King incident (as you suggested in #72), and how that applies/compares to determining proximate cause for TAM, well, I’ve got time. Fire away (pun intended).
Hey, if you keep ignoring LAPD putting down and shooting the rioters, you are just lying to yourself.
““EVERY ARREST is “arrest any way you know how”!!! Including putting the guy down, if he resists!!!”
—well golly gee darn! That is sure a curious statement for you to make, especially considering that, 3 days ago, in #72, you said this:
“And, regular execution of arrests and warrants, even for riot police, is never “foreseeable” that criminals would resist arrest or fight back. The law presumes that it’s MORE likely that no violent confrontation will occur. Otherwise, Your logic implies that EVERY arrest would be foreseeable to any violent resistance of arrest. That’s simply WRONG!”
—so in fact, resisting arrest is foreseeable after all, isn’t it? Even assuming that the PLA’s orders were to “arrest” people (which seems patently ridiculous in that circumstance), it seems you acknowledge the foreseeability of violence in the course of such arrests. Looks like duty of care is back, baby. That only took 3 days.”
Why is “resisting arrest” foreseeable??? Where the hell did you get this crap from?
If the government is to assume that ALL people will foreseeably resist arrest, then logically, Police wouldn’t give a chance for anyone to surrender to arrest. The police would have beat them down from the beginning, because obviously, they would foreseeably resist??!!!
See, you can’t go 1 day without making up some crazy idiotic assumptions about laws. I said “IF he resists”, IF. Can’t you read “IF”??
““Nope, just 1 of the scenarios.”
— if the government ordered the troops to shoot, she is covered by immunity. THe troops would’ve been following orders, and presumably also covered. So there’s no criminal liability. But maybe the government would have a tough time selling that to the people, hence they’re not talking about it. OR the government said clear the square, and the troops took it upon themselves to shoot people to do so. Then the troops would seem to have exposure. But if it’s just “rogue” troops, what’s the harm in a public discussion of accountability?”
What’s the point of public discussion?? Just lead to more spreading half-truths, rumors, and silly assumptions about the laws.
Nope, I certainly don’t much point in these assumptions of yours.
June 14th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
SKC,
This sentence from me needs to be repeated to you, because apparently, you cannot even read the simple 1 line, ““EVERY ARREST is “arrest any way you know how”!!! Including putting the guy down, if he resists!!!””
Last part, “IF he resists”!!!
If you think that means it’s “foreseeable” that a criminal would resist every arrest, then you are plainly lying to yourself.
This is NOT some “Cops” TV program, where every criminal is leading the cops on high speed pursuit.
The law does NOT make such assumptions of foreseeability.
Just because some thing is possible, doesn’t make it “foreseeable”.
Most arrestees do NOT “resist arrest”.
*And police don’t owe EXTRA duty of care to those who do “resist arrest”. Why? ASSUMPTION of RISK!!
in plain meaning, it means, if the arrestee choose to “resist”, he has assumed the risk of a violent confrontation with police.
And that means, the arrestee is “contributorily negligent”! Under Common Law, that also bars negligence claim.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:54 am
raventhorn4000 Says: “Barny…this is in response to your critique of my business style and my writing style. Not on actual issues.”
Raventhorn, your style is unappealing, but my principle point, as you’re well aware, was that you don’t seem to have a great deal of awareness of the realities of the law. I’ll repeat, your proclamation that “Emergency services have ABSOLUTE immunity to any type of lawsuits resulting from their OFFICIAL DUTIES. China, US, or Europe, (and probably everywhere else)” is breathtakingly ignorant. It totally undermines your position on this thread. I don’t hold lawyers generally in especially high regard, but it doesn’t ring true that a lawyer could be so naive as to make such a blanket statement on law.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:21 am
Barny Chan,
Well, you are welcome to point to laws to contradict my assertion on law.
But I don’t see you doing it.
I don’t hold that kind of academic criticism in very high regard either. It hardly helps me to understand what your gripe is about.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Barny Chan,
Blanket assertion of “breathtakingly ignorant” is not an argument.
Surly, you don’t need to be a lawyer (nor to use CAPS) to realize, that’s pretty much a personal insult, instead of any substantive debate.
(See, I’m being nice about it by asking what your gripe is, instead of making a similar counter blanket assertion.)
June 15th, 2009 at 3:17 am
Raventhorn, to take just one example, English law directly contradicts your assertion of “absolute immunity”.
June 15th, 2009 at 6:18 am
To R4000:
“So, you are mistaken on your “proximate cause” application, As I have just demonstrated.”
—huh? What have you just demonstrated? Nothing, it would seem. Where have I avoided the comparison? This is what I said: “At the end of the day, what happened in LA won’t justify, explain, or excuse what happened in and around TAM, nor vice versa.” So if you want to talk about proximate cause of the presence of LAPD and National Guard and subsequent deaths, we can. And you should also explain how that would have any relevance to what happened in TAM. So far, you’ve done neither, and managed to demonstrate absolutely zilch. It’s becoming habit-forming for you.
“You deemed your own system to be absolute, and run away when deficiencies are pointed out”
—excuse me? I think I’ve been present and accounted for. Perhaps I can remind you of the name of this blog. Fine by me that you want to define a “western democracy standard”. Here’s one for you: do you describe an apple by saying it has a different colour than an orange, and is smaller than a grapefruit? Or do you just go and describe what an apple looks like?
“if you keep ignoring LAPD putting down and shooting the rioters, you are just lying to yourself.”
— I’m trying to not ignore it. When I say this: (“if you want to tell me how the LAPD sending out cops every night makes it the proximate cause for the King incident (as you suggested in #72), and how that applies/compares to determining proximate cause for TAM, well, I’ve got time. Fire away (pun intended).”) – it means I’m giving you a chance to talk about it. And that extends to the LAPD and National Guard putting down rioters. Do you need a formal invitation or something?
“What’s the point of public discussion?? Just lead to more spreading half-truths, rumors, and silly assumptions about the laws.”
—I don’t mean public discussion like a bunch of guys sitting on a park bench; I said public discussion of accountability, like you get with public inquiries with a mandate that includes findings of fault, if applicable. And presumably a process that the government would be involved in, cuz gee, if it was a bunch of rogue soldiers, surely the government would want to reassure the people that those soldiers are being held to account, in an open and transparent process. Or is it different in China?
““foreseeable” that a criminal would resist every arrest, then you are plainly lying to yourself.”
—and if you think it is not foreseeable that “some” criminals might resist arrest “some” of the time, you need your vision checked
“Most arrestees do NOT “resist arrest”.
—probably true. But it is certainly foreseeable that some would resist. Otherwise, why give policemen guns? In fact, why have policemen at all, if every criminal can be counted upon to turn themselves in without resistance after every crime they commit.
So, in TAM, if your claim is that the government could not foresee resistance in their apparent attempt to simply arrest the protesters, who they assumed would simply comply upon being asked nicely, why send in the PLA? Why not just send in a bunch of janitors, or any other group of unarmed government workers? It seems only logical that you send in the muscle when you can foresee needing the muscle. Duty of care, baby! Not “extra” duty of care; just the usual garden variety version.
“in plain meaning, it means, if the arrestee choose to “resist”, he has assumed the risk of a violent confrontation with police.”
—true, but the police use of force needs to be proportionate to the level of resistance. If someone resists arrest by shooting, they should certainly expect that the police would shoot back. But if someone is resisting by simply walking or running (like from TAM, for instance), it seems mighty disproportionate to be cracking open the AK’s.
June 15th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Barny Chan,
I don’t know what English Law you are talking about.
Modern jurisdiction sometimes “waive” or give up their immunity, but that’s the government’s choice. By default, under the British Common Law, there is Sovereign Immunity for the State actor.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
SKC,
If you see no demonstration of similarity of lack of proximate cause between LAPD shooting rioters, and PLA shooting rioters, “huh” is all you will never know.
I have nothing more to explain on that subject.
You still don’t know the law, and you are still quite mistaken about Proximate cause. I don’t have time to explain to you how to learn the law, since obviously, you are incapable of understanding basic stare decisis by analogies.
*And police have guns, PRIMARILY for PREVENTION of any occurring violent crimes. That’s different from mere arrest. Not every arrest is for violent crimes.
Again, you make ridiculous assumptions about “police having guns”. NOPE, the fact that police have guns, means they can stop occurring crimes like armed bankrobberies, NOT because they intend to use their guns in every arrest.
Honestly, with assumptions like yours, do you live in a police state or something. Because you seem to be assume the worst reasons and motives for police, that every arrest is foreseeable to have resistance of arrest, and police have guns to “arrest” people???
By your assumptions, if true in Canada, I would certainly hope China NEVER adopts such ridiculous assumptions in laws.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Raventhorn, I refer you to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Even prior to this act, immunity did not apply to servants/representatives of the crown, only to the sovereign him/herself.
I repeat, the statement “Emergency services have ABSOLUTE immunity to any type of lawsuits resulting from their OFFICIAL DUTIES. China, US, or Europe, (and probably everywhere else)” isn’t just manifestly incorrect (as you now seem to accept with your comment that “Modern jurisdiction sometimes “waive” or give up their immunity”), it seems incredible that a lawyer in any territory would feel qualified to make such a blanket proclamation.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Barny,
However, even after the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, lawsuits against the Sovereign in his or her personal, private capacity are still inadmissible in British law.
Members of Parliament and their aids in executing their official duties are immunity to liability and cannot be called to witness by court in UK. “Legislative Privilege”.
Emergency service, see following example law from US:
“§15-5-11. Immunity and exemption; “duly qualified emergency service worker” defined.
(a) All functions hereunder and all other activities relating to emergency services are hereby declared to be governmental functions. Neither the state nor any political subdivision nor any agency of the state or political subdivision nor, except in cases of willful misconduct, any duly qualified emergency service worker complying with or reasonably attempting to comply with this article or any order, rule, regulation or ordinance promulgated pursuant to this article, shall be liable for the death of or injury to any person or for damage to any property as a result of such activity. This section does not affect the right of any person to receive benefits or compensation to which he or she would otherwise be entitled under this article, chapter twenty-three of this code, any Act of Congress or any other law.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Barny,
If you want more examples, I have posted more in the threads. I suggest you read them.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
From Australia:
Victoria State Emergency Service Act 2005 – SECT 42
Immunity of Service members
42. Immunity of Service members
(1) This section applies to a Service member or a volunteer emergency worker.
(2) A Service member or a volunteer emergency worker is not personally liable
for any thing done or omitted to be done in good faith-
(a) in the exercise of a power or the discharge of a duty under this Act
or the regulations; or
(b) in the reasonable belief that the act or omission was in the exercise
of a power or the discharge of a duty under this Act or the
regulations.
(3) Any liability resulting from an act or omission that would but for
subsection (2) attach to a Service member or a volunteer emergency worker
attaches to the Authority.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Raventhorn, your five minutes of googling is insufficient to strengthen your case.
Neither the Sovereign (and in the UK this literally refers to the individual reigning monarch) or “members of parliament and their aids” qualify as the “emergency services”. There are many documented cases of British police and soldiers (in the case of the military, the legal position changed in, I believe 1987) who’ve been prosecuted and imprisoned for their actions in the line of duty.
Examples from the US are irrelevant to your claims of “ABSOLUTE immunity”. Absolute is absolute, or, in this case, not. Come on, do the decent thing and accept your were incorrect.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
US, (repeat)
Members of Congress and Senate are immune from liability for any actions/motives/speeches made in their course of official duty. (Speech and Debate Clause of US Constitution) This Legislative immunity applies to their staffs who carry out duties for the members of Congress and Senate.
Executive Immunity, Judicially created in US. Immunity covers the President and his staff for any official actions made in office.
State level Immunity in US: States are treated as individual sovereigns within US. Legislative immunity and executive immunity applies to state level legislative and executive members in official actions.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Barny,
You simply did not read my debate with SKC,
Whether someone is in “official duty” is a question that can be litigated in court.
Immunity does not apply when someone exceeds the scope of their “official duties”.
I do not think you know “official duty” well enough. It is a legal term.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Barny,
I gave you examples. I have more if you want.
But I see no cases brought by you to controvert the point.
And again, as I told SKC, Immunity doesn’t always mean that person cannot be brought to court. Defendant must still assert “immunity” in court as affirmative defense.
and whether Immunity applies, whether person acted in scope of “official duty”, are always questions.
But that doesn’t mean that the Immunity laws are no good.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Raventhorn, you’re now not just losing the argument you’re losing your dignity. You, and you have this in common with everybody else on the planet, are not in a position to make blanket statements about the nuances and terminology of law throughout “China, US…Europe…and probably everywhere else”.
You’re now being “childish”, and that isn’t a legal term. Gotta go for now, love Barny.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
“Raventhorn, you’re now not just losing the argument you’re losing your dignity. You, and you have this in common with everybody else on the planet, are not in a position to make blanket statements about the nuances and terminology of law throughout “China, US…Europe…and probably everywhere else”.
You’re now being “childish”, and that isn’t a legal term. Gotta go for now, love Barny.”
Admin, I direct your attention to this reply. I have given my arguments and examples. Barny Chan has not, and has now resorted to this kind personal attacks.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I’m about to make another blanket statement about law:
“Murder is a crime in every country.”
🙂
June 15th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Raventhorn, there’s a British saying that comes to mind: When you’re in a hole stop digging…
June 15th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Barny,
What’s with you and SKC and your “holes”?
I don’t want to know about your “holes”.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“British saying that comes to mind: When you’re in a hole stop digging…”
Perhaps too many blanket 1 liners about “holes” and “digging”.
hardly relevant to issues here.
June 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
absolute immunity
:immunity from all personal civil liability without limits or conditions (as a requirement of good faith)
sovereign immunity
:the absolute immunity of a sovereign government (as a state) from being sued
June 15th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
SKC,
Note to your faulty memory, YOU 1st brought up the comparison to LAPD in post# 35, not me:
“— if that were even remotely true, then just as one example, those 4 cops in LA who worked Rodney King over would never have seen the inside of a courtroom.”
And now, you run away from a topic you brought up, by saying, “At the end of the day, what happened in LA won’t justify, explain, or excuse what happened in and around TAM, nor vice versa.”????
*All I can say is, SEE YOUR OWN HOLE!
June 15th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I am not sure if the laws that govern the actions of emergency personals and police officers also apply to troops acting under martial law. But the situations seem different whether you are run over by an emergency vehicle during peaceful time on a busy street in bright daylight, or shot because you are trying to block troop movements on an empty street under curfew 3 o’clock in the morning.
June 15th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
scl,
There are some differences.
But the statement was made in the context and question of “negligence” for PLA troops, and I was talking about the general immunity question for these types of government employees.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:23 am
raventhorn4000, I think that under martial law, the soldiers who shoot someone who purposefully presents himself in a street under curfew in order to prevent the soldiers from clearing the path, probably have less reliability than the driver of an emergency vehicle that run over someone, who is merely attempting to cross the street in ordinary times. People should not forget that what was going on at the square itself was protest, but what was going on in the surrounding streets were riots. Few people were shot close to the protest. Most who were shot were in the streets where the riots were taking place.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:41 am
Yes scl,
In law, that’s called “assumption of risk”.
If a person decides to go into or stay in a highly dangerous area (such as running into the middle of a police shoot out with criminals), then that person assumed the risk of danger on his own, and cannot blame others as responsible for anything that should happen to him.
However, that could also apply to someone who refused to get out of the way of an emergency service vehicle.
Except, In TAM, the Martial Law was declared 5/20, days (around 2 weeks) before 6/4, and PLA tried for days to clear the square without force, only to be confronted and turned back. At that point, one can hardly say that those who remained in the square and nearby did not know about the Martial Law. Indeed, they chose to confront the PLA.
Well, that’s “assumption of risk” for those who chose to stay.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:14 am
After reading the exchange between SKC and RT4000, I shall now proceed to douse myself in gasoline and light myself on fire…
June 16th, 2009 at 4:33 am
Holy Cow, Steve is Alive!
June 16th, 2009 at 6:24 am
To R4000:
“If you see no demonstration of similarity of lack of proximate cause between LAPD shooting rioters, and PLA shooting rioters”
—where did I say that? You can talk about the LAPD shooting rioters all you want. I didn’t say there was no proximate cause there. I just said whatever the LA case may have been has no bearing on the PLA case.
“I have nothing more to explain on that subject.”
—remove “more”, and your statement would be bang on.
“And police have guns, PRIMARILY for PREVENTION of any occurring violent crimes. That’s different from mere arrest. Not every arrest is for violent crimes.”
— you’re right. They have guns for multiple reasons. So, do they leave them in the cruiser when they go to arrest someone? Or maybe remove the clip, and empty the chamber? Or do they leave them locked and loaded in their holsters?
I also notice you’ve been running with the police analogy, but completely ignored the PLA situation. So, if the government did not think violence was foreseeable in the process of “arresting protesters” (in quotes because it is still quite humourous to think that was their motivation), why did they need to send the PLA in to do the job? The PLA weren’t fending off bank robbers; they were just there to clear the square and arrest folks.
“Neither the state nor any political subdivision nor any agency of the state or political subdivision nor, except in cases of willful misconduct, any duly qualified emergency service worker complying with or reasonably attempting to comply with this article or any order…”
“whether Immunity applies, whether person acted in scope of “official duty”, are always questions.”
— 4 things: (a) willful misconduct is an exception to “absolute” immunity. If you say that willful misconduct committed in the course of executing an official duty makes it no longer an official duty, that’s fine by me; (b) so even in the states, ambulance drivers would be covered, in contradiction to what you claimed before. This (“SKC does not know that ambulance drivers are employed by private companies”) (R4000 #43) would seem irrelevant, since they are still duly qualified emergency service workers; (c) there is still an expectation of compliance with applicable rules, etc, which again argues against any “absolute” anything; (d) if immunity has to be asserted, and such an assertion can be rejected, then immunity hardly seems absolute, or guaranteed.
“And now, you run away from a topic you brought up”
—for starters, I brought up the LAPD in response to your ridiculous blanket statement:”Emergency services have ABSOLUTE immunity to any type of lawsuits resulting from their OFFICIAL DUTIES.” (R4000 #32). Second, I’m happy to continue discussing the LAPD; but I’d be happier to move onto the PLA and TAM, since that’s the point of this thread. Surprisingly, you don’t seem to share that enthusiasm.
“Indeed, they chose to confront the PLA.”
—and people getting hurt was still not foreseeable?
June 16th, 2009 at 6:28 am
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6499035.ece
Well, maybe I’ll go a little off topic here and maybe I’ll start talking about the situation in Iran i(Tehran Spring) which is similiar to Beijing Spring in 89. Personally I don’t know if the election results is fudged or not. But one thing is surprising is how the situation in Tehran which is similiar to Beijing is being played out.
1) Reporters are only in the Capital Tehran (like Beijing) and showing the unrest where protests has gotten really bad.
2) The foreign governments seems to on the wait and see attitude, not making speculations about the situation in Iran (like Beijing.)
3) The news media seems to be able to report freely within Iran and cheering on the Mousavi’s group.
4) Even though websites, sms messages, and broadcast was clamped down, Western Media’s broadcast was able to get through.
I got a feeling that somehow some outside force is intervening Iran like vultures circling down a wounded prey.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:44 am
Exactly, Pug_ster.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Hey pug_ster, how you been? Yep, I’m still alive. (sounds like an old Pearl Jam song) I know it’s off topic, but I know a lot of Persians in San Diego and you are correct; the events in Tehran are very different from the events in the rest of the country. I could tell ya stories… just not here, ha ha.
I’m kinda confused. I read this extremely moving personal history from BMY. In fact, it’s one of the best pieces I’ve read on FM and I’m deeply moved by his experiences and even more so, by his willingness to share those with us. After all, isn’t what happened on 6/4, in the end, just an amalgamate of a myriad of personal experiences by the tens of thousands who were there? BMY’s piece is one facet of a multifacted event, and as such his facet is just as important or relevant as what anyone else experienced that day.
Yet I read comment after comment having nothing to do with the thread topic, just this tit for tat insult session, mostly about nothing. For me, it just tries to cheapen what I read though fortunately there is no way to cheapen what BMY has written.
R4000: Yes, caps are shouting and that’s a universal meaning on the net. When you use them sparingly, they’re fine so for me it’s not that big a deal. However, writing numerous posts one after another rather than just writing up one longer post is spamming and bad manners on a blog. Rather than shoot out comment after comment, it’d be better to just combine them. After you comment, you still have the option of editing within a certain time period so I’d use that option. It’d clean up this thread immensely.
SKC, remember the advice you once gave me that I neglected to take (though fortunately with a positive consequence)? Hmm… you might want to consider using it yourself. 😉
Sorry to have been away for awhile; business stuff but it’s calming down now. I’ll try to post a couple of new topics since it seems this one has been played to death.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
SKC,
*I don’t care WHY you brought it up. the point is you were the one who brought up the issue of LAPD, not me. You don’t get to claim that it is irrelevant now.
Well, you can, but you are then just admitting that you were being irrelevant.
““Indeed, they chose to confront the PLA.”
—and people getting hurt was still not foreseeable?”
If you can predict the future choice of others, maybe it’s foreseeable for you. The Law makes no such assumption for ordinary mortals.
“— 4 things: (a) willful misconduct is an exception to “absolute” immunity. If you say that willful misconduct committed in the course of executing an official duty makes it no longer an official duty, that’s fine by me; (b) so even in the states, ambulance drivers would be covered, in contradiction to what you claimed before. This (”SKC does not know that ambulance drivers are employed by private companies”) (R4000 #43) would seem irrelevant, since they are still duly qualified emergency service workers; (c) there is still an expectation of compliance with applicable rules, etc, which again argues against any “absolute” anything; (d) if immunity has to be asserted, and such an assertion can be rejected, then immunity hardly seems absolute, or guaranteed.”
(a) then you agree with me
(b) Wrong, as I wrote to you before, ambulance drivers work on “individual/private emergencies”, not public emergencies. “Private emergencies” are not considered “emergency services”, even if they work for the government.
(c) “compliance” with official guidelines is part of the “official duty” requirement. You can call it “limitation” on immunity. But common law traditions in England did not contain such guidelines.
(d) Even the President of US must claim his immunity through representatives in court. By you are quite wrong, that’s still “absolute immunity”, defined by commonly accepted legal definitions.
“The PLA weren’t fending off bank robbers; they were just there to clear the square and arrest folks.”
It’s the government’s discretion to decide whether police or military is sufficient for situations. Such discretions are covered by Legislative/executive immunity.
Just because military was sent, doesn’t mean they foresee more danger.
You obviously do not know the factual background in China.
China has approximate 1/20 of the police personnel per population unit of US. Chinese police are not enough in numbers to respond to mass number of protesters.
It’s simple numbers. Not danger level. Not enough police in Beijing to deal with the mass number of protesters. Thus, they had to use the military.
Again, does not mean that there was higher danger foreseeable.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Steve,
Forgive my multiple posts, I keep thinking up new things to write. (And I did want to be thorough with my supporting evidence.)
But point taken, I shall try to be more concise.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Pug_ster:
Of course, every one knows that Iran would never be recognized as “democracy”, as long as the anti-West parties are in charge.
Such result oriented criticisms are only indicative that the West is not really interested in “democracy” forms.
Afterall, dictators were friends too.
US refused to allow Vietnam referendum when it was clear that the Vietnamese Communist Party would win the election. Instead, US forced a split of Vietnam into North and South, and set up a puppet Christian military dictatorship in the South.
The whole point was about “control” and domination of the other countries.
Vultures indeed.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
R4000,
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/16/1966278.aspx
I thought it is funny of how msnbc is referring this Tehran elections like the Beijing Spring incident. I bumped into this article of how the NED have their plans for Iran 3 years ago.
http://psyopiran.wordpress.com/category/national-endowment-for-democracy/
I am kind of suspecious of what is going on when Roxana Saberi (dual US/Iran Citizen) was charged with espionage when she obtained a classified document while working as a translator for a powerful clerical lobby. But what’s her deal with her being a ‘Journalist?’
There’s actually a name for NED’s tactics, that is 4th generation warfare. This type of war is relatively bloodless, cheap and quiet war to topple governments compared to conventional warfare. Of course it wasn’t successful in China in the Tiananmen square incident, but China paid the price for it. It wasn’t successful in Vietnam either because they couldn’t muster enough support for their war so the US has to bring their troops. We don’t know what is the endgame as the result of the Iran’s elections, so we will have to see how this incident is being played out.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
More like bad version of Sun Tzu’s 1st tier strategy of “winning the war by psychological victory”.
All US will end up doing is fan anti-West fanaticism and nationalism in countries like Iran.
I swear, some of these journalists think that they are doing it for a higher cause, but really, they are mercenaries running amok.
Instead of 1 giant crusade for “democracy”, the West ends up with all these little “human rights crusaders” running amok in the world.
Pushing the envelope of politics is one thing, but do these people ask themselves, “Gee, maybe what I’m doing right now could cause Wars between countries?”
Or maybe, deep down, they are really “hoping” for war and Jihadists. 🙂
June 16th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Speaking of the devil, here’s Stratfor’s George Friedman on the Iranian election.
I particularly agree with him in the following paragraph:
“Americans and Europeans have been misreading Iran for 30 years. Even after the shah fell, the myth has survived that a mass movement of people exists demanding liberalization — a movement that if encouraged by the West eventually would form a majority and rule the country. We call this outlook “iPod liberalism,” the idea that anyone who listens to rock ‘n’ roll on an iPod, writes blogs and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Western liberalism. Even more significantly, this outlook fails to recognize that iPod owners represent a small minority in Iran — a country that is poor, pious and content on the whole with the revolution forged 30 years ago.”
I think this concept also applies to the perception of China in the western world. Too many take the leanings of a small, very liberal, well educated minority and extrapolate their ideas as applying to the vast majority of Chinese citizens. “iPod liberalism”… that’s a good one. 😛
June 16th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I have met a few Iranians in my time.
Iran is curiously similar to China in its political system. Though the clerics and the religious party govern the country, much of its political organizations are very socialist in nature, resembling China of 1970’s and 1980’s, just around time of Deng’s economic liberalization program.
Similar to China, while most of the young want more Western music, clothing, technologies, they don’t necessarily see a need for Western political ideas, or at least, merely pay fashionable lip-service to words like “freedom”, “democracy”, “rights”, etc.
*
Western misread of such “liberalization” is simply based upon a false assumption that, if you give a man the taste for more freedom, he will want more for himself.
In fact, reality is, as often witnessed in the Western world, when you give men more freedom, most simply stop asking for more, and do not even use or understand the freedom already given.
*
*
It is like teaching a child math.
Today, if he manages to learn 1+1=2, and 1+2=3. He is quite proud of himself. He is satisfied. Most children have no intention of asking when do I get to “calculus”.
If you try to force him to learn advanced algebra on top of 1+2=3, he will get bored, and perhaps even get mad.
and this applies equally to adults. Many adults won’t even go near calculus.
Of course, Calculus is higher math, and would enable people to understand the universe better, but not everyone is interested, and most people will not agree to “More math is better”.
Some may call calculus “optional”, OK, but what about Law? Don’t ordinary people in the West need to know about Law? Why don’t regular ordinary civic minded people want to go to law school? Isn’t it rather “necessary” for people to know about Laws, if they are to vote on Laws or for people who will make Laws?
*
But if science is any indication, people grow too reliant upon professionals.
Ordinary people rely upon scientists and engineers to make and fix their gadgets, so that ordinary people don’t have to learn annoying math like Calculus.
Ordinary people rely upon lawyers to make and fix laws, so that ordinary people don’t have to go to law school.
So Ordinary people rely upon politicians who seem to know what they are talking about, so that ordinary people don’t have to know what they are talking about.
Well, a vote is about as clear as the ordinary knowledge of law and politicians. Iranians, Chinese, Americans, and Europeans have pretty common habits of reliances in their lives.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:13 am
To R4000:
“You don’t get to claim that it is irrelevant now.”
—lost count of how many times I’ve said this before. We can continue to talk about LAPD all you want. So be my guest. But how ’bout them PLA in TAM in terms of proximate cause?
“If you can predict the future choice of others, maybe it’s foreseeable for you.”
—I don’t think foreseeability guarantees its occurrence.
“ambulance drivers work on “individual/private emergencies”, not public emergencies. “Private emergencies” are not considered “emergency services”, even if they work for the government.”
—you are an absolutely incredible specimen.
“You can call it “limitation” on immunity. But common law traditions in England did not contain such guidelines”
—if something has a “limitation”, then by definition it is not “absolute”. And we’re not talking about England.
“By you are quite wrong, that’s still “absolute immunity””
—how can something be “absolute” if, on a case-by-case basis, you can be denied it? If you have absolute immunity only when you are given immunity, that’s absolute immunity by circular reasoning only.
“Just because military was sent, doesn’t mean they foresee more danger.”
—-unbelievable!
“Not enough police in Beijing to deal with the mass number of protesters. Thus, they had to use the military.”
—but if the leaders truly did not foresee any resistance or potential for violence in the process of clearing the square and arresting protesters, then gosh, the Politburo should have gone down there and taken care of peaceful business themselves!
June 17th, 2009 at 11:58 am
SKC,
I already gave you the factual analogy of LAPD shooting rioters IN the “riot”. If you don’t see the obvious parallel to another “riot”, I can’t help you. Proximate cause is part of law. It’s relevant to bring real cases of proximate cause. You brought one in.
*
““If you can predict the future choice of others, maybe it’s foreseeable for you.”
—I don’t think foreseeability guarantees its occurrence.
Nope, I don’t think you can even have “knowledge” of what people are thinking of doing. It’s usually only “foreseeable”, when someone has little or no choice to something, or only 1 choice to a course of action.
There is no such compulsion on 6/4. The students were not forced to “resist”. If any one forced their “resistance”, it was the urging of the student “commander-in-chief”. The students had initially decided to pull out of the square by a democratic vote. It was the leaders who later overruled that decision.
*
“ambulance drivers work on “individual/private emergencies”, not public emergencies. “Private emergencies” are not considered “emergency services”, even if they work for the government.”
—you are an absolutely incredible specimen.
That’s a personal observation, not an argument.
*
“You can call it “limitation” on immunity. But common law traditions in England did not contain such guidelines”
—if something has a “limitation”, then by definition it is not “absolute”. And we’re not talking about England.
We are talking about Common Law tradition, which began in England. And look it up on Executive immunity. It’s called “absolute”, even if the executive branch must plead it through representative or court pleading. And it is possible for the court to find that the actions accused are not in the “official duty” of the executive branch, and deny the immunity.
*
“By you are quite wrong, that’s still “absolute immunity””
—how can something be “absolute” if, on a case-by-case basis, you can be denied it? If you have absolute immunity only when you are given immunity, that’s absolute immunity by circular reasoning only.
Well, that’s just how they call “Executive immunity” in law. Court still has review power over all claims of immunity. Even in old England, while courts generally take “judicial notice” (or recognition as fact) that sovereign has immunity in most cases, it was still factual that English parliament (acting as a court) tried Charles I for treason and found him guilty. But “sovereign immunity” is still “absolute immunity”.
*
“Just because military was sent, doesn’t mean they foresee more danger.”
—-unbelievable!
Believe it! National Guards are sent to disaster areas, where there are looters. Doesn’t mean they foresee more danger.
*
“Not enough police in Beijing to deal with the mass number of protesters. Thus, they had to use the military.”
—but if the leaders truly did not foresee any resistance or potential for violence in the process of clearing the square and arresting protesters, then gosh, the Politburo should have gone down there and taken care of peaceful business themselves!”
I think Zhao tried to. And they declared martial law to order clearing of square at the same time.
Why do you assume that PLA was their 1st and only option?
Obviously they tried multiple things, some at the same time to resolve the issue.
Merely the possibility of potential violence is not “foreseeability”. There is always the “possibility” of car accidents for any given individual any day, doesn’t mean that it’s always “foreseeable”, and doesn’t mean that he/she should not drive.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
@Steve 121,
I totally agree with you on this one. I do find it funny of how the Western Countries perceive of how twitter, facebook, youtube, and the other social websites will affect Iranian influence. I recall earlier this month when China clamped down those websites due to the 6/4 anniversary and it did nothing to affect the influence. My guess with the protests would be like China where Iranian citizens would get sick of the protesters disrupting their lives within a week or 2.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
@ pug_ster#125: From what I can gather, the election in Iran was pretty fair, except the opposition candidate had unrealistic expectations of his chances so he feels he must have been cheated. I’m sure there was some funny stuff here and there, but certainly not enough to affect the election results in any meaningful way.
Part of it, though, is the fault of the current government. If accurate polling was allowed, the opposition candidate would probably not have been as confident of his chances. My guess is that his organization did computer polling, where of course the “iPod liberals” (my new favorite phrase) were overly represented and his numbers were up. They might have also done some polling in Tehran’s affluent neighborhoods. If you poll by phone, you can only poll phone owners. In Iran, that might only mean the top 15% or so.
Looking back on my time in China, my colleagues were not academics nor were they peasants. They were mostly engineers from the best universities, and remarkably apolitical with but a very few exceptions. In fact, they never discussed politics among themselves. They just didn’t care. My closest friend was heavily recruited by the Party when in college because she was not only brilliant but also a fabulous organizer and major student leader. Her parents even encouraged her to join since it would help her career but she refused. She simply has no interest in politics.
I wonder how many join the party for political reasons, and how many join for future business reasons and the guanxi it brings? Based on my own personal experiences, I’d guess that the vast majority are there for the guanxi.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
@Steve #121
Good observation. “iPod liberalism”, “blogger liberalism”, “NGO liberalism” and “color liberalism” have certainly taken the place of old “VOA liberalism”.
There is another twist from China, many people who travelled, lived or worked outside China also found China is not too bad nowadays in comparison to what the developed world wanted them to believe.
There are also big problems just to be fair, such as environment, pullution, good governance, rule of laws and social security.These issues are being fixed inside China with urgency, and China do has resources to solve them. So long people can continue enjoy the fruition from their work and grow more confidence with their own culture and civilization. The old West do have a problem of bad attitude towards China. I think both people and governments are gradually waken up by this issue.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
@ Shane #127: I agree completely with you. Sure, China has a ways to go, even in the major cities, but I never found life difficult or frustrating when I lived there. I guess the pollution probably bothered me the most. I remember I took a bike ride one day and went about 80 miles from central Shanghai north along the Huang Pu towards the Changjiang River. I left around 10 AM and got back around 5, sometime during July. The next day I noticed I had absolutely no tan, even though I wasn’t wearing a hat. Wow, the pollution was so bad it even blocked out the nasty stuff!
I see good governance, rule of law and social security as more of an evolution rather than a revolution. Some things just take time. Time can be used as an excuse but it can also be a very good reason, and it’s easy to criticize a developing country when your own country is already developed. All development undergoes hiccups.
I guess I’m more optimistic than some people here, and less optimistic than others. I think China will eventually get to where she wants to be, but I don’t think the road will be as obstruction free as some do.
I think there are bad attitudes on both sides, West and East. Bad attitude comes from a lack of understanding. In order to negotiate with another country, you first have to put yourself in their shoes and understand their viewpoint. Before the Olympics, the rest of the world did not understand how important the games were to the Chinese people. They could only see the torch relay as a means to lobby the Chinese government, not understanding they were insulting the Chinese people. But the same thing occurs in the opposite direction. Many Chinese read motives in Western actions or print that just aren’t there. This can be just as frustrating to non-Chinese as the same trait is frustrating to Chinese when it comes in their direction.
That’s why I believe admin started this blog, to have a “meeting of the minds”, so to speak. By listening more and making all our skins a little thicker, by trying to understand the others viewpoint, by putting ourselves in each others shoes, maybe we can all do our small part to further understanding between the two cultures. At least it’s worth a try, and I know this forum has helped me develop a better understanding of the Chinese culture and thought process.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
My personal experience in US was less than optimistic.
I spent my childhood in Shanghai, and I remember how poor my neighbors and friends were. 1 kid in my elementary school class wore his father’s old army uniform to school every day. The uniform was too big for him, so he had a big belt on tie to keep his pants on, and all his sleeves and trousers were rolled up. He was the skinniest kid I have never seen in my life. I remember my grandmother trading ration stamps and money with the neighbors, to get milk for me. I remember being poor in China, but everyone else were similarly poor. But people were neighborly, and helped each other out.
Then I came to US, but I landed in the still some what segregated South. Wealth, yes, I have seen that, but I also saw enough poor people around, and quite a bit of racism. So, you might say that my initial impression of US was highly mixed.
*
I went to law school to seriously understand what my “rights” are in a “democracy”. I mean, really get down to the details and understand what are my “rights”.
And I have to say the saddest most sarcastic moment was when my criminal procedure professor repeatedly asked after every few classes, “If the police can do X to you, then what rights do we really have?” And the entire class was silent.
The only thing I learned from Criminal Procedure class was, “Don’t mess with the police”, and “if the police want to get you, you have almost no chance.”
That’s the extent of “human rights” in US.
It’s not an absolute.
Cops and Officials are human, and they will take things personally. And if they should abuse their power to get you, very little you can do.
The law serve the masses, not the grievance of individuals.
Little grievances, like homeless on the streets, are forgotten and overlooked ALL the time in the West.
In Oakland California, recently, a riot broke out over police shooting death of a person. Some say it was unintentional, some called it racism and police harassment of civilians.
In Miami, registered sexual offenders are required to sleep outside of some certain municipal zones, so the parole officers drive the ex-felons to a parking lot “tent city”, to be designated as their official listed address.
Western people seem to have forgotten how they EASILY forget and overlook the abuse of power and inequities all around them, they learned to shut the thought of such possibilities out of their minds, and for so long.
And yet, they behave to news from other nations as if they in the West are the ones who have learned their moral lessons.
No, they have merely learned to ignore the problems. It is not difficult to see, when things get tough, people reach back to their old comfortable shoes of racism and paranoia and selfishness.
*
But that is also human nature.
the simplest lesson has not sunk in for the West: People want more material wealth, that is human nature. It does not mean that they want all the moral lesson of “democracy” that attaches.
Even Jesus said, “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to pass through the gate of Heaven.”
Yes, my friends, Jesus was a Communist, who performed miracles by spreading bread and fish among thousands, and conducted a cultural revolution by toss up shops of money lender Capitalists.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:08 am
@steve 128
I think this kind of 4th generation warfare targets the young and the naïve. That’s what happened to tiananmen square in 89 and now Iran. I saw the news last night and the congress asked twitter not to go thru their maintaince window because they think iranian twitterers will be tweeting. The problem is that 10.percent twitter users generates 90 percent of the traffic. I’m sure that the western media is generating this buzz giving the iranian reformers a false sense reality that their votes are robbed when it is farther from the truth.
I certainly think that china have ways to go in its development. I think that in about 20 years that china and the other bric nations will have an effect on how their influence will change the world. Other nations like australia started to take notice and join the game or they know that they will be left behind.
R4000
I notice with your chat with skc and sometimes there is nothing that you can do or say to convince what you believe is right. There are other people out there who are more open to what you have to say. Unfortunately, western media is so successful blurting out sensationist bs media that people don’t believe what the contrarian has to say. I say let the western media blurt out their lies and let them drown in it.
Ironically I am glad that the olympic protest, falun gong, dalai lama are there. Because if they are not china would not declare themselves different than western democracy and will to be their willing lapdogs.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:12 am
@ pug_ster #130: Isn’t 4th Generation Warfare practiced by non-state entities such as Al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, etc? How does that relate to Tiananmen and Iran? I’m not doubting you, I just don’t know that much about 4th generation warfare.
I looked it up and it was actually the State Department that asked Twitter not to do a scheduled shutdown for maintenance. Apparently Twitter went forward and completed the maintenance anyway, but it does seem rather silly. We both certainly agree on the actual election results in Iran. Right after the election, I saw this video from George Friedman at Stratfor with exactly the same conclusion we both believe. You might want to check it out. He didn’t question Ahmadinejad’s victory at all.
I don’t agree with you about the BRIC nations, though. To me, Russia is a ticking time bomb, with a rapidly decreasing population, a corrupt government and an aging work force. I think they’ll have to struggle to maintain their state. China would love to extend further northwards into Siberia to get access to the abundant natural resources there and these days, more and more of the people in those areas are Chinese. The United States has never been a geopolitical rival with China, that has always been Russia. Sooner or later, that rivalry will re-exert itself. Over time, conflict between nations is usually caused by geopolitical factors.
India isn’t really a country, it’s a collection of states that was artificially put together by the Brits. The central government is very weak in terms of regulation. I don’t know if you ever tried to do business there, but it’s a regulation nightmare. Even with the corruption, China is a paradise for businessmen compared to India. I see India as a political entity, but not necessarily as one people.
Brasil has a chance to really grow, but they also have political problems. It seems they re-write their constitution every other year. It’s a society of rich/poor with a small middle class. The current president, da Silva, is doing a good job but it’ll take a series of good presidents for the country to really develop. They also have a crime problem, especially in Sao Paulo. I like Brasil and Brasilians a lot. They have a unique culture and it agrees with me. I’m just not sure if they can succeed over the long run.
China, at least for me, is the one with the most potential to succeed as a first tier nation. It’ll depend on how they weather the inevitable crises that arise, as all developing nations must do.
pug_ster, you don’t like western media and I can understand why you don’t. But can you name any non-western media that you DO like? Or do you just dislike media in general?
June 18th, 2009 at 8:58 am
To R4000:
“when someone has little or no choice to something, or only 1 choice to a course of action.”
—that’s not just “foreseeable”; that’s pre-determined.
“I already gave you the factual analogy of LAPD shooting rioters IN the “riot””
— if you want to say that the LAPD moving in was the proximate cause of rioters being shot, be my guest. I’m not trying to stop you, and I believe I’ve indicated that on several occasions now. But what I’m more interested in talking about is how the PLA moving in was the proximate cause of what happened in TAM. You may or may not be interested in talking about that. That’s up to you.
“That’s a personal observation, not an argument.”
—indeed. And the observation speaks to the fact that you are the only person on the continent I can think of who would not consider ambulance drivers/attendants to be emergency workers. Your definition of “personal” vs “public” emergencies is also bizarre. I suppose where you live, ambulances don’t show up to things like car accidents, or fires, to attend to the injured, since those things tend to occur in public places.
“It’s called “absolute”, even if the executive branch must plead it through representative or court pleading.”
— that’s referring to the sovereign immunity stuff you brought up. And that’s fine. But you initially invoked the concept of “absolute” immunity in reference to emergency workers. And, given your acknowledgment of “limitations”, “absolute” is simply not the case.
““sovereign immunity” is still “absolute immunity””
—yes, though surely fire-truck drivers don’t qualify for the former on a regular basis.
“Why do you assume that PLA was their 1st and only option?”
—I don’t. Which is why it would be nice if they discussed their deliberations and how they came to decide that the PLA was required to clear the square. But they have chosen not to do that.
“Merely the possibility of potential violence is not “foreseeability””
—agreed. I’m not saying that “possibility” = “foreseeability”. But it seems that, in determining duty of care and breach thereof, a judgment of “reasonableness” comes into play. So, could a reasonable person, placed in the shoes of the CCP, have foreseen violence by sending in the PLA? To me, the answer is clearly yes. So it seems that foreseeability is more akin to distinct possibility.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
SKC,
““when someone has little or no choice to something, or only 1 choice to a course of action.”
—that’s not just “foreseeable”; that’s pre-determined.”
I don’t see you distinguishing them here with much support.
*
“I already gave you the factual analogy of LAPD shooting rioters IN the “riot””
— if you want to say that the LAPD moving in was the proximate cause of rioters being shot, be my guest. I’m not trying to stop you, and I believe I’ve indicated that on several occasions now. But what I’m more interested in talking about is how the PLA moving in was the proximate cause of what happened in TAM. You may or may not be interested in talking about that. That’s up to you.”
Well, that’s the answer on “proximate cause”. If you can’t see the rational conclusion about lack of proximate cause for “ordering PLA” and the death of students, then that’s your irrationality.
*
“That’s a personal observation, not an argument.”
—indeed. And the observation speaks to the fact that you are the only person on the continent I can think of who would not consider ambulance drivers/attendants to be emergency workers. Your definition of “personal” vs “public” emergencies is also bizarre. I suppose where you live, ambulances don’t show up to things like car accidents, or fires, to attend to the injured, since those things tend to occur in public places.”
I merely speak the law, and I doubt your “only person on the continent” is rational, you don’t know every one on the continent.
*
“It’s called “absolute”, even if the executive branch must plead it through representative or court pleading.”
— that’s referring to the sovereign immunity stuff you brought up. And that’s fine. But you initially invoked the concept of “absolute” immunity in reference to emergency workers. And, given your acknowledgment of “limitations”, “absolute” is simply not the case.”
Given there are “limitations” even for “sovereign immunity”, I don’t see your distinction.
*““sovereign immunity” is still “absolute immunity””
—yes, though surely fire-truck drivers don’t qualify for the former on a regular basis.”
You don’t know the law.
*
“Why do you assume that PLA was their 1st and only option?”
—I don’t. Which is why it would be nice if they discussed their deliberations and how they came to decide that the PLA was required to clear the square. But they have chosen not to do that.”
Fact is already known that their DID execute other options. What’s more to talk about?
*
“Merely the possibility of potential violence is not “foreseeability””
—agreed. I’m not saying that “possibility” = “foreseeability”. But it seems that, in determining duty of care and breach thereof, a judgment of “reasonableness” comes into play. So, could a reasonable person, placed in the shoes of the CCP, have foreseen violence by sending in the PLA? To me, the answer is clearly yes. So it seems that foreseeability is more akin to distinct possibility.”
A reasonable person in a government would not foresee danger of resistance to authority of police and military. You make an unreasonable assumption, which is obviously not standard in Western governments. They send military to deal with rioters and looters all the time.
Once again, mere possibility is not foreseeability. The law also assume that the public is “reasonable”, and not out to “resist” as a natural tendency.
Why should the “reasonable person” in the government assume that the public is going to be “unreasonable” to a lawful government order to “clear the square”???
You seem to assume so at every turn. That’s plainly ridiculously.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
@SD Steve 131
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare
4GW is a really broad term that doesn’t fit in other kinds of warfare. Of course terrorist groups like Al Qaeda would fit in that category, but others would disagree because terrorists groups use violence to get their point across. Little or no violence is needed in order to make 4GW effective, if not the use non-violence is more effective in 4GW, like Ghandi in the India independence movement and MLK in the civil rights movement. 4GW is more effective because it tries to win the ‘hearts and minds’ and the loss of will of the opponents to fight. It also uses highly sophisticated psychological warfare, especially through media manipulation. Most of the actors involved would work behind of scenes. So I would argue that the Student protesters in Tiananmen Square incident and the Reformers in Iran are the part of this 4gw ‘stateless’ war against the state. Of course many western experts would disagree with this assessment because they don’t want to say that the West would be involved in this kind of ‘war.’
I agree that China is ahead of the curve compared to other BRIC nations. But Russia has alot of natural resources, India has a large population (which I would consider a resource:) ), and Brazil has little bit of both. But the other 3 nations definitely has potential. I’m just saying that these BRIC nations would have more influence in the global influences while influences from the Western Nations would wane in the next coming decades.
I don’t completely hate western media, as I find domestic issues within Western Media are somewhat honest. However, more than half of the stories in Western media’s foreign issues is nothing but BS anyways. I actually like the stuff from Asian Times and Al Jazeera as they offer different perspective of news abroad.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“Sovereign immunity traces its origins from early English law. Generally, it is the doctrine that the sovereign or government cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. For a person individually to be immune to suit, they must be acting as an arm of the government.”
*also
“A governmental function includes services that only the government does, such as restaurant inspection, animal control, health and safety permits and licenses, sanitation, vital statistics, and related functions.
A proprietary function is one that a private entity can perform, and is not uniquely for the benefit of the general public.”
“proprietary functions are not considered within the scope of official government duties”.
Hence, an ambulance driver who drives for “private emergencies”, illness of individuals, is performing “proprietary function”, not a “governmental function”, because a private individual can drive sick people to hospitals.
Additionally, even public functions that Requires reimbursement of cost from private individuals are considered to be “for the benefit of the individuals”, since it is a contractual obligation between a public entity with a private individual for the benefit of the individual. Thus, it is not a “governmental function”, when in essence, the private individual has contracted (or asked under implied contract) a service from the government. Government thus, cannot claim “sovereign immunity”, when performing such a service for a private contract.
*
Canadian ambulance service is billed to the private individual, some of which is covered by provincial health insurance.
In Toronto, Normal land ambulance costs are billed at a rate of $240.00, of which all but $45.00 is covered by your provincial health insurance.
*
Difference between “Public Emergency” and “private emergency”, “Government function” vs. “Proprietary function” is determined by the court for consideration of “sovereign immunity”.
Factors considered are:
(1) whether the benefit flows to primarily individuals in each case.
(2) whether the cost is paid by public funds, or individuals. (Doctors in public hospitals are generally paid by individual patients, and therefore performing non-government functions. Whereas doctors in some public clinics, provide free services, and therefore perform government functions.)
(3) whether private alternatives are available or feasible. (Individuals can generally drive sick family or friends to hospital, but individuals generally do not have access fire trucks to fight large scale fires.
June 19th, 2009 at 8:01 am
To R4000:
“I don’t see you distinguishing them here with much support.”
—how much support do you need? If you have only “1 course of action”, that’s not merely foreseeable; that’s a guarantee. If you jump off a cliff, it is not merely foreseeable that you’ll be falling downward.
“If you can’t see the rational conclusion about lack of proximate cause for “ordering PLA” and the death of students”
—too bad that there’s nothing rational about such a conclusion.
“I doubt your “only person on the continent” is rational, you don’t know every one on the continent.”
— so, when you read this (“the fact that you are the only person on the continent I can think of who would not consider ambulance drivers/attendants to be emergency workers.”), do you really think that “fact” is predicated on my knowing everyone on the continent? Take your time…the math is staggering. And you still haven’t answered the question: do ambulances attend to injured folks at the scene of car accidents in your neck of the woods?
“Given there are “limitations” even for “sovereign immunity”, I don’t see your distinction.”
—the distinction is that, given there are limitations even for sovereign immunity, aren’t there limitations to whatever type of immunity an emergency worker can assert that would render it somewhat less than absolute?
“You don’t know the law.”
—are you now saying that fire truck drivers can assert “sovereign immunity”? Maybe if Obama hops behind the wheel of one…
“What’s more to talk about?”
—oh, I dunno….maybe like what kind of orders they were given?
“A reasonable person in a government would not foresee danger of resistance to authority of police and military.”
—how could that be? Especially since people had refused to clear the square during earlier attempts.
“Why should the “reasonable person” in the government assume that the public is going to be “unreasonable” to a lawful government order to “clear the square”???”
—because they’d been watching exactly that in the days preceding 6/4.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:38 am
SKC,
““I don’t see you distinguishing them here with much support.”
—how much support do you need? If you have only “1 course of action”, that’s not merely foreseeable; that’s a guarantee. If you jump off a cliff, it is not merely foreseeable that you’ll be falling downward.”
“1 course of action” does not always guarantee a 1 single course of outcome. If I have only 1 choice of how to get to point B, by driving, it doesn’t guarantee that I will have an accident. If I choose to drive while drunk, it’s NOT a guarantee that I will cause an accident either, it just increases my likelihood of having an accident, therefore making the potential accident “foreseeable”. Why would it “guarantee” an accident??!
“Jumping off a cliff” and “falling downward” is not much of a risk/foreseeability analysis. Well duh, if you are only going as far as the next physics reaction in the next millisecond, it’s always a guarantee!
I can also guarantee that every one will die at some point. But “falling downward” doesn’t say much at all about the outcome. Ie. will you hit a rock below, land in the water, hit a tree branch along the way, break your legs, your neck, your shoulder? Which one do you guarantee?
*
“If you can’t see the rational conclusion about lack of proximate cause for “ordering PLA” and the death of students”
—too bad that there’s nothing rational about such a conclusion.”
Nothing rational about your arguments of laws either.
*
“I doubt your “only person on the continent” is rational, you don’t know every one on the continent.”
— so, when you read this (”the fact that you are the only person on the continent I can think of who would not consider ambulance drivers/attendants to be emergency workers.”), do you really think that “fact” is predicated on my knowing everyone on the continent? Take your time…the math is staggering. And you still haven’t answered the question: do ambulances attend to injured folks at the scene of car accidents in your neck of the woods?”
I know you don’t know that many on the Continent. Hence, I doubt your “rationality” in that argument. Do your own math. I doubt your number would add up to a handful of rational thoughts.
Duhh, ambulances still attend injured people here, so what? You have a point?
*
“Given there are “limitations” even for “sovereign immunity”, I don’t see your distinction.”
—the distinction is that, given there are limitations even for sovereign immunity, aren’t there limitations to whatever type of immunity an emergency worker can assert that would render it somewhat less than absolute?
So what? Sovereign immunity is called “absolute”, by legal definition. Every immunity has some limitations on “official duty” and “governmental functions”.
If you want to call it something other than “absolute”, that’s your business. But you are not in the law business.
*
“You don’t know the law.”
—are you now saying that fire truck drivers can assert “sovereign immunity”? Maybe if Obama hops behind the wheel of one…”
You don’t know the law. States can claim “sovereign immunity” in US under the 11th Amendment and the Dual Sovereign Doctrine. State workers performing functions for the State, including fire fighters, are covered.
*
“What’s more to talk about?”
—oh, I dunno….maybe like what kind of orders they were given?”
Not part of Negligence question. And as I told you, if it was intentional decision, IMMUNITY covers.
*
“A reasonable person in a government would not foresee danger of resistance to authority of police and military.”
—how could that be? Especially since people had refused to clear the square during earlier attempts.
Earlier, there weren’t much violence. Why should there be foreseeability of “DANGER” of resistance?
*
“Why should the “reasonable person” in the government assume that the public is going to be “unreasonable” to a lawful government order to “clear the square”???”
—because they’d been watching exactly that in the days preceding 6/4.”
Law doesn’t assume that just because someone was guilty of some wrong in the past, they will be guilty of more wrong in the future. Clearly, you have not lived in a civilized society, I seriously doubt you live in Canada. They would have taught you that basic legal principle in a civics class.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
@SKC & R4000: You guys can go at each others throats ‘ad infinitum’ without resolving anything, so let me pose this question to you concerning 6/4. If the government did the right thing on that day because the demonstrations got out of control and there really was a national emergency, then why do they continue to hush up discussion of the incident? Typically, someone in the “right” wants as much discussion as possible to bring out that fact, while someone who is not proud of what they did wants to hush things up. That’s human nature.
I wasn’t there on 6/4 so I always read with great interest the actual reports of people who were, and I don’t doubt their personal stories at all. The first time you see someone who’s been recently shot, hear the crack of a bullet (they go crack, not all those other sounds you hear in Hollywood movies), see the blood on the ground and the lifeless expression on the victim’s face, you never forget it. It can be 20 years later and it’s still fresh in your mind. So I really appreciate when someone is willing to share their experiences. But any individual experience is only a very small part of the story. Why prevent discussion of the entire incident if you are in the right? For me, that’s the sticking point against the defense of its actions the government has put forth. I am open to other interpretations, though.
June 20th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
@Steve,
Oli took a stab at why CCP does not want to discuss 6/4 in another thread. Partially quoted here.
My personal observation is that, if you look at the hardliners in the CCP, they are not really afraid of bring 6/4 onto the table. Shortly after 6/4, the video of “Tankman” was repeated shown on state TV, as well as charred and disfigured bodies of PLA soldiers. A year after 6/4, a pro government scholar, He Xin, went to Peking University to deliver a commencement speech to a very hostile audience and made his case against the student movement. A few years ago, former premier Li Peng wrote a book entitled “Critical Moment” to offer his account, but he was censored.
At the early stages of reform years, Deng had a famous saying “Don’t argue.” To him, the central focus should be economical development and a stable environment to ensure that. It seems like the current leadership is following the same philosophy. To me, many actions of Chinese government reveal a kind of new “driver” mentality. If you are an experienced driver, you may be able to cruise at 70miles per hours on the highway, listening to the radio while texting to a friend (not saying it’s a safe practice). For a driver with a learner’s permit, he would not dare to let one hand off the wheel even at 40 miles per hour.
June 20th, 2009 at 5:41 am
To R4000:
“If you have only “1 course of action”…”
— when you speak of foreseeability in the context of having the option of only 1 course of action, the “guarantee” is that that course of action will be taken (since there’s no alternative). So yes, if you can only get from A to B by driving (your only course of action), then it is guaranteed that you’ll be getting behind the wheel. My point is that that is not foreseeability. You are correct that such a guaranteed action does not necessarily guarantee one outcome. However, in speaking of the PLA in TAM, I’m not arguing whether the CCP had other options; I’m arguing that, by choosing the PLA option, and observing what had come before that decision, they could have and should have foreseen that the protesters would not go quietly into the night. So the guy jumping off the cliff will fall downward, and this is guaranteed, thus making it much more than merely foreseeable. What happens to the chap will depend on observing the height of the cliff, and the nature of what lies below. The exact outcome may not be guaranteed, but it’s certainly foreseeable that the guy will be taking some damage. And that’s been my point: that guaranteed does not equal foreseeable, and vice versa.
“I know you don’t know that many on the Continent. Hence, I doubt your “rationality” in that argument.”
—you have an innate ability to take the debate to the mundane. How do you “know” how many people I know? How do you doubt the rationality of something of which you have no idea?
“Do your own math. I doubt your number would add up to a handful of rational thoughts.”
—either you’re failing to make sense, or that’s another non sequitur. Can’t really tell, since you have a penchant for doing both.
“ambulances still attend injured people here, so what? You have a point?”
—the point was, for the second time, that ambulances attend to people in public and private places, which makes the public/private distinction you had been making irrelevant.
“But you are not in the law business.”
—nor are we commenting on a lawyers-only blog.
“Not part of Negligence question. And as I told you, if it was intentional decision, IMMUNITY covers.”
—I just wanted to talk about what orders the CCP tasked the PLA with. Just thought it’d be fun. Didn’t say it went towards negligence.
“Earlier, there weren’t much violence. Why should there be foreseeability of “DANGER” of resistance?”
—the “danger” of resistance did not need to be foreseen; it was already on open display. Martial law was declared, people were told to leave, and they didn’t. Hence, they were already openly resisting. Agreed that initially it was relatively peaceful disobedience. But if you send in a violent means of enforcing the order, it should be foreseeable that such disobedience will not remain so peaceful.
“Law doesn’t assume that just because someone was guilty of some wrong in the past, they will be guilty of more wrong in the future.”
— a past wrong does not guarantee that someone will commit further wrongs in the future; hence, once again, we seem to agree that foreseeability has nothing to do with guarantees, and vice versa. And prior bad acts are indeed prejudicial in court when considering a current one. But they weren’t in court. I wonder, if you ask a policeman to arrest two people, one with no criminal record, and the other with a prior conviction, whether he/she would foresee more trouble in executing one arrest vs the other.
June 20th, 2009 at 5:44 am
To Steve:
I’d be careful, lest R4000 start complaining about impartiality or something.
“If the government did the right thing on that day because the demonstrations got out of control and there really was a national emergency, then why do they continue to hush up discussion of the incident?”
—beats the heck out of me.
“Typically, someone in the “right” wants as much discussion as possible to bring out that fact, while someone who is not proud of what they did wants to hush things up. That’s human nature.”
—once again, preaching to the choir.
June 20th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
@138 SD Steve Says:
“”If the government did the right thing on that day because the demonstrations got out of control and there really was a national emergency, then why do they continue to hush up discussion of the incident? Typically, someone in the “right” wants as much discussion as possible to bring out that fact, while someone who is not proud of what they did wants to hush things up. That’s human nature. ”
Demonstrations got out of control – are you aware that at least a thousand vehicles were burnt, including buses, army trucks, armoured personnel carriers and tanks?
there really was a national emergency – Emergency has been declared for two weeks for Beijing areas
someone in the “right” wants as much discussion as possible – not necessary so; girls who were raped normally preferred not have it discussed. The issue is that the leadership was divided at that time about the declaration Martial Law. It was a 50-50 split and the Elders have to be called in to decide. Deng finally decided. Any further discussion in the public square will mostly likely be the same – 50-50 split about the wisdom of martial law.
As far as the CCP is concerned, the verdict has always been the same. It was the correct decision. That’s why Li Peng remained in office until 2003. Zhao Ziyang remained under house arrest until his death; his aide Bao Tong still under house arrest.
And as far as I can see, there has not been that strong protests against June 4 from the Beijingers up to this day. Ironically, it is outsiders (Westerners, some Taiwanese and Hongkongites) who continue to protest or ask for a “revision” of the verdict.
“I wasn’t there on 6/4 so I always read with great interest the actual reports of people who were, and I don’t doubt their personal stories at all. ”
May I caution you on this. A story sometimes is just a story. Recently, Ma Jian wrote something on the Guardian.
and I responded @207 on the other thread: (transfer-posting from)
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2009/05/20/a-recollection-of-the-1989-student-movement-in-tianjin/
#207
I read Ma Jian, thinking that it was an eye-witness account from himself or his good friend. Until I realize he was writing fiction – when he mentioned that the Goddess of democracy was crushed by the tanks. This is not true.
THE GODDESS OF DEMOCRACY STATUE WAS PUSHED DOWN BY THE TROOPS USING BARE HANDS.
You can see this in the video series:
[Very good video from PLA with the following intro:
由解放軍縂政治部拍攝的珍貴官方片斷，雖然片中官方有意”忽略” 了部隊使用過份武力的片段，但也提醒我們重新思考，支聯會年年反復播放的片段中，是否也有意”忽略”了部分史實？偏聼則暗兼聼則明，無論大陸抑或港澳臺和海外的華人都應該對所謂”反革命暴亂” 或者”屠城”的偏激看法作一次重新的認識。 ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otTbOxLesg0&feature=related
換個角度看六四 八九天安門事件解放軍縂政治部資料片（二) at 6:20 minutes.
Remember to spread the words the Ma Jian was writing fiction, and Guardian treated it as if it was factual eye-witness account.
June 21st, 2009 at 8:48 pm
SKC,
“—the point was, for the second time, that ambulances attend to people in public and private places, which makes the public/private distinction you had been making irrelevant.”
Whether you get sick in your home or in public place, doesn’t make it YOUR private sickness.
Canadian government will still charge you personally money for the ambulance. That’s a private contract with government, Not a public governmental function.
I am not debating law with you any more, if you can’t even understand this basic rule of law on what is “governmental function” and Public emergency.
*Again, you don’t know the law.
If you want to call “ambulance” “emergency”, that’s your “emergency”, not the public’s definition, and not the legal definition.
*”— a past wrong does not guarantee that someone will commit further wrongs in the future; hence, once again, we seem to agree that foreseeability has nothing to do with guarantees, and vice versa. And prior bad acts are indeed prejudicial in court when considering a current one. But they weren’t in court. I wonder, if you ask a policeman to arrest two people, one with no criminal record, and the other with a prior conviction, whether he/she would foresee more trouble in executing one arrest vs the other.”
Whether a policeman on the ground foresees individual dangers at individual situations is a different question than whether a leader foresees “danger” in general in sending in troops to “clear a square”.
Did any of those students have “criminal background”? No!
Than how is a leader supposed to foresee possible danger of violent resistance?
June 21st, 2009 at 10:03 pm
To R4000:
“Canadian government will still charge you personally money for the ambulance. That’s a private contract with government, Not a public governmental function.”
—listen, I can’t speak to ambulance service classification in the states, since I don’t live there. But ambulance service in Canada is definitely a public government function. That the government charges me for use of an ambulance doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s a government function. The federal government charges me for issuing me a passport, but that is no less a government function. The provincial government charges me a monthly fee to access health care, but it is no less a government function(at least in Canada, thankfully). Certain highways in Canada are toll roads (though much less common than in the US), but my paying to use the road doesn’t alter the fact that the government is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of said road (ie a government function).
“Whether you get sick in your home or in public place, doesn’t make it YOUR private sickness.”
—I was referring to public scenarios, like the scene of car accidents, where typically a bystander calls for emergency services. Incidentally, in Canada if you dial 911 for such an emergency, police, fire and ambulance will respond.
“Whether a policeman on the ground foresees individual dangers at individual situations is a different question than whether a leader foresees “danger” in general in sending in troops to “clear a square”.
—how so?
“Did any of those students have “criminal background”? No!”
—first of all, you know this how? Second, that’s irrelevant, since they’ve committed a prior wrong by refusing to clear the square at the first request.
“how is a leader supposed to foresee possible danger of violent resistance?”
—easily. Or at least it should have been. But let’s flip this around…are you suggesting that, given the weeks of events leading up to 6/4, that what occurred on 6/4 was completely unforeseeable? It seems many commentators around here have been of the opinion that the students should have known what was in store for them. If FM commenters could have foreseen it, the CCP couldn’t?
June 24th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
@ admin #141 & Matthew #142: Sorry, I didn’t catch your post on the “recent comments” section when they first appeared. Thanks for replying to my initial questions.
I can understand the argument given shortly after 6/4 that the country had more pressing problems than Tiananmen. But these days, that argument seems much weaker. Let me put it this way…
In China, discussions can be “inside/out” or “outside/in”. As an example, an “inside/out” discussion would be the “one China” policy. When I was there, every day in the paper there was an article about how there is only “one China” and Taiwan is a part of China, etc. “Inside/out” discussions are used to influence the Chinese themselves, and can spill over into the international arena though that is not their main purpose. These could be considered “propaganda”, since only one side is presented.
Tiananmen would be an example of an “outside/in” discussion. Discussions are purged on the net, no opposing views are allowed, no news articles, etc. Information about Tiananmen comes from outside China to inside by various means. Tiananmen has been kept alive by groups in Hong Kong, Taiwan and other places in the world.
The question then becomes, is an “outside/in” approach the best way to handle the subject these days, or has it outlived its usefulness? A good example of an approach that did not work and was changed would again be Taiwan. Jiang’s iron fisted approach virtually singlehandedly created the pro-independence movement in Taiwan. Before his administration, the percentage of Taiwanese wanting independence was quite small, as was the percentage wanting quick reunification. When Hu and Ma changed tactics, relations between the two governments improved rapidly.
I disagree with Oli; burying the truth keeps rumor, innuendo and speculation alive. People involved don’t want it brought up? The first thing people would think is “What are they hiding?” Why would it be pointless and counterproductive to know what actually happened? My guess is that mistakes and poor decisions were made on both sides, but people ought to know exactly what happened and when. Only then can the issue be put to rest.
China now has her driver’s license and can go full speed down the interstate. If the hardliners have a good case, let them make it but not to the exclusion of the student protesters. If its handled that way, then it just becomes endless and non-productive propaganda, and the subject will continue to be driven by an “outside/in” approach.
Matthew: Yes, I’m aware that many government vehicles were destroyed and casualties took place on both sides. If you’ve noticed, I don’t take sides on this one. My questions were aimed at figuring out what actually happened, not just one side’s account of what actually happened. Today, the account that is known in China is the hardliner’s account, and the account that is known outside China is the student protester’s account. It’d be nice to bring the two together so this issue could finally be put to bed and China could get on with her development without having to constantly hear reminders of those days.
I can’t buy your “rape” comparison. That’s comparing apples and oranges. Women who have been raped want the perpetrator brought to justice, but have a hard time facing their own emotional burden. To compare that with Tiananmen, do the protesters not want to bring it up? No, they want it discussed. The group not wanting it brought up is the government at that time. Do you feel the government was “raped”? Makes no sense to me.
“As far as the CCP is concerned, the verdict has always been the same. It was the correct decision.”
Ok, fine. But people who make correct decisions want to broadcast them as loud and clear as they possibly can. The economic decisions the CCP has made since Tiananmen have been very, very successful. They toot their own horn constantly about it, as they should. So logically, they should want maximum attention paid to the correct decisions they made at the time. However, that’s not the case, which is the cause of my puzzlement.
“May I caution you on this. A story sometimes is just a story.”
Agree. I wasn’t clear enough when I wrote that. I should have narrowed that down to stories appearing on this blog. The ones that garner great publicity aren’t always trustworthy, as you point out.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:14 am
@Steve,
My position is always that sending tanks to TAM was wrong and censoring discussion is stupid. And I agree with you that China now has her driver’s license. However, you can not force her to drive at 70m/h just by issuing her a document. She has to be confident enough to do it herself. Chinese government, for now, lacks such confidence.
Bar a few extremist, even hardliners in China do not view 6/4 as a proud moment for the government. Their rational basically is that you have to push one person down a train track to save a hundred on the other track. Many people would do that (in a psychological experiment) but nobody will boast about it.
I think for the current leadership, who are not directly responsible for 6/4, the issue is not the discussion of 6/4 per se, but what will be brought about from such discussion. In other words, will such an emotionally charged topic trigger another political tsunami? Keep in mind that the whole 1989 student movement was triggered by a seemly insignificant event, the passing of Hu yaobang, who had been out of power center for over 2 years.
So to move things forward, it is probably better to first build more channels for civic discourse. And I have seen signs of more civic participation in China. For example, the 3.14 report we posted a few weeks ago was commissioned by a Chinese NGO. Last month, there is a group of scholars held a discussion session on 6/4 in Beijing. Many people probably view this as a vastly insufficient baby step, but it’s a good step forward. As in driving, the ability to go 70m/h will come naturally when one hit the road frequently enough. 🙂
June 24th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
SKC,
“—listen, I can’t speak to ambulance service classification in the states, since I don’t live there. But ambulance service in Canada is definitely a public government function. That the government charges me for use of an ambulance doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s a government function. The federal government charges me for issuing me a passport, but that is no less a government function. The provincial government charges me a monthly fee to access health care, but it is no less a government function(at least in Canada, thankfully). Certain highways in Canada are toll roads (though much less common than in the US), but my paying to use the road doesn’t alter the fact that the government is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of said road (ie a government function).”
I gave the multiple factor test for determining whether something is a governmental function.
The fact that the Canadian government charge individual money for ambulance, AND there are private means that can drive a person to hospitals, means it’s “non-governmental function”.
Passport is entirely different, Only a government can issue its own passports.
You are mixing up “apples and oranges”.
*“Whether you get sick in your home or in public place, doesn’t make it YOUR private sickness.”
—I was referring to public scenarios, like the scene of car accidents, where typically a bystander calls for emergency services. Incidentally, in Canada if you dial 911 for such an emergency, police, fire and ambulance will respond.”
Once the traffic jam is cleared up, individual injuries are still individual injuries. Individuals could have had their own families drive them to the hospital. Doesn’t make the injuries public functions.
*
“Whether a policeman on the ground foresees individual dangers at individual situations is a different question than whether a leader foresees “danger” in general in sending in troops to “clear a square”.
—how so?”
Because one cannot assume that if there is 1 or a few criminals in a large crowd, then the crowd will go riot. Policeman on the ground dead with 1 person at a time.
*
“Did any of those students have “criminal background”? No!”
—first of all, you know this how? Second, that’s irrelevant, since they’ve committed a prior wrong by refusing to clear the square at the first request.”
That’s interesting, are you saying now that “refusing to clear the square” is a “violent” act that would compel the foreseeability of further “violence”???
*
“how is a leader supposed to foresee possible danger of violent resistance?”
—easily. Or at least it should have been. But let’s flip this around…are you suggesting that, given the weeks of events leading up to 6/4, that what occurred on 6/4 was completely unforeseeable? It seems many commentators around here have been of the opinion that the students should have known what was in store for them. If FM commenters could have foreseen it, the CCP couldn’t?”
Which FM commenters foresaw it? Show me 1 Western journalist with an article BEFORE HAND that predicted that if the students don’t clear the square, there would be potential violence?
“Hindsight” is not “foresight”!!! “Should have” opinions are “hindsight”.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
@ R4K & SKC: In my opinion and observance of human nature, neither the “establishment” nor the “protesters” ever expect overt violence. Most feel the other side would back down in a confrontation because “their side” is in the right. I’m sure the government felt that when they sent in the soldiers and tanks, the protesters would disassemble peacefully since the government meant business. Meanwhile, the protesters themselves felt that the government would never kill their own people, especially since they were “in the right”. When the violence actually escalates, both sides tend to be shocked by it.
That’s why I think both sides should come clean and stop trying to act like everything the other did was premeditated. How can China get on Japan’s case for atrocities committed in the war that Japan won’t readily acknowledge when it won’t acknowledge its own history? Japan uses exactly the same reasoning for hiding from its past, which annoys the hell out of Chinese (especially TonyP4). In the end, isn’t everyone who was involved at Tiananmen “Chinese”? Don’t they all want China to be strong and united in today’s world? Can’t everyone acknowledge that China has made huge strides since those days?
Blaming everything on foreign NGO’s or western journalists is, quite frankly, a red herring. I don’t think Chinese students were quite the “lemmings” some of you made them out to be, though it’s always easier to point blame on the outside rather than within ourselves. Both Tiananmen and Tehran are national protests with national causes, resulting in national misunderstandings and national tragedies.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Steve,
I would agree to “come clean” for ALL sides, including what did the Western Media know.
On Japan, I don’t think Japanese nationalists need any excuses from anyone to keep denying history.
I think realistically, China will become strong first, before it will come to terms with some of its past. Even then , more privately than publicly.
But that’s not that unusual, That is what US did for many issues.
*and I think we can all privately acknowledge the change China made, without going to the steps of public trials and media and apologies.
Frankly, I don’t think the “Democracy” protesters want to account for their own actions.
I don’t think in that sense the blame on NGO’s and Media is a “red herring”. As certain as Japanese Nationalist Medias have some responsibilities in perpetuating nationalist denial of historical atrocities. As certain as some have accused the Chinese media of doing the same.
*
Propaganda invites propaganda. That is the nature of politics.
That does not mean that People of China are blinded by the truth, One would be naive to think that most Chinese are simply brainwashed by CCP propaganda. Ordinary Chinese live through the changes post 1989, they know the price of rice and the problems of China.
Perhaps the 1st step to acknowledgment, is for the Outside to go beyond the simplistic view of average Chinese person. They are not children who need the attention and care of “democracy”, and “NGO’s”, and “Western Media”.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:22 am
@ R4K #148: I’m not sure if I understand your point about the Japanese historical denial. Are you saying it’s ok for them to deny what they did? I can’t think you’d believe that so I must have misunderstood what you wrote.
What criteria would China have to meet in your mind in order for them to be “strong”?
I think democracy protesters should be held just as accountable for their actions as the government for theirs. How else can you get at the truth and create an accurate historical record? Maybe the best way to approach it would be to grant a general amnesty on all sides. It was a long time ago and much has happened since then. Time to put it to bed and move on.
I wasn’t talking about Chinese media or NGOs being the “red herring”, I was talking about non-Chinese media and NGOs. I don’t think most Chinese are brainwashed by CCP propaganda, nor do I think that most Chinese or even Chinese protesters are brainwashed by foreign media and NGOs.
Off subject: I called my dad on Father’s Day and we were talking about an upcoming trip he and my mom will be taking to Europe. They’ve both traveled quite a bit around the world. He told me that when they visited China and Taiwan, the people there were the friendliest out of any place they had ever visited and it was the most enjoyable and best trip he ever took. My mom says he mentions China all the time when with their friends, and always in a very positive manner. What impressed him the most were the people themselves. They were professional, helpful, happy and believed in great service. His experience in China is about the same as most everyone else I know who has vacationed there.
Sometimes I think we talk too much about the negative (in all countries and governments) and not enough about the positive. A country is but a collection of people and their culture. What I remember about traveling is not what I saw, but the local people I met. So one big thumbs up from my dad to everyone in China! 😀
@ admin: I believe in slow, steady acceleration rather than stomping on the pedal, though my top speed tends to be pretty fast. I don’t mind cars breaking the speed limit, as long as they don’t drive recklessly. 😉
Why do you think the government still lacks confidence? What do you feel would have to happen before the confidence level was high enough to open up discussion? With the economy humming along as compared to most nations, I’d think the majority would credit the government with at least a decent part of that success.
I’d continue with this post but I just got a flat…
June 25th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Steve,
On Japan, I merely said that the Japanese Nationalists will deny atrocities of Japan in WWII, regardless of what kind of excuses they come up with, even the flimsiest ones. In that, they would not budge even if we managed to dig up old dead Japanese Imperial soldiers who openly confess to everything. Nationalism is their real excuse.
Deng and the other CCP elders had real concerns about the safety and order of the public at large.
Seriously, a major difference between the continual numerous atrocities committed by the Japanese military in WWII, vs. 1 valid exercise of public order (even if proven excessive force).
*
I think your idea of general amnesty is idealistic. The exiles and protesters thrive on confrontation, in fact, some would argue that their livelihood depends on their continual hostility to the CCP.
You might as well argue that US should lay off criticism of China as a form of “general amnesty”. Not with NED and CIA around.
Not realistic. (though I would be happy, if you can surprise me.)
*
On off topic: I’m biased because I am Chinese by birth. I love my people, and I love all people.
But I am not as optimistic as you or your father. I have see too much of dark side of many different kinds of people.
There is an old Chinese philosophical debate, whether man is basically good or basically bad.
The 1st Dynasty of China adopted strict legalism, which formed the basis of all imperial dynastic rule (later modified by Compassionate Confucism).
In that, Chinese mentality tend to assume that while people are capable of learning good, their nature is basically evil and chaos.
Thus, we Chinese make a priority of achieving social order and stability.
You have seen the “wining and dining” that happens in China. I have lived through some of that. I have seen extreme backward traditions and corrupt practices, but as a nature and consequences of individual habits.
Some like to attribute corruption to the CCP. Not so, it is sometimes simply in the blood of all human beings to be corruptible.
*
On negatives and positives.
Sometimes, one does not appreciate the positives and consider them negatives.
Some Chinese (especially the patriotic hot tempered people in Beijing), sometimes consider surrender to be “treasonous”.
Afterall, Deng was condemned as a “Capitalist roader” by hardliners back in the Cultural Revolution.
Acceptance of new things and surrender seem to be so bad by so many.
And yet, consider that China was defeated and conquered by Mongols and the Manchurians. In the end, it was those Chinese who “surrendered” and survived, managed to sinicize those people, and made China stronger than before.
And Deng, condemned by Mao, condemned by the Students (also for his fast paced economic reform), continued to charge ahead with even faster reforms.
6/4 made Deng realize, that he would not stop his reform for any cost, even those in the name of “democracy”.
What will make China “strong”???
Denying some of our “needs”, and seeking what we fear.
there is no virtue in crying out loud in complaints. Any mob is capable of voicing dissatisfaction.
There is no virtue in seeking comfort in dreams of “democracy”. Dreams of “what ifs” does not make one wiser.
Wisdom and prudence of governance requires hard decisions that deal with practical concerns.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:36 am
@raventhorn4000: I think one of Steve’s questions was what it means for China to be “strong.” Does it mean a strong economy, military or education system? Or is it a combination of this and more at that?
June 25th, 2009 at 3:56 am
WKL, Steve,
Traditional notions of strengths for nations are defined along economic or military.
I think there are 4 distinct areas of Strengths that one can historically measure for nations.
Economic, Security, Laws, and Beliefs.
(the last 2 are often neglected, but there are clear historical cases of when nations collapsed due to inadequate stability and strengths in the areas of laws and beliefs.)
Economic and security represent 2 material wealth sectors. Strength lies in where there are quantity and quality of production.
Laws and Beliefs are more intangible wealth sectors. They represent the spiritual, intellectual and mental strengths of a society.
*I term these 4 sectors, the “4 necessary evils” of all societies, because in history, some have blamed the evils of society on each of the 4 sectors.
Economy/money as the root of all evil.
Security: as in military, war and violence.
Laws, as the ultimate bureaucracy,
and Beliefs. fanaticism and superstitions.
However, no complex society can survive without all 4 being sufficient in strength to compete against other nations.
China needs to increase growth in all 4 areas, to become strong.
Both in quantities and qualities.
Historically, China’s strength is in its vast population, its economy, and its Belief systems, while its military has always waxed and waned in time.
The resiliency of China is perhaps most well summed by Confucius, when he said, “the Necessities of a State, there are 3, Military arms, food, and Faith of the people in the ruler. If one must do without, military arms should go 1st, food should go 2nd, but a state cannot survive without the faith of the people in the ruler.”
But I would argue that Confucius neglected 1 sector, the Law. In his time, Law is simply what the ruler dictated. But a complex society cannot be governed by 1 person’s ad hoc decisions. Even emperors had to establish rules and laws of predictability and chains of bureaucratic procedures.
And Confucius wrote “food”, when he really intended to mean “economy”, as Chinese economy was largely agrarian in nature back in his time.
*that is my definition of “strong” for China, and its measurement scale and dimension.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:47 am
To R4000:
“The fact that the Canadian government charge individual money for ambulance, AND there are private means that can drive a person to hospitals, means it’s “non-governmental function”.
—the charging money part, by itself, already means nothing, since you’ve now introduced a “multiple factor” test. The money factor is irrelevant, since you’ve even used the passport argument. So really, it hinges on the second factor ie the act of driving someone to hospital. So then I’d have to ask, are ambulances only there to serve as transportation to the nearest medical facility, or might they serve a medical purpose, such as giving preliminary medical care en route. If they’re only a taxi service, then why have ambulances at all…why not just have people call…let’s see….a taxi?!? Clearly, ambulances are more than taxis, otherwise they’d be redundant to taxis. And presumably, the taxi driver or your uncle Fred will not be able to give you medical care while schlepping you to the ER. So it seems that ambulance service is in fact very much a government function, in that it provides initial medical attention. Besides, like I said, maybe it’s different in the US, but in Canada it is a government service, and you’re just going to have to deal with that fact.
“Individuals could have had their own families drive them to the hospital.”
—same as the taxi argument. See above.
“one cannot assume that if there is 1 or a few criminals in a large crowd”
—we’re not talking criminals; we’re talking about leaders of a nation, being able to foresee that, when the crowd is willing to disobey orders, that they may do so forcefully when those orders are enforced forcefully.
“are you saying now that “refusing to clear the square” is a “violent” act that would compel the foreseeability of further “violence””
—no, what I am saying is that the first was an act of disobedience, and it is foreseeable that, when the method of enforcement escalates, so too might the method of disobedience.
“Which FM commenters foresaw it?”
—I believe a number of folks with your POV, like the Oli’s of the world, have said as much. Obviously, they’re saying so 20 years later. Whether that represents foresight or hindsight is a question you would have to put to them. But I’m hoping they berate the students not merely based on knowing what they know now, but based on what they knew then.
To Steve:
“I think democracy protesters should be held just as accountable for their actions as the government for theirs. How else can you get at the truth and create an accurate historical record?”
—this is why I am still looking forward to MAJ’s Part 2…I am interested in how he divvies up the “shared responsibility”.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:02 am
@ R4K: Great post! Just a few comments:
“In that, they would not budge even if we managed to dig up old dead Japanese Imperial soldiers who openly confess to everything.”
There have actually been Japanese soldiers who served in the War that have made numerous trips to China to help war victims and apologize profusely for what occurred. They said that they had been taught that Chinese (and I think everyone else not Japanese) were sub-human, comparable to killing a pig or horse. Sick, but true. When they realized what they had done, they were horrified and have spent the rest of their lives trying to right the wrong they committed. Let’s give credit where credit is due. And let’s condemn the morons who said it never happened… especially since we have movies like this that show otherwise.
My best friend is from Hiroshima (went to college in the States) and she agrees. She and her husband also think the Emperor is a living anachronism. I think the media exaggerates the percentage of Japanese who are ultra-nationalistic.
“Seriously, a major difference between the continual numerous atrocities committed by the Japanese military in WWII, vs. 1 valid exercise of public order (even if proven excessive force).”
Sure, there’s a major difference in every possible way. But the pattern of denying and ignoring history is the same. Didn’t more Chinese die from famine in the Great Leap Forward than in the entire Sino-Japanese war?
“I think your idea of general amnesty is idealistic. The exiles and protesters thrive on confrontation, in fact, some would argue that their livelihood depends on their continual hostility to the CCP. You might as well argue that US should lay off criticism of China as a form of “general amnesty”. Not with NED and CIA around. Not realistic. (though I would be happy, if you can surprise me.)”
If you grant amnesty and explore the circumstances in the light of day, you’ve just taken away the argument of those who thrive on confrontation. Their livelihood would disappear on its own because the only way they are relevant is if others think they are relevant. No one jumps on the German government for the atrocities of the Nazis, because they have shone the light of truth on what happened. Paraphrasing Gertrude Stein, there is no there there.
Your next sentence honestly makes no sense (at least to me). The US government doesn’t criticize the German government for WWII. They would not criticize the Chinese government for Tiananmen if the subject is handled once and for all. NED and the CIA? Uhh… China has a CIA equivalent and probably engages in more spying than any other country in the world (yeah, I know Lao Tzu is big on spying) soi isn’t that also the pot calling the kettle black? NED? How about the Confucian Institutes? Both NGOs, both criticized by the countries where they operate. Anyway, you already said that Chinese people are too smart to be taken in by NED, right? 😉
Wow, that’s the first time I’ve ever heard neo-Confucism called Compassionate Confucism. Is George W. Bush your new media advisor? 😛
Seriously, I don’t think the Chinese are better or worse than anyone else. All people are basically the same. There are good, bad and indifferent. It’s just that some cultures are better than others in controlling the bad, and some cultures are more polite and hospitable to strangers and guests than others. When my father complimented China, he was complimenting your culture as compared to others he had experienced.
Chinese history seems to have been long periods of social order and stability followed by long periods of chaos and instability, then back to the stability again. I’m not sure what that means, except that China hasn’t seemed to have been either more or less stable than most other countries, just bigger and with more people.
Are Beijing people more patriotic and hot tempered than in other areas? I’ve heard that Beijing people and northerners are more direct and honest in their speaking, while Shanghainese (not my opinion) will charm you with false compliments and are the most clever. Southerners care more about money while Shanghainese care more about family. Sichuan girls make the best wives, etc. Seems there are a lot of stereotypes running around China. 😉
Didn’t the Chinese general let the Manchurian army through the gate into the country? Wasn’t it something about the emperor at the time taking this general’s mistress as his own? I never know if these stories I hear are true or just old wives’ tales.
My question about how strong China needed to be was a relative one. China is much stronger than it used to be, on that I think we can all agree. What I was wondering is, relative to today’s strength, how much further did China need to go before you would consider her strong enough to face her past? Is she 50% of the way there? 80%? What specific changes would need to happen before you considered her strong enough?
June 25th, 2009 at 7:06 am
@ SKC: Did I miss MAJ’s Part 1 while I was gone? Was it worth the price of admission? 😉
June 25th, 2009 at 7:21 am
To Steve:
‘fraid so. And yes it was. Just scroll back into the previous entries…I believe he posted it in early May.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:29 am
This is MAJ’s post:
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2009/05/08/sorting-fact-from-fiction-%E2%80%93-tiananmen-revisited-part-1/
June 25th, 2009 at 11:34 am
SKC,
It’s a multi-factor test. Why are you considering only 1 part as “already means nothing”? Well, again, you don’t know the law, NOR how to even learn it.
Look up “MULTI-FACTOR test”. It’s NOT a 1 factor test!!
Ambulances may be “more than taxis”, so are a long of things, hiring a helicopter, hot air balloon, etc. Doesn’t make it “PUBLIC” emergency!!
You have to deal with the fact that Canada doesn’t consider ambulances as “governmental function”, no matter what bizzarre assumption you come up with.
*
“—no, what I am saying is that the first was an act of disobedience, and it is foreseeable that, when the method of enforcement escalates, so too might the method of disobedience.”
Nope, the law doesn’t not assume “resistance to enforcement” after 1 act of disobedience, especially non-violent. Otherwise, cops will be beating people down with clubs after a sit in protest.
*
“—I believe a number of folks with your POV, like the Oli’s of the world, have said as much. Obviously, they’re saying so 20 years later. Whether that represents foresight or hindsight is a question you would have to put to them. But I’m hoping they berate the students not merely based on knowing what they know now, but based on what they knew then.”
Hindsight is not “foresight”. None of these people ever represented their view as “foresight”.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Steve,
I have no specific knowledge of how most Japanese would feel about the matter. But judging from what I have seen from the Japanese immigration laws, Japan is very xenophobic even today. They treat immigrants from Korea and China terribly, and they blame their societal problems on the immigrants more than US does (given how few immigrants there are in Japan).
In the 1980’s, 1 of my buddies in the US navy was visiting Tokyo, and the only English sign he found was “Americans not allowed”.
Today, that’s probably changed quite a bit. But I still found the story ironic.
*
I do not think China denies what happened in the Great Famine. It’s actually common knowledge. I heard stories from my teachers in school back in China. And the reformers in CCP criticized mistakes made in the past by foolishness of hardline CCP cadres.
But you have to put that famine in historical perspective, China had 3 Great Famines from 1900 to 1949, each of them devastated the population with millions of lives lost.
Historians, including Western Historians, have been able to gather government reports for the Famine of 1959, (not censored), and attributed the causes. (Read – J.A.G Roberts’ Concise History of China)
So, I do not think China denies the deaths of the Famines of 1959. But come on, given the poverty of China in 1950’s, the poor transportation infrastructure, and backward agriculture technology, was it really that much a surprise??
*
“Handled once and for all”. I didn’t say I’m surprised at the existence of NED or CIA. I merely said it’s unrealistic that they would ever admit that China “handled TAM once and for all”.
You might as well ask NED and CIA to quit their jobs.
*
“Compassionate Confucianism”. It was the Han Dynasty Emperors who first adopted the “compassionate Confucianism” to lessen the harsh effects of strict Legalism.
*
“stability”.
Even when China were in Civil Wars, there were often pockets of stability and peace.
*
“stereotypes”.
Beijing people are very direct, but honesty depends. My only trip to Beijing started with a Beijing Taxi driver taking me on a LONG detour around the city for 45 minutes (instead of the direct 20 minute route), and then charging me for the 45 minutes.
Shanghai people are what we called “Little Citizens”. Meaning, we don’t care much for politics, only practical businesses that would benefit the individuals and his families. But that doesn’t mean that we are not patriotic. Just we are less impulsive, more reserved, more thoughtful of situations.
Some of these are “stereotypes”, and not necessarily true for individuals.
But if one see what happened on 6/4 to Beijing and Shanghai, you can see a clear difference. Shanghai mayor was far more practical and nuanced in his speech than Li Peng. And Shanghai People were less inclined to make protests (generally).
Each region has its own unique social/cultural atmosphere. That is perhaps the basis of the “stereotypes”, but I would call them “stereotypes of the cities”, not of the people.
*
June 25th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
SKC,
1 more point,
It’s not an “escalation”, when the PLA was already sent in once on May 20th, and they were sent in a 2nd time later.
It’s merely “trying the same method again”.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
@ R4K #160: “Xenophobic” is a pretty strong word, since it implies fear or hatred. I don’t think that’s necessarily true of Japan or Korea. I think its more of a “superiority” feeling and feelings of racial purity. I find the whole “racial purity” thing especially strange in Korea, which has been invaded countless times through her history and I’d guess very few there are “pure blood” Koreans, whatever that means.
Now to be honest, I’ve also encountered the “pure blood” thing in the Chinese community here in the USA. Many Chinese American mothers we know want their kids to marry other Chinese Americans so their grandchildren will be pure Chinese. The funny thing about it is that many of these women are divorced from their Chinese American husband and later remarried white Americans. Talk about hypocrisy! 🙂
Immigration into Japan is really tough. My best friend is from Hiroshima and when she returned to Japan after university, she was careful not to let people know she had lived in the USA for six years because at that time (late ’70s) they would have felt she was “contaminated” and not pure Japanese. These days, she doesn’t care and the attitude has changed, but it’s still difficult to be foreign and live there. I didn’t have any problem in China but I also lived in Shanghai, which is a really international city.
I completely disagree with you about the famine of 1959. It wasn’t caused by drought, flood, agricultural methods or poor transportation. It was caused by a change in government policy directed by Mao. Remember, this was the time of “backyard furnaces”. It was a man-made disaster.
Who would admit what is simply speculation on your part. No one knows what any organization would do or say if policy changed. And if the Chinese people themselves were satisfied the issue had been handled, they could not be influenced by outside opinion. In fact, I believe the “blame it on the CIA and foreign NGOs” is ridiculous. I think their actual influence is minimal, but they are a convenient scapegoat whenever actual popular dissatisfaction arises. I’ve noticed the Iranian government is now trying to blame all the agitation there on “outside influences”. Yeah, right… wink, wink, nudge, nudge, mum’s the word. (with apologies to Monty Python)
Like I said, when I was studying Chinese history, it was labeled “neo-Confucianism”. I’ve never heard the term “compassionate Confucianism”. Could you reference where that term originated? I’m curious. I googled it and didn’t find anything.
“Even when China were in Civil Wars, there were often pockets of stability and peace.”
You can say the same thing about any Civil War. It wasn’t just Civil Wars in China during her history, but multiple kingdoms that formed and were conquered over time.
I’ve had taxis try to cheat me in both cities. On my last trip to Beijing, I hailed one taxi that didn’t have a meter (though it was an officially marked taxi) so he asked me to quote a fare and tried to bargain with the fare I quoted. I’m good at directions and fares so I found another taxi and my quote was within 1 RMB of the true cost. A few days later on the way to the airport, the taxi I picked up from my hotel had the meter angled where I couldn’t see the fare and when we arrived, he told me it was 40 RMB over the true fare. I just laughed, told him the correct fare in Chinese along with making the one handed sign for “six” since it should have been 60 RMB, and he laughed since I had won the “game”. 😉
In Shanghai, I used to fly into the Hongxiao Airport (HK to Shanghai flights still went through Hongxiao at that time) and my hotel was by the Hong Kong Plaza on Huai Hai Lu. Every once in awhile, instead of taking Yan’an to my hotel, they’d try to take me on the loop south past the Shanghai Stadium and then north on Zhaozhou/Xizang. As soon as they turned on to the loop, I’d start to bitch and they’d say it was because of traffic. Since you are Shanghainese, you certainly know that you ALWAYS hit traffic going the longer way so we’d end up getting stuck in traffic and they’d offer to waive the fare when I got to the hotel (I just paid them what it would have cost if they had gone the more direct way) so I’ll give them credit for that. For some reason, the women taxi drivers were more apt to try it than the men.
I really liked Shanghai and Shanghainese. They reminded me of New Yorkers in a lot of ways (I’m from northern NJ originally) and I always felt most comfortable there. But I have to say that all the Chinese I knew from other parts of China didn’t like the Shanghainese at all! The usual complaint was that they bragged, acted superior, were not trustworthy and spouted false compliments. When my wife and I were about to move there from San Diego, all her Taiwan women friends kept telling me to “watch out” for those evil Shanghai girls. Aiya! Shanghai girls seem to have the worst reputations among Taiwanese women! 😛
I agree that most Shanghainese are more interested in making money and taking care of their families rather than being heavily involved with politics. But there are plenty of exceptions (like R4K!).
June 26th, 2009 at 2:07 am
To R4000:
“Look up “MULTI-FACTOR test”. It’s NOT a 1 factor test!!”
— dude, yes, got the part about the “multi”; I was taking each component of your “multi”, and showing how neither component makes any sense. And when the components individually make no sense, the combo is certainly not worth any more than the sum of its parts.
“Ambulances may be “more than taxis”, so are a long of things, hiring a helicopter, hot air balloon, etc. Doesn’t make it “PUBLIC” emergency!!”
—I am still at a loss how a lawyer can debate the way you do. Anyhow, there are helicopters, and in fact small jets, that are used as air ambulances. Hot air balloons, not so much, unless you really want to take your sweet time getting to the hospital. And no, the type of vehicle does not a public emergency make; (do you not cringe sometimes at the arguments you try to make); but certain vehicles do serve as public vehicles whose job it is to respond to public emergencies, and hence are performing a governmental function. It’s not the vehicle that makes it unique; it’s the people who drive them (ie capability of providing initial medical care).
“You have to deal with the fact that Canada doesn’t consider ambulances as “governmental function”, no matter what bizzarre assumption you come up with.”
—you have no idea of what you speak. But you know what…whatever floats your boat. You can continue with your Canada, and I’ll live in the reality of mine.
“Nope, the law doesn’t not assume “resistance to enforcement””
—for the umpteenth time, you needn’t assume that violent resistance was a foregone conclusion, or guarantee; the point is that it could have and should have been foreseen as a possibility.
“Otherwise, cops will be beating people down with clubs after a sit in protest.”
—not necessarily; but certainly within the realm of foreseeable possibilities.
“None of these people ever represented their view as “foresight”.”
—I suppose we’ll have to ask them to be sure. But berating students based on hindsight alone would seem pretty lame.
“It’s merely “trying the same method again””
—well, they sent in the same people; as for whether those people were tasked in the same way (ie what their orders were), I guess we’ll have to get that from the folks who gave the orders….ooops, those guys aren’t talking. Such a shame. Now, if it was the “same method”, I suppose we can look at that in one of 2 ways: (a) if at first you don’t succeed….; or (b) what do you call folks who do the same thing over and over, and expect different results? The CCP may be a lot of things, but I never took them for the people described in (b).
June 26th, 2009 at 2:38 am
SKC,
“— dude, yes, got the part about the “multi”; I was taking each component of your “multi”, and showing how neither component makes any sense. And when the components individually make no sense, the combo is certainly not worth any more than the sum of its parts.”
You clearly still do not under “MULTI-factor test”. You can’t dissect EACH and make exceptions on EACH. You are supposed to LOOK at ALL of them TOGETHER!! That’s the WHOLE point of “multi-factor test”!!!
If 1 factor can make a clear difference in determination, then you don’t need a “MULTI-FACTOR test”!!!
*
“—I am still at a loss how a lawyer can debate the way you do. Anyhow, there are helicopters, and in fact small jets, that are used as air ambulances. Hot air balloons, not so much, unless you really want to take your sweet time getting to the hospital. And no, the type of vehicle does not a public emergency make; (do you not cringe sometimes at the arguments you try to make); but certain vehicles do serve as public vehicles whose job it is to respond to public emergencies, and hence are performing a governmental function. It’s not the vehicle that makes it unique; it’s the people who drive them (ie capability of providing initial medical care).”
I’m sure these people still have skills when they are OFF duty too, doesn’t make what they do for “public governmental function”.
I’m sure you are not a lawyer, because you just don’t want to accept laws that don’t make sense to you. well, like I said, it’s not laws according to you.
Get over yourself, lots of laws won’t make sense to you. BIG news flash!!
*
“—you have no idea of what you speak. But you know what…whatever floats your boat. You can continue with your Canada, and I’ll live in the reality of mine.”
Get OVER YOURSELF and your “reality”!! You don’t know what you are talking about!! You have no clue about laws, and you complain that they don’t make sense to YOU??!! Well, DUH!!!
*
“—for the umpteenth time, you needn’t assume that violent resistance was a foregone conclusion, or guarantee; the point is that it could have and should have been foreseen as a possibility.”
Seems like you are assuming that they should have “foreseen”. Why?
*
“Otherwise, cops will be beating people down with clubs after a sit in protest.”
—not necessarily; but certainly within the realm of foreseeable possibilities.”
I guess, you should sue all cops for all such injuries. Really, go ahead and give it a try!
*
“None of these people ever represented their view as “foresight”.”
—I suppose we’ll have to ask them to be sure. But berating students based on hindsight alone would seem pretty lame.”
Why? You seem to be doing it to other people’s “foresight” with your “hindsight”.
*
“It’s merely “trying the same method again””
—well, they sent in the same people; as for whether those people were tasked in the same way (ie what their orders were), I guess we’ll have to get that from the folks who gave the orders….ooops, those guys aren’t talking. Such a shame. Now, if it was the “same method”, I suppose we can look at that in one of 2 ways: (a) if at first you don’t succeed….; or (b) what do you call folks who do the same thing over and over, and expect different results? The CCP may be a lot of things, but I never took them for the people described in (b).”
Intentional orders are covered by immunity.
And frankly, your assumption of what CCP might do is irrelevant, and you have no supporting facts on that point.
So, get over your “assumptions”, for the “umpteenth time”!!!
June 26th, 2009 at 2:49 am
Steve,
I disagree with your general assessment of the Great Famine of 1959. You are mixing it up with the “Great Leap forward” movement, with the backyard furnances.
The “Great Leap Forward” was substantially stupid, but it didn’t really have that much impact on the agriculture, where most of the harm was done to the industrialized cities.
The cause of the “Great Famine” was primarily due to local officials concealing the initial impact of local famines, and hiding the existence of the food shortage in some of the provinces.
Several Western Historians upon examination of records, found that local officials were hiding the truth of the famine from the Central government for the 1st year. This in turn, caused the inability of the Central Government to send food to where needed until much later.
Substantial evidence existed, because once the Central government learned of the problems, food shipment to the outlying provinces lessen the impact of the famine after 1962.
There was no long lasting damage to the Agriculture sector in China.
If Mao’s policies had been the cause, Chinese agriculture would have been in ruins, and the famine would have lasted much longer than 3 years, (especially since Mao didn’t reverse much of his policies after 3 years.)
I think some Western historians over simplify the problem of the Great Famine to Mao.
*on CIA and NED, I believe History speaks for itself on that one. CIA helped direct the overthrow of Iranian government, and placing the Shah in charge. And undoubtedly CIA helped Saddam achieve his power and helped him invade Iran.
Iranians have reason to doubt the CIA.
And frankly, CIA hasn’t gone quietly into the night. It is still massively well funded for covert operations against many countries.
If China needs to account for TAM, then CIA better account for Every million dollar it has spent in the last 60 years.
Let’s just say, we haven’t seen too many “love in’s” sponsored by the CIA around the world.
*
On Shanghainese, I would agree that some are too greedy and pay too much false compliment.
My mother-in-law, as opposite example, is a woman well accomplished in the fine art of many compliments. And she does so without making it awkward.
Unfortunately, what you would call “Shanghainese” today, are not true traditional or “old Shanghainese”.
“Old Shanghainese” are families that have been in Shanghai since before 1940’s. Whereas, the “New Shanghainese” are typically people who migrated to Shanghai after 1949. (afterall, the city has grown multiple folds in population in the last 50 years.)
I, not to brag, am from an “Old Shanghainese” Family. My grandparents were living in Shanghai, when the Communists rolled into town.
We do not use our status as indication of our superiority, nor do we act to so, but the distinction is only there because the “New Shanghainese” sometimes portray themselves as “Shanghainese”, when they act unlike “Shanghainese”.
“Old Shanghainese” means the true spirit of Shanghai.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:05 am
@SKC, raventhorn4000: On a personal note, this discussion of yours is affecting my everyday life. I happened to see an ambulance the other day, and got a very ominous feeling… Never happened before.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:12 am
To R4000:
“That’s the WHOLE point of “multi-factor test”!!!”
— if part (a) makes no sense, and part (b) makes no sense, how much sense does “A + B” make; and hypotheticals aside, your part (a) made no sense, your part (b) made no sense, and parts (a) and (b) together didn’t fare much better, as I’ve described.
“If 1 factor can make a clear difference in determination, then you don’t need a “MULTI-FACTOR test”!!!”
—once again, hypotheticals aside, this is what you’ve failed to show thus far.
“I’m sure these people still have skills when they are OFF duty too, doesn’t make what they do for “public governmental function”
—another non sequitur. Obviously we’re talking about them using their skills while on duty in the performance of a government function…or was that not obvious enough previously?
“you just don’t want to accept laws that don’t make sense”
—I do enjoy laws that make sense. But what you speak of is not even the law in Canada.
“You have no clue about laws, and you complain that they don’t make sense to YOU??!! ”
—apparently I know a lot more about Canada than you do…no surprise there.
“”you needn’t assume that violent resistance was a foregone conclusion, or guarantee; the point is that it could have and should have been foreseen as a possibility.”
Seems like you are assuming that they should have “foreseen”. Why?”
—for exactly the reasons I’ve been saying all along. These students were willing to resist. THey were willing to break the (martial) law. If you up the ante, it’s foreseeable that they will too. And since you’re the army and they only have stones and molotov’s, it’s further foreseeable that, if it came to that, they will be taking some serious damage.
“you should sue all cops for all such injuries. Really, go ahead and give it a try!”
—when it comes to proportionate use of force, people have, certainly in Canada, and in the US as well, i believe. You should also google Dziekanski inquiry.
“Intentional orders are covered by immunity”
—so you’ve said. And still they won’t talk about it…go figure.
“”You seem to be doing it to other people’s “foresight” with your “hindsight”.”
—oh come on. You know I give the CCP more credit than that. I think they did foresee it, and did it anyway, which is why they’re not so eager to talk about it, even after all these years. As Steve points out, if you’re in the right, you usually have no aversion to talking about it; and the opposite is also true.
“So, get over your “assumptions”, for the “umpteenth time”!!!”
—that would be easy just as soon as the air is cleared and the facts are out there. You let me know when that happens.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:39 am
SKC,
“— if part (a) makes no sense, and part (b) makes no sense, how much sense does “A + B” make; and hypotheticals aside, your part (a) made no sense, your part (b) made no sense, and parts (a) and (b) together didn’t fare much better, as I’ve described.”
You give exception to part (a) only, and then you argue (a) + (b) don’t make sense. That is not rational. X = A and B (in this case, it’s more complex than a mere “and” function), X does not equal to A by itself!!!
If I could prove X is true, whenever A is true, then I don’t need X = A and B!!!
*I “failed to show so far”??? Maybe you need to get to basic boolean math, before I can explain to you further.
I keep showing multiple factors, including A, B, C, and D, and you insisting that it doesn’t make sense, because well, X doesn’t always equal to A!
Did I say X always equal to A??
Did I say that “payment from private individuals” alone is sufficient to determine what is “governmental function”?
*
“The money factor is irrelevant, since you’ve even used the passport argument. So really, it hinges on the second factor ie the act of driving someone to hospital.”
If the test “hinges” on 1 factor, then it’s NOT a multi-factor test!!!
You fail to show me that you make any sense at all! Your dissections clearly indicate that you tried to analyze a multi-factor test as “1 factor at a time” test. You just don’t get this very basic concept do you?? Well, Big news flash!
*
“—another non sequitur. Obviously we’re talking about them using their skills while on duty in the performance of a government function…or was that not obvious enough previously?”
Obviously, if your 1 factor doesn’t make sense, why tell me another factor like “on duty”?
*
“—apparently I know a lot more about Canada than you do…no surprise there.”
except the laws in Canada, DUH! No surprise there!
*
“—I do enjoy laws that make sense. But what you speak of is not even the law in Canada.”
Eh, you don’t know the laws, anywhere, I thought you already admitted that.
*
“—for exactly the reasons I’ve been saying all along. These students were willing to resist. THey were willing to break the (martial) law. If you up the ante, it’s foreseeable that they will too. And since you’re the army and they only have stones and molotov’s, it’s further foreseeable that, if it came to that, they will be taking some serious damage.”
That’s your assumption, Get over it!
*
“—when it comes to proportionate use of force, people have, certainly in Canada, and in the US as well, i believe. You should also google Dziekanski inquiry.”
Not against the leaders who made the decisions to “send them”, you are changing the issue to your tangent again, to cover up the fact that you were making sh*t up!
*
“—so you’ve said. And still they won’t talk about it…go figure.”
So why do you keep bringing up the “intentional orders”??
*
“—oh come on. You know I give the CCP more credit than that. I think they did foresee it, and did it anyway, which is why they’re not so eager to talk about it, even after all these years. As Steve points out, if you’re in the right, you usually have no aversion to talking about it; and the opposite is also true.”
Why are you still talking about “intentional orders”? I thought you wanted to talk about “negligence”??
*
“—that would be easy just as soon as the air is cleared and the facts are out there. You let me know when that happens.”
You let me know when God tells you the Truth. While at it, get clear on your boolean math, Get over yourself.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:05 am
@ R4K: What on earth are you talking about? The GLF went from 1957 to 1960. The famine occurred in 1959 and 1960. And you see no connection between the famine and the GLF? Even Mao admitted the GLF was a failure. There were two aspects to the “reforms”, agricultural and industrial. The “backyard furnaces” were part of the industrial reforms of the GLF. Collectivization was the main thrust of the agricultural. How many of those commune members were working the furnaces, making useless junk, when they should have been working the fields and taking in the harvest? By late 1960 the GLF was declared a failure and the reforms were undone. That’s why there was more food by 1962. All this is thoroughly documented from Chinese authors.
And exactly WHY did local officials conceal the famine and food shortages? Last I checked, local officials were part of the government. Long lasting damage to the agricultural sector? There was long lasting, in fact, there was permanent damage to tens of millions of people. Seriously, you may want to read up on this one a bit more before your next post.
I’m talking about the CIA of today. You’re talking about the CIA of the past. Do you also compare the China of today with the China of 1953? Do you get the two of them confused? I think you do when it comes to the CIA. Blaming everything on the CIA without any evidence isn’t much of an argument. Why don’t we just blame Canada instead? I know a really catchy song for that. 😀
You might want to check out the Church Committee Report from 1975. What you’re asking was already done. And are you telling me that China openly reports what it spends on its worldwide spy network? Does any country? Let me give you a hint; in China it’s a “state secret” so if you divulge the numbers, I wouldn’t recommend setting foot inside the country anytime soon. 😉
And what in God’s name does TAM have to do with another country’s spy agency? Let’s see… TAM was Chinese attacking Chinese in the largest public square in the world, with the world press observing. And the CIA is a national spy agency for the United States. Hmm… not quite making the connection here.
Our China sales manager told me her family had been in Shanghai from at least the 1840s and I never met anyone else who could trace it back anywhere near as far. Some long time Shanghainese told me there were three basic classes in the city: the people who were originally from Zhejiang Province, the ones from Jiangsu Province south of the Changjiang River and the ones from Jiangsu Province north of the Changjiang River. Their social status was ranked in that order. I noticed that the Zhejiang people had lighter skin and a different look to their faces.
Of course, the natives considered people who had moved to Shanghai in the last few years as yellow trash. The ones that had moved to Shanghai from other parts of China said the “Old Shanghainese” were all part Japanese from stuff that happened during the war which shall remain unsaid. They said the Shanghainese dialect sorta sounded like Japanese to them 😛
Personally, Shanghai is my favorite Asian city and one of my top 5 favorite cities in the world.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:25 am
To R4000:
“You give exception to part (a) only, and then you argue (a) + (b) don’t make sense.”
—once again, what are you talking about? In #144, the passport analogy goes toward part a; in #154, the taxi analogy goes toward part b.
If a is false, and b is false, then you’ll really have to explain to me how a + b is worth the pixels it’s displayed with. It’d be even better if you had something specific alluding to the basis of this discussion, rather than the hypothetical alpha-numerics.
“Eh, you don’t know the laws, anywhere, I thought you already admitted that.”
—umm, wrong once again. You’re on a real roll here. I’m not a lawyer, and you’re not a lawyer in Canada. Which is what I’ve been trying to tell you, and it’s clearly not getting through some very dense barriers…your knowledge of the law, at least in this case, has no relevance in Canada.
“That’s your assumption, Get over it!”
— you really are a little slow on the uptake sometimes. I’d love for it not to be your assumptions or mine; but for that to happen, “somebody” needs to open up to a parsing of the “facts”. You can have 3 guesses who that “somebody” is. Let me know if you’ll need all 3.
““—when it comes to proportionate use of force, people have, certainly in Canada, and in the US as well, i believe. You should also google Dziekanski inquiry.”
Not against the leaders who made the decisions to “send them”, you are changing the issue to your tangent again, to cover up the fact that you were making sh*t up!”
—hey buddy, you’re the one with the goofy police-beating-up-people-in-a-sit-in scenario. I’m just responding to that. You’re the one going on another non sequitur. You’re accumulating quite a collection of those bad boys.
“Why are you still talking about “intentional orders”? I thought you wanted to talk about “negligence”??”
—drawing the intestines once again…if they weren’t intentional orders, then it goes back to the fact that the CCP should have foreseen the consequences of the PLA moving in, etc etc, thus establishing duty of care, etc etc, and on the road towards negligence. On the other hand, if they were intentional orders, then no negligence, but I can certainly see why they’re a little shy about talking about it, as per the principles Steve stated. Hope that helps.
“You let me know when God tells you the Truth. While at it, get clear on your boolean math, Get over yourself.”
—way to finish off with a flourish…yet another non sequitur. Maybe that’s your legal specialty.
June 26th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Steve,
Coinciding dates do not mean that 2 events necessarily have causal relations to each other. Mao admitted GLF is a failure, doesn’t mean that he admitted it also caused the Famine.
Agriculture collectivization policy was not reversed until Deng’s reform began in the 1970’s. Obviously if that policy caused the Famine, the Famine would have gone on for much longer.
*
I don’t think “Old Shanghainese” had much mixing with the Japanese. We might be “friendly”, but we are not total kiss-assers.
June 26th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
SKC,
Your argument is illogical, ““The money factor is irrelevant, since you’ve even used the passport argument. So really, it HINGES on the second factor ie the act of driving someone to hospital.””
You obviously applied only 1 factor at a time as “Hinged” to the conclusion of whether some function was “governmental function”.
That is NOT how multi-factor tests work!!
GET over your ridiculous assumptions and completely irrational argument!!
*
“—umm, wrong once again. You’re on a real roll here. I’m not a lawyer, and you’re not a lawyer in Canada. Which is what I’ve been trying to tell you, and it’s clearly not getting through some very dense barriers…your knowledge of the law, at least in this case, has no relevance in Canada.”
Umm, wrong for you. I know more about laws than you do.
You make silly assumptions that “ambulance drivers perform governmental functions”, and then use your silly assumption to question legal tests for “governmental functions”. You are doubly DENSE!
*
“— you really are a little slow on the uptake sometimes. I’d love for it not to be your assumptions or mine; but for that to happen, “somebody” needs to open up to a parsing of the “facts”. You can have 3 guesses who that “somebody” is. Let me know if you’ll need all 3.”
You are still waiting on the facts, and making up irrational assumptions of laws as you go. You already used up all your GUESSES!!!
*
“—hey buddy, you’re the one with the goofy police-beating-up-people-in-a-sit-in scenario. I’m just responding to that. You’re the one going on another non sequitur. You’re accumulating quite a collection of those bad boys.”
I didn’t raise the “negligence” issue. You were the one who wanted to talk about “negligence” in the “order” to send PLA, NOT me! My scenario was to illustrate your total ignorance of law!
*
“—drawing the intestines once again…if they weren’t intentional orders, then it goes back to the fact that the CCP should have foreseen the consequences of the PLA moving in, etc etc, thus establishing duty of care, etc etc, and on the road towards negligence. On the other hand, if they were intentional orders, then no negligence, but I can certainly see why they’re a little shy about talking about it, as per the principles Steve stated. Hope that helps.”
Already told you, your speculation of 1 alternative scenario doesn’t prove your argument for the “negligence” issue. You are going tangent. Why are you going tangent?
*
“—way to finish off with a flourish…yet another non sequitur. Maybe that’s your legal specialty.”
You brought it up. I’ll wait for your answer. I guess you don’t have one on when you will get an answer, based upon your assumptions of the laws.
Keep arguing using your ignorance of law. I guess you will get somewhere with questions framed and limited by your own ignorant assumptions!!
Get over yourself!!
Let me give you a “1 factor test”.
Your knowledge of the law, HINGES upon the limitations of your mistaken assumptions of Law. Hence, your questions of law are IRRELEVANT, since you bring in wrong assumptions!! You can’t even make sense on your application of a “multi-factor test”!!
Dig your hole, and float your “boat”. That’s all you know.
June 26th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
@ R4K: If you are unwilling to see the causal relationship between these two events, nothing I or anyone else can say or show will convince you otherwise. So be it.
About the Japanese and “Old Shanghainese”, I don’t make the news, I just report it. 😛
June 26th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Steve,
All I can say is, I have read multiple theories on the cause of the Famine. The most data do not show a direct link of GLF to the Famine, since the Agricultural collectivization was carried on all the way to 1970’s.
There were many factors, including natural disaster, etc.
Western view of that event tend to be simplistic and without much data for support.
*
Your reported rumor about Shanghainese is amusing, but still rumor.
I can trace my family history in Shanghai for about 300 years, and my personal family history in China to almost 2500 years ago.
There are a lot of old “sub-classes” of Shanghainese people from various provinces and towns. Always some stereotypical stories.
But I think it depends on who you talk to. There is no universally acknowledged “ranking” for Old Shanghainese.
June 26th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
@ R4K: It was a joke told by non-Shanghainese when I lived there, it’s not a rumor. There is no similarity between Shanghainese and Japanese. I was just teasing…
June 26th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Steve,
Oh, thanks for the joke. But I have been told that I look very Mexican with my curly hair.
🙂
Which is quite amusing, considering how old my Chinese ancestry is traced back to.
June 27th, 2009 at 5:21 am
To R4000:
you are dense beyond all belief. Like I said before, I feel for your “clients”.
“That is NOT how multi-factor tests work!!”
—listen…if this test involves “A and B”, then not only must A stand on its own, and B stand on its own, but then the two put together as a pair must still remain standing. So “A and B” is in fact a more stringent test than A alone or B alone. I’ve already shown you that A was nonsense, and B was nonsense. Maybe you can show me how two pieces of nonsense, as tests go, produce something that’s somehow less nonsensical. Good luck with that. Like I’ve said before, take your time. Oh, and you’re digging again. If you need a bigger shovel, just let us know.
“I know more about laws than you do.”
—the point, once again for those of us keeping score at home, is how little you know about Canada’s laws. For once, you should look to find the modesty and graciousness required to admit that fact, and save us all some time. I mean, each state has a bar exam, and I assume even Allen is only qualified and certified to practice law in California. So it’s no big shakes if you don’t know the law in another state, or country. But to keep going on and on about it is unbecoming…though I suppose not so much for you.
“You make silly assumptions that “ambulance drivers perform governmental functions””
—like I said, maybe not in the US, though i don’t even really believe that, since you don’t seem like a reliable source. If Allen concurred with you, then I’d be convinced. But in Canada, different story, and you are not in the know, though you seem even unaware of that fact.
“You are still waiting on the facts, and making up irrational assumptions of laws as you go. You already used up all your GUESSES!!!”
—you are quite a piece of work…not a good piece, but quite a piece nonetheless. Here’s to drawing intestines yet again: it’d be great if we had all the facts. It’s the CCP’s fault that we don’t. So we all make some assumptions. And here’s something for ya…you’re making assumptions as well. If that disturbs you, don’t look at me, complain to the CCP.
“My scenario was to illustrate your total ignorance of law!”
—sadly, your scenario only managed to highlight the goofiness of your scenario. Solid work. Was that billable?
“your speculation of 1 alternative scenario doesn’t prove your argument for the “negligence” issue.”
—I never said it proved anything. So let’s all hold our breath and wait for the CCP to objectively disperse and discuss “the facts”….starting….now.
“You can’t even make sense on your application of a “multi-factor test”!!”
—it’s tough to make sense of a multi factor test when the factors you’ve introduced are retarded, as I’ve already shown you. Is that so hard to comprehend.? Make up some “factors” that make sense, then we can talk. In the meantime, well, I suppose you’re busy digging….
June 27th, 2009 at 5:36 am
r4000: “I can trace my…my personal family history in China to almost 2500 years ago.”
I’ll probably end up regretting asking this, but how can you trace your personal family history so far back?
June 27th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
SKC,
“—listen…if this test involves “A and B”, then not only must A stand on its own, and B stand on its own, but then the two put together as a pair must still remain standing. So “A and B” is in fact a more stringent test than A alone or B alone. I’ve already shown you that A was nonsense, and B was nonsense. Maybe you can show me how two pieces of nonsense, as tests go, produce something that’s somehow less nonsensical. Good luck with that. Like I’ve said before, take your time. Oh, and you’re digging again. If you need a bigger shovel, just let us know.”
WRONG, if X = A and B. X is not always = A. If A = 1, B = 0, X = 0. X does not equal A! Just because X does not equal to A in 1 case, does not mean X = A and B doesn’t make sense!
You need to own up your lack of understanding of MULTI-FACTOR test. I’m tired of explaining to you.
If you are looking at 1 factor to make sense to your result, you are NOT using a “multi-factor” test!!
“—the point, once again for those of us keeping score at home, is how little you know about Canada’s laws. For once, you should look to find the modesty and graciousness required to admit that fact, and save us all some time. I mean, each state has a bar exam, and I assume even Allen is only qualified and certified to practice law in California. So it’s no big shakes if you don’t know the law in another state, or country. But to keep going on and on about it is unbecoming…though I suppose not so much for you.”
The point is, how your dense head is filled with so many assumptions, that you don’t even know that you don’t know the law any more.
“—like I said, maybe not in the US, though i don’t even really believe that, since you don’t seem like a reliable source. If Allen concurred with you, then I’d be convinced. But in Canada, different story, and you are not in the know, though you seem even unaware of that fact.”
stop looking for validations from other people, you don’t know how multi-factor test works. You have nothing but your ignorant assumptions of the law. You don’t know jack about Canadian Law.
“—you are quite a piece of work…not a good piece, but quite a piece nonetheless. Here’s to drawing intestines yet again: it’d be great if we had all the facts. It’s the CCP’s fault that we don’t. So we all make some assumptions. And here’s something for ya…you’re making assumptions as well. If that disturbs you, don’t look at me, complain to the CCP.”
You are quite a piece of lower intestine, yet again. All that comes out of your mouth and brains are made up CR*P, why blame other people for not giving you “facts”, when you are perfectly happy to make ignorant assumptions, even when information is available to you??
Go learn some real laws, then you can talk!
“—sadly, your scenario only managed to highlight the goofiness of your scenario. Solid work. Was that billable?”
I don’t charge to tell you about your ignorance.
“—I never said it proved anything. So let’s all hold our breath and wait for the CCP to objectively disperse and discuss “the facts”….starting….now.”
Then you were just wasting my time with your irrelevant tangent. Another sign that you were avoiding your “hole”.
“—it’s tough to make sense of a multi factor test when the factors you’ve introduced are retarded, as I’ve already shown you. Is that so hard to comprehend.? Make up some “factors” that make sense, then we can talk. In the meantime, well, I suppose you’re busy digging….”
Sure, it’s retarded when it doesn’t make sense to YOU!!! Says everything about you, doesn’t it?
Isn’t it always the same excuse with you and your ignorant assumptions? don’t make sense to you: Oh, it’s “retarded”, or not explained well enough for you!
Nope, you are just ignorant and Lazy!! Because you don’t even understand how X = A and B works. Duh, X doesn’t equal to A!!!
No boolean functions where you “hole up”???!!
June 27th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
BC,
“I’ll probably end up regretting asking this, but how can you trace your personal family history so far back?”
I have a family record of names passed down for at least 300 years, which traced my bloodline back to Spring Autumn Period of China.
Fortunately, my last name is one of the more rare family names in China, and most of us with that last name only live or are from an area around Shanghai. So, that makes it a little easier to trace back.
June 27th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
@ BC & Raventhorn: Yes, it’s true. Raventhorn is indeed a very rare family name in China! 😛
June 27th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Steve,
I said my last name is rare.
4000 is a very rare last name.
🙂
June 27th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
To R4000:
how’s the digging going? Pretty well, I see.
“Just because X does not equal to A in 1 case, does not mean X = A and B doesn’t make sense!”
—so here’s the thing. If you offer up X=A AND B, then you need to show how that makes sense. You haven’t come close to doing that. Now, let’s go back to your goofy little “test”:
““The fact that the Canadian government charge individual money for ambulance, AND there are private means that can drive a person to hospitals, means it’s “non-governmental function”.” (R4000 #146)
—people are charged by government for ambulances, just as they are for many things AND while taxis can similarly transport a person to hospital, the cabbie is much less likely than an ambulance attendant to be able to offer preliminary medical care en route, the provision of which, in Canada at least, is a government function that is simply beyond debate. So, in the 37 comments since you brought up this goofy little test, you’ve yet to come close to showing how your test proves anything, and I’ve shown you that it proves nothing.
Again, to clear it up more for you since you seemingly need clarification in endless amounts, ambulances do more than just “drive” someone to the hospital. The value-added stuff that an ambulance provides above and beyond mere transportation is what makes it a government function. So as I said before, part B is simply flawed as a component of your test. So care to rephrase, or what? How much clearer can it be made for you that you’re making no sense.
“The point is, how your dense head is filled with so many assumptions, that you don’t even know that you don’t know the law any more.”
—once again a completely non-responsive non sequitur, which is seemingly all that you’re good for these days. And those characteristics to which I alluded are clearly ones that you sorely lack.
“stop looking for validations from other people, you don’t know how multi-factor test works.”
—where do you get this stuff? As I’ve suggested before, you might want to try stand-up, though Dane Cook/Russell Peters you ain’t.
“even when information is available to you”
—oh, you mean the stuff the CCP doesn’t talk about, but good folks like you have already crystallized as facts according to R4000? No thanks…that stuff can turn your stomach, and make you violently ill.
“Then you were just wasting my time with your irrelevant tangent.”
—I’d love to know what you think you’ve “proved”. This should be good…
“Says everything about you, doesn’t it?”
—it sure does. Me, I like stuff that makes sense. Clearly, you are not as discerning an individual, and let me assure you, that aspect reveals itself every time you open your mouth. Not a pretty sight.
June 27th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
SKC,
I say you are up to your eyeballs with ignorance “hole”.
“—so here’s the thing. If you offer up X=A AND B, then you need to show how that makes sense. You haven’t come close to doing that. Now, let’s go back to your goofy little “test”:
““The fact that the Canadian government charge individual money for ambulance, AND there are private means that can drive a person to hospitals, means it’s “non-governmental function”.” (R4000 #146)
—people are charged by government for ambulances, just as they are for many things AND while taxis can similarly transport a person to hospital, the cabbie is much less likely than an ambulance attendant to be able to offer preliminary medical care en route, the provision of which, in Canada at least, is a government function that is simply beyond debate. So, in the 37 comments since you brought up this goofy little test, you’ve yet to come close to showing how your test proves anything, and I’ve shown you that it proves nothing.”
“preliminary medical care en route”? As I have already shown you that there are plenty of private ambulance services. Here is one for Canada.
467 Charlton Ave. East
Hamilton, Ontario
L8N 1Z4
By Fax: (905) 528-8833
By E-mail: candice@opt-med.com
Online: http://www.opt-med.com
“in Canada at least, is a government function that is simply beyond debate.”
You mean, beyond your ignorance!!!
“cabbie is much less likely”???
“less likely” doesn’t mean can’t. Your own admission on that point puts your assumption of “government function” at debate!!
Just because it requires more training, doesn’t make it “governmental function”, since when does government has exclusive control of “preliminary medical care”?
*
Frankly, you are dodging the hole.
You had no clue about how to apply the “multi-factor test”, you applied it like it’s a 1 factor test.
June 27th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
SKC,
“—once again a completely non-responsive non sequitur, which is seemingly all that you’re good for these days. And those characteristics to which I alluded are clearly ones that you sorely lack.”
Speak for yourself, you are the one with all the assumptions about this is/isn’t “government function”, when you don’t even know what the legal test for “government function” is!!
“—where do you get this stuff? As I’ve suggested before, you might want to try stand-up, though Dane Cook/Russell Peters you ain’t.”
You know about as much about Comedy as you know about laws and boolean functions. Yeah, I’m sure you crack yourself up with repetitions of your “holes” and “digging” 1 liners. Says much about you, doesn’t it?
“—oh, you mean the stuff the CCP doesn’t talk about, but good folks like you have already crystallized as facts according to R4000? No thanks…that stuff can turn your stomach, and make you violently ill.”
Nope, you make up garbage on Canadian law, that’s enough to show me that you are just ignorant.
“—I’d love to know what you think you’ve “proved”. This should be good…”
If you don’t know by now the extent of your ignorance, it must be very “good” for you. At least you get to “float your boat” again.
“—it sure does. Me, I like stuff that makes sense. Clearly, you are not as discerning an individual, and let me assure you, that aspect reveals itself every time you open your mouth. Not a pretty sight.”
Nope, you clearly can’t make sense out of anything, not even boolean functions. Clearly, I know you are pretty messed up.
June 27th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
SKC,
Here is another private Canadian ambulance service.
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/guardrd/index_files/Page346.htm
The four major components of our Service are:
1. Emergency Medical Services
2. Inter-Hospital transportation
3. Special Events standby
4. EMS Management consulting
June 27th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
http://www.medstat.durham.net/
Medstat E.M.S. is one of the oldest and most experienced private emergency medical services in Ontario, Canada. In many area’s we have been a unique forerunner, in the events medical and mobility transfer business, becoming an historical cornerstone in the industry.
http://www.parkviewems.com/event/event_services.html
Parkview owns and operates fully equipped B.L.S. Ambulance vehicles. The vehicles are equipped to B.L.S. standards as set out by the Ontario Ministry of Health. Ambulance Dispatch Centers.
GROUND MEDICAL SUPPORT
Preferred Provider of Ground Transportation Services to numerous Air Ambulance and Insurance/Assistance Companies Worldwide
Basic and Advanced Life Support Service available
Operate our own fleet in Toronto, Canada
Quality Control to insure superior service
Limousine, Taxi and Stretcher Van service
24 hour/365 day Service
June 27th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
To R4000:
I see you’ve moved out of your hole, and are now back to comparing apples and oranges. It seems you engage in a limited number of pursuits.
Your links are to “transfer ambulances” and “ground medical transports”. Those take non-emergent patients, and “taxi” them from one place to another. Those are distinctly different from the ones you get when you dial 911, who respond to emergencies. So if this is where you want to go with it, then sure, “elective” transfer of patients may not be a government function. But if you were having a stroke and dial 911, you would not be getting the type of ambulance you suggest, since that, ahem, would be an emergency.
““cabbie is much less likely”??? “less likely” doesn’t mean can’t.”
—you are hilarious…and not in a good way. I think most people, if they had a medical emergency, would prefer an ambulance attendant to care for them en route to hospital, and not a cabbie (no offense to cabbies). Plus, I’ve never seen 2 cabbies in one cab picking up a fare. If the cabbie is driving, and trying to provide medical care simultaneously, my guess is that he/she would not be doing either job particularly well.
“since when does government has exclusive control of “preliminary medical care”?”
—I am truly speechless.
“You had no clue about how to apply the “multi-factor test”, you applied it like it’s a 1 factor test.”
—I can’t help it if the application of the test is poor, when the test itself is fatally flawed, as I’ve shown. You have yet to show how you would apply your little test in any way that makes sense.
“you don’t even know what the legal test for “government function” is”
—are you still referring to your goofy little test?
“You know about as much about Comedy as you know about laws and boolean functions”
— this is what i know about you. You are a laugh, when you don’t mean to be. But if you were to try to be funny, I’m not sure how successful you’d be.
So, this amusing aside about how ambulances are emergency vehicles doing government work has been most entertaining. But wouldn’t it be so much nicer if the CCP would just share with everyone what they were thinking before 6/4, and figure out why 6/4 unfolded the way it did? Or do you not care, since you seem to have all the facts you’ll ever need, or be able to handle?
BTW, really enjoyed how your last link even mentions limousine and taxi service. Quite enjoyed that one.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:09 am
SKC,
I see you are still trying to stuff apples and oranges into every conversation.
I see you can’t read the “Basic and Advanced Life Support Service available” part.
I thought you might neglect to read some of that.
“—you are hilarious…and not in a good way. I think most people, if they had a medical emergency, would prefer an ambulance attendant to care for them en route to hospital, and not a cabbie (no offense to cabbies). Plus, I’ve never seen 2 cabbies in one cab picking up a fare. If the cabbie is driving, and trying to provide medical care simultaneously, my guess is that he/she would not be doing either job particularly well.”
Personal preference doesn’t make a “government function”. That’s just your personal Preference. You are still ignorant.
““since when does government has exclusive control of “preliminary medical care”?”
—I am truly speechless.”
You should be, when you are “speechless”, that’s the ONLY time when you are being honest.
“—I can’t help it if the application of the test is poor, when the test itself is fatally flawed, as I’ve shown. You have yet to show how you would apply your little test in any way that makes sense.”
Try blame it on your ignorance instead. Quit while you are ahead, and remain “speechless”.
““you don’t even know what the legal test for “government function” is”
—are you still referring to your goofy little test?”
you don’t know the TEST, NOR the actual laws. You are the goofy one.
“— this is what i know about you. You are a laugh, when you don’t mean to be. But if you were to try to be funny, I’m not sure how successful you’d be.”
Yet again, you bring your own irrelevant assumptions. What else can we expect from you, more personal comments about other people’s writing style, their comedy skills? As usual, that’s your cowardly way of retreating out of your obvious ignorance of the actual subject!!
Your display of ignorance is quite habitual.
“So, this amusing aside about how ambulances are emergency vehicles doing government work has been most entertaining. But wouldn’t it be so much nicer if the CCP would just share with everyone what they were thinking before 6/4, and figure out why 6/4 unfolded the way it did? Or do you not care, since you seem to have all the facts you’ll ever need, or be able to handle?”
If you cared about the truth, you wouldn’t be making up BS about Canadian laws. God only knows you just assume everything you don’t understand as “goofy”.
Here is my fact for you, you can’t take the Truth, Boolean function is too “goofy” for you.
“BTW, really enjoyed how your last link even mentions limousine and taxi service. Quite enjoyed that one.”
You can click on the advertisement on that link too, if you want. I don’t give a damn how tangent you want to go on your time. It’s irrelevant in here.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:27 am
To R4000:
you know, this is becoming an epidemic for you. You ignore the point, but instead focus on word-choice, and sometimes not even focusing all that well.
“Personal preference doesn’t make a “government function”. That’s just your personal Preference.”
— what I said was “I think most people”, so certainly not referring to just my personal preference. But that’s not even the point; the point is that cabbies in one cab are simply not equipped, in training and in number (ie only one cabbie per cab usually) to provide any form of medical care en route to hospital. Which is probably why the government serves that function, and doesn’t leave it to cabbies.
“I see you can’t read the “Basic and Advanced Life Support Service available” part.”
—of course it’s “available”. If you’re transporting a patient, there’s always the possibility that they’d pull a Michael Jackson on you. Imagine the liability if you were electively transporting a patient from A to B, their heart stops, but the attendants aren’t trained to administer resuscitation. As a lawyer, you would have a field day. But the role is still different from responding to a 911 emergency.
“Try blame it on your ignorance instead. Quit while you are ahead, and remain “speechless”.”
—no, the blame is on your lousy test. But I am ahead, you’re quite right about that. First time for everything, I suppose.
“you don’t know the TEST, NOR the actual laws.”
—I think I’ve given you ample opportunity to show how your test is remotely relevant, or applicable. But still….nothing…..I think that silence is rather revealing, don’t you?
“Yet again, you bring your own irrelevant assumptions.”
—dude, when it comes to you, I’m way past merely assuming.
“If you cared about the truth, you wouldn’t be making up BS about Canadian laws”
—I’m trying to bring the discussion back to TAM and the PLA, and this is your response? Is this the best you can do? Like I’ve said, I expect very little from you, and even then, sometimes you disappoint.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:39 am
SKC,
“you know, this is becoming an epidemic for you. You ignore the point, but instead focus on word-choice, and sometimes not even focusing all that well.”
You chose the words! Deal with your own admissions.
“— what I said was “I think most people”, so certainly not referring to just my personal preference. But that’s not even the point; the point is that cabbies in one cab are simply not equipped, in training and in number (ie only one cabbie per cab usually) to provide any form of medical care en route to hospital. Which is probably why the government serves that function, and doesn’t leave it to cabbies.”
Most people in their preferences are still “private personal preferences”. Private ambulances have the same trainings. You don’t have a point.
“—of course it’s “available”. If you’re transporting a patient, there’s always the possibility that they’d pull a Michael Jackson on you. Imagine the liability if you were electively transporting a patient from A to B, their heart stops, but the attendants aren’t trained to administer resuscitation. As a lawyer, you would have a field day. But the role is still different from responding to a 911 emergency.”
Available means they are TRAINED!!
“—no, the blame is on your lousy test. But I am ahead, you’re quite right about that. First time for everything, I suppose.”
No, QUIT while you are “speechless”. Only ahead of yourself again. 1st time? Delusional as usual. Blame on your delusions.
“—I think I’ve given you ample opportunity to show how your test is remotely relevant, or applicable. But still….nothing…..I think that silence is rather revealing, don’t you?”
I think I given you ample opportunity to learn boolean functions. You can’t learn, that’s simply obvious.
“—dude, when it comes to you, I’m way past merely assuming.”
When it comes to you, you never stop assuming (and blabbing your ignorance). It’s obvious.
“—I’m trying to bring the discussion back to TAM and the PLA, and this is your response? Is this the best you can do? Like I’ve said, I expect very little from you, and even then, sometimes you disappoint.”
You already tried more than 20 times to go tangent on personal attacks, 1 liners, and irrelevant issues (like intentional). I expect you will be continuing your pattern of generally being ignorant, assuming, and ill mannered. That’s why you get that response. That’s all you deserve for your “goofy” 1 liners.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:57 am
SKC,
Still fiddling with your apples and oranges.
You know you would make a terrible clown. But you amuse me with your antic.
I think I gave you ample opportunities to demonstrate your proofs. But oh well, you disappoint.
Do you get billed for your bad grammar?
I am speechless at your goofy stunts.
Now, I’m trying to get the discussion back to TAM, and this is the best you can do? What do we expect from you?
Want to try to dig some more hole with your shovel, or float your boat to make yourself feel better?
*
Yep, that covers every thing SKC knows to say, rinse, repeat, dry.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:01 am
“Private ambulances have the same trainings. You don’t have a point.”
—unbelievable once again. The point, for the umpteenth time, is that private ambulances do not serve a government function, since they don’t respond to emergencies; they’re transporting patients, kinda like the taxis I was talking about. In a warped way…wait for it…I agree with you, if for no other reason that that is completely beside the point. The ambulances that do respond to emergencies, however, are not private ambulances, since they are performing a government function. Those, in case you’re still keeping track, would be the ones we’ve actually been talking about. Look, you can ignore the point all you want, and I will be happy to remind you each and every time. You seem like someone who would need such reminders.
“You chose the words!”
—i did indeed. It’d be nice if you quoted me accurately. Oh well.
“Available means they are TRAINED!!”
—I never said private ambulance attendants weren’t trained. I said taxi drivers weren’t trained to provide medical care. That private ambulance attendants are trained has absolutely no relevance to our discussion about public ambulances serving a government function. So I have no idea why you even bring it up. But now that you do, you’re still not making sense, even on that level. How do you manage to stand up in court, anyhow?
“You can’t learn, that’s simply obvious.”
—it’s not the concept of the multi-factor test that’s the problem; it’s your specific idiotic iteration of such a test that’s the problem. Again, how many times does a guy have to say that before it sinks in?
“That’s why you get that response. That’s all you deserve for your “goofy” 1 liners.”
—I’m guessing this is all you’re capable of. Not your fault, really. Must be the fault of somebody in “the West”. And still unable to return to TAM and PLA, when given way more than ample opportunity. Like I said, it speaks volumes.
As for #192, as I’ve said before, imitation is the best form of flattery, but rest assured that I desire no such flattery from you, for large part since it isn’t worth much. Furthermore, one-liners are best employed in a proper context; their random use renders you no better than the guy muttering to himself on a street corner. Yet again, here endeth the lesson.
June 28th, 2009 at 11:52 am
SKC,
“—unbelievable once again. The point, for the umpteenth time, is that private ambulances do not serve a government function, since they don’t respond to emergencies; they’re transporting patients, kinda like the taxis I was talking about. In a warped way…wait for it…I agree with you, if for no other reason that that is completely beside the point. The ambulances that do respond to emergencies, however, are not private ambulances, since they are performing a government function. Those, in case you’re still keeping track, would be the ones we’ve actually been talking about. Look, you can ignore the point all you want, and I will be happy to remind you each and every time. You seem like someone who would need such reminders.”
for the last time, you are putting forth an assumption before the proof, making up your own definitions of “government function”, and then testing the test. Who says ambulances (private or public) perform a “government function”??!
“—i did indeed. It’d be nice if you quoted me accurately. Oh well.”
Quoted you exactly as you used them. Stop you whining.
“—I never said private ambulance attendants weren’t trained. I said taxi drivers weren’t trained to provide medical care. That private ambulance attendants are trained has absolutely no relevance to our discussion about public ambulances serving a government function. So I have no idea why you even bring it up. But now that you do, you’re still not making sense, even on that level. How do you manage to stand up in court, anyhow?”
Who says “no relevance” on Private ambulance attendants?! You are running away again!
I said all along, 1 factor was “availability of private alternatives”.
“—it’s not the concept of the multi-factor test that’s the problem; it’s your specific idiotic iteration of such a test that’s the problem. Again, how many times does a guy have to say that before it sinks in?”
How many times do you have to embarrass yourself in this forum, before you actually own up, AGAIN! Really, how many times before, did you have to go back and forward on your ridiculous assumptions, and only to be cornered? It’s obviously you are just doing it again!
“—I’m guessing this is all you’re capable of. Not your fault, really. Must be the fault of somebody in “the West”. And still unable to return to TAM and PLA, when given way more than ample opportunity. Like I said, it speaks volumes.”
I guess you still are only capable of 1 liners. It is your own fault. That is what you deserve.
“As for #192, as I’ve said before, imitation is the best form of flattery, but rest assured that I desire no such flattery from you, for large part since it isn’t worth much. Furthermore, one-liners are best employed in a proper context; their random use renders you no better than the guy muttering to himself on a street corner. Yet again, here endeth the lesson.”
I’m you would think that’s flattery. “Proper context”? look in the mirror, SKC, you are that guy on the street corner.
Learn some boolean functions and civics lessons.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
To R4000:
hey, congratulations on #192 again. Looks like 6 readers (or 1 admin) found it super useful to the discussion.
“I’m you would think that’s flattery.”
—your words exactly. And no idea what that means.
“Who says ambulances (private or public) perform a “government function”??!”
—I’ve been trying to say that private ambulances don’t perform a government function for 1 or 2 days at least; and I’ve been saying that public ambulances do perform a government function for seemingly weeks. I hope that answers your “who” query.
“1 factor was “availability of private alternatives”.”
—the private ambulances are “available” to be used for their stated purpose: to transport patients. The private ambulances are not there to respond to public emergencies; that’s the job of the public ambulances, who are there to exercise their government function. That private ambulance attendants are suitably trained for their private duties has no relevance when it comes to a discussion of public ambulances in the exercise of government functions.
“I guess you still are only capable of 1 liners.”
—another non sequitur. I’ve lost count of how many you’ve uttered. And again, this is the pathetic response to another of my attempts to bring the discussion back to the TAM and PLA. Well, if at first you don’t succeed…
“How many times do you have to embarrass yourself in this forum…”
—you mean like you in #192? Go on, you should vote for yourself just to re-expand your (ahem) fabulous random collection of mutterings and utterances.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
SKC,
I’m sure you did find it “flattering”. Which makes the comments yours, not mine.
“—I’ve been trying to say that private ambulances don’t perform a government function for 1 or 2 days at least; and I’ve been saying that public ambulances do perform a government function for seemingly weeks. I hope that answers your “who” query.”
You have been repeating your assumption for 2 days now. Doesn’t make it correct.
“—the private ambulances are “available” to be used for their stated purpose: to transport patients. The private ambulances are not there to respond to public emergencies; that’s the job of the public ambulances, who are there to exercise their government function. That private ambulance attendants are suitably trained for their private duties has no relevance when it comes to a discussion of public ambulances in the exercise of government functions.”
What did you think “Advance Life Support Service” means? Just “transport”???!! Look it up, your assumptions are ridiculous!!
“—another non sequitur. I’ve lost count of how many you’ve uttered. And again, this is the pathetic response to another of my attempts to bring the discussion back to the TAM and PLA. Well, if at first you don’t succeed…”
Speak for your own 1 liners and repetitions of ridiculous assumptions. You are pathetic.
“—you mean like you in #192? Go on, you should vote for yourself just to re-expand your (ahem) fabulous random collection of mutterings and utterances.”
You mean you are making another assumption? What a shock. and with a 1 liner too!
Uh, they were a collection of YOUR 1 liners!!
Obviously, you missed your own comedic value. Hmm, 6 people voted down that post. Gee, whose words were those that I was “imitating”???!!
June 28th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
For SKC,
Advanced life support (ALS) implies that an emergency medical technician (EMT) is capable of performing advanced life support skills as either an EMT-I (Intermediate) or an EMT-P (Paramedic), commonly referred to simply as a paramedic or medic.
Canadian paramedics may be certified in either ALS or in only basic life support (see paramedics in canada).
http://www.parkviewems.com/event/event_services.html
Parkview owns and operates fully equipped B.L.S. Ambulance vehicles. The vehicles are equipped to B.L.S. standards as set out by the Ontario Ministry of Health. Ambulance Dispatch Centers.
GROUND MEDICAL SUPPORT
Basic and Advanced Life Support Service available
*
*
Oh yes, the private Canadian ambulance drivers trained themselves to ALS service, just to “transport patients”! NOT!!
Notch it down for another SKC assumption/delusion.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:16 am
To R4000:
“What did you think “Advance Life Support Service” means? Just “transport”?”
—it means they are capable of advanced resuscitation. Like I said, I never questioned the training of private ambulance attendants. As I said in #191, if you are transporting patients, there’s always the possibility that their heart might stop. And if the job of the private ambulance is to safely transport a patient from A to B, then being able to respond to a life-threatening emergency should one occur en route seems like a pretty reasonable expectation from those who are paying for such a service. Otherwise they could have simply hailed a cab. But their training does not change why a private ambulance was summoned in the first place: to transport a patient. Not the same as a public ambulance responding to an emergency as an exercise of government function.
“I’m sure you did find it “flattering””
—from you, nope. Wrong again.
“Speak for your own 1 liners and repetitions of ridiculous assumptions. You are pathetic.”
—still can’t talk about TAM and PLA. I wonder what the aversion is?
“You mean you are making another assumption?”
—nope, just a suggestion. I see you took it too, and maybe even “phoned a friend”.
“6 people voted down that post”
—you lack self-awareness, among other things. People didn’t vote them down because they were one-liners; they voted them down because you just randomly threw a bunch together, with no context and no relevance. BTW, is every sentence a one-liner now too?
“Oh yes, the private Canadian ambulance drivers trained themselves to ALS service, just to “transport patients””
—said it several times before, but still not getting through, so worth repeating. Their level of training equips them to perform all foreseeable duties that might arise in the performance of their job, but it doesn’t change the nature of their job on a day to day basis. If their job is to transport patients, which is what private ambulances do, then that’s their job. But they have advanced training in case they need it. However, just because the crew of a private ambulance has advanced training does not suddenly make them a public ambulance. It seems you are making bizarre and unfounded assumptions. Not the first time; unlikely to be the last.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:45 am
SKC,
“—it means they are capable of advanced resuscitation. Like I said, I never questioned the training of private ambulance attendants. As I said in #191, if you are transporting patients, there’s always the possibility that their heart might stop. And if the job of the private ambulance is to safely transport a patient from A to B, then being able to respond to a life-threatening emergency should one occur en route seems like a pretty reasonable expectation from those who are paying for such a service. Otherwise they could have simply hailed a cab. But their training does not change why a private ambulance was summoned in the first place: to transport a patient. Not the same as a public ambulance responding to an emergency as an exercise of government function.”
You are assuming people don’t have a choice, but you are wrong. And you are still making a conclusion of “government function” before you even bothered to make any proof of that.
“—from you, nope. Wrong again.”
Nope, you admitted it.
“—still can’t talk about TAM and PLA. I wonder what the aversion is?”
Still responding to your 1 liners. Keep wondering.
“—nope, just a suggestion. I see you took it too, and maybe even “phoned a friend”.”
Nope, just another one of your assumptions. It’s obviously pathetic.
“—you lack self-awareness, among other things. People didn’t vote them down because they were one-liners; they voted them down because you just randomly threw a bunch together, with no context and no relevance. BTW, is every sentence a one-liner now too?”
Context? You are the context for your 1 liners. You need to be “speechless” again. It suits you better.
“—said it several times before, but still not getting through, so worth repeating. Their level of training equips them to perform all foreseeable duties that might arise in the performance of their job, but it doesn’t change the nature of their job on a day to day basis. If their job is to transport patients, which is what private ambulances do, then that’s their job. But they have advanced training in case they need it. However, just because the crew of a private ambulance has advanced training does not suddenly make them a public ambulance. It seems you are making bizarre and unfounded assumptions. Not the first time; unlikely to be the last.”
Who says it’s their “job to transport patients”?? Who says they can’t get calls to respond to medical emergencies?? Who are you to make up their “job description”??
I can easily say the same “job description” applies to Public ambulance drivers too. They are just there to “transport patient”, and their trainings are only there “if needed”.
Keep digging your hole, It’s obvious you are just making up more ridiculous explanations to cover you ignorance.
Having a government paycheck doesn’t make someone performing government functions. Repeating “government function” doesn’t explain your argument at all!
Is this what you do? Just keep repeating your 1 assumption over and over again??
No wonder you can’t understand boolean functions.
Maybe in your delusional world, someone performs “government function” just because they were a public uniform. (or because you make up some ridiculous different “job description”.)
But that’s NOT the law.
Once again, your repetition of your assumptions of law and what “government function” is, ARE WRONG!!
That should be repeated. And I will repeat it for you again, because you will need it:
You don’t know the Law. Quit your ridiculous assumptions. Go dig your holes, that’s obviously the only thing you really know.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:34 am
To R4000:
“You are assuming people don’t have a choice, but you are wrong.”
—I’m not sure what choice you are referring to. But when someone calls 911, they get a public ambulance, not a private transport one.
“Still responding to your 1 liners. Keep wondering.”
—yes, I do still wonder what the CCP was thinking sending in the armed PLA. Did they simply not foresee the potential of violence? Did they foresee it, and not care? Did they just tell the PLA to move in and mow people down? Lots to wonder about, since the principals aren’t talking even 20 years later.
“Nope, just another one of your assumptions.”
—for someone who has lived in the US for 30 years, and is a lawyer to boot, you exhibit a fascinating inability to distinguish between a suggestion and an assumption. I guess there really are endless wonders in the world.
“Context? You are the context for your 1 liners.”
—and now you can’t comprehend the concept of context. You really are evolving…though quite possibly in reverse.
“Who says it’s their “job to transport patients”??”
—their employer. What job do you think a transport ambulance would perform?
“Who says they can’t get calls to respond to medical emergencies??”
—well, if they have a phone that works, then of course they “can”; but do they? Don’t think so.
“They are just there to “transport patient”, and their trainings are only there “if needed”.”
—true. But they do so on the government’s behalf.
“Having a government paycheck doesn’t make someone performing government functions.”
—if the government is paying you, but not as remuneration for executing a government function, then what are they paying you for? And I’m talking paycheque, not welfare cheque or some other form of government assistance.
“Repeating “government function” doesn’t explain your argument at all!”
—neither does repeating your baseless assertions. But that doesn’t seem to faze you.
“Once again, your repetition of your assumptions of law and what “government function” is, ARE WRONG!!”
—because you say so? Based on much of the stuff you’ve said, I think I’ll take a pass on your opinion. But thanks though.
“You don’t know the Law.”
—never said I did. And when it comes to Canada, you might try making a similar acknowledgment.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:19 am
SKC,
“—I’m not sure what choice you are referring to. But when someone calls 911, they get a public ambulance, not a private transport one.”
DUH! What if someone calls the Private ambulance already?!
*
“Still responding to your 1 liners. Keep wondering.”
—yes, I do still wonder what the CCP was thinking sending in the armed PLA. Did they simply not foresee the potential of violence? Did they foresee it, and not care? Did they just tell the PLA to move in and mow people down? Lots to wonder about, since the principals aren’t talking even 20 years later.”
Just take your own questions as “apples and oranges”, that should cover you for another 20 years.
*
“Nope, just another one of your assumptions.”
—for someone who has lived in the US for 30 years, and is a lawyer to boot, you exhibit a fascinating inability to distinguish between a suggestion and an assumption. I guess there really are endless wonders in the world.
Obviously, you failed to realize the assumptions you used for your “suggestion”. Next time, try make a list of your assumptions 1st, before you open up any “suggestions”, “criticisms”, statements. You have a lot of ridiculous assumptions.
*
“Context? You are the context for your 1 liners.”
—and now you can’t comprehend the concept of context. You really are evolving…though quite possibly in reverse.”
DUH! you can’t even see yourself as your own context, you are the pathetic one who need to see your “context” for what it is, pathetic!
*
“Who says it’s their “job to transport patients”??”
—their employer. What job do you think a transport ambulance would perform?
You are not their employer. They are hired to respond to medical emergencies!!!
*
“Who says they can’t get calls to respond to medical emergencies??”
—well, if they have a phone that works, then of course they “can”; but do they? Don’t think so.
Duh, their phone #’s are on their website. Who says they can’t be called? You are a clown!
*
“They are just there to “transport patient”, and their trainings are only there “if needed”.”
—true. But they do so on the government’s behalf.
So, there is no difference in job description now. It’s just they do it on “government’s behalf”??? That’s your definition of “government function”??? YOU are SO WRONG!!!
*
“Having a government paycheck doesn’t make someone performing government functions.”
—if the government is paying you, but not as remuneration for executing a government function, then what are they paying you for? And I’m talking paycheque, not welfare cheque or some other form of government assistance.
Well, government own stores, operate businesses, they do all kinds of functions that are called “proprietary functions”, not covered by immunity.
GET a clue! You are IGNORANT about law!!!
*
“Repeating “government function” doesn’t explain your argument at all!”
—neither does repeating your baseless assertions. But that doesn’t seem to faze you.
I at least try to explain a valid legal definition. If you want to challenge that legal definition, go ahead with some REAL knowledge of law, instead of your repetition of your own RIDICULOUS assumptions.
*
“Once again, your repetition of your assumptions of law and what “government function” is, ARE WRONG!!”
—because you say so? Based on much of the stuff you’ve said, I think I’ll take a pass on your opinion. But thanks though.
Because the LAW says so!
*
“You don’t know the Law.”
—never said I did. And when it comes to Canada, you might try making a similar acknowledgment.”
Then you admit to your ignorance. I’m done. Your assumptions are ridiculous. You accept your ignorance. Further debate with you on your assumptions are irrelevant to the ACTUAL law.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:19 am
To R4000:
“What if someone calls the Private ambulance already?! ”
—then that’s great. Doesn’t make that private ambulance suddenly turn into a public one; doesn’t make that private ambulance one that is now performing a government function; and doesn’t change the fact that a public ambulance is performing a government function.
“ust take your own questions as “apples and oranges””
—how incredibly useful and responsive. Now, as you were spouting off on the other thread, it would’ve been difficult to “arrest” those protesters. So maybe the CCP never intended to arrest anybody. So maybe foreseeability had nothing to do with it. And as you say, their orders were protected by sovereign immunity, so no legal case there. But it would sure explain why the CCP has been none too keen to talk about it for 20 years. Thanks for clearing that up.
“you failed to realize the assumptions you used for your “suggestion”.
—dude, how do you stand up in court? The following was my “suggestion” in #195:
““—you mean like you in #192? Go on, you should vote for yourself just to re-expand your (ahem) fabulous random collection of mutterings and utterances.”
—what assumptions? That you were simply muttering on a street corner? With you, that’s no assumption, pal.
“You are not their employer. They are hired to respond to medical emergencies!!!”
-OMG you are clearly beyond hope. I said “their employer” defines their duties. When did I suggest that I was their employer? And their employer runs a “transport ambulance” business, so that’s what they do. I used to think lawyers, if nothing else, were logical. After a healthy dose of you, I see that there are exceptions.
“Who says they can’t be called?”
—what is your problem with comprehension. I said “if they have a phone that works, then of course they “can”; but do they? Don’t think so.” There is a difference between “they can” and “they do”. If you have a medical emergency, do you call 911, or do you google a private transport ambulance on your iPhone? I presume the latter…natural selection is a powerful thing.
“It’s just they do it on “government’s behalf”?”
—yep. Oh, and the fact that they respond to medical emergencies, which private transport ambulances don’t do.
“they do all kinds of functions that are called “proprietary functions” …of government. Everyone who draws a paycheque from government is performing a government function. But not all of them are covered by immunity. The clerk at city hall who issues permits is earning a government paycheque, and performing a government function. Doesn’t mean he/she is entitled to immunity. But it still disproves your statement that ““Having a government paycheck doesn’t make someone performing government functions.””
“I at least try to explain a valid legal definition.”
—are you referring to your goofy test again? I thought we debunked that already.
“Then you admit to your ignorance.”
—still waiting for your admission as well, insofar as Canadian law is concerned. But from a bloke with a dearth of character like you, I’m not holding my breath.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:26 am
SKC,
You have already admitted your ignorance on the subject matter of law. Thus, all of your questions are ridiculous.
My legal definitions don’t make sense to your ignorance? What a shock!
Don’t hold your breath. You have no valid relevant questions of law! Get used to that.
🙂
June 30th, 2009 at 11:43 am
“they do all kinds of functions that are called “proprietary functions” …of government. Everyone who draws a paycheque from government is performing a government function. But not all of them are covered by immunity.”
Clerk at a government store or a government operated hospital do not perform government function, he performs a proprietary function.
You clearly have no clue what “proprietary function” is. It’s NOT sub-set of “government function”. It’s the opposite of “government function”
*Again, you are ignorant on laws. It’s obvious.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:17 am
“Clerk at a government store…”
— my example was a clerk at city hall issuing permits. I mean, is it too much to ask for you to respond to my point, and not one of your creation?
I’d be happy to learn some legal definitions. But most definitely not from you. I’d prefer to learn from someone who knew of what they spoke.
And besides, as far as ambulances go, private transport ambulances are owned and operated by private proprietors, and has nothing to do with government. Public ambulances that respond to medical emergencies are operated by government, as a function of government.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:12 am
my example is clerk at a government store! he’s getting a government paycheck. Nothing wrong with my example.
“I’d be happy to learn some legal definitions. But most definitely not from you. I’d prefer to learn from someone who knew of what they spoke.”
Well, you are happy to be ignorant then. It’s obvious. Your personal preference is irrelevant to this topic.
*
“And besides, as far as ambulances go, private transport ambulances are owned and operated by private proprietors, and has nothing to do with government. Public ambulances that respond to medical emergencies are operated by government, as a function of government.”
Yet another repetition of your ignorant assumption! GET over yourself. You don’t know what “government function” or “proprietary function” are!! You made up ridiculous personal definitions for LEGAL terms, based upon your ignorance of law!!
Why do you bother to pretend that your definition of “government function” even has any validity, when you admitted that you are ignorant of law??!!
Pathetic!!
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:15 am
“Your personal preference is irrelevant to this topic.”
—so is much of what you’ve said. Besides, i’m going to share it with you anyway. Best to get used to the concept of worrying about what you can control.
Like I said, if Allen told me about those concepts, that’s one thing. You, on the other hand, quite another. I’m a discerning consumer of opinions…and your’s, I think i’ll pass on.
Besides, you don’t seem to be able the grasp the diffence between a public government ambulance and a private transport ambulance. Like I said, natural selection is an amazing thing.
July 4th, 2009 at 2:26 am
“—so is much of what you’ve said. Besides, i’m going to share it with you anyway. Best to get used to the concept of worrying about what you can control.”
Don’t care about your irrelevant personal preference for learning. Why whine to me that you can’t learn?
“Like I said, if Allen told me about those concepts, that’s one thing. You, on the other hand, quite another. I’m a discerning consumer of opinions…and your’s, I think i’ll pass on.”
Still don’t care. If you want to learn from Allen, go right ahead. Come back when you finished your learning.
“Besides, you don’t seem to be able the grasp the diffence between a public government ambulance and a private transport ambulance. Like I said, natural selection is an amazing thing.”
Your ignorance can’t grasp a basic legal definition. Your assumptions are WRONG!!
July 4th, 2009 at 5:41 am
While #208 was “informative” as always, there’s really not much there, and even less that’s worth responding to. So I think I’ll pass.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Just factual information on your ignorance, as you have already admitted.
I don’t think you can “pass” on your ignorance.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Mind showing me one “fact” from #208…and I don’t mean “facts according to R4000”, since, as you’ve figured, those don’t mean much to me.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
FACT: you are ignorant on law. you have already admitted it.
The fact that you keep forgetting that point, says much about you.
🙂
July 5th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
I’ve never claimed to know the law. And most of the time, neither do you, it seems, despite loud claims to the contrary. THis is especially true when it comes to Canadian law…and you’ve yet to acknowledge that fact, even once.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
SKC,
lesson 1 on proof: Your admission of your ignorance is not evidence of my ignorance.
Get it straight, you are the ignorant one on law. That’s the only FACT here.
Whether you consider me “ignorant” is your personal (and ignorant) opinion. And like your ignorant opinions/assumptions of law, your personal opinions are NOT FACTS.
🙂
July 6th, 2009 at 3:43 am
“Your admission of your ignorance is not evidence of my ignorance.”
—how on earth do you make cogent arguments in court? I’m not saying that my not knowing the law is evidence of you not knowing the law. Evidence of the latter, particularly with respect to Canada, has been amply displayed all on your own accord.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:29 am
“—how on earth do you make cogent arguments in court? I’m not saying that my not knowing the law is evidence of you not knowing the law. Evidence of the latter, particularly with respect to Canada, has been amply displayed all on your own accord.”
Amply displayed are only your ignorant assumptions/speculations. You don’t know the meaning of FACTS or Evidence.
Try learning some Boolean functions and grammar while you are at it.
🙂
July 7th, 2009 at 12:44 am
“Amply displayed are only your ignorant assumptions/speculations.”
—are you a parrot? Seems like everything I say, you turn around and say right back. As I said, you’re one amusing guy. You’re also a lawyer who seems to have difficulty making logical arguments. Never thought that to be possible, yet here you are.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:29 am
“—are you a parrot? Seems like everything I say, you turn around and say right back. As I said, you’re one amusing guy. You’re also a lawyer who seems to have difficulty making logical arguments. Never thought that to be possible, yet here you are.”
Enjoy the “parrot-dy”. By the way, since you are missing the obvious, parody here is mocking you using your own words here.
DUH!!!
July 7th, 2009 at 2:42 am
“parody here is mocking you using your own words here.”
—are you from the Department of Redundancy Department? How many times do you need the word “here” in a sentence? If your form of “mocking” is to parrot, that’s not very sophisticated. As I’ve said, however, not expecting much from you.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:44 am
For enough times until you actually get the point.
Obviously, if you are missing the Parody, more sophistication won’t help you.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:56 am
LOL. “For enough times until you actually get the point.” — the word “here” is crucial to your point? Go figure.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:58 am
“LOL. “For enough times until you actually get the point.” — the word “here” is crucial to your point? Go figure.”
You know you are often “Perplexed”, I thought I put a few more arrows on the map for you. Obviously, not enough, you still missed the point. 🙂
May 9th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
i cannot help but notice all the americans, or westerners living in China who despise China, and its government. if China does collapse, and falls into chaos, it will be because the Chinese govt let in too many foreigners, all here obviously to undermine, and sabotage China. it’s also interesting to see that most of the quotes used by foolsmountain were from these foreigners in China, as if their version of the story is meant to be more legitimate than the real story. these guys were paid agents, sent by imperialist western governments to destabilise China. what do you expect their response to be? “the Chinese govt handled things great”?
May 15th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
China is in chaos.. and many more Chinese than foreigners despise the Chinese government. What do foreigners care..? They are free to do what they like. Do they feel the oppression and the bitterness of the average Chinese? Are you blind?? and numb to your own circumstance?? Do you even live in China? are you in some bubble somewhere being fed this childish propaganda? Are you a secret agent sent to destabilize potentially interesting websites? If so you’re only giving intelligent people more good material to laugh at — thank you
May 22nd, 2013 at 1:55 am
Simply desire to say your article is as astonishing. The clearness in your put up is simply spectacular and i can think you are a professional
on this subject. Well with your permission let me to seize your feed to stay updated with
coming near near post. Thanks 1,000,000 and please carry on the
gratifying work.
August 24th, 2013 at 12:46 pm
This is such a sad story. there many similar events happen everywhere around the world especially in the 3rd world country
August 24th, 2013 at 12:51 pm
This is such a great article!
February 10th, 2016 at 7:17 am
Jual Kacamata Safety dan Jual Sepatu Safety Berbagai Merk Terkenal dan Berkualitas Harga Murah