Of course!( sarc.)
Posted on 08/03/2021 2:09:00 AM PDT by Enlightened1
Don't forget this opinion recently brought to light, from your very own academic Peter Hotez:
Quote:
Peter Hotez wrote:
Efforts must expand into the realm of cyber security, law enforcement, public education and international relations. A high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures. The task force should include experts who have tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril. It is becoming increasingly clear that advancing immunization requires a counteroffensive.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3956915/posts
To reject vaccination is to be tantamount to terrorism. Elderly folk expressing their opinion in a park shall be treated accordingly, if they die, they die. It's for the good of humanity. Isn't it?
quote:
Police were called to Ashfield Mall about 3.30pm on Tuesday to reports staff inside the bank branch were being abused.
Staff told police the man allegedly entered the premises without scanning the QR code, and became abusive after an employee asked him to sign in.
A 46-year-old male security officer intervened and was then allegedly pushed by the man and threatened.
Police arrived to find the 55-year-old man still at the scene. He allegedly became abusive towards officers as they approached him.
He then allegedly tried to resist arrest, with his 63-year-old partner stepping in to try and intervene. She was also arrested.
in my best greta voice -
HOW DARE YOU?!
It seems to be a reach to see a 55 year old man and a 63 old lady ‘abusing’ bank staff by refusing to “sign in” and refusing to scan a “QR code.” Are these felonies in Australia? And so what was the basis of arrest, that both were trespassing? They did not assault anyone according to these facts.They resisted a false arrest.
So its enough to get arrested in Oz by speaking harshly?
When there is no reason for an arrest according to law in Australia, it is false arrest. And further impacting the situation there would be false imprionment if they were jailed.
Any free man has a duty to resist an arrest that has no lawful basis.This principle is clear. Where there is no crime, there can be no “resisting of arrest.”
The refusal or failure to scan a QR code is not enough to even fabricate a reason to arrest, not everybody has them or they may have foprgotten to bring one:
“The reason for this is that the majority of smartphones on the market today aren’t QR code enabled by default. Apple and Android, by far the world’s most popular mobile platforms, have never shipped a smartphone with built-in QR code reading capabilities. It’s left up to the individual user to proactively download an app and then find and run this app for each and every QR code scan. This single hurdle is enough to push QR codes outside of the realm of the mainstream and into the hands of only the tech-savviest of consumers.”
https://simple.com.au/blog/why-you-shouldnt-use-qr-codes/
And whats more:
“The police can also make an arrest without a warrant, but only if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person committed, or is in the process of committing, a crime. The police must also determine that an arrest is necessary, meaning that it meets criteria specified by state law. For example, if an offence is minor, if the police can identify the person who committed it, if that person is cooperative with the police, and if there is no reason to believe that the person will not appear in court, it may be unlawful to arrest that person.
Every arrest is regarded as a restraint of freedom, even if the police decided to release an arrested suspect minutes later. Of course, a wrongful arrest that results in a long detention is typically more harmful than one that results in a brief detention. Compensation is usually proportionate to the harm caused. Any person who was wrongfully arrested should seek legal advice to determine whether compensation is worth pursuing.”
https://www.criminallegal.com.au/nsw/blog/false-imprisonment-by-police.html
And then it seems fairly clear that the force used by police against the elderly couple was excessive:
*******************
“If a police officer uses excessive force, you may be able to rely on self-defence under section 418 of the NSW Crimes Act to defeat a charge of resisting arrest and/or assaulting police.
That section says that a person is not guilty of an offence if:
He or she reasonably believed that the conduct was necessary to defend themselves or another person, and
The conduct was reasonable in the circumstances as the person perceived them.
Self-defence is the most commonly used defence to charges of resisting arrest and assaulting police.
**************************************
The couple had a right to be at the bank, they had an account there and a continual invitation to treat commerce at that bank....and it is a necessary function of existence to make financial arrangements for one self , even in a pandemic.
Refusing to “sign in” or to scan a “QR code” are NOT crimes
nor are they necessary to entering the premisis of a bank which has an established account in one’s name.The fact that the couple had an acount at the bank is enough to justify their presence and right to be there.
This was a false arrest with the use of excessive force by the police, who are using the Covid - 19 rules to justify the use of excessive force. which is barred by statute,section 418 of the NSW Crimes Act .
The couple could put up quite a court fight if they wanted to do so.
BS
Of course!( sarc.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.