What year is it and what territory are we living in again?

Agreed.

Seconded.

I agree chewy but it’s also a long bow to draw that the neighbour’s intentions were racially motivated. We don’t know the full set of circumstances. A resident of the apartment complex has the right to ask any individual that acts suspiciously whether they have a right to be there. Instead of cooperating and telling them where he lived, Tuck immediately acted defensively and assumed a victim’s mentally. If I were the one being asked, simply telling the neighbour where I lived would have defused the situation!

Well yeah but to be fair, even if he posted a video, we’d just be seeing the part of the interaction that he wanted to make public; If he was being aggressive or belligerent during part of the video, do you think he’d be making that part public?

What I would really like to see is the police cameras showing the start to the end of the interaction. Without seeing the whole story, it’s just hearsay.

Sam,
I agree that we don’t know the resident’s intentions either. Has any of the reporters attempted to find out? Don’t know that either.

Bob,
yes I agree with that also, if there’s additional information available that provides better context, it would help, including the police footage (if any). I was just saying that there is apparently video that the author’s of these pieces have seen and it would obviously provide some additional information that is currently unavailable to readers.

Sam, you seem to be going against your own advice and assuming that Tuck immediately acted defensively and assumed a victim’s mentality, even though we haven’t seen any evidence of that (or the contrary)

Pertubed nope I am simply making that assessment based on the facts we are told (which again is Tuck’s side of the story). He has admitted that when asked whether he had a right to be there he refused to tell the neighbour where he lived.

Sure he has a right not to say. But being black doesn’t preclude you from being cooperative and friendly either. If I was in that situation as a middle-aged white man, I’d understand that as a male in proximity to a pool where children and other women are around, it might raise questions for me to linger in the area. So I’d do everything in my power to try and ease those concerns. It had nothing to do with race (not brought up by the police or the neighbour) but explicitly raised by Tuck as the issue (and hence the victim mentality).

Sam Oak – could you explain what is suspicious about sitting by the poolside of your own apartment complex. Also, what right did the white-skinned racist neighbour have to be there? And what right did the white-skinned racist neighbour have to ask another resident why they are there?

Astro, any resident has a right to ask another individual that they don’t recognise if they have a right to be hanging around their place of residence. That is irrespective of race. Had Tuck had any social skills he would have explained he lived there and the neighbour would have said me too and they would have shared a beer together. For this one incident where Tuck acted in a manner that drew suspicion and escalated the situation, I’m sure there are a hundred others where communicating civilly would have defused the tension and resolved the misunderstanding.

Sam Oak, please point out to me any mention of “children and other women” in either of the Riotact articles? You have said it three times now. Why would this be important anyway, when a non-white man is standing around? Sounds like an old American racist trope to me.

If there were “other” women, who was the first one? We know Tuck is male and the article describes the initial inquirer as male. Were you worried about one or more of the police who turned up later?

You have also on a couple of occasions said that Tuck could politely have said where he lived. On that enquiry, he asked his interlocutor where did he live, which the latter refused to answer, so why should Tuck? You are not taking a one-sided view, are you?

By the way, I commend you on your keenness for even minor potential incidents to be reported to the police, although, I do not recall you having the same enthusiasm in another thread where the topic was domestic coercion or violence.

How are your standards going there?

Obviously Sam you’ve never lived in a strata development. You tell the stickybeaks nothing. Seeing someone in a common area is not a reason to question anyone or call the police. These places are an attraction for the know it all and like to make the rules and pretend they run the show and have the right to every one’s business. The person involved no doubt is a person of low self esteem and without anything in life going for them other than their sheriff duty at what they consider their property. Only a fool would give up the information in this situation to someone you don’t know and don’t know what their intentions are with this information.

No Sam, you don’t seem to get the point here. You don’t have the right to make a false complaint to police based on your perceptions of another person’s “race”. The person that did this should be fined for making a false complaint based on no evidence. You’ve also made claims based on no evidence that a person was acting suspiciously when they quite clearly weren’t. Racism is a very pernicious attribute, and the article shows clearly how pernicious it is. I think the classic line “Mind your own business” applies n this instance.

Astro read the sign in the photo which clearly says “visitors are only allowed if accompanied by a resident”! it doesn’t say report any black visitors who are unaccompanied. It says report ANY visitors. The neighbour was simply following the rules. Remove the sign if you believe it is inappropriate to question an individual about their being in such an area! It has nothing to do with race!

” It says report ANY visitors.”

Sam Oak, where does the sign say “Report any visitors.”?

You may add that to the other questions you have failed to answer.

which he did, to police who did not believe him, arrested him and searched his home.
you might think its a long bow to draw what the neighbouts intentions were. Just as it is a long bow to say Tucks response was to assume a victims mentality. Or are you saying he acted a victim only because he was black?

That’s the part that makes me seriously question the validity to his side of the story. You call the cops and say, “I think there’s a trespasser that doesn’t live here” and you may get a single car turn up two hours later.

I really want to hear what the original interaction before the cops were called was… and not just one side of the story before I make up my mind either way.

I’ve seen six cops in three cars turn up a very minor incident which did not warrant such attention. I asked one of them why and the response was basically they had nothing else going on and were in the area.

You did not ask, and if you did, they would have not responded in that manner… People and their imaginations.

Sam Oak i can tell you from first had experience that when there was a drunk guy, who thought he was at his mates place, turn up at my house, i called the cops and there were 4 cops in 3 cars turn up to that. so yes it can happen. Glad you dont let the facts get in the way of your pathetic agenda.

So where is the explanation from the racist white neighbour? That person has wasted the time of our police force because of their racism. What level of intelligence (and, sadly, racists aren’t know for their cognitive abilities) decides to call the police with a hysterical claim about a resident sitting around the pool of their own (shared) property? What sort of neighbour would not come up and introduce themselves and commence a conversation in a friendly way with another neighbour before deciding that they should or shouldn’t be there. And the level of intelligence of some of the fellow travellers posting on this article unfortunately proves the article writer’s claim. Yes, very sad, 2024 in the ACT.

Lol Astro, it sounds like you were there and witnessed the whole thing. Why should the neighbour have to come forward? We don’t know their gender or racial background. They could be Arabic, Chinese or Indian for all we know. If actual racial discrimination did occur why is Tuck not taking this matter to court? Why does he feel the need to publicise the matter so there can be a trial by media and the situation can be judged by keyboard warriors like yourself?

Astro,
can you not see the flaws in your own position based on the actual level of information provided? You’ve made a number of big assumptions around what occurred and individual’s motivations based on not even half the story.

Yes, where is the explanation from the neighbour? Was it even sought? The police have already given an explanation that doesn’t align with the claim so they don’t agree. Where does the truth sit?

You’re actually providing a perfect example of what I was talking about in my comment above, making definitive statements with very incomplete information.

Sam, why would you have reported him? He wasn’t doing anything wrong. Also, how do you know he “had a victim mentality”? And thirdly, how would you have reacted if you were confronted by five armed police on your own property who wouldn’t listen when you tried to tell them you lived there?

Based on the “actual level of information provided” there is no evidence that the racist “reporter” is a resident so where is your evidence of that?

Astro,
What on earth is that word salad meant to mean?

At least try and post something mildly coherent if you want to address the points made.

Sorry you’re having trouble understanding a fairly simple sentence. It appears that you have no evidence that the person who called the police was actually a resident. Thanks for confirming.

Astro2,
What?

Where have I claimed definitively that the person who called the police was a resident?

I’ve said we don’t have enough information to know what happened, with incomplete and conflicting stories.

You called the person who called police “a neighbour” in your own comments, so perhaps you should be asking yourself the question?

Very strange indeed to see someone arguing against their own statements though.

But thanks for proving my point, we have very little verified information on what actually happened, so it would be very presumptive to make definitive statements like in the article and you yourself have made.

Glad you now agree.

a) because they wasted police time and taxpayers’ money.
b) at this stage we are not aware of further proceedings but it’s likely an option where a false arrest has been made.
c) it’s not for you to decide whether the matter should or should not be discussed in a public forum. If you don’t want to participate, then, by all means don’t.

You referred to the person who called the police as “a neighbour”. However there is no proof that the person was a neighbour, a resident or someone who was or was not, entitled to be there. So the question remains, what right did that person have to call the police and on what basis was the call made.

Astro,
none of that is really relevant but thanks/sorry that you feel that way.

Once again, I can’t see where I’ve suggested the matter shouldn’t be discussed, I’ve suggested that care should be taken in making definitive statements with incomplete information.

But you seemingly want to double down on it in your most recent comments, when you are clearly just guessing. You don’t know what happened or the individual motivations of those people involved, it’s not that hard to grasp.

Running in all guns blazing with incomplete information just makes you look silly.

I would also make a point around the “neighbour” or complainant. The police statement references talking to them when they arrived at the address, so they have been identified through that process unless the police are making it up. Again, further information would assist, but either it isn’t available or the questions weren’t asked.

Which is the entire point.

I suggest if you are making comment on people “running in all guns blazing” you should check back on some of the comments on this thread about “suspicious behaviour” and the rights of bigots to demand ID from anyone they don’t like. It’s a bit sad to see you condoning, by your statements, some of the racist comments appearing on this thread. TBH Chewy i thought better of you.

Astro,
I suggest you stop making stuff up.

Nowhere do my statements, either implicitly or explicitly, condone any other comments who have taken a similar presumptive approach.

It is clear that I do not support any such assertions, the entire point being the lack of available and verified information from which to make such definitive statements, which starts with this article itself.

I didn’t think it would be possible for you to give me any better examples of my point but you keep excelling in your willingness to jump to (unsupported) conclusions.

Well done.