...the headline on this article seems to suggest an "initiative proposing the death penalty for assaulting the police". Can anyone much more fluent confirm?
noticias.terra.cl/nacional/iniciativa-pr...0009acceb0aRCRD.html

Yes, that is what it is suggesting as a replacement to the current penalties for killing a police officer. It actually refers to it as an "assassination".
"A raíz del asesinato" = "Following the assassination..."

My google browser has a 'translate' option...not sure how accurate it is, but seems to read out not too bad. Here it is...


Initiative proposes death penalty for assaulting police
September 13, 2012 • 7:00 • updated at 13:34

Following the assassination after second, Cristian Martinez, who was shot during riots in Quilicura September 11, the bloc of deputies of the UDI enter today announced that a bill that seeks to double the current penalties for assaulting uniformed personnel.

The initiative could open a new debate, and proposed penalties ranging from life imprisonment effective until the death penalty.
The announcement was a unionist TERRA.cl deputy, Gustavo Hasbun, who presented the motion on Thursday with his pair Monica Zalaquett.

"We seek to increase sentences dramatically. That when it killed a police officer on duty is paid with effective penalty with life imprisonment qualified, who are 40, and not that the convictions today are between 10 and 20 years, "said the senator.
The legal text will be presented at 11.30 am on Thursday at Valparaiso.

This bill is not new. In May 2011 it announced sending UDI as presented to Congress regarding aggression to Warrant Officer, Mauricio Munoz, who was beaten with a skate in the head during a demonstration by HidroAysén. However, the statute did not enter the Chamber of Deputies.

In fact, on 12 September last year, and speaking of the riots that occur each year on the anniversary of the military coup in our country, the President Sebastián Piñera announced that he would place great urgency to this bill. This could not be realized due precisely to the above.

Cheers but that confuses me too. Is assault the same thing as assassination (language wise)? The headline says assault, the article doesn't.

Wheres Kumatora

Yep I see what you mean, this part perhaps reads out like they want to increase penalties when police are killed...

agredir = attack/assault
asesinato = assassination

Two different words, would assume that if you said you were going to assault someone it would be taken differently than if you said you were going to assassinate someone... cultural difference would come into play there, but I would guess that it would still mean two different things.

It's probably a play on words by the journalist to raise the reading by the public, or specific play on words on by government officials (police/politicians, etc...) to try and increase the penalty and scare the public.

I would think it will be interpreted by the courts as to what constitutes an assassination if that is the actual word used in the legal BS. Most legal systems are a total nonsense they are totally corrupt and quite honestly I can imagine a time when they weren't used and abused by political powers etc.

The police forces in most countries are just civil servants and they should never have preferential treatment over the populous. If anything they should have less rights because they are employed by the populous to do a job on their behalf. To add insult to injury the state and their departments are already benefiting from an absence of justice being administered against them.

The majority of states are at war with their citizenry and as such any uniform that stands against the will of the people are victims of war. Obviously governments like to apply the label dissatisfied citizens as terrorist when they react to the terrorist acts of their governments.

People can no longer rely on their political representatives and there is no form of effective and just legal framework in place to curb the rough actions of the state. We are at the stage where we need to smell the coffee and take back control of our countries, by totally rejecting the false systems in place to oppress us. The people don't need the state the state needs its people without the people there can be no state! All we need to do is say no on mass and stop complying with their demands whether they are legislative or financial by way of fines or taxes.

Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

Frog, what's the first rule of Fight Club?

what language is it in?

Sticking it into google translate will not give you the actual meaning ....you need someone who speks the language

oioioi wrote:
Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.dawnbreak wrote:
WB Dawn, that's very true Dawn and it even needs some local knowledge to fully grasp the true meaning and intent. I think thats why oioioi opened the thread.

All SZ members are also 'Fight Club' members?

What's the first rule of SZ?

Frog wrote:
It is.

oioioi wrote:
Probably not but eventually they will need to decide to fight or continue to be down trodden.

Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

oioioi wrote:
NOT TO FIGHT

dawnbreak wrote:
Spanish... or a very, very fucked up version of Portuguese JK, it's Spanish even though some of the worse are similar in other languages.

Yes, Oi not only needs someone who speaks the language but also someone who has either grown up in the culture or has immersed themselves in it for more than a vacation trip (actually lived there for years sort of thing).

dawnbreak wrote:
Not to fight among ourselves the state is a fictional entity so fighting it isn't really in the same league. The state only exists if we empower it. If enough of us reject it it will cease to have any effect on any of us.

StarsChildren wrote:
I don't ask for much!

Frog wrote:
I'm inclined to agree, then I remember Argentina, it was a good mixture of both; self-organising whilst openly opposing TPTB.

oioioi your in Greece ..that is pretty volatile at the moment ....are you trawling the internet to find articles in a language you don't understand (and if you are why are you)

I think if everyone stuck too sorting out the problems that lie at their doorsteps instead of worrying about what happens elsewhere the world would be a better place

dawnbreak wrote:
Should I not worry about my friends and family in the UK?

Should I not worry about comrades who fight the same fight globally just because we haven't met?