I'm sure Renth would prefer them not to have a trial at all, he'd just decide that they were guilty without having heard the evidence and want them shot.

Much like this case.

Yes this is so...and some of us ponder if the police only revealed film that would support their angle on things...which what one would expect them to to do.
What i find just a little dis heartening is that so many accept this as the full story and cannot perhaps see the political motives on the side of the police to milk it for what it is worth in order to stiffen the laws without the necessary debate conducted in a clear and thoughtful manner and not something that is pushed through at parliment in the heat of the moment.
This goes way beyond the unfortunate recent events and no thinking person would give any support for a member of any public service being injured in the line of duty and one hopes this person is duely compensated for what happened to him.As should be the case in all front line public roles be it Nurses,Firemen,Ambulance etc etc
But in order to remain on side with the public all these services must be expected to act with the highest degree of profesionalism at all times and be fully accountable of their actions.On another level far too much corruption has been uncovered within the Australian police in the past (hence accountability)
as well as in the United Kingdom(anyone remember the Irish frameup?)
The police require and indeed deserve the very best training available to perform a very difficult job.(as such should be rewarded appropriately)
One example where police strength of character i feel comes into play is (can be)during political demonstrationsIn the UK i have personally witnessed police performing exceptionally under extreme provocation.But also on occassions seen the opposite with batons laying into any body in the way, females included(even numbers concealed to avoid identity)

The bottom line is this, I don't know if they're guilty, why? Because I haven't heard all the evidence so how could I possibly

I also know nobody else on this thread has which also leads me to the conclusion that they don't know.

12 people did hear all the evidence, they returned a not guilty. Who's more likely to be right? Those that heard or those that haven't?

Not that hard is it surely?

Nods head,
Not exactly an independent witness then.Anti police brigade ?????Oh i get it what you really mean is accept the version fed to us and do not look at the accountability of all concerned.

So your friend does admit to you that at times things go a little too far,something a lot of us are aware of and thank you for confirming to the police can do no harm brigade that they do step over the mark usually when it is safe for them to do so.......perhaps if the mark was overstepped in this case none would admit to that ...gone far too far for that...being a political hot potatoes.(not saying they did mind just reveal all of tape and allow the people to make up own minds)

'Honorable members of the jury, when you see the footage before you, all is not what it seems! Whilst the footage would tend to infer that my clients have been drunk, brawling in the street, fighting with police officers, and then head butting an officer from behind, do not be deceived by your eyes! Look again closely my learned friends, and listen carefully to the testimony of my clients, who I would remind you are innocent victims in this incident, being persecuted by violent thugs in uniform.

The reality is that my clients, having consumed a small quantity of Babysham within a licensed premises, had a small verbal disagreement with some other patrons outside the bar. My clients and these patrons had resolved their differences, and were just about to return to the licensed premises, to purchase each other a glass of milk or two, and swap addresses so they could send each other Christmas cards, when....picture the scene, a police van turns up outside the licensed premises, officers in blue uniform spill out of same, frothing at the mouth, eyes red with rage, intent on causing as much damage to my immigrant clients as possible.

Did I mentioned my clients were immigrants - no? Well my learned friends, my clients are from Scotland, and we all know how the WA Police are racist and hate Scottish people.

The officers spilled out of the van, and ran up to my clients, who at this stage were perplexed as to what was happening, and why the officers had turned up. Whilst witnesses have suggested my clients were all brawling with each other, what they actually saw was my clients having some 'playful carry-on' with each other, as people do outside licensed premises. The witnesses in question are not credible, there were other persons at the scene, as such I would suggest their line of sight was obscured, which when coupled with the copious quantities of alcohol I believe they probably consumed prior to the incident, and the general confusion of the situation, means that their evidence should be struck out.

My clients were merely trying to reason with the police, and explain that it was all just a bit of harmless fun, when one of the thugs in blue uniform, drew his baton and attempted to pulverize my client, who at this stage was pleading for mercy, but this did not stop the rabid beast wielding his baton and striking my client.

A few seconds later a passing member of the public recorded the events on a video camera, but remember all is not what it seems my learned friends. Though the footage would suggest my clients are a bunch of drunken, feral Scottish thugs, this could not be further from the truth, my clients, who frequently contribute to charitable causes by the way, were in fact attempting to fend off the police officers, as a result of having been assaulted by them on numerous occasions with the baton. The horrible female officer may look frightened of my clients in the video, and the officers at first glance do appear to be trying to take control of a nasty situation which has gone very out of control, but look closely ; the female officer is in-fact acting, and beneath her fake frightened face is a vicious individual intent on doing harm. Finally, to add insult to injury, Constable Butcher drew his taser, most likely knowing my client had a heart condition, and though it is not heard on the footage, I can imagine when firing the taser at my client he said something like 'I hope this kills you - you #$%@# weegie git.'

My other client was then left with no alternative, but to defend his father, and run at the violent officer, and head but him as hard as possible, to knock him out. I'm afraid contrary to other suggestions there was no other way for my client to stop the officer with the taser, as being from the west coast of Scotland, the head butt was what comes naturally to him, and the only way my client could save his father.

There has been a suggestion my client said something to the effect of 'delete that ****ing footage or I'll kill you' to the camera man. Well my client was so abhorrently dealt with by police, that he made this very out of character statement off the cuff, and did not mean it. He apologizes to the camera man.

My client would also like to thank the police for performing CPR on his father, whilst their colleague lay unconscious on the pavement, and as such, in keeping with their good nature, they will be making a small donation to the local Heart Foundation.

Any reports you may have heard that my clients have extensive criminal histories, both in Australia and Scotland, and that the offences for which they have previously been charged are probably only the tip of the iceberg, should be discounted. I intend inviting the McLeod's to our next Christmas dinner, with my wife and children, which demonstrates my faith in their good character, I will only be ensuring that if they make a disparaging comment about my wife's cooking, I will not be arguing with them....'

Well that goes a long way in explaining why i do not recall ever hearing a Scottish accent in the local old bill ....was wondering what the reason could possibly be....cheers for that though, i expect that the Australian army is snapping them up having such a reputation for being such good fighters and all.

To quote another officer I know ...

On confronting an Aboriginal gentleman who had just tried to mug an elderly couple in the city & escape the police's clutches by violence ...

Me: "What did you do when he got a bit lairy with you ...?"

The Officer: "Whipped out me Tazer & lit the f***er up like a Christmas Tree"

Extreme ... ?

Maybe ...

Funny ... ?

Absolutely ...

That's all very funny (or not as the case may be), but it's all complete bollocks.

The jury didn't have to believe the McLeods were of good character, rocket scientists, or people you'd want to take home to mother. There was no suggestion that the McLeods didn't punch/butt the cops, or that the cops didn't beat and tase the McLeonds. They just had to decide whether or not the McLeods were acting in self-defence against an unlawful assault by the police, or whether the force used by the cops was reasonable and lawful. The jury did not believe the cops, and they believed the McLeods.

If the McLeods are such in-credible scumbags, then that really says something even worse about the conduct and credibility of the cops in this case, doesn't it?

(PS there's be a moderate amount of abuse of Scots in this thread. Weren't the painters and fellow brawlers in this case English? Scots layabouts, English tradies, and Aussie cops. Hardly the cream of each nation's population...)

No. My solution is to make sure a proper cross section of society ends up doing jury duty. The only people who end up on juries at the moment are people on the dole, retired or those too dumb to worm their way out of it.

You are Michael Tudori and I claim my 5 pounds,

The point I am trying to make, is that it is not really that difficult for a savvy defense lawyer, to introduce reasonable doubt, muddy the waters, and end up with a not guilty verdict.

As you pointed out in this case the jury had to decide whether the McLeods were acting in self defense, my post, whilst making an attempt at humor (well I thought it was funny anyway), was attempting to convey some of the crap that comes out of defense lawyers mouth, to justify their clients behavior, in this case the justification for assaulting police was that they were acting in self defense. By making out that the police were baton wielding thugs, accusing all police witnesses of being liars, discrediting any other witnesses and evidence that supports the prosecutions case, and thus making out that the Mcleods had to defend themselves from the police, meant the McLeods got off with it.

This is the way the system works, yes they were found by a jury to be 'not guilty,' but just because someone was found 'not guilty' is not necessarily an indication that justice has been done. As I have said, the judicial system is about very smart people, dressed in nice suits, earning fat salaries, playing a well versed game against each other, 'truth,' 'justice,' and 'facts' get left on the sidelines.

But in the absence of a better alternative this is the system we are stuck with.

Nice summing up.

It's ok, we're used to it. Although, with all the sweaty, jock etc comments, some of the BE race police will be apoplectic.

Re reading this post i have come to the conclusion that it was somewhat insensitive (especially the last bit)and crass considering the topic at hand (cheap shot at another poster) and this was not my intention nor was it to slight the Scottish people or nation in any way.