Cop Bashers Walk Free
Mar 17th 2009 | 11:04 am
#181
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 238
Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
How many jurors were swayed by that judges decision?
Also unanimous rarely means that. When a decision cannot be reached, jurors change their mind to end the impasse. it doesn't mean all agree with the decision. i.e. it isn't unanimous.
Mar 17th 2009 | 11:10 am
#183
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 238
Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
Sure, a load of pissed jocks got into a fight with a load of pissed painters which spilled out on to the street. Cops turned up, tried to break up the fight. Pissed jocks continued to fight, now fighting with the cops. Butch tazed the old bloke, you know the rest.
What do you think happened? I know, the two groups were outside the pub shaking hands after a misunderstanding over who spilled who's pint. Just as they were going to go back in to buy each other a drink, from out of nowhere and from behind a group of cops come charging in with batons and pepper spray out, they beat the shit out of most of the group, some of whom were lying unconscious on the ground and are about to get stuck into the McLeods when the mobile phone footage begins.
Shortly after the mobile footage ends they are all taken back to the station whereupon they all have nasty accidents "falling down the stairs" just like what used to happen in the 70's .
What do you think happened? I know, the two groups were outside the pub shaking hands after a misunderstanding over who spilled who's pint. Just as they were going to go back in to buy each other a drink, from out of nowhere and from behind a group of cops come charging in with batons and pepper spray out, they beat the shit out of most of the group, some of whom were lying unconscious on the ground and are about to get stuck into the McLeods when the mobile phone footage begins.
Shortly after the mobile footage ends they are all taken back to the station whereupon they all have nasty accidents "falling down the stairs" just like what used to happen in the 70's .
lol easy to make up a story isn't it. The MacLeod planned the fight outside. The dad was called down to join in. Well that's what I have been told from someone who knows the dad..
Your story or mine. I know which is most likely to be true.
Funny how none of your story was reported by the press and therefore probably not given as evidence in the trial. Does your conspiracy also include silencing witnesses???
Mar 17th 2009 | 11:16 am
#184
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 238
Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
But that's exactly what a jury of twelve (or was it eleven?) reasonable and normal people decided - that it was proportionate to the assault that was taking place (in this case, a second shot from a Taser which can be a lethal weapon, although it is supposedly designed to be less lethal).
Honestly, I can't find a reliable news report about this, so if you can point me towards one, I'd be grateful. The suggestion was (earlier in this thread) that she couldn't stick on topic. Judges are pretty disinclined to dismiss jurors, and if it was improper of him to do so, the prosection can appeal that decision.
Honestly, I can't find a reliable news report about this, so if you can point me towards one, I'd be grateful. The suggestion was (earlier in this thread) that she couldn't stick on topic. Judges are pretty disinclined to dismiss jurors, and if it was improper of him to do so, the prosection can appeal that decision.
ps how do you know the 12 were reasonable and normal? All people will have their prejudices, like people on here. It only takes a couple of entrenched people on a jury and a failure to reach a guilty verdict can turn into a not guilty verdict.
Mar 17th 2009 | 11:23 am
#185
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 238
Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
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?
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?
In that case who would be right? The minority who got the decision or the the majority??? Not hard is it surely.
I'm just pointing out that the fact the legal system produced it a not guilty verdict doesn't mean that the decision was right or even veiwed as right by most of the 12 jury members.
Mar 17th 2009 | 11:30 am
#186
.
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 21,376
Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
What you say is just your opinion.
Mar 17th 2009 | 11:43 am
#189
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 238
Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
That is very different from declaring someone to be innocent. The law presumes that but does not declare them innocent. There is a very clear legal difference there. That has been used in countries that have this particular system of law to pave the way for civil court action.
So in answer to you incorrect earlier comment. The court system did not prove them innocent, it found them not guilty.
Mar 17th 2009 | 2:04 pm
#192
And YOU'RE paying for it!
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,328
From: kipper tie?
Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
Funnily enough, purely by coincidence, I happened to come across what I think is the relevant section of the WA Criminal Code yesterday, Section 248 (actually this is as it was in the early 1980s - I think the wording may have changed since then, but I don't think that the overall meaning is different. If someone can find the current version, that would be great):
When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not provoked the assault, it is lawful for him to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault, provided that the force used is not intended and is not such as is like, to cause death or grevious bodily harm.
If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable apprehension of detah or grevious bodily harm, and the person using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve the person defended from death or grevious bodily harm, it is lawful for him to use any such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence, even though such force may cause death or grevious bodily harm.
If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable apprehension of detah or grevious bodily harm, and the person using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve the person defended from death or grevious bodily harm, it is lawful for him to use any such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence, even though such force may cause death or grevious bodily harm.
There was no doubt that the McLeods and cops were beating, shooting and punching each other. The prosecution could have proven either of the following things to destroy the self-defence claim, and the McLeods would have had to have been convicted:
i) that the McLeods had not been assaulted by the police - which would have meant that it wasn't self-defence, and they were guilty. (If I punch you first, it's not self-defence. If I punch you, you punch me, and I punch you back - it's still not self-defence).
ii) that the force used by the McLeods was excessive - which would have meant that it wasn't self-defence any more. (If you poke me with a ruler, that's battery, but if I turn around and shoot you in the face with a shotgun, the force is so disproportionate that it's not self-defence any more).
The prosecution failed to do either of those things. The jury agreed that the police assaulted the McLeods, and they agreed that the force used by the McLeods was "necessary for defence" i.e. the son's belief that the second Taser shot was likely to seriously injure or kill has father was reasonable, and that the headbutt was reasonable force in response.
The police resuscitation (sp?) of the father could be seen as enlightened self-interest: if he had died as a result of the police assault, I'd say there was a reasonable chance of a manslaughter charge. In fact, if anything, given the jury decided the cops assaulted the McLeods, it looks to me like it should have been the police in the dock for their assault on the McLeods, rather than the other way around. Also, whatever happened to the assaults on the English painters, either by the McLeods or the cops? They seem to have disappeared...
The whole political reaction to this is absolutely shameful. If the self-defence and right to silence laws are undermined, then WA pols and citizens will have allowed themselves to sell two of their most fundamental rights down the river for the sake of cheap political rhetoric.
But spilko, let me ask you a question: if it had been the other way around, and it was a McLeod that had had a Taser pointed at a policeman, and one of the other cops had done a flying headbutt that knocked out+paralysed the McLeod - would you have said that that was excessive force or not self-defence? In other words, is your real problem with the force that was used, or just who was doing it?
Mar 17th 2009 | 2:20 pm
#193
.
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 21,376
Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
The jury agreed that the police assaulted the McLeods, and they agreed that the force used by the McLeods was "necessary for defence" i.e. the son's belief that the second Taser shot was likely to seriously injure or kill has father was reasonable, and that the headbutt was reasonable force in response.
So all those outraged at a lack of justice will surely be coming on here now demanding justice for the Mcloeds as it is they that the jury found were victims of a crime.
I wont hold my breath
Mar 17th 2009 | 2:31 pm
#194
Thread Starter
(It's not my real name)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 12,469
From: Ilukapool. WA
Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
You would have thought so - so the evidence against the police must have been doubly convincing, right?
When you say "a copper who has been punched several times and then reacted by tasering his attacker", you're suggesting that that was the beginning of the incident and the point where everything started - but that's just not true, is it? The videotape starts halfway through the fight, doesn't it?
Funnily enough, purely by coincidence, I happened to come across what I think is the relevant section of the WA Criminal Code yesterday, Section 248 (actually this is as it was in the early 1980s - I think the wording may have changed since then, but I don't think that the overall meaning is different. If someone can find the current version, that would be great):
I wish I had found this right at the start of the thread, and we might all have been less ignorant.
There was no doubt that the McLeods and cops were beating, shooting and punching each other. The prosecution could have proven either of the following things to destroy the self-defence claim, and the McLeods would have had to have been convicted:
i) that the McLeods had not been assaulted by the police - which would have meant that it wasn't self-defence, and they were guilty. (If I punch you first, it's not self-defence. If I punch you, you punch me, and I punch you back - it's still not self-defence).
ii) that the force used by the McLeods was excessive - which would have meant that it wasn't self-defence any more. (If you poke me with a ruler, that's battery, but if I turn around and shoot you in the face with a shotgun, the force is so disproportionate that it's not self-defence any more).
The prosecution failed to do either of those things. The jury agreed that the police assaulted the McLeods, and they agreed that the force used by the McLeods was "necessary for defence" i.e. the son's belief that the second Taser shot was likely to seriously injure or kill has father was reasonable, and that the headbutt was reasonable force in response.
The police resuscitation (sp?) of the father could be seen as enlightened self-interest: if he had died as a result of the police assault, I'd say there was a reasonable chance of a manslaughter charge. In fact, if anything, given the jury decided the cops assaulted the McLeods, it looks to me like it should have been the police in the dock for their assault on the McLeods, rather than the other way around. Also, whatever happened to the assaults on the English painters, either by the McLeods or the cops? They seem to have disappeared...
The whole political reaction to this is absolutely shameful. If the self-defence and right to silence laws are undermined, then WA pols and citizens will have allowed themselves to sell two of their most fundamental rights down the river for the sake of cheap political rhetoric.
But spilko, let me ask you a question: if it had been the other way around, and it was a McLeod that had had a Taser pointed at a policeman, and one of the other cops had done a flying headbutt that knocked out+paralysed the McLeod - would you have said that that was excessive force or not self-defence? In other words, is your real problem with the force that was used, or just who was doing it?
When you say "a copper who has been punched several times and then reacted by tasering his attacker", you're suggesting that that was the beginning of the incident and the point where everything started - but that's just not true, is it? The videotape starts halfway through the fight, doesn't it?
Funnily enough, purely by coincidence, I happened to come across what I think is the relevant section of the WA Criminal Code yesterday, Section 248 (actually this is as it was in the early 1980s - I think the wording may have changed since then, but I don't think that the overall meaning is different. If someone can find the current version, that would be great):
I wish I had found this right at the start of the thread, and we might all have been less ignorant.
There was no doubt that the McLeods and cops were beating, shooting and punching each other. The prosecution could have proven either of the following things to destroy the self-defence claim, and the McLeods would have had to have been convicted:
i) that the McLeods had not been assaulted by the police - which would have meant that it wasn't self-defence, and they were guilty. (If I punch you first, it's not self-defence. If I punch you, you punch me, and I punch you back - it's still not self-defence).
ii) that the force used by the McLeods was excessive - which would have meant that it wasn't self-defence any more. (If you poke me with a ruler, that's battery, but if I turn around and shoot you in the face with a shotgun, the force is so disproportionate that it's not self-defence any more).
The prosecution failed to do either of those things. The jury agreed that the police assaulted the McLeods, and they agreed that the force used by the McLeods was "necessary for defence" i.e. the son's belief that the second Taser shot was likely to seriously injure or kill has father was reasonable, and that the headbutt was reasonable force in response.
The police resuscitation (sp?) of the father could be seen as enlightened self-interest: if he had died as a result of the police assault, I'd say there was a reasonable chance of a manslaughter charge. In fact, if anything, given the jury decided the cops assaulted the McLeods, it looks to me like it should have been the police in the dock for their assault on the McLeods, rather than the other way around. Also, whatever happened to the assaults on the English painters, either by the McLeods or the cops? They seem to have disappeared...
The whole political reaction to this is absolutely shameful. If the self-defence and right to silence laws are undermined, then WA pols and citizens will have allowed themselves to sell two of their most fundamental rights down the river for the sake of cheap political rhetoric.
But spilko, let me ask you a question: if it had been the other way around, and it was a McLeod that had had a Taser pointed at a policeman, and one of the other cops had done a flying headbutt that knocked out+paralysed the McLeod - would you have said that that was excessive force or not self-defence? In other words, is your real problem with the force that was used, or just who was doing it?
I also think Christian Porter dropped the ball by commenting on the case
Mar 17th 2009 | 4:18 pm
#195
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 356
Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
You would have thought so - so the evidence against the police must have been doubly convincing, right?
When you say "a copper who has been punched several times and then reacted by tasering his attacker", you're suggesting that that was the beginning of the incident and the point where everything started - but that's just not true, is it? The videotape starts halfway through the fight, doesn't it?
Funnily enough, purely by coincidence, I happened to come across what I think is the relevant section of the WA Criminal Code yesterday, Section 248 (actually this is as it was in the early 1980s - I think the wording may have changed since then, but I don't think that the overall meaning is different. If someone can find the current version, that would be great):
You should get a job as a defense lawyer! You make a great argument for legal
mumbo jumbo overcomming common sense and reason .
At the end of the day like someone else said it all comes down to what you want to believe, those with an axe to grind against the police will support the McLeods regardless, and those who support the police will support them regardless.
I wish I had found this right at the start of the thread, and we might all have been less ignorant.
There was no doubt that the McLeods and cops were beating, shooting and punching each other. The prosecution could have proven either of the following things to destroy the self-defence claim, and the McLeods would have had to have been convicted:
i) that the McLeods had not been assaulted by the police - which would have meant that it wasn't self-defence, and they were guilty. (If I punch you first, it's not self-defence. If I punch you, you punch me, and I punch you back - it's still not self-defence).
ii) that the force used by the McLeods was excessive - which would have meant that it wasn't self-defence any more. (If you poke me with a ruler, that's battery, but if I turn around and shoot you in the face with a shotgun, the force is so disproportionate that it's not self-defence any more).
The prosecution failed to do either of those things. The jury agreed that the police assaulted the McLeods, and they agreed that the force used by the McLeods was "necessary for defence" i.e. the son's belief that the second Taser shot was likely to seriously injure or kill has father was reasonable, and that the headbutt was reasonable force in response.
The police resuscitation (sp?) of the father could be seen as enlightened self-interest: if he had died as a result of the police assault, I'd say there was a reasonable chance of a manslaughter charge. In fact, if anything, given the jury decided the cops assaulted the McLeods, it looks to me like it should have been the police in the dock for their assault on the McLeods, rather than the other way around. Also, whatever happened to the assaults on the English painters, either by the McLeods or the cops? They seem to have disappeared...
The whole political reaction to this is absolutely shameful. If the self-defence and right to silence laws are undermined, then WA pols and citizens will have allowed themselves to sell two of their most fundamental rights down the river for the sake of cheap political rhetoric.
But spilko, let me ask you a question: if it had been the other way around, and it was a McLeod that had had a Taser pointed at a policeman, and one of the other cops had done a flying headbutt that knocked out+paralysed the McLeod - would you have said that that was excessive force or not self-defence? In other words, is your real problem with the force that was used, or just who was doing it?
When you say "a copper who has been punched several times and then reacted by tasering his attacker", you're suggesting that that was the beginning of the incident and the point where everything started - but that's just not true, is it? The videotape starts halfway through the fight, doesn't it?
Funnily enough, purely by coincidence, I happened to come across what I think is the relevant section of the WA Criminal Code yesterday, Section 248 (actually this is as it was in the early 1980s - I think the wording may have changed since then, but I don't think that the overall meaning is different. If someone can find the current version, that would be great):
You should get a job as a defense lawyer! You make a great argument for legal
mumbo jumbo overcomming common sense and reason .
At the end of the day like someone else said it all comes down to what you want to believe, those with an axe to grind against the police will support the McLeods regardless, and those who support the police will support them regardless.
I wish I had found this right at the start of the thread, and we might all have been less ignorant.
There was no doubt that the McLeods and cops were beating, shooting and punching each other. The prosecution could have proven either of the following things to destroy the self-defence claim, and the McLeods would have had to have been convicted:
i) that the McLeods had not been assaulted by the police - which would have meant that it wasn't self-defence, and they were guilty. (If I punch you first, it's not self-defence. If I punch you, you punch me, and I punch you back - it's still not self-defence).
ii) that the force used by the McLeods was excessive - which would have meant that it wasn't self-defence any more. (If you poke me with a ruler, that's battery, but if I turn around and shoot you in the face with a shotgun, the force is so disproportionate that it's not self-defence any more).
The prosecution failed to do either of those things. The jury agreed that the police assaulted the McLeods, and they agreed that the force used by the McLeods was "necessary for defence" i.e. the son's belief that the second Taser shot was likely to seriously injure or kill has father was reasonable, and that the headbutt was reasonable force in response.
The police resuscitation (sp?) of the father could be seen as enlightened self-interest: if he had died as a result of the police assault, I'd say there was a reasonable chance of a manslaughter charge. In fact, if anything, given the jury decided the cops assaulted the McLeods, it looks to me like it should have been the police in the dock for their assault on the McLeods, rather than the other way around. Also, whatever happened to the assaults on the English painters, either by the McLeods or the cops? They seem to have disappeared...
The whole political reaction to this is absolutely shameful. If the self-defence and right to silence laws are undermined, then WA pols and citizens will have allowed themselves to sell two of their most fundamental rights down the river for the sake of cheap political rhetoric.
But spilko, let me ask you a question: if it had been the other way around, and it was a McLeod that had had a Taser pointed at a policeman, and one of the other cops had done a flying headbutt that knocked out+paralysed the McLeod - would you have said that that was excessive force or not self-defence? In other words, is your real problem with the force that was used, or just who was doing it?
