Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

That's easy, excessive force.. if it was the other way round the copper should be prosecuted...

Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

But is it excessive force if it was proven without it a life would have been taken?

As that no doubt is what the evidence suggests.

Using a taser on someone who is already down is indeed an assault and excessive force, I believe that came before the head butt?

Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

"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."

I bet the defence team had a real Eureka moment with the 2nd passage. Use the fact that the father had a heart condition, which luckily just gave way after the fight to provide extra evidence, to contend that the son was fearful he might die. A great defence it must be said as long as the son could be trained to stick to the story and it could be spun such that the jury could believe it.

The problem I have with it is that the father went down to the pub knowing he was going to be in a fight. He wasn't worried about his heart then and neither were his sons. Nothing will ever convince most people that these thoughts went through the son's head at that moment.

Like I said a great defence; the lawyers earned their blood money.

Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

If someone was about to shoot someone with a gun or knife someone then no. However, in this case there is no "proof" that a) a life would have been taken and b) that the son even thought that.

What?? He was standing when he was tasered and he had enough about him to pull the probes out.. And he was still standing when the headbutt came.. Therefore he wasn't "down".

Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

Well, if you were a criminal defence lawyer and you didn't know what self-defence law was, it'd take more than a Eureka moment to win a case...

...but it's weird that you are basically only able to maintain that the Macleods are guilty because the jury are not normal, reasonable people representative of the rest of the population...and your evidence for that is that they don't agree with you that they're guilty!

I'm not sure if being told that you think and talk like a lawyer is much of an insult when you're discussing the law, so thank you! :rofl: Actually, the law of self-defence is so ancient and deeply rooted in the common law that you can't get much more common sense than this: if someone assaults you, you're not doing anything wrong by defending yourself. I don't think that this is a particularly technical or complicated legal question - does it get any more basic?

Yeah, scary, isn’t it? Don’t worry, I am sure we will disagree about something soon enough, mate. ;) But seriously, we all should have done this right at the start – if we didn’t understand how the jury came to that verdict, we should have looked at what the law says!

Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

I'm running out of enthusiasm and interest in this thread, but if you reread the law, there's no requirement to prove that the father would have died. (And, by the way, I can't help feeling that your argument that such a belief was irrational is pretty weak when the old bugger keeled over with a heart attack and had to be resuscitated!)

In the vein of Baz's "insult", perhaps you should consider a career with the WA Dept of Public Prosecutions! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

I think it's just as much a case of lousy prosecution as well as brilliant defence.

I still think the McLeods should have gone to jail then deported though.

Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

Do they have citizenship? I've no idea who these people are but they're obviously (in)famous around the Perth. Are they regularly 'up before the beak', or in the papers or is their 'history' more gossip than fact?

Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

Their respective histories were in the paper a few days ago, a sorry bunch of violent crooks.

Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

ok. We only have happy gentle crooks over here :lol:

Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

Youre right about the defense. Theres a lot to be said for a brilliant defense but as for deportation, there are too many cases that would take prority over this one. If people were liable to deportation over the consequences of a bar brawl, there'd be no one left in this fine land.

Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

I wouldn't say they've got a long criminal history, but when there's a new driver on the cop shop-court Monday morning paddywagon, it's them that shows him the best route.

Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

'I wish I had found this right at the start of the thread, and we might all have been less ignorant.'

It does not really make any difference, we knew all about the 'self defense line the defense team were taking from the very start, its been in all the news papers for a long time. I have never questioned this legislation which has been used by the defense team, it is there in the law and can be used, whether it is ethical or not to use under these circumstances is another question. My point has been that just because the defense team has managed to sell the 'self defense line to the jury, by using the means I have described previously in page twelve of this topic, post 174 (I have pasted it below), it does not mean that the McLeod's were not guilty. As I stated there are numerous cases going through the Ozzi judicial system every day where people are found not guilty, but they are as guilty as sin, that's just the way it goes, but for the McLeods to suggest they are guilt free and taking about taking civil action against the police is galling to say the least.

'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.'

A cop is half paralyzed, with some brain damage, and you are talking about charging the cop with assault? Are we talking about the same case?!

I think this really comes down to what I mentioned before, people can either choose to believe what the defense team have alleged, or what the prosecution have alleged, and I suspect we all have reasons for supporting one or the other. I have mentioned I work in law enforcement, so naturally I am going to be more inclined to support the police, another member of this discussion stated openly that he has 'done time,' I can guess which side he is going to support, some people just don't particularly like the police, some merely see them as a 'necessary evil.' So based on our experiences and opinions, whatever they may be we choose which side to support, and I suspect that is what happening here.

At the end of the day, whatever we think, only the cops involved and McLeod's really know what happened.

'The whole political reaction to this is absolutely shameful. If the self-defense 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'

I can't agree with you there. Taking away your right to silence does not mean you will be forced to give police your version of events of what happened at a given incident, you can say nothing if you want. It just means that if you choose to say nothing to police after the incident, you can't then sit down with your defense lawyer or your mates a couple of months later, and together concoct some fabricated story as your defense which can later be used in court to try and beat the charge (as it has been suggested the McLeods did.) If this is your defense then fine, but tell the police about it when you are initially questioned, as most people who have nothing to hide do, rather than waiting for months for the case to go to trial before you bring it up. This is why this particular issue is being brought up now, because it is currently being exploited by defense teams, I am willing to bet when the McLeods were interviewed by police after the incident there was never any mention of self defense, if they even said anything to the police. I will bet you that after having analyzed all the evidence presented to the defense team by prosecutions, against their clients, the defense team came up with the self defense strategy as their way to beat the charge. Once again truth and justice take a back seat to smart lawyers.

Fraser said : 'So this is what the jury decided (referring to the innocence of the McLeod's) hence the evidence must have been quite conclusive.' Again, I refer to my post below, what the jury believes depends on how well the defense team spins their clients defense, it has bugger all to do with the truth, and as such does not mean the McLeods are innocent.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Every day around Australia, there are numerous cases, where defendants are acquitted or found 'not guilty,' where they are in all likelihood as guilty as sin. The fact of the matter is that most of them are relatively low profile cases, where someone has not been paralyzed, so we never hear anything about them.

I will give you a few recent examples of incidents which highlights my point :

Case 1 : An individual goes and floggs another individual, evidentially speaking we have the complainants statement, photographs of injuries, doctors statement speaking to the nature of the injuries, and when the offender was apprehended, in a properly conducted interview they made full admissions, which corroborated the version of events made by the complainant in their statement. With this evidence there is more than enough evidence to charge the offender.

Case 2 : An individual goes and steals a car, and is subsequently apprehended out with the vehicle. There is a complainants statement (owner of the vehicle) which does not identify the offender stealing the car, but puts them at the scene at the time it was taken. Offender is subsequently apprehended in relation to the matter, and in a properly conducted interview he makes full admissions, corroborates the statement of the complainant (evidentially speaking), and states where the vehicle can now be located. The vehicle was subsequently located in the stated location by officers. Once again, with this evidence there is more than enough evidence to charge the offender.

Both offenders (like the McLeod's if the newspaper reports are anything to go by) have a criminal history that you could wallpaper your house with, and though this cannot be used in court, we can safely say we are not dealing with re-incarnations of the Virgin Mary, or Ghandi (unless we want to be incredibly naive).

Both people go to court, and can you believe it, plead not guilty. At the end of the day when it all goes to court, the individuals concerned may be found guilty, or they may be acquitted like the McLeod's. As with any case, there are a number of ways a smart defense lawyer can try to have their client acquitted, they can give the witnesses a really hard time in the witness box, and wear them down (last time I was in the box I was there for three hours.) They can (as was the case with the McLeod's) focus on discrepancies between witnesses evidence, and believe it or not discrepancies between witnesses are only natural ; people see things from different angles, they remember things differently, and when your heart is going like a clapper and the adrenaline is pumping, the chemicals going through your brain have an effect on memory (I don't have a link to the research, but I am reliably informed this to be the case). Lawyers make it look to a jury, like the fact there are discrepancies mean the witnesses are lying and thereby tarnish their credibility. Lawyers can scrutinize the police procedure and try and find holes in it, or they can see if there is a loop hole in legislation which they can take advantage of to get their client off. There are a million and one angles lawyers can go for, and the more clued up they are as lawyers the more likelihood they have of their client being acquitted.

Back to my cases ; who knows what the result will be in court, like anything they could go either way, nothing surprises me anymore, it depends how good their lawyer is, how good the witnesses are, and so on, and so on. I can GUARANTEE you one thing though, if both individuals concerned are not guilty of the crimes for which they have been charged, I will personally give you a full years worth of my wages (which is not very much I'm afraid). So the point I am making, is that just because they may be acquitted, does not mean they did not commit the crime.

There is an obvious parallel to the case with the McLeod's. If I was their defense lawyer, I would try and ensure the CCTV was not entered into evidence by whatever means possible, but if it had to be entered in evidence, as it was, I would not bother trying to argue with it as the footage does not lie. Instead as the defense lawyer has done, I would have to resort to focusing on what took place prior to the recording being started, and go from there. In this case the defense lawyer has obviously seen the self defense angle and worked it successfully.

I heard of another case that went to court in my area the other day, some bloke found with nunchucas in a street or some other public place (for those who don't know nunchucas are martial arts weapons, basically two heavy bits of wood or metal connected by a cord or chain which are designed and used to clobber people with). The offender in question had numerous previous convictions for being in possession of offensive weapons, and whilst I appreciate this cannot be brought out in court, the Magistrate acquitted the person on the grounds that he / she believed the chain / cord to be too weak for the weapon to be used as it was designed, so the offender was acquitted. Though the person was acquitted, do you really honestly think think that in all likelihood they were not guilty of being in possession of an offensive weapon?

Like I mentioned, just because he got his clients acquitted, and just like the people I have charged may be acquitted, and the person with the offensive weapon was acquitted, it really does not mean they did not commit the crimes, they were just smart enough to get a good lawyer and work the system to their advantage..

Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

1) you are apparently unable to distinguish "guilty of a crime" from "a naughty person that I don't like".

2) "A cop is half paralyzed, with some brain damage, and you are talking about charging the cop with assault? Are we talking about the same case?!"

Sure. The cop was found to be part of a group of people that assaulted another group of people. In the course of that assault, he was injured by someone using self-defence. If a group of football hooligans attack the cops and one of them sustains an injury in the process - that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be charged with A&B.

The jury found that the cops assaulted the McLeods. They should have been charged with assault - but the fact they weren't, and the McLeods were, says a lot about the role of the DPP.

3) "If this is your defense then fine, but tell the police about it when you are initially questioned, as most people who have nothing to hide do, rather than waiting for months for the case to go to trial before you bring it up."

This is laughable bollocks. If I have been arrested, the police are not some kind of impartial investigators searching for truth and justice - they are looking for evidence with which to convict me. I am under no obligation to tell you anything about what my defence should or could be, if and when this gets to trial. You're on your own.

There is a reason why the right to silence has been around so long (like the right to self-defence); it protects us all from the state.

You think you're being "tough" on "scum" by doing down the rights to silence and self-defence, but really all you're doing is selling yourself and all the rest of us down the river.

Re: Cop Bashers Walk Free
 

A little while ago a kid was shot by an armed copper and posters on this thread have called him a hero and said no way was it excessive force.

Yet these same posters seem to think the head butt was even though it was proven not to be in a court of law, yet these same posters have called him a coward.

Speaks volumes eh;)

Poor Bas, you sound a tad peeved because your conviction rate is down, those nasty lawyers, scum all of them eh?

If only you could throw them straight into jail, I'm sure your figures would look great.