Maybe its because he was wearing Aussie Shorts

Still A <snip> Coward

Dennis

I am waiting for someone out there to say they are the real "victims" and blame their childhood, drink problem, ate a chocolate bar etc

I very much doubt it, The Justice system here is so ****ed up even when there is video evidence.

Dennis

Whilst I would really not want to believe your statement this is very difficult to see how it can be a reliable system with examples like this

Have to agree with Breeze as to the interpretation.

Unfortunately as long as humans are in control of democratic justice, mistakes will happen either way. Surprised with this one though, considering it was a policeman involved.

Ok Moneypen20 i will rephrase that Still a Coward that originated from North of Hadrians Wall

They're giving good scottish white trash a bad name:curse:

the dooners

If i was the mcleods ,i would be leaving WA , they are going to lead a miserable existance from now on . Speeding fines , car defects, harrasment from the general public,...........mm

Cowardness is in their genes. Check todays paper

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.as...ntentID=129975

They should deport the scum

It now comes out that a juror who had listened to all the evidence and decided that the thugs were guilty was dismissed from the jury because she wouldn't discuss the case. What a joke!

Can any of you here actually state or explain the reason why the prosecution failed? There seems to be a complete lack of engagement with the facts (as found by the jury) by both many of the posters here and by the pisspoor local media.

From what I can gather (and with the quality of the reporting so awful, it's hard to know), the twelve honest and true members of the jury accepted the defendants' claim that they were acting in self-defence, and the police officers' actions was what any reasonable person would have violent and disproportionate.

The one vaguely intelligent report I have dug up is here: http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/th...0313-8xm3.html The WA Criminal Code said: "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 …" http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/th...0313-8xm3.html

The jury found that the MacLeods had been unlawfully assaulted by the police. In other words, the cops barged into a pub fight knocking heads with such violence that even a WA jury thought it was excessive (and let's be honest, Perth isn't exactly known for being refined). The question wasn't a factual one over whether the MacLeods hit the officers (and vice versa), it was whether those actions constituted an assault. It seems that with the same facts, it could quite easily have been the cops in the dock, and they would have been found guilty.

The jury found the police officers' testimony to be so unconvincing that they appear to have chosen to believe the following:

"He said after police arrived Constable Butcher pulled Barry McLeod's t-shirt over his head while another officer punched him in the face and hit him with a baton." http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/stor...2-2761,00.html

"McLeods' lawyers [sic], Michael Tudori, said..."The jury's verdict was unanimous in that the police used excessive force; that's how and why they were acquitted" http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5-2702,00.html

The craven dishonesty of the WA Attorney-General in his reaction to losing his case (blame the right to silence! blame the right to self-defence!) is shocking, and paints a miserable picture for the prospect of our civil liberties. The rights to self-defence and silence are your ancient common law rights - we don't need the permission of politicians and cops to use them.

""The fact is we have had a jury sitting listening to the evidence and addresses for six weeks-they know better than anyone what occurred," he said. "The Attorney General hasn't been in court at all so he simply doesn't know."" http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/s...13-911,00.html

Kevin Rudd's comments reveal that he's not averse to talking crap when he doesn't know what he's talking about either:

"[Mr Rudd] ... said while he was unfamiliar with details of the event..."They are doing a first-class job in the community...it's high time the community just got behind the police in absolutely everything they do".

Really, Kev? Get behind them in *everything* they do, including when a jury finds them to have used excessive force, and found police officers' testimony not credible? ("Constable Hayley Burke has testified she did not see police use excessive force while trying to break up the fight.") If you're not familiar with the facts of the case, then shouldn't you either STFU? Besides, this is a WA issue - you have enough genuine federal issues on your plate, don't you?

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news...0313-8x4d.html

Meanwhile, predictably, the police union tries to fudge the issue: "The verdict has sparked concerns from the police union that officers are no longer protected when carrying out their duties." Actually, I don't think that's true at all - I think it reaffirms the principle that police officers don't have carte blanche to do what they want just because they wear a uniform. Sorry if this doesn't fit into the neat little knuckledraggers=always guilty/cops=always innocent arrangement we've all worked out so far...

Sorry ! State or explain what reason ?

This is the first Ive heard of this but do tell, are they REALLY actually Scottish??

Yes, they are all sweaties.

The video of it is here. Its disgusting

http://www.inmycommunity.com.au/news...ittal/7520703/