lapin_windstar

Sorry! I hit the wrong button halfway through my much-longer-than-I-thought-it-was-going-to-be post.

ShoreyM

I was also disgusted when I saw that video and couldn't fathom how on earth anyone could deny that was assault. However, have just read comments posted on "perthnow"
(link here http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/comm...91-948,00.html)

and read this...

I watched for the first time, or should I say I *saw* for the first time, what actually occurred when the s**t went down (as explained and pointed out by Mr Tudori on TV). There were two or three cops on the young fella, and one was whaling into him with a baton, when the father and other son who were not involved at that stage, protested and tried to protect the son from the two cops. That, dear readers, was "unlawful force" because it was not balanced. Why not just take out the Glock and plug the young bloke? Then, this poor guy who got crippled, he takes out a taser. A well dressed and reasonable friend of the father tries to gently pull the father away saying that he has a heart condition. The cop, Butcher, arms the taser and hits him. He is reloading the damn thing to hit him again, even though the first one has killed the father (he was dead for over 30 seconds, resuscitated by a cop). The second one would have killed him permanently. This in the face of the fact that there was another group involved in the original brawl who hasn't even been named!!! Then, the young guy, trying to save his father's live, did the only thing he could and launches. It wasn't even a king hit. It saved his old man's life. I think the trial lasted maybe 5 weeks and the jury was there for the duration. I doubt that any of the critics on the blogs has been privy to what the jury has seen and heard. I doubt any of them have sat in the public gallery for 5 weeks. Beware populism folks, learn to believe your own senses and eyes and not what people tell you is the truth.

Makes me realise there are always two sides to every story. Don't know how true it is, but does make you think twice.

elfman

the bit in red sounds like bullshit to me - the other reports I read said he collapsed of a heart attack later and was taken to a hospital where he was subsequently placed in an induced coma

Officer Dibble

Wow, never heard about it down this way!! I dont condone violence but the cop was armed with a tazer and a bloke dived on him, the cop came off second best.........................there shouldnt have been an acquittal but Im shocked there was!

I think thats all Ill say.......

the troubadour

Entirely so.

the troubadour

Yes not a pretty sight but there appears to be far more to this story than a policeman being assaulted. Reports state that the degree of restraint used was shall we say just a little on the excessive side.
These three fellows had originally entered the fray attempting to break up a fight between five English painters and from what i hear two Australians inside the pub which some how escalated outside.
Of course it is always very sad when people are badly hurt as a result of such actions.

dboy

There would have to be an error in the judge's instructions to the jury to allow for an appeal and a retrial.

renth

Just heard that the McLeods are considering suing the police for damages.

"To add more insult to Constable Butcher's injuries, assailant Barry McLeod, brother Scott and father Robert were seriously contemplating suing the police over the fracas in February last year."

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/stor...008620,00.html

EvannTel

I wondered that but in one of the West Australians articles on-line (referenced quite early in this thread) some guy who is president of the law association or something like that, said he sat in court for the whole trial and that the verdict was correct and the judge did his job properly.

I guess where we're getting to now is that under current law, they may have been innocent, but that just means the current law is wrong.

Surely though if the police were using excessive force thats one thing (and also not condonable) but this verdict seems to say its ok to take the law into your hands.

SNH

I don't know what's happened in Australia recently.

In the last few weeks we've had a whole string of these dramas.

A man in Sydney got away with breaking into a house and raping a four year old.

A man in Canberra got away with stalking his neighbour's children and photographing them naked. Even though he admitted he 'got off' on doing it, the judge said it was 'ridiculous' to prosecute the 'poor man'.

And that's not to mention all the footballers who rape, assault, damage and harass every day of the week. No footballer has been convicted of a sexual assault in the last three decades, despite the fact one is reported about every week.

It's becoming a sick society.

Officer Dibble

Its bizarre to me that for a country that seems to have a propensity for grisly murders and a revelry of the razzle dazzle "underbelly" larrikin bollocks, Aussie blokes are quite shy and border on useless at face to face confrontation with men there own size in pubs and clubs.

That why this particular case is of interest. It appeared that the police in the video didnt have a set strategy or procedure to deal with what was essentially a messy and drunken brawl.

Officer Dibble

It always was a sick society.

the troubadour

Sorry but fail to see how this verdict would result in one taking the law into ones own hands.
Under the law we all are required to abide by the same rules surely?(even for the police,) Also i would suggest that the verdict coming out in this instance being not to the liking of the police can give us all a greater degree of confidence in the legal system of this nation and not the reverse.
Many countries it would be a case that the police can do no wrong...lets not allow them to use this instance as an excuse to further police powers as it would appears may possibly be the case.

Taffaroo

Fine head butt though!

the troubadour

Yes but one hopes we as individuauls and those figures that represent authority (government,police,legal system)are now more accountable for their personal actions as well as we, the people,expecting and demanding the highest level of conduct from those whom maintain any level of power over us.