Originally Posted by lapin_windstar

Yes, but the video doesn't show the whole thing from beginning to end, does it? And the fact that the cop was headbutted isn't disputed by anyone.

If you walk in on me smacking someone over the head with a bit of 2x4, then you'd be a reasonable person to assume I'd be battering them. But if it turned out that a second before that they'd leapt out at me with a dagger and I just grabbed whatever was at hand to defend myself, then it'd be a different matter. Do you see?

People say that the camera doesn't lie, but in this case it's certainly not telling the whole story (except on the charge relating to the death threat, for which he was rightly - although perhaps harshly - convicted). The video was not the only evidence.

Originally Posted by Officer Dibble

Bugger it! I love the naivete of some people that are new to this country. Yes, I believe in the utmost respect for cops and authority but the Aussie cops are their own breed. To suggest that they are unwitting and innocent bystanders in every situation is ridiculous. Im not referring to this particular case but if youy had an older realative with a health condition and you saw a police officer stun them with a tazer knowing it may kill them...........you would just stand there and say "oh well, Im gonna have respect for the law and just let them annihilate said unarmed relative for the sake of a drunken scuffle"????

Life is short as we are often told and it is certainly too short to let members of your own family be attacked and possibly killed because an armed public servant couldnt draw his weapon fast enough.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by fraser

Sorry if my father was being fatally tasered for trying to stop 3 coppers laying into someone with a baton I'd defend him, if that's how it went down.

Originally Posted by moneypen20

Their history is irrelevant to the case (legally speaking). All Fraser has said is that no one except the jury members know what happened whilst they were deliberating and regardless of what you know or don't know, that information will not be told. What Fraser has done or not done in the past is also completely irrelevant to this post and totally unnecessary for you to mention.

I find your post very unpleasant and would ask that you keep personal comments out of your posts please. Perhaps you should read the BE rules before deciding to post again.

Originally Posted by lapin_windstar

(Sometimes, of course, judges do mess it up completely, but I don't see any signs of that here so far) (IMVHO).

Originally Posted by spilko

I thought it was relevant if it allows us to infer why Fraser has the opinions he has.. Adds to his credibility as they would say in court..

Originally Posted by fraser

That jury must have had a damn good reason to return a not guilty as nobody would do that lightly, not with all the people reacting like on this thread ready to hang them out to dry without even having heard the facts.

Originally Posted by fraser

How so? How is your opinion more valid than the 12 on the jury?

Originally Posted by fraser

I don't believe I gave a definite opinion, how could I'm not aware of all the facts I just made suggestions about how it could have played out. I can't see how the fact that I got into a spot of trouble a quarter of a century ago has influenced my opinion.

Originally Posted by lapin_windstar

2) the right to self-defence is the right to defend yourself against assault by anyone, whether or not they're a wearing a police uniform. if you use that right, you can expect a jury to decide whether that was a reasonable response.

Originally Posted by fraser

So if I go out and stab a cop now, then rush him to the hospital is that ok?

If I were a cynic I could suggest the cops were trying to limit any future charge against them being limited to assault rather than manslaughter/murder.

Originally Posted by spilko

You say the jury returned the verdict.. How many not guilty votes are required? If it isn't a majority call then it would only take one or two jurors with an anti-police attitude, for example, and there would be a not-guilty verdict. That doesn't make it right, as it wasn't in this case.

Originally Posted by spilko

His opinion may agree with many of the 12. Do you know that 12 people voted not guilty? We certainly know that one decided guilty and was not allowed to vote.. It could be that the opinion of a few outweighed the opinion of the majority..

Originally Posted by spilko

But you do give an impression (perhaps a wrong impression) of being anti-police. People are therefore bound to infer things. As you are quite open about your distant past it was a bit heavy handed of the Mod to butt in..

Originally Posted by fraser

Anti-police? Because I expect them not to be bullies? I have no problem with them as long as they go about their business in the correct way.

Originally Posted by renth

I agree with you on this point.

However, as far as THIS incident is concerned they were dealing with the situation appropriately, if anything they should have been more heavy handed with more baton work prior to the tazeing.