Shark that is a load of crap. Sorry but it is. If they change the law to say that anyone who assaults a copper goes to prison, they would still get off on the "self defence" defence...same as in the Butcher case. It is not assault if you are defending yourself and that is why they got off. If a cop was committing an offence you as a private citizen have a common law power to detain him and that will never change. The proposed law is for an unlawful assault on a cop ie: you hit them and it is not justified.
The whole point of "hit a cop, go to jail" laws is to make the crooks think twice. And most of them will...

Why did the McLeod's go free? Simply because the highly paid defence lawyers ($150K for a couple of weeks work) managed to confuse the jury. No insult to the jurors, but you will get a dumb ass response from the jury when you have 12 ordinary people who receive 6 days of evidence followed by an hour of summing up from the defence lawyer in which he used a sh!tload of legal mumbo-jumbo to them. Then the judge says if they have any doubt at all they have to acquit the accused. Yes, really, that is the last thing a jury hears vefore going off to deliberate.

The defence said that the boys had a reasonable belief that their Dad was being assaulted by the Police and so they defended him.
99% of reasonable people know that is a crock of sh!t but the jury thought maybe that was possible so they have to let the accused's off. Everything is geared towards the crook's rights, not the victim's.

The simple fact that is overlooked by many of those who agree with the verdict is that the Police turned up to a fight in which the McLeods were mediating (apparently...). Now the coppers don't know who is who, so when the McLeods were verbally abusive the coppers told them to pipe down or leave. When they didn't and were agressive they were threatened with arrest and they still didn't leave. So the young bloke pulled out his Taser as he feared he would be assaulted by McLeod/s.
It does not matter if you are one of the parties that are fighting- if you are rowdy and the Police tell you to shut up and / or leave the area where they are trying to quell a disturbance then you have to do it. The McLeods did not.

The Taser cannot affect the heart it is impossible as heart muscle is different to all other muscle in the body (it is designed that way , ask a biologist) but the young fella Mcleod used that as an excuse to hit a copper. Why do I say that? Well old man McLeod is a convicted soccer thug and his son is a thief ($300,000 so not exactly just shoplifting huh?) and they don't like being told what to do by the boys in blue.
It was a cheap shot, with no excuse, but the defence made up a bvllsh!t story that he was defending his dad as the Taser may make him have a heart attack.

Absolute bollocks.

That is why we need the U.K style caution where accused persons are told that, in essence, if they go to court and say some bvllsh!t story that they did not tell Police at the time of arrest / interview then it may harm their defence in court.

That is why we also need the "hit a cop, go to jail" law NOW. The McLeod fella did not make a conscious decision to defend his dad, it was too quick and he was drunk and disliked coppers anyway. He saw his opportunity to take a cheap shot.
However, if everyone knew that you touch a cop you go to jail, he would probably have backed off a little....... JUST ENOUGH to perhaps save a young family man's life.

Exactly. and if a copper were to rough you up, he'd have his arse kicked by
(1) HIS BOSS
(2) THE BIG BOSS/ES
(3) THE OMBUDSMAN
(4) THE CCC
(5) INTERNAL AFFAIRS

and he could be

(1) SUED
(2) SACKED
(3) CRIMINALLY CHARGED

Yeah there is heaps of cops just looking to act unlawfully so they can wear all of the above.

Couldn't agree with you more Mark/Greenie.
Im sick of this violence and the dikhead behaviour of so many in this country.
Shark you have no idea and its people like you that are a major part of the problem in this country. Taking a soft 'politically correct' view that always sides with the perpetrater has undone this city/country.
While we're at it there should be mandatory sentencing for any unlawful assault and if you're a repeat offender then just keep doubling that sentence each time till the message sinks in.
My thoughts are with the copper and his family.

I hope all the nations cops get behind this issue and don't let the thugs get away with it.

Greenroom said...

These are my thoughts...
Any assult on a copper should be a crime with a harsh penalty, NO MATTER WHAT!

That's called a police state.

Again, I totally respect the police and have never had anything but respect for them, even when I've been arrested for being attacked in a brawl myself. (What can they tell from their position?)

But police above the law? No Way!

So if you were a teenage girl and you were to, say, kick your shoe off at an officer?



Cops and Tasers:
"MIAMI - Police have acknowledged using a stun gun to immobilize a 12-year-old girl just weeks after an officer jolted a first-grader with 50,000 volts.

Police Director Bobby Parker (search) defended the decision to use a Taser (search) on the 6-year-old boy last month because he was threatening to injure himself with a shard of glass. But Parker said Friday that he could not defend the decision to shock the fleeing girl, who was skipping school and apparently drunk."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138488,00.html

Look, it is just human psychology. It is a fact that when (most) people are given power they abuse it, as has been shown in numerous experiments. You just can't argue it.


THIS **** IS TOO HEAVY FOR MONDAY MORNING SO HERE IS A PICTURE OF A CAT!

CQKiter said...

I think it just fanatastic that people who attempt to use run down Australian Police put up you tube footage of US Police.

The footage is of people in power abusing it. Don't you know that people are the same wherever you go? There is good and bad, (mm-hmm), in everyone.

Anyway, I'm not running down police with my comments like

"Again, I totally respect the police and have never had anything but respect for them..."

and

"I respect a policeman's job..."

Am I?

I'M RUNNING DOWN FN TASERS!

I've just got to quickly add that if I seem to hate coppers - that is definately NOT the case.

I have had both good and bad experiences with police over the years and I respect the good ones a great deal.

However, I do get worried whenever a single badly handled case becomes the fuel to start fires with dumb-@rsed media twits fanning the flames simply because it sells more papers/ads on telly. Remember the same paper that ran the 1st 7 pages of Sat's rag ran this story very differantly before the verdict.

Police do need to be protected. Certainly the prosecution and legislation needs a shake up, but knee-jerk is never an appropriate reaction.

mkseven said...

Panda you are way out of line posting content of American authorities abusing people, aussie police are much more accountable for their actions.

I couldn't find any death in custody videos.

Those officers are being made accountable BTW.

I hope their are subsequent spin off cases from these Deadbeat McLeods- hopefully Butcher's case was just the criminal trial and there is the civil one to come in which viewing the footage he would certainly receive compensation.

Absolutely.

I hope the police further charged these idiots with assault for telling the guy filming they are going to kill him as from the footage they can easily believe them capable of carrying out such an act.

Yep.

Any magistrate with any sense should have gone right- do tazer's cause grievous bodily harm... no.

Really serious bodily harm, like a heart attack, is possible.
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=bd169e31-4009-4d9d-9b7c-b5ff4bed3356

Has young dropkick McLeod caused grievous bodily harm... yes. Self defence is on the proviso of like force. In this case his force was excessive therefore the claim of self defence does not stand.

"Like force" or less, obviously. A Taser beats a fist or a head. Self defence stands.

Apply this in reverse, if the next police officer in line pulled out his gun and shot McLeod as it was in self defence the officer would be hung.

You say in reverse but now the officer is using a gun. You've exagerrated.

If it was truly in reverse:

- The officer's much older partner would be in a melee.
- McLeod would arrive on scene and ask them to stop. He would then electrocute the older officer
- Said officer would then head butt McLeod to save the downed officer.

Again people have to realise if these idiots will do that to someone in authority, what chance do you think you yourselves stand against them in say a road rage/carpark incident where you've been enjoying your sunday sail and they just dont like you. They are scum and criminals plain and simple and should not be in society.

I hate them too, but there is no reason to sink to their level.

shark said...

while I have great sympathy for Matt Butcher, I think you simply CANNOT have a blanket law allowing people to be jailed for laying a hand on a policemen.

That was a pretty ballsy post there shark.

Concider this!!! If you threw ur shoes at a president in some countries wou would recieve 3 years jail straight up!!!

Soo today the laws were changed. Finally a step in the right direction . Sorta feel sorry for nurses being left out though.

KEARNSY said...

shark said...

while I have great sympathy for Matt Butcher, I think you simply CANNOT have a blanket law allowing people to be jailed for laying a hand on a policemen.

That was a pretty ballsy post there shark.

Concider this!!! If you threw ur shoes at a president in some countries wou would recieve 3 years jail straight up!!!

Soo today the laws were changed. Finally a step in the right direction . Sorta feel sorry for nurses being left out though.

You aint sh!ttin!! My wifey is a nurse and had to help deal with a violent and unpredictable individual at midnight last week, who was eventually escorted out after saying he was to "Come back and smash every window in the joint then burn it down and get the kn lot ofya!!".

Emergency nurses/docs/clerks have to deal with this smegma nearly every day (three-fold on weekends - kn ice fueled tools ).

If peeps are sooo outraged at this sort of abuse, why have the police and polies excluded these workers (who don't have anywhere near the training to protect themselves - let alone weapons to defend with)??? Because the papers/teev/public have not been riled up with a seven page spread and 3 isolated seconds of a very tricky situation!! Moronic goldfish attention span public manipulated again..

If it's good for coppers/ambos then it's good for all public officers I reckon. That would include rangers, medical staff and yes - even parking inspectors. They all have jobs to do and should not have to face physical or mental abuse.

Panda Tazer's do not affect the muscles of the heart. Second argument for that at which point did old mate McLeod turn and run or put up his hands when Butcher pulled the Tazer. Simply this guy did not seem to care for his own welfare and pushed the point.

The concrete did not do it. I have a huge issue with the "One punch can kill theory"- people do not naturally fall so that they hit their heads, as you fall your head goes forward to protect it. Alcohol removes this where you will fall like a pancake. It is not the person that struck which killed the person, it is the alcohol which impaired the person whom fell. There are very few cases where it is unavoidable, one I actually witnessed where the guys head struck a gutter- simply a case of when your number's up. Now what young McLeod has done is struck Butcher in the back of the head, watch the video again and watch him hit the ground- he was struck in a place where he was not able to protect his welfare when he fell. Hitting someone in the back of the head is death waiting to happen, just like the throat & temples. A reasonable grounds for self defense would have been young McLeod grabbing butcher from behind/grabbing the tazer etc, whether he acted by instinct or not the aim was to remove him from the situation without regard for consequence, not act in self defence.

Essentially self defence is this, you can use "Like" force to protect yourself or any other person. Reasonable force is anything deemed necessary to effect such defence, you must always use reasonable force but you are allowed to use like force. There is alot of grey area in this, and that is the toughest thing in these situations. Personally I leave myself alot more leeway than alot of people I work with- money talks and buys good lawyers I'm not about to put my family at risk due to the failure of consistency in the law.

From what I can gather, AFL umpires seem to be protected more than our police?
I dont follow AFL but have seen some recent incidents where players have been fined and suspended for 'touching' an umpire.
What the hell is up with that?
Does someone have the full story on that? I thought I heard a player got 6 weeks and fined a few grand?
Please correct me if Im wrong.
But can you see the point Im trying to make?
Umpire/police not the same

The thing is there is natural justice.

Ronald Biggs the great train robber got away to South America, met a young girlfriend, had a child, settled down, home free? Not really

He gave himself up and went back to England. Why?

He stated "Even in Brazil I was a prisoner of my own making"

When villains that have escaped justice are apprehended they invariably say they are relieved that it is over. Every day is a torment to them as their conscience works overtime.

There is justice. It isn't obvious, and sometimes the only one that knows about it is the perpetrator who lays awake at 3 o'clock in the morning wrestling again with a troubled mind.

Justice exists.

Theres always two sides to a story....the media decides with one they want to portray and in which way

Although this is an horiffic event....

cwamit said...

KitingCasey said...

Theres always two sides to a story....the media decides with one they want to portray and in which way

Although this is an horiffic event....

reading the article in the Sunday times revealed a little more about the incidence from the other side.

stuff like this always ends up being trial by media its populist and emotional so it sells front covers.. and those are traits that jury's are not encouraged to use as a decision to act upon..

Imagine if the bar manager got smacked up by the painters and the patrons just looked on not doing anything.. then we would be talking about how the country has gone to the dogs because people are too cowardly to stick up for others.. unfortunately many people don't look out for others.

its never ever black and white.. a shade of grey is this sorry saga and at the end you got possibly a family that will be stigmatized for a very long time , a copper thats going to be disabled for the rest of his life and a system that will probably get worse as thats usually the case when politicians knee jerk new legislation.

oh well thats life!

Well said