<i>A guilty verdict does not prove he punched his boy.</i>
In this case, as reported by the media, it doesn't prove he didn't either. From the media accounts we just don't know because it two actions were wrapped in the same count. We can only speculate that he did- which is what Russell has done. He could be right, he could be wrong.
Have a listen to the audio on the link below your posted quote.
Why on earth would you be questioning the decision of an experienced policewoman there on the spot?
I'm not. And that's obvious. Why would you say that FF are enabling child abuse, but at the same time promote a group whose spokesperson says that the law has passed a very important test with the Mason case, when your post says that the judge said it was not to be seen as a test of the law change -and you agreed with him.
dave, you appear to be fighting against something that hasn't been said here//I presume they also had their usual murders, beatings and boy racers to attend to .
Yes which is why I was surprised that six cops turned up to say hello to Jimmy Mason - seven if you count the police "witness". Perhaps the whole station turned up. I'm not "fighting" against anything, although I did disagree with Joshua at 11:19 May 20 when he said said, " this case precisely shows why the s59 repeal was so necessary. It seems fairly plausible that he may have got away with punching his 4 year old in the face under the old laws." Another commentator said that one could speculate that the only reason Mr. Mason ended up in court was because the "culture shift" implied in the repeal of Section 59 empowered a bystander to intervene and to call the police, where once they would have said and done nothing.
What rubbish! And l though I do think it was a little strange that the media, the Yes Vote people and Family First have looked at this case as a test of the anti smacking laws, when it clearly isn't. Sure, RB never said it was, but he linked to people who did, one of whom is supposedly enabling child abuse. I don't really think that groups like Family First and For the Sake of our Children - whom RB opposes - are "enabling" abuse, just like I don't see how the Yes Vote people - whom RB supports - can imply that this case is something that a reasonable force defence would have acquitted Mason of a few years ago, and say point blank that therefore the law has passed a very important test with the Mason case. That's a fallacy.
Both sides have said inaccuracies but RB goes to greater pains to point out inaccuracies in people who agree with McCoskrie, more than the people who agree with the position taken by the Yes Vote.
My "issue" if you could call it that is that many people have been looking at this case through the window of it being a test case for the section 59 legislation - including the police initially - when clearly it was not the case. And some people, even now, still maintain that this legislation was " tested" as a result of the Mason case. They are even spouting out the lies saying that in light of this case, the legislation makes things clearer for judges and juries.
That's false. It doesn't.
but the officer didn't directly witness the assault
But you've just linked to a report that says "The incident was witnessed by a school teacher and an off-duty police officer who reported it to police.
She either witnessed it or she didn't. If the off duty police officer witness reported it to the police, she must have at least been the person who could have given the police the info that would be required to press charges - which they eventually did.
I'm not muttering, or providing a distraction for what happened, because I believe Mason could have been charged with assault for what he did a lot earlier than he was, as opposed for police to initially treat it as a S59 discretion case..
..but that police officer <i> was</i> a witness - and she gave the evidence in court that nailed Jimmy for the punch.Surely that's enough for a charge ot be brought.
From what I know of this case - which is the same as anyone else who reads the media reports- I can't see why he Mason couldn't have been charged earlier. How long does it take for a cop to interview his workmate witness - or did it take the six cops that were at the scene some time to work out if the female officer cop was a witness that would back up any charges in court?
sorry line 4/5 of post... not into analysing blog comments yuself but seeing as you mentioned it....
Dave, your posts at 8.53pm and 9.45pm on Friday seem incongurous with your post at 5.45pm.
It may seem incongurous to you but given what I wrote on the 2nd line of the 8:53 post, it was obviously not incongruous. Or incongurous, for that matter, I suppose....
No, this would have stopped the circus:
A woman cop was walking past at the time, and spoke to Mason. According to the media report of the court case published on Stuff on Tuesday, Mason told her at the scene that he punched his kid. If it was good enough for her to relay that conversation in court (as I believe she did), surely it was good enough for her to tell cop who gave Mason the initial warning what Mason told her. Then charges could have been pressed at that point before Mason blabbed to the media.