Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Chuck, you just don't get it, do you?
Nobody other than the 12 members of the jury knows on what basis they reached their verdict.
You're clearly one of the smacking-brigade, so I hardly expect reason from you. But this point shouldn't be too hard to grasp. We just don't know.
Judging by the above comments the typical Left when unable to debate an issue first resort to embellishment and lies and when that fails then comes the abuse.
Like "You're a Dickhead"?
-
Chuck, I am armed with garlic, crucifixes and holy water, and I'm not afraid to use them
-
If the police officer was breaking up a left wing protest I am sure many on this blog would consider the possiblity that she embellished the facts.
What exactly is your point? Sure, the police have been known to sometimes embellish their evidence. But what evidence do you have of any embellishment in this case? Did you see the incident? Were you in the courtroom to assess the witnesses and their reliability?
So basically you don't know on what basis the jury reached its verdict. Nor do we.
You've obviously been reading the Family Fists press releases - because your argument sounds familiar.
-
If there was compelling evidence that he punched his boy in the face can you explain why a jury would take nine hours to reach a verdict?
Chuck, neither you nor I have heard directly the witness evidence, so we can't assess its strengths or weaknesses. Who know why the jury took 9 hours? Maybe it wasn't clearcut initially to them whether Mason punched the boy. Maybe some on the jury believed his version of events. Or maybe one of the jurors initially thought it was okay for someone to punch his son in the face and had to be talked around by the other 11.
The point I'm trying to make is that we just don't know what the jury were thinking, so why would anyone try to draw conclusions from the length of their deliberations?
Unless of course the person trying to draw those conclusions had such a visceral hatred of the current child discipline laws that they became blinded to that obvious fact.
When the liberal Left do not like someone they find it very easy to embellish the story or even out and out lie.
Comrades, we have a reactionary in our midst! Call the Politburo and tell them class enemies have infiltrated our organisation!
-
Not section 5 of the Crimes (Substitued Section 59) Amendment Act?
I suppose the point I was trying (badly) to make is that the debate has been over the removal of the reasonable force defence under the old section 59, and its replacement with a very limited defence in section 59. So section 59, as substituted by section 5 of the Crimes (Substitued Section 59) Amendment Act, is the section that everyone is discussing.
But point taken.
-
A question about the smacking law for y`all.
Let's call it something other than the "smacking law". I prefer to call it section 59 of the Crimes Act. That removes all of the problems with labelling the law as something it isn't.
Are there pockets of society that would say a punch in the face is reasonable force and that is why the law was changed?
Yes. Read the Herald's Your Views if you wish to be enlightened/appalled.
-
Quite. Even rank idiots have that right.
Even Rankin idiots.
Oops, wrong thread.
-
Surely this is some sort of contempt of court?
Contempt for commenting on what the jury did or thought? It's not contempt. It's freedom of speech.
-
Mason's been found guilty, but has not actually been convicted - yet.
Maybe that trip to Disneyland will happen after all. Won't someone please think of the children?
-
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.
I'm not sure I agree. It's hard to see how anyone could argue punching a child in the face was reasonable force.
I suspect the legal result may have been the same, though we'll never know for sure.