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.
For a start it MUST have a clause that its only if copper is acting lawfully. And this is exactly the basis that this case was fought on (rightly or wrongly)
If you have a blanket law, and a copper goes mad (they are human believe it or not) then EVEN IF HE WAS ACTING UNLAWFULLY you would go to jail. Even if he was committing a crime. Even if he decided he didnt like your face and you grabbed his batten as he was about to strike you-off to jail no matter what.
This cannot be allowed to happen in our country.
Our system is FAR from perfect, but the premise is that "a thousand guilty should go free before one innocent is jailed"
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.
No clauses, just a law that states that no one is to lay a hand on a copper no matter what.
In what situation would a cop attack you simply because he doesnt like the look of you?
I personally have never been put in a situation like this. Maybe because I dont go out writing myself off and looking for fights. I dont drink but when I did I could handle my alcohol. And even when there was a hint of trouble and the cops turned up, then we usually did what we were told. Back off and settle down or get arrested.
If a cop has even started to think about how he doesnt like the look of you then you must be either in the wrong place or you are out looking for trouble.
People need to start acting like human beings and not like pissed bloody idiots in public. If you wanna act like that do it in your own home and headbutt your own mates.
Dont put your hands on a copper. Why cant people understand that? Like I said before that if you are being rough handled by a copper its most probably because you are playing up and deserve to be handled in a forceful way.
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.
I think it just fanatastic that people who attempt to run down Australian Police put up you tube footage of US Police. Evlpanda your point is almost as off the mark as your last comment about how tasers are used to replace a Police Officer's handgun. Keep up the intelligent responses they have alot of merit.
Greenroom and Mark, your comments are spot on the money, however I don't see that form of legislation coming in anytime soon. It took years before spitting into the face of a Police Officer in QLD became an imprisonment offence, and we still have cases here where they walk.
Tough gig this one.
I have seen many violent incidents in my (mostly former) line of work too.
There is waaaayyyyy too much agro and violence in society for sure. With the downturn taking effect and most likely an increase in alchohol and drug abuse to follow it aint gonna get better.
What is not going to help is the 'I'm p!ssed with violent thugs gettin off and am gonna get all vigilante' attitude. Violence is not gonna fix violence, simple as that. You become the one acting unlawfully - pretty much exactly as the McLeod idiots did in the 1st place. Ironic?
The McLeods are tools for sure, but if they are going to hock their house to get a better lawyer than the prosecution can, that is the way our system works. Not good, but what do poeple want - no defence allowed for anyone accused of touching a copper?
Being in a position or relative authority is corrupting for most people. Making them 'untouchable' in any situation will not help this.
As for the copper's facing punishment/CCC etc? Dream on bud. My mate (who has never, ever, even threatened anyone let alone lifted a finger against them) and his bud were taken to a quiet part of East Perth and got the phone book treatment (literally) a few years back from 2 lovely members of the constabulary. This was because he had the audicity to tell the coppers to stop racially hassling his dark skinned mate (who they called "Abbo" - even though he was Indian??) about a smashed bottle from an intersection 500m away that had zero to do with them but was aledged to have been smashed by "an Abbo" by a witness.
I have also witnessed spray being used at very close range repeatedly on people who are already down and incapaticitated too. Asking for trouble dishing out like this.
The problem is in situations like this the media, Police union, prosecution etc don't want to admit any fault in their own backyards and want to paint a very simplistic black n white argument for folks who make their mind up from a 10 sec soundbite.
IM(maybe-not-so)HO, I reckon the McLeods should have been found guilty but with mitigating cercumstances. The way the media and the Police union would have it is the punishment should fit the damage - not the crime itself as such. So e.g. one bloke smashes a copper 10 times but doesn't permanatly damage him, 'minor charge'. Another bloke lands a freaky headbut in a bizarre situation and he should be treated differantly because of the following outcome?? A sticky wicket there for sure. No doubt the same media tools calling for blanket legsilation would be all over potentially unfair cases that followed this line too. Damned if you do - damned if you don't.
All should have acted differantly in this situation and it never should have happened. Keep that thought fresh in your mind next time the camel stacks an annoying straw on your back on the road, pub, ticket que etc.
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.
Panda you are way out of line posting content of American authorities abusing people, aussie police are much more accountable for their actions. Do our police require tazers- for sure. Like anything though there will be a period where they will be incorrectly applied to situations. Look at the crap going on in Victoria at the moment over the kid who was shot and the media/family are cop bashing as they vic police dont see tazers as a requirement.
Police are only human, they can over react however they are alot more accountable for their actions than any non-law involved citizen. The courts view it as they should know better. When I was younger I had many run ins with police, and still do to an extent- I hate authority but I don't consider what has happened in the McLeod case anywhere near appropriate. I won't tolerate an abuse of power, but I do respect their right to be able to go home to their families at the end of their shift and that they aren't their job but rather doing a job.
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. 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.
Any magistrate with any sense should have gone right- do tazer's cause grievous bodily harm... no. 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. 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.
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.
OK, after finally watching the video 
here's my slightly ammended view (as if it matters)
a. I hate fn idiots like that (not the cops). Just do what the cop says. (and act dumb )
b. There are always going to be people like that : (
c. Self defence stands. Only just. It's about tit-for-tat
d. The McClods deserve some charge.
e. The cop definately deserves compensation and I'd even be first to donate some cash. Although no amount of money will be enough.
As for the decision I can see how it came about that way. He has tackled him in the heat of the moment. It was unintentional. It was the concrete that did it. That's the law, unfortunately.
The Taser, however, did nothing but make a bad situation worse.
As an aside, from the advantage of distance and retrospect, I wish one of them had just taken out a gun, shot it in the air a few times and yelled out "don't any of you f's move, or I'll execute every last one of you!!!" And then pointed it.
Bloody alcohol.
). 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.
Select to expand quoteau_rick said...
Never mind throwing stuff, what about the guy who was jailed in Thailand for writing about the royal family in a novel, or women in Sudan who get kileed for bringing shame on the family 'cos someone raped them and they didn't have 4 male witnesses to back up their account of it ?
Isn't self defence supposed to allow only "reasonable force" though ?
Ur absolutley correct Rick !
Just another reason why we're called the "Lucky Country " eh...
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
in sayn thati assulted a train fun ploice last year when i got into fremantle train station he ordered me an infrindgement notice cause i caught the train back from claremont without a ticket hold 12 showbags after running for the train
after screwing up the ticket into a solid ball and throwing it at his head from a distance of 3 metres....
i told him that i pay taxes and i never caught the train for 8 years.
i didnt get violent.
but he said if u say one more thing ill keep u in lockup overnight, so i quietly took my dignity and left without headbutting anyone
still had to pay it cause they were going to suspend my liscence ;-(
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....
