What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

News Curtis Scott

Exsilium

First Grade
Messages
9,568
His arrest was unlawful. The actions of the police officers was deemed excessive and not in line with the standards set out before them. They should be just as accountable as the people they’ve sworn to protect.

They wanted to press on and in doing so were exposed, the victim has every right to sue them.
 

nick87

Coach
Messages
12,263
I don't know where you got the idea that he only got off due to a sympathetic judge.
He got off because the police could not prove their charges, and in fact the evidence they put up to do so, not only proved the charges were bogus, but showed the police were unlawful in their actions.

The idea that some judge is now going to just dismiss his damages claim is not one rooted in reality. This is now a civil case regarding damages, this is not a matter of guilt or innocence. That has been settled.

This is not going to be a cheap damages case for NSW police, given the lost income, and the impact to his reputation, impact on future earnings and any other costs that werent covered in the initial 100k+ judgement in his favour... it's going to come in pretty high when it's all added up.

If Scott was lucky, it was only in that the body cam was on and the evidence was clear that not only was he not guilty, but he was a victim in this instance.
 

shear_joy9

Coach
Messages
13,559
It's quite possible she didn't want to run it but the decision was made above her pay grade and she was left to carry the can.

I think that reflects even worse on her. She was either unable to convince her superiors that this was an unwinnable case or she thought she could win it.

It's pretty obvious from this case that she doesn't hold a law degree and was probably a former beat cop herself trying to backup some crooked colleagues.
 

The_Frog

First Grade
Messages
6,390
Four hundred grand he wants. For being cuffed, sprayed and tasered when he was pissed and unco-operative having thrown missiles at cars. No injuries to speak of, these things are used because they don't cause harm, only discomfort and short term incapacitation. Good luck to him if he can pull it off but what a leech.
 

nick87

Coach
Messages
12,263
He wants 400k for being illegally arrested, assaulted by police officers in the process of that illegal arrest and then having his name and reputation dragged through court for 10 months as NSW Police attempted to make a case which clearly could not and would not be made despite being offered the chance multiple times to withdraw their baseless charges and walk away, their failure to accept the the reality of that cost Curtis Scott a lot of money in securing his innocence (costs beyond what was awarded to him in the initial judgement) and lost income from sponsorship.

And of course stress and aggravation of his career hanging in the balance for them to try and prove a point.

Your insistence on suggesting Curtis Scott is a leech and blaming him because he's looking to hold the NSW Police and Public Prosecutors to account for their misconduct and negligence, over laying the blame at the feet of those who actually were in the wrong continues to baffling.
 

Greenfields

Juniors
Messages
733
For being cuffed, sprayed and tasered when he was pissed
Followed by being dragged through the court system on bogus charges that they knew could be proven wrong. If he didn't have the means to fight this it would have been career over. I can't imagine the amount of people who have these charges stamped on their record because they couldn't contest them. Does he deserve 400K? Debatable, but the Police definitely deserve to be sued.
 

The_Frog

First Grade
Messages
6,390
Which charges did the police make up? Did the police assault him?

Weird comparison.
Police mounted a case against him which ultimately was thrown out. Which is what happened to this bloke. You don't normally get to sue the police (ie the Government) in those cases. If police assaulted him they should face charges. Scott got one very friendly magistrate who appears to have completely ignored the state he was in. I doubt he'll be as lucky again.
 
Last edited:

Greenfields

Juniors
Messages
733
Police mounted a case against him which ultimately fell apart. Which is what happened to this bloke.
That's a bit of a stretch. The Police mounted a case based on witness accounts which lead to a jury finding Pell guilty. This isn't even in the same ballpark.

You don't normally get to sue the police (ie the Government) in those cases.

If the jury’s guilty verdict was a result of the Police providing false evidence of course they’d be sued. But that’s not why the Pell case was quashed. In Scott’s case the Police gave a false account of what happened and not only that, it was all caught on video.
 
Last edited:

nick87

Coach
Messages
12,263
Scott got one very friendly magistrate who appears to have completely ignored the state he was in. I doubt he'll be as lucky again.

You keep saying this and it's absolutely untrue.
He was not let off because of a friendly magistrate, he was let off because what the police did to him was against the law. There is not a judge in the entire state that was going to uphold that arrest because it was plainly and clearly not lawful. It's as simple as that.

He will in fact be that "lucky" again, because it's not luck. It's the law. And the NSW Police committing illegal acts, followed by the public prosecutor refusing to dismiss the bogus charges they knew full well would be thrown out, resulted in substantial financial loses.. as such, Scott, like any other citizen has the right to go and seek restitution and damages for their actions.

I am absolutely stunned that you keep going into this when it's absolutely clear you havent got the faintest f**king idea of what you're talking about.
 

BadnMean

Juniors
Messages
1,126
Police mounted a case against him which ultimately was thrown out. Which is what happened to this bloke. You don't normally get to sue the police (ie the Government) in those cases. If police assaulted him they should face charges. Scott got one very friendly magistrate who appears to have completely ignored the state he was in. I doubt he'll be as lucky again.

Was there clear video evidence not only showing Pell innocent of the charges (assault police etc) but also showing unlawful arrest (cuffed while unconscious), assault (using said weapons clearly unnecessarily during an already unlawful arrest) at the time? There is in the Scott case. If there isn't in the Pell case, then it's a stupid comparison made by someone clearly more comfortable with the straw man method of argument.
 

gerg

Juniors
Messages
2,282
Clearly frog is a firm believer and supporter of the old police interrogation telephone book technique, trumped up charges and the 'move along, nothing to see here' attitude from the dark ages.
 

The_Frog

First Grade
Messages
6,390
Clearly frog is a firm believer and supporter of the old police interrogation telephone book technique, trumped up charges and the 'move along, nothing to see here' attitude from the dark ages.
No, but I don't think you should get $400k because the cops rough you up a bit. This is the US system of law that those well enough off are trying to bring in here.
 
Top