Craig Field

[Gidley Up]

How so? My arguments are hardly original, and are more less text book Noam Chomsky.

Oh, I bet you read a lotta Noam Chomsky, huh? You read your Noam Chomsky and you regurgitate it from a textbook and you think you're wicked awesome doin' that, and how 'bout 'dem apples? And all that Noam Chomsky business.

 

[CrazyTiger]

Oh, I bet you read a lotta Noam Chomsky, huh? You read your Noam Chomsky and you regurgitate it from a textbook and you think you're wicked awesome doin' that, and how 'bout 'dem apples? And all that Noam Chomsky business.

No, you can listen to lot of lectures on utube with very little effort at all. It would be
about an hour out of your day and give you a lot to think about.

I will give you a couple of links to help you out.

A 45 minute lecture from Naomi Wolf on her book the "The end of America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

I'll go with Naomi instead. This lecture covers a lot of important stuff.

Found a short Noam Chomsky piece: You need to listen to about thirteen minutes
on foreign policy before he starts to talk about the legitimacy of the state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CKpCGjD8wg

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Hipster represent!!

 

[WayneBennett]

The name Chomsky is a stupid name.

 

[Fire]

Chomsky is a bit of a wanker in my opinion. A bit of a jack of all trades, master of none. He gave Rage Against the Machine a lot of stuff to write songs about, I guess.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

I've enjoyed this thread. It's outed the total f**ksticks and nut jobs and I can simply dismiss any of their future posts as garbage immediately without reading them.

 

[CrazyTiger]

Chomsky is a bit of a wanker in my opinion. A bit of a jack of all trades, master of none. He gave Rage Against the Machine a lot of stuff to write songs about, I guess.

LIsten to naomi's lecture. She takes a long time to get to the point. But she really
nails it.

 

[_Johnsy]

I have been stopped regularly by police since adulthood on the grounds I am a
large adult male. It doesn't take much imagination to wonder what it would be like to be
and Aboriginal, ie. a 1000 times worse.

Your Police Power argument is semantic rubbish. No, it isn't the kind of power where they
can tell you to stand still or they will taser you. It is a far more insidious and dangerous
power. Making police superior to civilians in the eyes of the law is a very dangerous power,
and a step on the road to making them untouchable.

Additionally, a policeman killed on duty accidentally (not murdered) in the act of a
wrong doing would result in a mandatory life sentence.

My "irrational rants" would be considered mainstream at any University in Australia.

You made a statement that a mandatory life sentence for someone "killing" (It is actually convicted of murdering a Police Officer) is a Police Power/Giving them more power. If this is passed through the NSW parliament then it gives the Police not one more piece of power. It means that the sentence will be longer if convicted of MURDERING a police officer.

You have been pulled over because you are a large adult male? FMD, is that fact or your perception ?

These comments show that you re in fact a nut job

"Making police superior to civilians in the eyes of the law is a very dangerous power, and a step on the road to making them untouchable."

Again your whacko perception. Would you like to show everyone how the above is intact accurate via your brilliant university rationale. This will be worth waiting for.

Additionally, a policeman killed on duty accidentally (not murdered) in the act of a wrong doing would result in a mandatory life sentence"

Wrong again.

Here is the wording for you, you are honestly an a-grade lunatic. You are either ignorant, or peddling mistruths to back up your opinion.

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 19B

Mandatory life sentences for murder of police officers
19B Mandatory life sentences for murder of police officers

(1) A court is to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life for the murder of a police officer if the murder was committed:
(a) while the police officer was executing his or her duty, or
(b) as a consequence of, or in retaliation for, actions undertaken by that or any other police officer in the execution of his or her duty,
and if the person convicted of the murder:
(c) knew or ought reasonably to have known that the person killed was a police officer, and
(d) intended to kill the police officer or was engaged in criminal activity that risked serious harm to police officers.
(2) A person sentenced to imprisonment for life under this section is to serve the sentence for the term of the person’s natural life.
(3) This section does not apply to a person convicted of murder:
(a) if the person was under the age of 18 years at the time the murder was committed, or
(b) if the person had a significant cognitive impairment at that time (not being a temporary self-induced impairment).
(4) If this section requires a person to be sentenced to imprisonment for life, nothing in section 21 (or any other provision) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 or in any other Act or law authorises a court to impose a lesser or alternative sentence.
(5) Nothing in this section affects the obligation of a court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on a person convicted of murder in accordance with section 61 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 .
(6) Nothing in this section affects the prerogative of mercy.
(7) This section applies to offences committed after the commencement of this section.

If your rants are considered mainstream at any University in Australia (I take it you have been to each one and discussed this with all lecturers/prof etc) More of your opinion? then the standard of Universities has certainly dropped and dropped quickly. If this is true (which I doubt) i fear for the tertiary education children will receive.


I think we have a future greens leader in CT.

 

[CrazyTiger]

You made a statement that a mandatory life sentence for someone "killing" (It is actually convicted of murdering a Police Officer) is a Police Power/Giving them more power. If this is passed through the NSW parliament then it gives the Police not one more piece of power. It means that the sentence will be longer if convicted of MURDERING a police officer.

Well if it gives them no more power (which of course it does), then there is no reason why
they would want it then. The power comes from the increased fear coming when dealing
with police, who are a body who like to investigate their own malpractices. I don't know
how to make this any clearer for you. Just because something is intangible doesn't mean
it doesn't exist.

You have been pulled over because you are a large adult male? FMD, is that fact or your perception ?

I am talking about being pulled over on foot. The last time I was pulled
up was around a month ago in the back streets of Crows Nest for behaving suspiciously.
When asked why I explained that I thought I was being followed. I was sat on the ground
while they checked my criminal history after demanding my licence for which I feel
I should not be required to carry unless driving. I would have been 30m from home.
I demanded they produce all their ID's (there were six of them) which is within my rights,
told them i thought there actions were unreasonable and gave them a lecture on civil
liberties. For this, they looked at finding options to arrest me. I offered myself for
peaceful arrest, they thought better of it.

Again your whacko perception. Would you like to show everyone how the above is intact accurate via your brilliant university rationale. This will be worth waiting for.

Actually, it is probably one of the first things they teach you at school. Don't
trust the government, and don't trust the police. I have provided a couple of
links from several prominent academics. The basic theme of both is don't trust the
government. I think you will find most universities are pretty against giving police
unnecessary power. Those that work in the legal system are dead against the
mandatory sentencing powers you crave. I suspect they picked up those sentiments
while gaining their qualifications. Only uneducated yokels want to give police more
and more power.

Wrong again.

Here is the wording for you, you are honestly an a-grade lunatic. You are either ignorant, or peddling mistruths to back up your opinion.

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 19B

Mandatory life sentences for murder of police officers
19B Mandatory life sentences for murder of police officers

(1) A court is to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life for the murder of a police officer if the murder was committed:
(a) while the police officer was executing his or her duty, or
(b) as a consequence of, or in retaliation for, actions undertaken by that or any other police officer in the execution of his or her duty,
and if the person convicted of the murder:
(c) knew or ought reasonably to have known that the person killed was a police officer, and
(d) intended to kill the police officer or was engaged in criminal activity that risked serious harm to police officers.
(2) A person sentenced to imprisonment for life under this section is to serve the sentence for the term of the person?s natural life.
(3) This section does not apply to a person convicted of murder:
(a) if the person was under the age of 18 years at the time the murder was committed, or
(b) if the person had a significant cognitive impairment at that time (not being a temporary self-induced impairment).
(4) If this section requires a person to be sentenced to imprisonment for life, nothing in section 21 (or any other provision) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 or in any other Act or law authorises a court to impose a lesser or alternative sentence.
(5) Nothing in this section affects the obligation of a court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on a person convicted of murder in accordance with section 61 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 .
(6) Nothing in this section affects the prerogative of mercy.
(7) This section applies to offences committed after the commencement of this section.

If your rants are considered mainstream at any University in Australia (I take it you have been to each one and discussed this with all lecturers/prof etc) More of your opinion? then the standard of Universities has certainly dropped and dropped quickly. If this is true (which I doubt) i fear for the tertiary education children will receive.


I think we have a future greens leader in CT.

Crikey. That is a frightening read. I certainly hope that doesn't get through parliament.

 

[Grapple]

I read some Chomsky once... I think he just needs to cheer up.

 

[Loudstrat]

I am talking about being pulled over on foot. The last time I was pulled
up was around a month ago in the back streets of Crows Nest for behaving suspiciously.
When asked why I explained that I thought I was being followed. I was sat on the ground
while they checked my criminal history after demanding my licence for which I feel
I should not be required unless I am driving. I would have been 30m from home.

Firstly - how do you get pulled over on foot? Walking in a transit lane without carrying 2 passengers? Walking at 70kph in a 60 zone? Usain Bolt sprinting past a school?

Secondly - in the back streets of Crows Nest thinking you are being followed - why would anyone follow you? WTF were you up to? Are we going to see Underbelly - Crazy Tiger soon?

You sound dodgey.

No wonder you are scared of the cops.

Anyone who prefers anarchy (unless under the influence of some very loud Sex Pistols) must be a crim. Simple.

 

[CrazyTiger]

Firstly - how do you get pulled over on foot? Walking in a transit lane without carrying 2 passengers? Walking at 70kph in a 60 zone? Usain Bolt sprinting past a school?

Secondly - in the back streets of Crows Nest thinking you are being followed - why would anyone follow you? WTF were you up to? Are we going to see Underbelly - Crazy Tiger soon?

You sound dodgey.

No wonder you are scared of the cops.

Anyone who prefers anarchy (unless under the influence of some very loud Sex Pistols) must be a crim. Simple.

6 cops in a car following me walking to Woolworths to buy my dinner (it was dark
and I looked around to see why the car seemed to be following me and whether I should
run). I decided to pretent they weren't there, next thing they pull up beside me and there
are six of them. This is in Crows Nest, not Kings Cross.

I'm a local so use the back streets not the main roads.

 

[Grapple]

Did you do anything to deserve the attention? Perhaps you were wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt?

 

[CrazyTiger]

Did you do anything to deserve the attention? Perhaps you were wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt?

My crime was to walk up a back street when they were patrolling the streets for burglars.
It was 6pm, admittedly on a Saturday. For that I had to produce identification and wait to
be checked to see if I'm wanted.

I would rather be robbed than be stopped and searched while performing routine activities,
and I told them that. They thought I should be grateful.

 

[Grapple]

Why are you taking back streets? Who were you hiding from?

 

[CrazyTiger]

Why are you taking back streets? Who were you hiding from?

lol. I live in a backstreet. It is physically impossible not to. I'm a regular bad ass and
the crows nest gangs are quite fearsome.

 

[Grapple]

Oh... It's not a big deal though really, so what if they questioned you? Not the end of the world. Might be reading a little too much Chomsky!

 

[veggiepatch1959]

Is it correct that the victim's family requested life support be turned off?

If so, that creates an anomaly of law. Field and Co's actions did not cause in the death of another, but only actions leading up to that death. That in itself does not constitute murder but manslaughter.

It seems that many here have prejudged Field and Co, as well as the media and the "authorities". Innocent until proven guilty has flown way out the window with those predujicial clowns. They are charged....not convicted!!

As for those calling Field and Co "grubs, slimes and so on", were those words spoken of the accused months, or even years, before the events of the past 24 hours? NO!

In comparing this accusation to that of the Baden-Clay case, the alleged in that case was confirmed to be a "well respected member of the community" in a wide range of areas.

So, is Baden-Clay now the retrospective "grub and slime" due to recent events?

FMD...some of you people still believe in the Spanish Inquisition and the Gestapo.

 

[Cletus]

Is it correct that the victim's family requested life support be turned off?

If so, that creates an anomaly of law. Field and Co's actions did not cause in the death of another, but only actions leading up to that death. That in itself does not constitute murder but manslaughter.

It seems that many here have prejudged Field and Co, as well as the media and the "authorities". Innocent until proven guilty has flown way out the window with those predujicial clowns. They are charged....not convicted!!

As for those calling Field and Co "grubs, slimes and so on", were those words spoken of the accused months, or even years, before the events of the past 24 hours? NO!

In comparing this accusation to that of the Baden-Clay case, the alleged in that case was confirmed to be a "well respected member of the community" in a wide range of areas.

So, is Baden-Clay now the retrospective "grub and slime" due to recent events?

FMD...some of you people still believe in the Spanish Inquisition and the Gestapo.

The doctors would have to have declared him braindead before they switched off the machine so it will still be murder and by your logic they couldn't have been charged with manslaughter either because they weren't responsible for his death. But yeah he is innocent until found guilty etc. Field is still a grub though but I'm sure the facts will come out in the court case.

 

[9701]

My crime was to walk up a back street when they were patrolling the streets for burglars.
It was 6pm, admittedly on a Saturday. For that I had to produce identification and wait to
be checked to see if I'm wanted.

I would rather be robbed than be stopped and searched while performing routine activities,
and I told them that. They thought I should be grateful.

To be perfectly honest it would not bother me in the slightest to be pulled aside asked for identification and have myself checked for warrants several times a week. If it meant that on just one occasion another person that was pulled over in the same manner proved to be wanted for a serious crime and they were taken off the streets.

As has been said if you comply with an officer of the law and you aren't a criminal or conducting an illegal act you have nothing to worry about.