Craig Field

[Fire]

Spoke to a mate of mine today who is a criminal lawyer. In his opinion (and his opinion only) he was telling me that the charge of murder will probably stick to Craig Field and the other man, and won't be downgraded to voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The reason being that before the man died Field and the other man were charged with grievous bodily harm, which means you intended to hurt someone. Once the man died it got bumped up to murder because of the intent of the initial act (i.e., GBH).

 

[WayneBennett]

Field : douche

 

[TheDalek079]

and he thought he would never have a day worse than April 25, 1996

 

[WaznTheGreat]

The Shire is the Wazn of TV shows and this thread is the Peter Luczak of threads

 

[Fire]

^ LOL@5(c)uff$!

 

[CrazyTiger]

Spoke to a mate of mine today who is a criminal lawyer. In his opinion (and his opinion only) he was telling me that the charge of murder will probably stick to Craig Field and the other man, and won't be downgraded to voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The reason being that before the man died Field and the other man were charged with grievous bodily harm, which means you intended to hurt someone. Once the man died it got bumped up to murder because of the intent of the initial act (i.e., GBH).

If that is the case, a jury will be very reluctant to find him guilty. Proving he wanted to
kill the guy would be near impossible.

If he is found not guilty of murder he will get off scott free? Or can the judge then
just say it is manslaughter.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Spoke to a mate of mine today who is a criminal lawyer. In his opinion (and his opinion only) he was telling me that the charge of murder will probably stick to Craig Field and the other man, and won't be downgraded to voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The reason being that before the man died Field and the other man were charged with grievous bodily harm, which means you intended to hurt someone. Once the man died it got bumped up to murder because of the intent of the initial act (i.e., GBH).

Yeah, sounds right. GBH is permanent disfigurement. It's fair to suggest that the blow the victim copped would have done some permanent damage to the brain or skull.

I'd say that Field will defend the intent behind it, that the intent was not to kill and try and get it downgraded to manslaughter or even GBH resulting in death, which will probably only affect his parole period. The murder charge might stick because he was accompanied with someone else.

Because of the media attention this has gotten, he'll get the full sentence.

Then again, none of us know the full story, but people will still comment and argue as if they know exactly how it went down.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

If that is the case, a jury will be very reluctant to find him guilty. Proving he wanted to
kill the guy would be near impossible.

If he is found not guilty of murder he will get off scott free? Or can the judge then
just say it is manslaughter.

He won't get off unless he has a good defence, like he wasn't the bloke who did it.

If they want a quick process, he will probably try and amend the facts so that it gets down graded from murder.

 

[_Johnsy]

Oh dear.

The courts already have the power to jail someone who kills a policeman in the line of
duty to "never be released" if they see fit. It won't be something the courts "CAN use",
it will be something the courts MUST use. It represents the removal of power from the
judicial system and serves to make the police untouchable. Policeman are human
beings who are prone to corruption by the very nature of their job. They should not
be treated any differently to anybody else.

This kind of request would make an already corrupt police force more dangerous they
already are.

So it is not a Police Power as you stated glad we cleared that up.:crazy:

Someone who murders a Police Officer, if they are given a mandatory life senternce, exactly how does this make Police untouchable ?

By the sheer number of your irrational rants you have obviously ended up on the wrong side of the law at some point or had a bad experience with one or two officers. Take your meds.

 

[_Johnsy]

Spoke to a mate of mine today who is a criminal lawyer. In his opinion (and his opinion only) he was telling me that the charge of murder will probably stick to Craig Field and the other man, and won't be downgraded to voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The reason being that before the man died Field and the other man were charged with grievous bodily harm, which means you intended to hurt someone. Once the man died it got bumped up to murder because of the intent of the initial act (i.e., GBH).

& probable consequence.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

So it is not a Police Power as you stated glad we cleared that up.:crazy:

Someone who murders a Police Officer, if they are given a mandatory life senternce, exactly how does this make Police untouchable ?

By the sheer number of your irrational rants you have obviously ended up on the wrong side of the law at some point or had a bad experience with one or two officers. Take your meds.

He's been scheduled a few times I'd say.

 

[CrazyTiger]

He won't get off unless he has a good defence, like he wasn't the bloke who did it.

If they want a quick process, he will probably try and amend the facts so that it gets down graded from murder.

What I am wondering is, if they try and stick him with a murder charge and he is found not
guilty, is that it?

It is pure speculation at this stage, but I find it hard to believe it was much more than an
accident. How many blokes have gone outside to settle an argument with a bit of fisticuffs
(not that I'm one of those kinds of people). If the guy who died was a willing participant
and was happy to step outside to settle it in a car park where he could hit the ashphelt, then
the guy who died was just as stupid as craig field.

 

[ANTiLAG]

What I am wondering is, if they try and stick him with a murder charge and he is found not
guilty, is that it?

The greater does not deny the smaller. Some jurisdictions stipulate that the greater INCLUDES the smaller. For instance, you can be charged with murder and only found guilty of manslaughter.

 

[CrazyTiger]

So it is not a Police Power as you stated glad we cleared that up.:crazy:

Someone who murders a Police Officer, if they are given a mandatory life senternce, exactly how does this make Police untouchable ?

By the sheer number of your irrational rants you have obviously ended up on the wrong side of the law at some point or had a bad experience with one or two officers. Take your meds.

Never been arrested or had any run in with the police, I just don't wish to live in a police
state. 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.

 

[ANTiLAG]

How many blokes have gone outside to settle an argument with a bit of fisticuffs
(not that I'm one of those kinds of people). If the guy who died was a willing participant
and was happy to step outside to settle it in a car park where he could hit the ashphelt, then
the guy who died was just as stupid as craig field.

There are limits to what level of violence you can legally consent too. R v Brown.

Would probably be a factor at sentencing. Even self defence places limits on the force that you may use to repel the aggressor.

 

[Pistol_Pete]

Follow the instructions of/don't run from or resist a police officer and you won't be tased.

Crazy huh?

6 times ... seeing how the phantom sao thief was so at fault and deserved it, why haven't the findings of the `full investigation' been published. These poor cops, living with the stigma of being labelled pricks my people like me eh ?

You should watch the Adam Salter 4 corners doco.

Go on, I dare you

 

[CrazyTiger]

6 times ... seeing how the phantom sao thief was so at fault and deserved it, why haven't the findings of the `full investigation' been published. These poor cops, living with the stigma of being labelled pricks my people like me eh ?

You should watch the Adam Salter 4 corners doco.

Go on, I dare you

The Police are infallible, you can trust them. Nothing wrong with three blokes tasering
a man without a shirt whose first language isn't English in the back on suspicion of
stealing biscuits.

The guy's mistake was he went for the iced Vovos not the saos.

 

[Fire]

I'm not sure I want to live on this planet anymore. This thread is almost, almost, full-genius. We just need someone to say 9/11 was an inside job to tip it over the edge.

 

[madunit]

The Police are infallible, you can trust them. Nothing wrong with three blokes tasering
a man without a shirt whose first language isn't English in the back on suspicion of
stealing biscuits.

The guy's mistake was he went for the iced Vovos not the saos.

because that happens all* the time doesn't it.

*whereby once is equivalent to 'all the time'

 

[madunit]

I'm not sure I want to live on this planet anymore. This thread is almost, almost, full-genius. We just need someone to say 9/11 was an inside job to tip it over the edge.

There are two other ingredients missing.

*Razor talking about virgins
*Moffo with big financial news

we're close though