News Curtis Scott

Didn't take long for him to develop the Canberra culture

 

[Xcalibre]

f**king lol. Listen here, dickhead; the law doesn't give a flying f**k about your feelings.

Nor your’s you twit.

You’re acting like you have a vested interest in the case like Craigshark said. My guess is some boys in blue made you their bitch.

 

[Mr Spock!]

Tyrone May said he was not guilty as well.

Just been sentenced.

 

[Vee]

Nor your’s you twit.

You’re acting like you have a vested interest in the case like Craigshark said. My guess is some boys in blue made you their bitch.

It does sound like that, doesn't it?

 

[Tommy Smith]

Yep poor Curtis.

It's not his fault the cops were called because he was acting a tool.

It's the cops fault.

Curtis is an upstanding guy and said he's not guilty.

Surely that's enough to say "case closed, he's innocent and it wuz da cops fault".

 

[Craigshark]

It does sound like that, doesn't it?

sure does.. mr timmay sounds like one of those f**ken annoying dip shits that stands 10 metres away from the police and yells out “I’m recording this” when he has absolutely no f**ken idea what is going on and then shits himself if the police go anywhere near him.

 

[TheFrog]

Great news.

Mr Scott is defending all charges.

Legend.

Hope y'all know if Mr Scott begins civil proceedings against the NSW Police Force and decides to sue, and he has a favourable outcome, it's your tax dollars the Police will settle with; y'all know that, right?

bUt ThE pOlIcE nEvEr Do AnYtHiNg WrOnG tHeY hAvE ShInY bAdGeS aNd ThE tElEvIsIoN tElLs Me ThEy'Re ThE gOoD gUy hUh DuH

Back in the heat of the moment we heard Tyrone May was defending his charges as well. Yesterday he got 300 hours community service having pled guilty. Everyone charged comes out indignant at first. In the cold hard light of day when you see what they've got on you things are different.

This is not the US. If the cops have done something wrong, they will face the law. There are no huge civil damages payouts here.

 

[SBD82]

If the cops have done something wrong, they will face the law.

Hahahahahaha.

Nah.

 

[T-Boon]

Back in the heat of the moment we heard Tyrone May was defending his charges as well. Yesterday he got 300 hours community service having pled guilty. Everyone charged comes out indignant at first. In the cold hard light of day when you see what they've got on you things are different.

This is not the US. If the cops have done something wrong, they will face the law. There are no huge civil damages payouts here.

Presumption of guilt

 

[Twizzle]

Presumption of guilt

you must be familiar with this phrase

 

[Nevan_]

Everybody in this story is a f**kwit.

 

[AnonymousLurker]

I think the courts to save money and time should have all cases brought before Greenberg so he can eyeball the defendent and he can give the verdict .

 

[BadnMean]

I think the courts to save money and time should have all cases brought before Greenberg so he can eyeball the defendent and he can give the verdict .

How would you work in the famous cup of tea defence?

 

[Ron's_Mate]

Everybody in this story is a f**kwit.

Everybody in this thread is a f**kwit ... oh, wait ...

 

[Exsilium]

Tyrone May said he was not guilty as well.

Just been sentenced.

300 hours of community service.

He’ll probably cop a harder punishment from Todd Greenberg.

 

[wibble]

Back in the heat of the moment we heard Tyrone May was defending his charges as well. Yesterday he got 300 hours community service having pled guilty. Everyone charged comes out indignant at first. In the cold hard light of day when you see what they've got on you things are different.

This is not the US. If the cops have done something wrong, they will face the law. There are no huge civil damages payouts here.

Cops do terrible things all the time and get away with it. The LECC have said they only have funding to investigate a fraction of the poor conduct, and the only power they have is to condemn stuff, the police still do most their punishment internally, and it only gets to courts in very rare and severe circumstances.

As far as I'm concerned, if Scott was tasered he must have been a real threat to the public, which doesn't match with him being thrown in the clink "overnight". Which suggests to me the police may have over reacted, as they often do. Those "charges" are pretty much the usual ones cops load up on people when they are going over the top, with no charge there of any significance.

That is not to say that Scott is not an idiot, and should not have been out and drunk and a nuisance in public, especially at the start of his employment with an image conscious employer. And he may have genuinely been a threat, and the police may have acted sensibly and with restraint to keep a threat at bay.

I just see both scenarios as quite likely. "Rugby league idiot doing stupid and dangerous things" is a real possibility. As is "Thug police over reacting and creating a situation from nothing". Probably it will end up being a little from column A and a little from column B, which usually means the idiot citizen gets in to trouble, and the thug cop gets lauded for dealing with an idiot and continues to be a thug.

Another issue is players being out, by themselves with no protection from their own alcohol induced rages or unscrupulous news hunters or over zealous police. Players need to stay away from the limelight OR have friends who can look out for them with them when on a bender.

 

[myrrh ken]

As far as I'm concerned, if Scott was tasered he must have been a real threat to the public, which doesn't match with him being thrown in the clink "overnight". Which suggests to me the police may have over reacted, as they often do.

And he may have genuinely been a threat, and the police may have acted sensibly and with restraint to keep a threat at bay.

What are you on bout?

 

[wibble]

What are you on bout?

You have to read more than three sentences.

But for those three sentences:

1) Using a taser is a serious event that to me, signals there was a serious threat to the public. But there obviously wasn't, as Scott was released the next day.

2) Therefore, it seems likely that the police over reacted, as shown by their use of a taser for someone being a public nuisance (my understanding of when a taser should be used, and that of police officers, may be entirely different).

3) I'm not discounting that the police did the right thing in tasering Scott. Maybe the "assault" was life threatening. Maybe their assessment of threat and mine are quite different. I'm offering that as a possibility.

I wasn't actually there. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the police over reacted and Scott didn't really do anything wrong. It is also feasible that Scott actually seriously attacked a police officer and perhaps using a taser and laying on those charges was necessary. I'm not sure why the possibility of either being true is so confounding.

If you read after the bits you quote, you'll see I think the truth is somewhere in between. But I don't actually know.

I was responding to a suggestion that if the police did the wrong thing they would face the law. This "in between" scenario is one where Scott may have some reason to feel aggrieved, and yet the police will not face the law.

 

[Craigshark]

You have to read more than three sentences.

But for those three sentences:

1) Using a taser is a serious event that to me, signals there was a serious threat to the public. But there obviously wasn't, as Scott was released the next day.

2) Therefore, it seems likely that the police over reacted, as shown by their use of a taser for someone being a public nuisance (my understanding of when a taser should be used, and that of police officers, may be entirely different).

3) I'm not discounting that the police did the right thing in tasering Scott. Maybe the "assault" was life threatening. Maybe their assessment of threat and mine are quite different. I'm offering that as a possibility.

I wasn't actually there. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the police over reacted and Scott didn't really do anything wrong. It is also feasible that Scott actually seriously attacked a police officer and perhaps using a taser and laying on those charges was necessary. I'm not sure why the possibility of either being true is so confounding.

If you read after the bits you quote, you'll see I think the truth is somewhere in between. But I don't actually know.

I was responding to a suggestion that if the police did the wrong thing they would face the law. This "in between" scenario is one where Scott may have some reason to feel aggrieved, and yet the police will not face the law.

clearly you have no idea what you are really talking about, so you probably shouldn’t comment. Just because he was tasered doesn’t automatically mean he gets refused bail.

you’re right, your understanding whatever that is of when a taser can be used is different to the police. It definitely doesn’t have to be life threatening.

we’ll soon see I guess. The police would have been wearing body cams and there will be footage from the taser also so it’ll be pretty obvious who’s at fault.

 

[myrrh ken]

You have to read more than three sentences.

But for those three sentences:

1) Using a taser is a serious event that to me, signals there was a serious threat to the public. But there obviously wasn't, as Scott was released the next day.

2) Therefore, it seems likely that the police over reacted, as shown by their use of a taser for someone being a public nuisance (my understanding of when a taser should be used, and that of police officers, may be entirely different).

3) I'm not discounting that the police did the right thing in tasering Scott. Maybe the "assault" was life threatening. Maybe their assessment of threat and mine are quite different. I'm offering that as a possibility.

I wasn't actually there. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the police over reacted and Scott didn't really do anything wrong. It is also feasible that Scott actually seriously attacked a police officer and perhaps using a taser and laying on those charges was necessary. I'm not sure why the possibility of either being true is so confounding.

If you read after the bits you quote, you'll see I think the truth is somewhere in between. But I don't actually know.

I was responding to a suggestion that if the police did the wrong thing they would face the law. This "in between" scenario is one where Scott may have some reason to feel aggrieved, and yet the police will not face the law.

I suspect police can use a taser when they are at risk of being assaulted and if its a reasonable response which may have been the case if he had punched a copper.

Alcohol was probably a factor and given he had sobered up, its understandable that he no longer posed any threat to the public at large and no reason for the mag to refuse bail.

 

[wibble]

clearly you have no idea what you are really talking about, so you probably shouldn’t comment. Just because he was tasered doesn’t automatically mean he gets refused bail.

you’re right, your understanding whatever that is of when a taser can be used is different to the police. It definitely doesn’t have to be life threatening.

we’ll soon see I guess. The police would have been wearing body cams and there will be footage from the taser also so it’ll be pretty obvious who’s at fault.

Clearly I am not allowed to express a comment about how serious I think using a taser is. Good to know. Maybe if we get a good police state going I can be tasered for daring to make a comment! That will teach me.

I did not say if a taser is used that it would be a crime so serious that bail is refused.

I'm delighted that police are free to use tasers in less than life threatening situations. They often show good judgement and restraint, nothing could possibly go wrong with rampant use of "non lethal" but potentially lethal weapons.

I suspect police can use a taser when they are at risk of being assaulted and if its a reasonable response which may have been the case if he had punched a copper.

Alcohol was probably a factor and given he had sobered up, its understandable that he no longer posed any threat to the public at large and no reason for the mag to refuse bail.

myrrh ken's take on this is quite probably the case.

That doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean the police weren't overbearing and over reacting.​

We will see, hopefully, if nothing dodgy happened with the footage.

I never claimed anywhere to know the situation, other than to suggest it is possible the police were somewhat at fault, as Scott may believe, because that is a thing that happens.

Obviously some people here don't at all share my concern with police abusing their powers and abusing non lethal weapons, so no doubt there are police who are also not concerned about abusing power and abusing non lethal weapons.

It is also entirely possible Scott was an absolute pillock and deserves some or all of what he got, and will get.