News Curtis Scott

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

 

[nick87]

strawman???

I’m just going by the police report
Tasered
Blind drunk
Punched a cop in the face
Kicked another one ( one was a woman )
Threw his phone at a cab or car
Asleep in some joint he is not allowed to be
Chucked out of a pub

this strawman is made from bricks.

If police reports were always as accurate and iron clad as you think they are, the conviction rates would be significantly higher.
Again, not saying they're in the wrong here, i think its very likely the Scott camp doth protest too much. The police force are very reliable in this country and they deserve trust over the accused and their lawyers, but they are not infallable and police reports are not always accurate.

 

[myrrh ken]

It's because I write too much.

I think you're coming around. Your sarcasm didn't say "Cops always taser blokes doing nothing". By reverse logic, you do then concede that cops may have abused their powers.



I'm not basing anything off anything. I presented possibilities. But at least you're playing the ball here.









Hey look, and just like that, by not arguing in extremes, we are all now saying the same thing!

Turns out we all agree Scott appears to be a Curtis, who is quite likely guilty of some level of toolship here that got him into trouble, and police can and do abuse their authority, which is unlikely as a complete explanation but still a possible thing in this current situation (if someone said at gunpoint which I had to choose, out of Scott being more to blame or the police being more to blame I would without hesitation bet my life on Scott being at fault. Nick87 wagered we all would feel that way, and is probably right there).

(Pasting a heap of quotes is a lazy way to write a lot, it doesn't take much time at all).​

Bloody hell wib you verbose vegetarian

You seem to be be agreeing with me that he probably did it eh?

 

[THE CHAMP]

My theory is that it wasn't the target that shot him, but one of his buds. It doesn't have to be your life under threat, it can be anyone's.

Under most circumstances when someone is shot in the back they are fleeing. But all kinds of excuses can be made up as you have shown

 

[TheFrog]

Under most circumstances when someone is shot in the back they are fleeing. But all kinds of excuses can be made up as you have shown

Honestly Champ, I wasn't there. What you say could be perfectly correct. I just put up a scenario where it is defensible for a police officer to shoot a bad guy in the back.

 

[THE CHAMP]

haha wtf? How hard is it to comprehend what he is saying to you?

You need to activate more of your brain.

 

[THE CHAMP]

Honestly Champ, I wasn't there. What you say could be perfectly correct. I just put up a scenario where it is defensible for a police officer to shoot a bad guy in the back.

It is very difficult to mount a defence when a person is shot in the back mate.

 

[THE CHAMP]

If police reports were always as accurate and iron clad as you think they are, the conviction rates would be significantly higher.
Again, not saying they're in the wrong here, i think its very likely the Scott camp doth protest too much. The police force are very reliable in this country and they deserve trust over the accused and their lawyers, but they are not infallable and police reports are not always accurate.

Agree 100% however you are now in the “I hate the cops brigade”

 

[Vee]

Under most circumstances when someone is shot in the back they are fleeing. But all kinds of excuses can be made up as you have shown

Excuse? Reason.

 

[Vee]

It is very difficult to mount a defence when a person is shot in the back mate.

Didn't take the frog long.

 

[carcharias]

If police reports were always as accurate and iron clad as you think they are, the conviction rates would be significantly higher.
Again, not saying they're in the wrong here, i think its very likely the Scott camp doth protest too much. The police force are very reliable in this country and they deserve trust over the accused and their lawyers, but they are not infallable and police reports are not always accurate.

well
I’ll go with my gut on this one.

he has form for belting a bloke while at work .
He even said he can’t trust himself in Sydney...therefore signed for Canberra.

a gun on the feild
Bellamy just lets him walk

then I read the police report.

 

[nick87]

well
I’ll go with my gut on this one.

he has form for belting a bloke while at work .
He even said he can’t trust himself in Sydney...therefore signed for Canberra.

a gun on the feild
Bellamy just lets him walk

then I read the police report.

And that's fine. I've got no problem with that. You're welcome and entitled to hold whatever opinion you want on it.
Im just making the point that the police are not infallible.

 

[Quicksilver]

I think someone might have done something, or not.

It's hard to know without knowing.

 

[League Unlimited News]

Curtis Scott (Canberra Raiders)
The NRL is awaiting additional material from Scott concerning his charging with multiple offences on 27 January 2020.

A decision on whether Scott will be subject to the No-Fault Stand Down will be made following receipt of those materials early next week.

Mr Greenberg noted that Scott was facing extremely serious allegations.

https://leagueunlimited.com/news/34356-nrl-integrity-unit-update-may-scott-reynolds-sivo/

 

[Chief_Chujo]

It seems a bit out of whack for the NRL to view footage of a matter before the courts in order to determine whether they think the player is guilty or not. An NRL kangaroo court. I suspect they won't be allowed to do this. The premise of the NFSD was that they made no assumption of guilt.

Welp Toddles has asked for the footage. I'd imagine Scott will be stood down immediately if he doesn't comply.

Both sides in the case have said they are relying on the footage so there's an issue of interpretation here. So Greenburgs basically going to preempt the court based on his laymans interpretation.

 

[TheFrog]

Welp Toddles has asked for the footage. I'd imagine Scott will be stood down immediately if he doesn't comply.

Both sides in the case have said they are relying on the footage so there's an issue of interpretation here. So Greenburgs basically going to preempt the court based on his laymans interpretation.

Looks like it. Not a great situation IMHO.

 

[mave]

Like everyone with half a brain feared....

Greenburg gets to be judge, jury and executioner.....with a little help from the girls touch footy team of course.

 

[myrrh ken]

Good call

 

[Chimp]

Under most circumstances when someone is shot in the back they are fleeing. But all kinds of excuses can be made up as you have shown

Izzy thinks shooting a bloke from the back is a real sin.

 

[Xcalibre]

Not really bro.

https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/583705/taser-use-public-information.pdf

A Taser should not be used in any mode:

​

iv. punitively for the purposes of coercion or as a prod to make a person move

v. against passive non-compliant subjects who are exhibiting non-threatening behaviour which may include:

a. refusing to move or offering little or no physical resistance
b. refusing to comply with police instructions
c. acting as a dead weight or requiring an officer to lift, pull, drag or push
them in order to maintain control​

Well there may have been more to the instance I mentioned, but I remember this big, burly dude standing upright and 3-5 cops on him trying to get him cuffed...

Ok, so there was more to it, occurring before the video footage they showed, which I hadn’t recalled. Here’s an article about it...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...land-police-officers-struggle-arrest-him.html

Anyway, this caused outrage from people saying it was abuse of force, but they had an ex-cop on the news where I saw it, whom said it was justified. I’m ambivalent on that question, but just brought it up to illustrate how a taser (and striking and pepper spray in this case) can be justified, despite not a great deal of threat.

 

[Xcalibre]

It is very difficult to mount a defence when a person is shot in the back mate.

Not if he’d done stuff prior to the arrest/attempted arrest like in the case I mentioned. If someone is known to be wielding a gun for instance or known/suspected of committing a serious offence, and the cops try to make an arrest and the perp runs away they may rightfully shoot them.

Depends on the jurisdiction of course and according to one source, the law was changed 15 years ago, but it may be the same in other jurisdictions.

Look up “fleeing felony law”.