Disgraceful Shameful NRL Signing

[Eels Dude]

so... based on your logic..

i can go ahead and steal your TV, but provided i can beat any charges, i am not a thief and did not take anything of yours, even though i have your tv sitting at my house?

Technically yes. You could label yourself a thief if you liked, but unless it was proven in the courts nobody else has the right to call you a thief because they have no proof. The same way the only people who know what happened that day were Inglis and his partner... he was found not guilty. So in no shape and form do you have any right to say he assaulted her unless you were there.

 

[Te Kaha]

It might sound like splitting hairs for the layman, but acknowledging responsiblity for something is entirely different to actually pleading guilty in court.

My theory on this specific case is the prosecutors knew they had nothing (even their alleged "victim" wasn't agreeing with their version of events) and the diversion program was the compromise because even if he knew he'd be found innocent eventually I doubt Inglis (and Sally) wanted this dragging on like Brett Stewart's did. The reality is even if you're found innocent in the end, having a case in the headlines for a year or more can still hurt reputations.

The diversion program was a way for the prosecutor to look like he had something when he didn't. And a way for Inglis to admit responsibility without admitting guilt.

You are the only one splitting hairs... acknowledging responsibility IS admiting he did it... he committed assault, he took responisbility for his actions, his GF had no objections.. he got diversion.

 

[muzby]

in no shape and form do you have any right to say he assaulted her unless you were there.

my bad.. i'll get in contact with all the newspapers, tv stations and even the judge himself and tell them that they got it wrong..

that's going to be a mammoth task, and i'm awful busy.. can i get you to help out and maybe cover off the tv stations for me?

 

[Hutty1986]

FMD, does this BM troll tosser have to derail every thread with his bullsh*t?

 

[Eels Dude]

my bad.. i'll get in contact with all the newspapers, tv stations and even the judge himself and tell them that they got it wrong..

that's going to be a mammoth task, and i'm awful busy.. can i get you to help out and maybe cover off the tv stations for me?

Naive way of thinking. If he was guilty of assault he'd have a conviction to his name. And what do the newspapers tv stations etc have to do with anything?

 

[Evenflow]

...and believe me, it's a minority who want him banned from playing.

How the f**k would you know and can be so adamant that it's only the minority that want him banned? Are you only referring to this thread or have you spoken to the likely hundreds of thousands of people who know about this situation to get their opinion on whether he should be allowed to play or not?

I'd bet my life that the vast majority of females would want him banned and as you can see from the small cross section of the male community who've given their opinion either way it's much closer to a 50/50 on both sides so it's got me f**ked where you pulled the minority card from. Well i do, clearly it was out of your arse.

 

[DJShaksta]

Naive way of thinking. If he was guilty of assault he'd have a conviction to his name.

LOL in what world do you live in?
Since when has our legal system been perfect?

It's ironic you calling someone naive.

 

[hitman82]

With respect I don't think it is a minority that are ok with him playing NRL.

That's what I was saying. I Assume you mean it IS a minority who think it's ok?

Anywho, I'm just judging this from discussions with colleagues, family etc.
Bearing in mind none of them are big Warriors fans - almost everyone I know is ok with him getting a chance in the NRL.

Even in this thread I think more people have been ok with a second chance than not - but if that isn't that case I can understand.

We are (presumably) all league fans and it's natural for league fans to want to protect their sport from possible controversy.

The average person seems to be ok with second chances even in cases like this.

 

[muzby]

Naive way of thinking. If he was guilty of assault he'd have a conviction to his name. And what do the newspapers tv stations etc have to do with anything?

he had admitted responsibility for the assault and was put into the diversion program, for which he avoided a conviction..


lets say, for arguments sake, over a few beers i get into a fist fight with a mate of mine, break his nose, but if he chooses not to press charges (assault charges none-the-less) i can still responsible for and have committed the assault that caused the damage, but just not convicted of it..


and in regards to the tv stations & the papers, they all reported the findings of the case, where he admitted to the assault.. so hey, if little old me is wrong after reading about it in the australia wide media, i better get it fixed quickly to avoid the other 22,394,213 people getting the wrong story..

 

[BunniesMan]

You are the only one splitting hairs... acknowledging responsibility IS admiting he did it... he committed assault, he took responisbility for his actions, his GF had no objections.. he got diversion.

fmd, you can't just use words like assault. Words like assault (and murder and manslaughter etc) are technical words. They are crimes, establishing a crime happened is way more complicated than people think, it's not like the cop shows on tv. From establishising actus reus and mens rea etc, and things like motive, extenuating circumstances etc.

The only thing we know is Greg Inglis acknowledging pushing her with open hands. That is all we know. That is entirely different to "committing assault" like you claim, which he clearly didn't.

If you wrap your car around a pole tomorrow (and manage to survive) how would you like it if ignorant idiots all over the place accused you of criminal acts like dangerous driving when a court didn't even find you guilty, when all the court did was to get you to acknowledge making a mistake on the road? That's what people like you have no problem doing with Inglis.

 

[skeepe]

Inglis took responsibility for a charge of unlawful assault BM. You can use words like assault when the person involved took responsibility for something that the law calls unlawful assault.

 

[hitman82]

How the f**k would you know and can be so adamant that it's only the minority that want him banned? Are you only referring to this thread or have you spoken to the likely hundreds of thousands of people who know about this situation to get their opinion on whether he should be allowed to play or not?

I'd bet my life that the vast majority of females would want him banned and as you can see from the small cross section of the male community who've given their opinion either way it's much closer to a 50/50 on both sides so it's got me f**ked where you pulled the minority card from. Well i do, clearly it was out of your arse.

Haha, remember to breathe and keep it civil buddy.

I'm basing that on people I have spoken to.

And the fact there is no public outcry. In fact the only outcry seems to be from a (apparently 50-50ish) percentage of people on this thread...

Hardly a true representation of the public and society who elect the governments who make the policies which have made it possible for people like Shaun to get a second chance.

 

[Eels Dude]

LOL in what world do you live in?
Since when has our legal system been perfect?

It's ironic you calling someone naive.

It's far from perfect. But it's unfair to assume anyone not guilty of a crime could still actually be guilty but that's up to the court's to decide. Let's look at Brett Stewart for example. Is he still a potential rapist? Or do we give him the benfit of the doubt and take the court's word he's not guilty?

 

[DJShaksta]

Your grasp on reality is an indication of the sad state our school system is in Bunniesman.

 

[Perth Red]

That's what I was saying. I Assume you mean it IS a minority who think it's ok?

Anywho, I'm just judging this from discussions with colleagues, family etc.
Bearing in mind none of them are big Warriors fans - almost everyone I know is ok with him getting a chance in the NRL.

Even in this thread I think more people have been ok with a second chance than not - but if that isn't that case I can understand.

We are (presumably) all league fans and it's natural for league fans to want to protect their sport from possible controversy.

The average person seems to be ok with second chances even in cases like this.

Chatted to the wife and 3 mates about it last night and they all thought it an absolute disgrace that he is being allowed to sign to the NRL. In fact two of my mates were alot stronger about it and dismayed that he isn't still rotting in a prison for such a terrible crime. Short of running a syurvey of 20k people you can;t say what A) NRL fans feel about ti B) What the general populations view of te NRL will be after this decision.

What we can say is they have now set a precedent and any player that commits pretty much any crime will be allowed back after serving their sentance and showing some remorse. Dangerous PR road to go down imo,

 

[muzby]

If you wrap your car around a pole tomorrow (and manage to survive) how would you like it if ignorant idiots all over the place accused you of criminal acts like dangerous driving when a court didn't even find you guilty, when all the court did was to get you to acknowledge making a mistake on the road? That's what people like you have no problem doing with Inglis.

if you wrap your car around a pole it means that you have done something pretty damn stupid & deserve to be labelled a dangerous driver..

(and i can speak from experience having been a passenger in a car that was split in two after hitting a concrete pole..)

show me one person who has "accidentally" wrapped their car around a pole after doing a simple mistake...

 

[DJShaksta]

It's far from perfect. But it's unfair to assume anyone not guilty of a crime could still actually be guilty but that's up to the court's to decide. Let's look at Brett Stewart for example. Is he still a potential rapist? Or do we give him the benfit of the doubt and take the court's word he's not guilty?

If I kill someone tonite and am never caught or charged, am I a murderer?

Right so now we've established that I am we can agree that it is possible to be guilty of murder or assault or theft, etc without actually being found guilty in a court.
Cheers

 

[Shorty]

That's what I was saying. I Assume you mean it IS a minority who think it's ok?

Anywho, I'm just judging this from discussions with colleagues, family etc.
Bearing in mind none of them are big Warriors fans - almost everyone I know is ok with him getting a chance in the NRL.

Even in this thread I think more people have been ok with a second chance than not - but if that isn't that case I can understand.

We are (presumably) all league fans and it's natural for league fans to want to protect their sport from possible controversy.

The average person seems to be ok with second chances even in cases like this.

Um....I think it's actually the majority that don't want him in the League....
There's been like 4 or so repeated people defending his inclusion.

 

[skeepe]

if you wrap your car around a pole it means that you have done something pretty damn stupid & deserve to be labelled a dangerous driver..

(and i can speak from experience having been a passenger in a car that was split in two after hitting a concrete pole..)

show me one person who has "accidentally" wrapped their car around a pole after doing a simple mistake...

Agreed. At the very least, you'd be labelled a negligent driver. And that would be a fair description.

 

[InThatNumber]

Well Hitler was never convicted of WWII war crimes, but we all know he was responsible... (don't get your panties in a knot, I am not comparing Inglis to Hitler - but pointing out the fact that you can be guilty without being convicted)

Hell I am guilty of jaywalking but have never been convicted for it.