Greg Inglis avoids conviction over assault

[God-King Dean]

Suicide by botox.

 

[El Diablo]

Suicide by botox.

better than death by unga bunga

 

[dollyhands]

Suicide by botox.

:lol:

 

[gregstar]

better than death by unga bunga

:lol::lol:

love that joke!

 

[butchmcdick]

better than death by unga bunga

Like a bit of the old unga bunga mate ?

 

[Ike E Bear]

I'm not a Storm fan, but I like Inglis. I like watching him play football. I wish none of this rubbish had happened.

I do not know if he is guilty of assault. I don't really care that much either ... as long as the administration of the game (club and NRL) take reseasonable and appropriate action to try to minimise incidents.

Even if he is guilty, however, I don't think that's enough to warrant his sacking - any punishment handed down by the court, being stood down for a period of time, and the damage to his reputation and earnings related to that would be, in my opinion, adequate.

v
v
v
v
v
v

All that said, I'm still of the personal opinion that both "defences" offered to date are highly suspect. They just don't pass the B.S. test as far as I'm concerned.

That opinion isn't based on an agenda, just an educated guess based on the information available at this time, seasoned with common sense.

Luckily for Inglis, he can't be convicted by my - or any other forum member's - opinion. Hopefully truth, whatever it is, wins out in the end.

 

[Gaba]

Can I try and explain what elbusto is trying to say.

Yes the police have charged him with assault, they found that from there initial assesment that there was an assault. HOWEVER, the court system will decide if this assault was justified and is a criminal asssault. You do have the power under the law to 'assault' people under certain circumstances (self defence for e.g.).

So yes he is charged with assault, but the court will decide if he was right to commit that assault.

I know what he is saying , if you read through it , this case has not gone to a hearing or trial yet the court may not even have to make a decision.

i was commenting about its strange for a victim to get a lawyer and change her statement there might have been a 3rd party involvement to stop it from going into the courts

 

[El Diablo]

Like a bit of the old unga bunga mate ?

only from you

 

[babyg]

My wifes a barrister and she reckons there's no way in the world that you can be found guilty of assualt without a complainent. That is if his girlfriend won't play with police, there's no case. (I think that's what she said). Inglis will get off.

GBH on the other hand (aka Bird), can proceed without the complainent.

She also thinks that whatever footballers do off the field is irrelevant to their job of playing football. That was refreshing to here.

 

[Parra]

My wifes a barrister and she reckons there's no way in the world that you can be found guilty of assualt without a complainent. That is if his girlfriend won't play with police, there's no case. (I think that's what she said). Inglis will get off.

GBH on the other hand (aka Bird), can proceed without the complainent.

She also thinks that whatever footballers do off the field is irrelevant to their job of playing football. That was refreshing to here.

Sounds like your wife should've represented Greg Bird.

Or she is just plain wrong. What on earth possessed you to claim that you need a victim to agree before the conviction is made. Did you even stop to consider how stupid that is before you made it up?

 

[El Diablo]

Sounds like your wife should've represented Greg Bird.

clearly you didn't read his post

 

[Parra]

GBH is just a degree of assault.

I read his post - it just reads like BS.

 

[GongPanther]

My wifes a barrister and she reckons there's no way in the world that you can be found guilty of assualt without a complainent. That is if his girlfriend won't play with police, there's no case. (I think that's what she said). Inglis will get off.

GBH on the other hand (aka Bird), can proceed without the complainent.

She also thinks that whatever footballers do off the field is irrelevant to their job of playing football. That was refreshing to here.

Just say hypothetically that Ingliss' legal mob (or even more finer point,NEWS LTD's legal eagles) have got to his girlfriend.

And supposing that she does change her story to save Ingliss' skin,can you imagine the back-lash from other clubs,the clubs supporters (not to mention other players that have been dragged through the courts in recent times) and people in the general public at large and the opposition sporting codes and media outlets and last but not least,the women's groups?

They'll have a f**king carve-up.

 

[Kilmo(SP)]

Quote from The Age

"Inglis, 22, an Australian representative player regarded as one of the world's best, has been charged with intentionally causing injury and unlawful assault"

If his actions, hypothetically speaking, were the intentions to stop or minimise harm that his girlfriend was attempting to inflict on herself, then he can't be charged "Intentionally causing injury", thats a given. And as was previously stated, and this is from a legal point of view (my profession), if there is no complainant, i.e. if the girlfriend retracts her statement, or in this case provides a new statement stating different events (as she has done in this case), then no charges can be laid against Inglis. Unless of course, Victorian Legislation is different to WA Legislation...but I'm guessing they are fairly similar.

 

[butchmcdick]

Why is it that some here are quick to dismiss media reports that inglis alledgedly assualted his girlfriend and yet when that same media runs stories that Inglis is the victim in all this you accept that without question ?

 

[Kilmo(SP)]

Why is it that some here are quick to dismiss media reports that inglis alledgedly assualted his girlfriend and yet when that same media runs stories that Inglis is the victim in all this you accept that without question ?

Because those very people dont want to see a NRL "Golden Child" as someone who could do such a thing.

Same as when Ben Cousins played all the WA Media and West Coast fans for chumps over here.....they don't WANT to beleive that it was happening.

 

[Parra]

Quote from The Age

"Inglis, 22, an Australian representative player regarded as one of the world's best, has been charged with intentionally causing injury and unlawful assault"

If his actions, hypothetically speaking, were the intentions to stop or minimise harm that his girlfriend was attempting to inflict on herself, then he can't be charged "Intentionally causing injury", thats a given. And as was previously stated, and this is from a legal point of view (my profession), if there is no complainant, i.e. if the girlfriend retracts her statement, or in this case provides a new statement stating different events (as she has done in this case), then no charges can be laid against Inglis. Unless of course, Victorian Legislation is different to WA Legislation...but I'm guessing they are fairly similar.

Not my profession - but wouldn't you expect the veracity of any claim or denial to be tested? Or do you forgo these measures due to personal bias?

 

[El Diablo]

Why is it that some here are quick to dismiss media reports that inglis alledgedly assualted his girlfriend and yet when that same media runs stories that Inglis is the victim in all this you accept that without question ?

why are you the other way around?

 

[nathanbrown'sghost]

Because those very people dont want to see a NRL "Golden Child" as someone who could do such a thing.

Same as when Ben Cousins played all the WA Media and West Coast fans for chumps over here.....they don't WANT to beleive that it was happening.

Interesting point on Cousins. Plenty here will say "wait to see the outcome. Greg is innocent until proven guilty" yet those same people jumped straight on Cousins the day a rumour went around.

 

[Gaba]

The problem is , if it doesnt go to court because 3rd party got involved , no one will know whether he is guilty or not, but the change of statement by his girlfriend or ex whatever she is to him puts the doubt into people minds about innocence