Last Week
Bench
- Messages
- 3,670
Not really...but I'm not a lawyer.
Clearly. Lawyers have some level of education.
Not really...but I'm not a lawyer.
The double standards are nothing short of remarkable.The Back Page have no problem with Majak Daw playing AFL though
This beerhunter must be 16, cause he keeps mentioning 40 like it's some far off age.
Middle aged white men have it so hard!
The system is a farce. If a woman commits an act of violence against a man and then goes to police to make a complaint, the police WILL NOT lay charges against the woman. It's not even about the courts, the courts can only take action based on the charges in front of them. It's the police who are so afraid to look like they are going against the claims of an alleged female victim.
This idea that women can get police to lay multiple charges at the click of their fingers with zero evidence is farcical. This idea that white australians are the oppressed group is even more stupid. Nobody with any sense thinks those things.
Only people who are intentionally ignorant of the facts think men have it harder than women and whites have it harder than non whites.
Thank you!So many legally illiterate people on this forum, willing to go on the defensive for some person they don't know about facts they don't understand...
Yes, an AVO does require evidence: http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publ...esources/is-someone-making-an-avo-against-you
If you want to get technical, testimony/allegations made by a complainant is evidence. While a sole witness' testimony is rarely enough to convict on a criminal trial, the purpose of an AVO is to reduce the standard of evidence as by their nature, AVO's tend to deal with "he said/she said" crimes which are very difficult to ascertain guilt in a criminal trial.
This is comparative to some forms of injunctions which can be granted at short notice and without the case of the other party being heard, but can be reversed through legal processes. It seems like a fair compromise to me, to impose some minor restrictions upon liberty without convicting while allowing an appellate process.
Also, I guess it's way off topic, but it's probably not that difficult being 40 + and male as you belong to a demographic that statistically have better experience and better qualifications...
He's going to plead innocent regardless, he's a high profile football player with a strongly competing team.Got to admit I'm pretty uncomfortable with some of the comments made about Peris (regardless her history). It seems all too often that the victim gets poor treatment at the hands of public opinion. No wonder so many cases go unreported. If all that's said about her is true then the law should act accordingly. Equally, SKD should be treated the same. Unlike previous cases, SKD has pleaded innocent and the NRL should stay out of it. It could be months before a decision is reached in court so missing a chunk of the season and possibly a grand final if your innocent is grossly unfair. Thought Paul Kent pretty much nailed it on NRL 360 tonight.
The people who decide this know their stuff, and don't waste their time and public money charging people with matters that don't have a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a conviction.
Sorry, but that is absolute bullshit. Women do get charged - more frequently than you'd think - with domestic violence offences. IF the man makes a complaint to police (and unfortunately, men are often reluctant to) and IF there is enough evidence, you bet your arse she'll be charged.
As far as false allegations go, it's almost impossible to prove.
That is why there are courts. The complainant can be cross-examined. Someone in this thread pointed out that very few domestic violence accusations turn out to be completely false but there are no doubt two sides to every story.
Nonetheless, a victim's signed statement to police would often be sufficient for charges to be laid. It would also depend what the accused person said when interviewed. The people who decide this know their stuff, and don't waste their time and public money charging people with matters that don't have a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a conviction.
You will recall that you said the police should not be able to charge people on the statement of a victim, but this is what happens all the time. If victim's statements are to be ignored as you suggest, it is pretty much open slather to beat the snot out of your wife every night with impunity.
I think you missed my point. If a man makes the first complaint, yes, women do get charged (though as you say, most men are reluctant to do so). However, if the woman makes the first complaint and then it becomes clear that the woman was the instigator or even the only one legally at fault, she will not be charged. Once a woman speaks as a "victim" police tread very carefully.
Here's another one;
Jennings claims he's a victim of 'black profiling'.
http://www.pressreader.com/australia/the-courier-mail/20150721/282561606862781/TextView
Here's another one;
Jennings claims he's a victim of 'black profiling'.
http://www.pressreader.com/australia/the-courier-mail/20150721/282561606862781/TextView
My opinion is that SKD is innocent.
As you can see, most in this thread have also and apparently Peris is 'faking it'.Seen the full brief of evidence, I assume?
Yeah if only they were white and aggressively kicking a boomgate, cops wouldn't have even spoken to them :sarcasm:.
From what the media reported, it wasn't Michael Jennings that kicked the boomgate. The arrest was because of his attitude toward the Police once they came over to speak with them.
It will be interesting to hear what he said. "piss of you dickhead" ?
Talking with the Police 101 - sorry sir, yes sir, three bags full sir, going home quietly right now sir. Anything else you need us to do sir?
Anything else and you're being a smart arse and liable for arrest if they're seriously bored / need to up their arrest numbers.
I am assuming that Michael was suffering from a serious case of the stupid. ie having previously drunk too much alcohol.