Current Rye bashing resulting in tragic death *Man Charged*

[dymot]

Nothing terribly pre-mediatated that I can see.




There is no proof that amphetamine use makes anyone disproportionately violent. In fact, recent evidence to the contrary has been produced:






It excuses nothing in this instance.




Absolutely, although a failure to gain initial bail for a show cause situation would suggest that the police have solid evidence at this stage in order to incarcerate the suspect.

You know the reason he was refused bail although the parents of the deceased didn't want it granted was because the police was worried he would communicate with the accused that was still free at the time he had his bail hearing.

 

[WinmarToLockett]

Hard_to_Beat

Please stop calling people closed minded. By automatically assuming the version of events portrayed in the media are a lie you are demonstrating that you are the one who is gullible, prejudiced, "closed minded", and incapable of forming your own opinion.

I cannot understand how you don't see this.

Almost every post you make (that isn't an insult) is filled with hypocricies. Asking someone if they knew the man that was charged well enough to form an opinion on them... whilst immediately proferring that the victim made an "inflammatory comment"..?

Open your eyes.

Anyway. I saw a few of the victims friends bleating on facebook about how the accused "would never have wanted this to happen". What a bunch of ****ing idiots.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I can't help you mate.

You have arrived at absolute opinions that I have not proposed and I can't be bothered going through 30 posts to point this out to every person on the net that makes automatic A-->B correlations without pausing to truly absorb my comments.

Apologies, but you would be best served by either taking the time to properly analyse my words in a balanced context or by placing me on ignore.

Peace.

 

[Grizzly_82]

Just ignore the hypocritical troll trying to be smart , no one on this forum takes him too seriously.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

You know the reason he was refused bail although the parents of the deceased didn't want it granted was because the police was worried he would communicate with the accused that was still free at the time he had his bail hearing.

It's manslaughter.

It's a strict show cause bail scenario.

He was never going to get immediate bail as long as the police had decent evidence. PCJ doesn't even enter in to the equation.

Learn the law.

 

[Donners]

It's manslaughter.

It's a strict show cause bail scenario.

He was never going to get immediate bail as long as the police had decent evidence. PCJ doesn't even enter in to the equation.

Learn the law.

I don't believe manslaughter is strictly show cause where it doesn't involve a weapon. It certainly wasn't when I last did a manslaughter matter (albeit six years ago) and a quick glance at the legislation seems to omit it. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, though.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ba197741/s4.html

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I don't believe manslaughter is strictly show cause where it doesn't involve a weapon. It certainly wasn't when I last did a manslaughter matter (albeit six years ago) and a quick glance at the legislation seems to omit it. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, though.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ba197741/s4.html

It appears so, although a magistrate has other grounds to refuse bail. It's likely that the suspect will get out in April if he applies, or sooner if he seeks leave to appeal before the Supreme Court when it reconvenes.

It's interesting to note that hypothetically a cannabis growers found with ~20 plants can be denied bail, whilst a child molester that is guilty of manslaughter can be granted bail.

Stupid archaic crap.

 

[Donners]

I know plenty of solicitors that will discuss their client's situation without the brief of evidence. In fact they have to in order to explain what they have been arrested for and what will happen to them next. Further the solicitor will discuss the prosecution's claims for bail and what might happen to them in this regard. All is done often before the brief of evidence is prepared to a sufficient standard.

Of course, but your comment was "Most telling though is that the boys lawyer has not even tried to argue any sort of provocation defense." That's different to discussing it with the client.

Unless they had a pretty clear-cut basis for such a claim, they would not tend to argue that point before receiving the full brief (even then, it's not uncommon for the defence to not be fully apparent until well after the committal). There would be no advantage to doing so unless it was of sufficient strength to tip the balance in a bail application or avoid being committed - and it would need to be pretty strong in these circumstances.

 

[Flawed Genius]

"That's what we're here for" could be anything.

Mate A: "Dyl, you're a crazy c^^t!"
DC: "That's what we're here for!"

Mate A: "****, what'd you do?!"
DC: "That's what we're here for!"

Mate A: "Nice one, Dyl."
DC: "That's what we're here for!"

etc etc.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

"That's what we're here for" could be anything.

Mate A: "Dyl, you're a crazy c^^t!"
DC: "That's what we're here for!"

Mate A: "****, what'd you do?!"
DC: "That's what we're here for!"

Mate A: "Nice one, Dyl."
DC: "That's what we're here for!"

etc etc.

Exactly.

How loaded does that term appear in the Hun considering it was not supplied with any context?

 

[Flawed Genius]

Exactly.

How loaded does that term appear in the Hun considering it was not supplied with any context?

It does make him sound a lot colder.

Regardless, going anywhere with the express intention to assault someone is a low act.

 

[grizzlym]

Exactly.

How loaded does that term appear in the Hun considering it was not supplied with any context?

I am the last person to defend the Herald Sun - as they are the lowest of the low when it comes to journalism, and I use the term very loosely in relation to them - but they pretty much reported it as it unfolded in court. The police, I believe, didn't add much more than what we know.

 

[Flawed Genius]

Was context given regarding the phrase "That's what we're here for?"

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I am the last person to defend the Herald Sun - as they are the lowest of the low when it comes to journalism, and I use the term very loosely in relation to them - but they pretty much reported it as it unfolded in court. The police, I believe, didn't add much more than what we know.

What sort of credible journo would run with that comment without any context?

They ran it because they are in the incitement business.

 

[grizzlym]

What sort of credible journo would run with that comment without any context?

They ran it because they are in the incitement business.

The Age ran it. ABC rain it. Every major news service ran it, both broadcast and print.

It was straight from the hearing - no beat up it and denying of context because there wasn't any.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

It was straight from the hearing - no beat up it and denying of context because there wasn't any.

Text, without context, is pretext.

 

[grizzlym]

Text, without context, is pretext.

hahaha quoting Carson now are we?

It's actually not. It can be, but text isn't pretext with the absence of context. It can simply be a fact. Or a fact without context. A pretext is something altogether different.

But that's off the point I was making: they didn't deliberately leave out any other context. Or other facts. They simply reported the facts of the hearing and what the police said. Are you arguing they shouldn't have reported what was said?

Don;t get me wrong, the Hun is a despicable paper. The lowest of the low. But I fail to see, in this case, what they have done differently to any of the other paper or broadcast media.

 

[grizzlym]

What sort of credible journo would run with that comment without any context?

They ran it because they are in the incitement business.

Any journalist. They were, in this case, simply reporting was said in the courtroom. Nothing was deliberately omitted.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

hahaha quoting Carson now are we?

It's actually not. It can be, but text isn't pretext with the absence of context. It can simply be a fact. Or a fact without context. A pretext is something altogether different.

But that's off the point I was making: they didn't deliberately leave out any other context. Or other facts. They simply reported the facts of the hearing and what the police said. Are you arguing they shouldn't have reported what was said?

Spin begats spin.

This is what I have gleaned from the Hun article in relation to the court hearing:

- "That's what we're here for," (suspect)

- "It is a real shock," (suspects father)

- "There is one suspect outstanding and my concern is the accused will interfere with the suspect and will pass on information about the other CCTV (footage) he is now privy to," (Detective Senior Constable Carla McIntyre)

- "because of the seriousness of the offence and because they've lost their son". (Detective Senior Constable Carla McIntyre)

That's it.

Any journalist. They were, in this case, simply reporting was said in the courtroom. Nothing was deliberately omitted.

Do you expect me to believe that these were the only comments made, and that a magistrate utilised the comments (in red), without any divulged context, as a mitigating factor in deciding a bail application?

A judge would be compelled to dismiss this comment, at a bail application, particularly if the suspect has utilised their right to silence. It's prejudicial value far outweighs it's probative value, yet the mainstream media has jumped all over it and made it the headline grabber.

This has been presented by VicPol to paint the suspect in an even more callous light and it is designed for tabloid media incitement.

 

[grizzlym]

Spin begats spin.

This is what I have gleaned from the Hun article in relation to the court hearing:




That's it.



Do you expect me to believe that these were the only comments made, and that a magistrate utilised the comments (in red), without any divulged context, as a mitigating factor in deciding a bail application?

A judge would compelled to dismiss this comment, at a bail application, particularly if the suspect has utilised their right to silence. It's prejudicial value far outweighs it's probative value, yet the mainstream media has jumped all over it and made it the headline grabber.

This has been presented by VicPol to paint the suspect in an even more callous light and it is designed for tabloid media incitement.

I'm not getting into the legal. It's not my background but media is.

I'm strictly addressing your point about the Hun "running it to incite". I am merely contending that, they, along with all the other mainstream press - broadcast, print, online - ran almost the same story with the same quotes because, in what was a very brief hearing, that's pretty much all that was said. How do i know this? one of my good friends is covering the case. Compare the accounts from the various media houses and they are very similair. Some are quoting the dad; some make comment about the stable of friends there to support him, but one thing they are all very close on is what was said.


There are plenty of occasions where facts are omitted or cherry-picked or conjecture takes the place of first-hand accounts with the press, but not here: they ran it because that's the story.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I'm not getting into the legal. I'm strictly addressing your point about the Hun "running it to incite". I am merely contending that, they, along with all the other mainstream press - broadcast, print, online - ran almost the same story with the same quotes because, in what was a very brief hearing, that's pretty much all that was said. How do i know this? one of my good friends is covering the case.

There are plenty of occasions where facts are omitted or cherry-picked or conjecture takes the place of first-hand accounts with the press, but not here: they ran it because that's the story.

We shall soon see.

Mr Balmer said another bail application could be made as early as Monday.

Hopefully Balmer addresses the matter.

 

[grizzlym]

An important distinction here: I'm not arguing what happened that night, I'm merely arguing over the reporting of the initial bail hearing.

I will say this - and I'm not one to defend the Herald Sun - if they wanted to really whip up the outrage they would have made a big deal of Magistrate Roberston saying that once the guy from Perth had been interviewed, then another bail application would be considered.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

An important distinction here: I'm not arguing what happened that night, I'm merely arguing over the reporting of the initial bail hearing.

I know Grizz and I am not having a crack at you, but my bullshit detector is off the charts in relation as to how this has been presented.

I don't have any present doubts that the young bloke they have grabbed is very likely the assailant, and that some very strong mitigatory evidence would want to arise before I would want anything less than the assailant paying very severely for this act.

I will say this - and I'm not one to defend the Herald Sun - if they wanted to really whip up the outrage they would have made a big deal of Magistrate Roberston saying that once the guy from Perth had been interviewed, then another bail application would be considered.

How can you hang a judge for a bail hearing they are statutorily bound to hear, but haven't heard?

Not even the Hun would pull that crap (yet).

The suspect is within their rights to appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Do you expect me to believe that these were the only comments made, and that a magistrate utilised the comments (in red), without any divulged context, as a mitigating factor in deciding a bail application?

My guess is that the defence wouldn't bother putting context to it, because no matter what context you put it in, it still sounds pretty ordinary. The only thing that would make it sound any better for Closter, is if there's a dispute as to whether he said it, or one of his mates did. The defence will be concerned with getting the best possible result for him, not winning a popularity contest. Same reason why (as you've mentioned) defendants often refuse to take the stand in their own defence.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

My guess is that the defence wouldn't bother putting context to it, because no matter what context you put it in, it still sounds pretty ordinary.

The defence wouldn't do it because tactically it is incompetent timing until they get the assembled facts from the prosecution.

The fact that Balmer has intimated that he will bang in a supreme court app suggests that he either has strong factors in gaining bail and/or he wants to tidy up the lynch crew in the media.