by Australian rePublic » Mon May 10, 2021 1:57 am
by Toronina » Mon May 10, 2021 2:04 am
by Australian rePublic » Mon May 10, 2021 2:06 am
Toronina wrote:Players accused of crimes should be stood down. It will never be a good look and only lead to more controversy should someone be allowed to keep playing, only to be found guilty.
by Toronina » Mon May 10, 2021 2:14 am
Australian rePublic wrote:Toronina wrote:Players accused of crimes should be stood down. It will never be a good look and only lead to more controversy should someone be allowed to keep playing, only to be found guilty.
So what about Matt Lodge, who was not only found guilty, but failed to pay court-ordered reparations. Either case, I disagree, innocent till proven guilty, especially in the case of the NRL where it's selectively enforced. And what do you make of them potentially not allowing him to play despite a hung jury?
by Australian rePublic » Mon May 10, 2021 2:21 am
Toronina wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:So what about Matt Lodge, who was not only found guilty, but failed to pay court-ordered reparations. Either case, I disagree, innocent till proven guilty, especially in the case of the NRL where it's selectively enforced. And what do you make of them potentially not allowing him to play despite a hung jury?
Lodge should have been stood down as well, and the NRL shouldn't be hypocrites on the issue. It seems to me however that as a private corporation, they've taken action based on the amount of media attention both gathered. I don't think that's a moral thing to do, and I think the rights of corporations should be heavily restricted. Based on your signiture and post, I would have assumed you were the type of person to generally support corporations and their ability to do as they please.
by The Two Jerseys » Mon May 10, 2021 9:01 pm
by Australian rePublic » Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:As far as I'm concerned he should still be allowed to play up until the moment he's convicted. I can't stand how leagues will suspend players accused of committing crimes because "so-and-so's conduct doesn't reflect the values and standards of the League", even though it hasn't been proven that he actually did anything that violates the League's values and standards.
Now as for this third trial, if the prosecution doesn't proceed with another trial I don't see how the League can't reinstate him, by their own words the suspension applies to "players accused of committing serious crimes", but if charges are dropped then technically he's not accused of committing a serious crime.
by Australian rePublic » Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:51 am
by Risottia » Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:05 am
Toronina wrote:Players accused of crimes should be stood down.
by Devkurt Oiljoks » Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:25 am
Tuvalu Princesses wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:A police officer admited to lying to the court about the matter and will be repremanded internally. Repremanded internally? What the hell does that even mean? How do we even know he will get punished for lying? I mean, he might, but how do we know he will? I guess now this can become a thread about police accountability
Um, did the court find that he lied? And if so, shouldn't he be charged with perjury?
"Admitting to lying" is not itself an offense, unless it's done under oath.
by Australian rePublic » Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:33 am
Tuvalu Princesses wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:POST UPDATE
https://thewest.com.au/news/crime/witne ... 689320.amp
So here's an update on the situation. Both men were aquited due to two hung juries and they didn't bother for a third trial and he is playing again
HOWEVER
A police officer admited to lying to the court about the matter and will be repremanded internally. Repremanded internally? What the hell does that even mean? How do we even know he will get punished for lying? I mean, he might, but how do we know he will? I guess now this can become a thread about police accountability
Um, did the court find that he lied? And if so, shouldn't he be charged with perjury?
"Admitting to lying" is not itself an offense, unless it's done under oath.
by Page » Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:44 am
Australian rePublic wrote:POST UPDATE
https://thewest.com.au/news/crime/witne ... 689320.amp
So here's an update on the situation. Both men were aquited due to two hung juries and they didn't bother for a third trial and he is playing again
HOWEVER
A police officer admited to lying to the court about the matter and will be repremanded internally. Repremanded internally? What the hell does that even mean? How do we even know he will get punished for lying? I mean, he might, but how do we know he will? I guess now this can become a thread about police accountability
by Australian rePublic » Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:03 am
Page wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:POST UPDATE
https://thewest.com.au/news/crime/witne ... 689320.amp
So here's an update on the situation. Both men were aquited due to two hung juries and they didn't bother for a third trial and he is playing again
HOWEVER
A police officer admited to lying to the court about the matter and will be repremanded internally. Repremanded internally? What the hell does that even mean? How do we even know he will get punished for lying? I mean, he might, but how do we know he will? I guess now this can become a thread about police accountability
"Reprimanded internally" is police code for "lol got away with it again."
by Australian rePublic » Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:36 am
Tuvalu Princesses wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:Yes, he was under oath. A police officer lied under oath to a court about server criminal matter which could have potentially lead to a person spending a significant amount of time in jail because of the lie. How should that not a punishable offence? If that isn't a punishable offence, there is something very wrong with our justice system.
Hence why I asked. Did the court find that he lied? Or is that just, like, your opinion?
by Gravlen » Fri Jun 04, 2021 6:00 am
Judge Nicole Norman told the jury that the detective received a certificate preventing prosecution after admitting he lied in the first trial of the two men which could not be concluded.
by Australian rePublic » Fri Jun 04, 2021 6:03 am
Gravlen wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:Dude, he admitted he lied under oath. That's not my opinion
To support you here, I'll point out that the article says this:Judge Nicole Norman told the jury that the detective received a certificate preventing prosecution after admitting he lied in the first trial of the two men which could not be concluded.
I have a difficult time getting a handle on what, exactly, he lied about though. Do you have any more information about this than the article you provided says? It could possibly explain why it's not seen as a punishable offence, so I'm curious...
by Gravlen » Fri Jun 04, 2021 6:53 am
Australian rePublic wrote:Gravlen wrote:To support you here, I'll point out that the article says this:Judge Nicole Norman told the jury that the detective received a certificate preventing prosecution after admitting he lied in the first trial of the two men which could not be concluded.
I have a difficult time getting a handle on what, exactly, he lied about though. Do you have any more information about this than the article you provided says? It could possibly explain why it's not seen as a punishable offence, so I'm curious...
I don't know the exact details, but it had something to do with misleading evidence. Read more here:.
https://amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw/det ... 56fne.html
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Asherahan, Corporate Collective Salvation, Dogmeat, Emotional Support Crocodile, Tungstan
Advertisement