Select to expand quotekiterboy said..holy guacamole said..Kamikuza said...You're confused because what you're whinging about is by definition lawful. Otherwise... They'd be convicted.
Rubbish.
It appears that you are asserting that a police officer in Australia has never assaulted anyone nor been convicted of assault, ever.
This is plainly, utterly ridiculous.
For example: www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-31/11919510?nw=0
www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/police-officer-convicted-of-assault-after-tasering-driver-in-fremantle-breath-test-stop-20190515-p51nr0.html
www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/police-officer-guilty-of-assault-perverting-the-course-of-justice-20180621-p4zmx5.html
I could go on...
My point was VERY simple. I wasn't asserting that all police violence is assault. I was asking if in the case where assault charges could be laid against a police officer (and they have, many times), then the same rule regarding mandatory gaol time SN raised should apply - to be fair and consistent and not demonstrate hypocrisy.
Cue the conspiracy theories I guess...
Gee. Triggered much?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..kiterboy said..holy guacamole said..Kamikuza said...You're confused because what you're whinging about is by definition lawful. Otherwise... They'd be convicted.
Rubbish.
It appears that you are asserting that a police officer in Australia has never assaulted anyone nor been convicted of assault, ever.
This is plainly, utterly ridiculous.
For example: www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-31/11919510?nw=0
www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/police-officer-convicted-of-assault-after-tasering-driver-in-fremantle-breath-test-stop-20190515-p51nr0.html
www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/police-officer-guilty-of-assault-perverting-the-course-of-justice-20180621-p4zmx5.html
I could go on...
My point was VERY simple. I wasn't asserting that all police violence is assault. I was asking if in the case where assault charges could be laid against a police officer (and they have, many times), then the same rule regarding mandatory gaol time SN raised should apply - to be fair and consistent and not demonstrate hypocrisy.
Cue the conspiracy theories I guess...
Gee. Triggered much?
Haha, I'd say you are. That's the shortest response you've given anyone.
Mr Strawman.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..holy guacamole said..kiterboy said..holy guacamole said..Kamikuza said...You're confused because what you're whinging about is by definition lawful. Otherwise... They'd be convicted.
Rubbish.
It appears that you are asserting that a police officer in Australia has never assaulted anyone nor been convicted of assault, ever.
This is plainly, utterly ridiculous.
For example: www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-31/11919510?nw=0
www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/police-officer-convicted-of-assault-after-tasering-driver-in-fremantle-breath-test-stop-20190515-p51nr0.html
www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/police-officer-guilty-of-assault-perverting-the-course-of-justice-20180621-p4zmx5.html
I could go on...
My point was VERY simple. I wasn't asserting that all police violence is assault. I was asking if in the case where assault charges could be laid against a police officer (and they have, many times), then the same rule regarding mandatory gaol time SN raised should apply - to be fair and consistent and not demonstrate hypocrisy.
Cue the conspiracy theories I guess...
Gee. Triggered much?
Haha, I'd say you are. That's the shortest response you've given anyone.
Mr Strawman.
Come now kiteboy. If you had any self respect, you'd avoid the immature crap and try and discuss the subject!
The fact you've had to resort to the dumb photomontage indicates a complete lack of maturity.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..kiterboy said..holy guacamole said..kiterboy said..holy guacamole said..Kamikuza said...You're confused because what you're whinging about is by definition lawful. Otherwise... They'd be convicted.
Rubbish.
It appears that you are asserting that a police officer in Australia has never assaulted anyone nor been convicted of assault, ever.
This is plainly, utterly ridiculous.
For example: www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-31/11919510?nw=0
www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/police-officer-convicted-of-assault-after-tasering-driver-in-fremantle-breath-test-stop-20190515-p51nr0.html
www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/police-officer-guilty-of-assault-perverting-the-course-of-justice-20180621-p4zmx5.html
I could go on...
My point was VERY simple. I wasn't asserting that all police violence is assault. I was asking if in the case where assault charges could be laid against a police officer (and they have, many times), then the same rule regarding mandatory gaol time SN raised should apply - to be fair and consistent and not demonstrate hypocrisy.
Cue the conspiracy theories I guess...
Gee. Triggered much?
Haha, I'd say you are. That's the shortest response you've given anyone.
Mr Strawman.
Come now kiteboy. If you had any self respect, you'd avoid the immature crap and try and discuss the subject!
The fact you've had to resort to the dumb photomontage indicates a complete lack of maturity.
I know you are but what am I?
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..You're confused because what you're whinging about is by definition lawful. Otherwise... They'd be convictedholy guacamole said..Kamikuza said..What does the law say about use of force?holy guacamole said..sn said..
whatever happened to "assaulting a police office" = mandatory goal time??
What about when a police officer assaults a civilian? Same rule applies?
I'm not talking about the legal use of force. I'm talking about un-lawful assault. Simple. Why the confusion?
Some police are scumbags in my view. Some are just a victim of the culture of violence that their training instills or the culture existent in the system...and let's face it, there aren't many Rhodes scholars in the police force so quick assessment of law and ethical conduct often go out the window under stress..
The difference with police is they have a very long track record of getting off without a conviction especially with assaults against black Australians - but finally that's changing - slowly.
Some police have been convicted of assault on the job. What's your point?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Kamikuza said..You're confused because what you're whinging about is by definition lawful. Otherwise... They'd be convictedholy guacamole said..Kamikuza said..What does the law say about use of force?holy guacamole said..sn said..
whatever happened to "assaulting a police office" = mandatory goal time??
What about when a police officer assaults a civilian? Same rule applies?
I'm not talking about the legal use of force. I'm talking about un-lawful assault. Simple. Why the confusion?
Some police are scumbags in my view. Some are just a victim of the culture of violence that their training instills or the culture existent in the system...and let's face it, there aren't many Rhodes scholars in the police force so quick assessment of law and ethical conduct often go out the window under stress..
The difference with police is they have a very long track record of getting off without a conviction especially with assaults against black Australians - but finally that's changing - slowly.
Some police have been convicted of assault on the job. What's your point?
Pretty easy sitting on a Keyboard and saying how easy a Cops job is. Try dealing with the scum of the Earth every single day, particularly when every move you make is filmed, edited and dissected to suit the Scumbag and then say the Cops are Bullies!!
Select to expand quoteGunna1 said..holy guacamole said..Kamikuza said..You're confused because what you're whinging about is by definition lawful. Otherwise... They'd be convictedholy guacamole said..Kamikuza said..What does the law say about use of force?holy guacamole said..sn said..
whatever happened to "assaulting a police office" = mandatory goal time??
What about when a police officer assaults a civilian? Same rule applies?
I'm not talking about the legal use of force. I'm talking about un-lawful assault. Simple. Why the confusion?
Some police are scumbags in my view. Some are just a victim of the culture of violence that their training instills or the culture existent in the system...and let's face it, there aren't many Rhodes scholars in the police force so quick assessment of law and ethical conduct often go out the window under stress..
The difference with police is they have a very long track record of getting off without a conviction especially with assaults against black Australians - but finally that's changing - slowly.
Some police have been convicted of assault on the job. What's your point?
Pretty easy sitting on a Keyboard and saying how easy a Cops job is. Try dealing with the scum of the Earth every single day, particularly when every move you make is filmed, edited and dissected to suit the Scumbag and then say the Cops are Bullies!!
Who said it was easy? Making excuses for assault is easy.... Especially from behind a keyboard.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Some police have been convicted of assault on the job. What's your point?
Sure, the rule of law works. Police have been convicted of all sorts of crimes because what they did was determined to be illegal. What's your point?
Select to expand quotecauncy said..
They're armed
Shoulda just shot the c##ts in the knees
That should happen if they anticipate the recoil 
Select to expand quotecauncy said..
They're armed
Shoulda just shot the c##ts in the knees
Hah yep...... only one problem:
They probably woulda taken her gun off her handcuffed ass and teased her with it
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..kiterboy said..
I know you are but what am I?
A bikertoy?
And a bloody good one, cause you were the best instructor.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Sure, the rule of law works. Police have been convicted of all sorts of crimes because what they did was determined to be illegal. What's your point?holy guacamole said..
Some police have been convicted of assault on the job. What's your point?
The same it has always been, that if it's reasonable for SN to propose a law of mandatory gaol time for a conviction of assaulting a police officer then to be consistent and not a hypocrite, the same applies to everyone including police.
For whatever reason, kiteboy interpreted my comment about consistency and fairness in law as having a go at police officers in general or that I was claiming that all violence used in ordinary policing amounts to assault.
Nor can you retract the claim/assertion that police officers have never been convicted of assault on the job, because they have.
I can't help you and kiteboy with those mis-comprehensions.
Assault, is assault and being a police officer makes very little difference under the law.
So, again, if it's OK to have mandatory gaol time for people who assault police, the same should apply to police who assault civilians.
That seems fair to me HG but haven't courts taken harsher view on people assaulting police. Isn't there a crime called "assault police" or is that just a description of the crime.....if you know what I mean
Select to expand quotelog man said..
That seems fair to me HG but haven't courts taken harsher view on people assaulting police. Isn't there a crime called "assault police" or is that just a description of the crime.....if you know what I mean
Yes in some states I think there is, such as NSW's Section 60 of the Crimes Act 1900.
That's altogether different to proposing a law enforcing mandatory gaol time following a conviction of assaulting a police officer, but not applying that across the board.
Assault is assault.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Nor can you retract the claim/assertion that police officers have never been convicted of assault on the job, because they have.
I can't help you and kiteboy with those mis-comprehensions.
Assault, is assault and being a police officer makes very little difference under the law.
So, again, if it's OK to have mandatory gaol time for people who assault police, the same should apply to police who assault civilians.
I can't retract that claim because I never made it
I was responding to your idea that assault is unlawful without an actual trial.
Ah, so you're doubling down on it again.
Sure, if you want to die on that hill -- why not? Given, of course, due process.
Even the dingleberries who are the star of this thread got a trial to decide if what they did was lawful or not
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said.
Yes in some states I think there is, such as NSW's Section 60 of the Crimes Act 1900.
That's altogether different to proposing a law enforcing mandatory gaol time following a conviction of assaulting a police officer, but not applying that across the board.
Assault is assault.
So close, and yet so far...
You can't apply it across the board, because the police have to physically deal with problems and need the leeway and protection to do so. That's as silly as giving speeding tickets to ambulance drivers rushing to and from a hospital.
Assault is not assault; it's not that black and white. And even you are protected by the nuances of that law.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
That's as silly as giving speeding tickets to ambulance drivers rushing to and from a hospital.
Hey hey hey, now c'mon, speeding is speeding, there are laws against it and they should be applied equally to everyone!
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..I was responding to your idea that assault is unlawful without an actual trial.
Really. Where did I claim that nonsense? No wonder you're confused. Edit.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
....A country that automatically gaols civilians without a trial is called a dictatorship.
.. or a 'public housing block in Melbourne'
Well Carponalot, that's a hell of a lot smarter than letting a bunch of infected cruise ship passengers out into the general population.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..Kamikuza said..
That's as silly as giving speeding tickets to ambulance drivers rushing to and from a hospital.
Hey hey hey, now c'mon, speeding is speeding, there are laws against it and they should be applied equally to everyone!
Maybe if police officers who are convicted of committing an assault or worse while on the job get mandatory goal time, they'd do a whole lot less of it.
Works the other way around apparently.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..kiterboy said..Kamikuza said..
That's as silly as giving speeding tickets to ambulance drivers rushing to and from a hospital.
Hey hey hey, now c'mon, speeding is speeding, there are laws against it and they should be applied equally to everyone!
Maybe if police officers who are convicted of committing an assault or worse while on the job get mandatory goal time, they'd do a whole lot less of it.
Works the other way around apparently.
And if enough ambulance drivers were fined for speeding, they'd do a whole lot less of it.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..
And if enough ambulance drivers were fined for speeding, they'd do a whole lot less of it.
Punishment doesn't always work though kiterboy.
I mean sometimes it doesn't matter how many times somebody is punished they don't change their spots and they continue to engage in anti-social behavior.
Like, just for example, some people get banned from Seabreeze Forums multiple times but they still repeatedly come back and continue with the same behavior.
Simply banning enough usernames doesn't mean they do a whole less of it.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..kiterboy said..Kamikuza said..
That's as silly as giving speeding tickets to ambulance drivers rushing to and from a hospital.
Hey hey hey, now c'mon, speeding is speeding, there are laws against it and they should be applied equally to everyone!
Maybe if police officers who are convicted of committing an assault or worse while on the job get mandatory goal time, they'd do a whole lot less of it.
Works the other way around apparently.
Penalties against coppers convicted of anything are notoriously higher than normal.
Why has this turned into a hate or blame the police thing .
Those people were very bad and should have been shot .
I know there are some bad cops ,but most are good and are relied apon . The same cops you run to when thing turn bad . They have to be respected or all will turn to s..t.
If I acted like that towards a cop I'd expect to get shot .
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Really. Where did I claim that nonsense? No wonder you're confused. Edit.
Back on page one. You talk about "police assaulting a civilian" and make no mention of due process ie. the police being convicted of an unlawful act.
Which was my point in replying, to point that out. You're welcome.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Maybe if police officers who are convicted of committing an assault or worse while on the job get mandatory goal time, they'd do a whole lot less of it.
Works the other way around apparently.
If you're going to impose such things on a government service where you're expected to be involved in physical altercations, you're going to see a breakdown in law and order as officers refuse to do or unable to do their jobs.
There's a very good reason we abdicate our use of violence and enforcement law over to the state. We don't want to return to a state of chaos like we see in CHAZ/CHOP, do we?
Do we?
