Hard News: Stop the Enabling
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
Ok probably needs a few commas but what the .....
-
Chuck is right that we don't know on what basis the jury reached its verdict.
Perhaps ScottY, but given that he admitted a punch and he was found guilty of an assault, it's not unreasonable to think the jury, which determines matters of fact not law, thought the punch relevant. This wasn't a hard case, from what little I've read, I think Bird and his mates are wasting their time defending this man.
-
Anyway, Paul, did I go to Waikato University with you? Law School? And I may have encountered you during my brief but disreputable foray into student politics.
Missed this - yes. I was part of the first intake and did do student politics (a fair bit of it, too much some would say). Contact me offline if you'd rather keep you name private.
-
huck is right that we don't know on what basis the jury reached its verdict
That is bringing the legal system into disrepute.Mason is guilty unless, as Steven put it, he appeals. Huck noted his disapproval of other jury members in another case and now he questions 12 strangers with their ability to judge this one.He is denigrating the system, that's just shitstirring. Peers decided, so be it. Don't like it? Appeal. For some, you cant always get what you want to. Jus' sayin'. None of it's new, init?
-
It should be clarified for fresh eyes that Chuck is a known quantity around these parts, hence the harshness of some responses.
-
I should clarify that I wasn't defvending Chuck at all when I said we don't know what the jury thought. He was trying to link their lengthy deliberations to the possibility that the jury found him guilty because of the flick, not the punch.
My point was that he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, and only the jury truly knows what the verdict was based on.
I personally suspect it was the punch that nailed the guy, but it's basically informed speculation still. It really doesn't matter, and I don't see what difference it makes.
-
I kind of got confused thinking she was talking to me, forgetting she probable cant see what I was thinking.
That double-thickness Korean tinfoil from the Bin Inn seems to work pretty good for me.
-
Hey, that's not on.
-
I should clarify that I wasn't defending Chuck at all when I said we don't know what the jury thought. He was trying to link their lengthy deliberations to the possibility that the jury found him guilty because of the flick, not the punch.
Personally, my flabber was ghasted when the words 'punch', 'lightly' and 'face' were used in an approving context wrt an adult disciplining a small boy.
Seriously, wtf?
-
Rich, meet Chuck - in case you haven't already had the pleasure.
-
Steven. Grrrr. I removed your very ill-advised last sentence there.
-
Missed this - yes. I was part of the first intake and did do student politics (a fair bit of it, too much some would say). Contact me offline if you'd rather keep you name private.
Paul, my name (Scott Yorke) isn't private any longer, since its all over my blog site. I'd change my user name if I could, but then I'd have to start all over again with my post total, and I'm getting closer to 300 now...
I was the same year law as you, but you probably remember me from the student president election in the early '90s (was it 92? 93? God, I can't remember). My friends and I had too much to drink one day and decided to field a joke candidate. I drew the short straw. I ran against you. I was probably more pleased at your victory than you were, because the mere possibility of winning it terrified me.
That was my first and last foray into the murky world of politics.
-
I should clarify that I wasn't defvending Chuck at all when I said we don't know what the jury thought. He was trying to link their lengthy deliberations to the possibility that the jury found him guilty because of the flick, not the punch.
Which would be a bizarre decision. You're right in saying we don't know what the jury was thinking, but Chuck and Bob's equivocation is pretty far-fetched.
For the record:
- No one gave evidence of seeing the cycle accident Mason says provoked his anger.
- Schoolteacher Belinda Payne told the court she witnessed the punch in the face.
- So did a 15 year-old boy.
- Senior Constable Andrea Trenchard told the court she was crossing the bridge and saw Mason shouting and swearing at his boys. She was asked to intervene by Payne. Mason told her "I hit the big one in the face and that is what I do and that lady can mind her own business." She took the situation seriously enough to summon half a dozen colleagues from the nearby police station.
By the time he got to court, Mason had decided there was no punch, and told the court he had only pulled his son's hair.
The other two assault counts related to Mason picking up both boys (including the two year-old, who he had previously told reporters was "drifting in and out of consciousness" after crashing his bike) while on their bikes and slamming them down. I imagine there would have been a lively debate as to whether that was assault.
-
For those wondering what kind of fowl Chuck is:
Talkback caller supplied Davis pictures
Sep 24, 2006 7:59 AMThe man whose actions pushed rumours about the prime minister's husband into the public domain has outed himself.
Pictures of Peter Davis in an embrace with another man, and the innuendo attached to them, sparked one of the most bitter weeks in New Zealand political history.
The man who gave them to Investigate magazine is Chuck Bird, a 62-year-old former Labour supporter, who turned away from the party because of its support for gay rights.
Bird is a frequent talkback caller, often commenting on mens' issues and railing against what he sees as militant feminism and the promotion of homosexuality.
Bird told the Sunday Star-Times he was sent a DVD containing the images of Peter Davis hugging another man on election night and passed it on to Investigate magazine as part of his ongoing campaign against social engineering.
-
You're right in saying we don't know what the jury was thinking, but Chuck and Bob's equivocation is pretty far-fetched.
Agreed. Chuck and that Family Fists' spokesfool have tried to use this case to show that the current law doesn't work. Their argument appears to be based solely on the fact that the jury took a while to deliberate.
I didn't hear any of the evidence directly, and I'm always cautious about what the media reports on a case, but I was not at all surprised by the verdict.
If these pro-beating folk want to use this case to prove the law's an ass, then let 'em. Because most people probably think the guy got what he deserved.
-
Re the time taken to return the verdict...I'm cynical enough to imagine that 1 of 12 decided to string it out till tea-time so they could get a free feed after having been co-opted into jury service for the day.
Not saying that's what happened but it is 1 of a myriad of possible reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with not being sure if punching your kid in the face constitutes assault.
-
Chuck Bird, a 62-year-old former Labour supporter, who turned away from the party because of its support for gay rights.
Gosh, Labour must have been gutted to see him go.
images of Peter Davis hugging another man on election night and passed it on to Investigate magazine as part of his ongoing campaign against social engineering.
Yes, because we all know where hugging another man leads. "It was just a hug yer'Onner, but then my hands...and suddenly I wasn't wearing any clothes and...so I guess his dick slipped or something...and then next thing I know yer'Onner the whole family unit is broken down and I can't lightly punch kids in the face anymore! This social engineering is totally out of hand!"
-
Can I suggest we all burn incense to remove the stink of Mr Bird's recent presence?
-
Yes, because we all know where hugging another man leads.
If this guy ever holidays through Italy, he'd be at serious risk of brain embolism within ten minutes of the plane landing.
-
militant feminism and the promotion of homosexuality
Mwah ha ha. I am Chuck's! Worst! Nightmare!
-
Men hugging men is OK, providing there cheeks don't touch:)
There is a different criterion floating around the internet which I won't mention here. Suffice to say it also includes Newton's cradles and games of billiards.
-
Mason admitted the punch and was convicted the crime of assault
Paul, where is your source for the above claim?
-
promotion of homosexuality
"HOMOSEXUALITY - Buy One, Get One Free! Today Only!"
-
"HOMOSEXUALITY - Buy One, Get One Free! Today Only!"
Isn't this where the toaster ovens come in?
-
Paul, where is your source for the above claim?
Chuck, try reading the links Russell gave in his original post.
OK, I'll make it easy for you - here.
At the bottom. The bit where Jimmy Mason tells the arriving police officer that "I hit the big one in the face and that is what I do and that lady [Belinda Paine] can mind her own business."
Oh, and the two eye-witnesses that say they saw Mason hit his son in the face.
Why are you determined to think that he was convicted for ear-flicking, and completely unable to see that hitting anyone in the face (With or without enough force to bruise, it matters not) is assault?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.