They're armed
Shoulda just shot the c##ts in the knees

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.

holy 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?

holy guacamole said..

Kamikuza said..You're confused because what you're whinging about is by definition lawful. Otherwise... They'd be convicted

holy 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!!

holy 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?

cauncy 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

Kamikuza 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.

log 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.

holy 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.

Kamikuza 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.

Well Carponalot, that's a hell of a lot smarter than letting a bunch of infected cruise ship passengers out into the general population.

holy 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.

holy 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.

holy 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.