Schapelle Corby or "Bali Nine" (1 Viewer)

[tattoodguy]

ok for 2 weeks ill take ur advice and leave out the ... and ????.


Searching people etc yes It could be inconvient, it could give people the wrong impression about you including your neighbours, if police search you and suspect u of doing something chances are they will treat you like crap, maybe you hvae some private things such as a dildo or blow up doll or a diary or whatever thats ur private possession why should any one seeee it.

Have you watched the news after a police raid, even when they dont charge anyeone, the family who was raided is in shock and very upset.

We should have a right to have a private life espeically when we are law abiding citizens, and a right to live our lives in the absence of police harrassment.

We need to ensure that when the police search people they have evidence and real suspicians - not just evidence of a couple of telephone calls to a criminal.

In Western australia there was some footy players who alledgedly i think had a phone call with an underworld figure, why should the police make that public and make comments to pressure them into answering questions.

It could suggest some impropriatry on behalf of the foootballers, which is unfair.

The government/police shouldnt be bullying innnocent people into answering questions.

If the police dont have strong evidence they should leave people alone. We should follow the law, but the police should folllow the rules and use their powers in a moral way, not in an intimidating or harrasing way.

If the police can randomly search people, it also gives them the ability to plant evidence etc.

Its not my imagination its factual that police have been knwon to be corrupt.

 

[Jonathan A]

its not just cos they are little ppple.....its becasue they are innocent being harrassed etc...

.

Yes they are innocent until proven guilty, in which they are. So you're argument is flawed.


some police abuse their power.

Some citizens abuse their rights, and it's the role of the police with the legitimised powers by both the state and the people to stop that.

Im just saying...........like they are seraching all these ppple etc.... whats the fucking reason...........just because u ring a criminal or know a criminal.......that shouldnt be enufff to allow the police to search you etc.

Yes it is. A search does not pertain to an arrest. It is the gathering of evidence. Evidence doesn't necessarily aim to lock someone up, it's there to ascertain what has happened.


The police should fuck offf.......unlesss they have cold hard evidence.

How can they gather evidence if you don't let them search????


it shouldnt be a fucking tressure hunt searching random fucking aussies......just to find some dirt.......

If your a law abiding citizen why should ur privacy be compromised because the police cant do their job properly?

You are an absolute fool at times. How do you get off blaming police for doing their job. Law abiding citizens are protected, your limited knowledge of investigations and the criminal procedure really shines when you make statements like this.

relatedly why cant we have fucking cameras and shit inside prisons to seee their conditions and hear their stories.......why did the prisoners riot etc?????????????? why does our government stop us...seeeeing whats inside prisons..what does it have to hide????????????????

Cos that's another breach of human rights.

Like that fucking dude.........ford who testified in bali...........he is on remand.....i dont think he has been convicted of anything........and our government let him be stabbed?

You know you can make your points without using the f-word.

what the fuck is that. He should sue the government for $1 million. Seriously..our government needs to be accountable for its bull shit

And he probably can or at least the prison authorities, under L v Commonwealth a precedent is in place to allow prisoners to sue the prison where they are harmed by other inmates. But for $1 million? In negligence you need to prove there was $1 million damage before you will be awarded that.

 

[Jonathan A]

ok for 2 weeks ill take ur advice and leave out the ... and ????.


Searching people etc yes It could be inconvient, it could give people the wrong impression about you including your neighbours, if police search you and suspect u of doing something chances are they will treat you like crap, maybe you hvae some private things such as a dildo or blow up doll or a diary or whatever thats ur private possession why should any one seeee it.

When you get pulled over for an RBT, does that make you somewhat embarrassed? You are not guilty, but there is a process of police gathering information, which may be used in evidence if you are over the limit. Searches are done by warrants, that is the police submit to magistrates or judges information that leads to a reasonable belief that a warrant should be issued to search. I don't know if you know this, but police are very professional, undertaking extensive training, under scrutiny from THREE internal review departments, plus a legislative clause allowing an dismissal by the commissioner, not to mention respect for privacy.

Have you watched the news after a police raid, even when they dont charge anyeone, the family who was raided is in shock and very upset.

I, for good reasons, do not refer to the media to gather analysis of the situation.

We should have a right to have a private life espeically when we are law abiding citizens, and a right to live our lives in the absence of police harrassment.

But these people were not law-abiding citizens, they committed serious criminal offences or were conspiring.

We need to ensure that when the police search people they have evidence and real suspicians - not just evidence of a couple of telephone calls to a criminal.

The courts already do that, it's called the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and it restrcits the admissibility of evidence and sets down a burden of proof on the crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt, therefore AGAIN your argument is misguided.

In Western australia there was some footy players who alledgedly i think had a phone call with an underworld figure, why should the police make that public and make comments to pressure them into answering questions.

Firstly, no law prevents this becomming public if it's true. I would also draw your attention to the openness of the criminal justice system, it is your right to have your case public, because the people should see what the state is doing. AND, the police cannot force any admissions from you, that again would be inadmissable evidence.


If the police dont have strong evidence they should leave people alone. We should follow the law, but the police should folllow the rules and use their powers in a moral way, not in an intimidating or harrasing way.

This issue was addressed like 200 years ago +, when the courts were deliberating evidentiary burdens on the prosecutors, I think it is safe for us all.

If the police can randomly search people, it also gives them the ability to plant evidence etc.

Thats one of the reasons they don't randomly search people. Plus it is a well-known factor that planted evidence breaks the 'chain of evidence', so what does not seem logical may in fact raise suspicion.

Its not my imagination its factual that police have been knwon to be corrupt.[/

I know this, see the Wood Royal Commission findings, a whole host of corruption found. BUT, you are using that as an excuse to cover up the fact you don't like police and you want these crims to get off. There is nothing to suggest there is any corruption in the investigations we referred to, so if you know anything, forward it on to the Police Integrity Commission. Here I will help you out, go to www.pic.nsw.gov.au and speak with them.

 

[tattoodguy]

you have all the answers dont u jonathan, ur a real big shot with ur big words and your condescending over tones.

most of what you say is idealistic, just because we have processes in place it doesnt mean they work.

 

[Korn]

you have all the answers dont u jonathan, ur a real big shot with ur big words and your condescending over tones.

most of what you say is idealistic, just because we have processes in place it doesnt mean they work.

Apart from your "big words" comment that is a pretty good post, Go Tatoodguy

 

[OZGIRL86]

none of them

 

[Not-That-Bright]

you have all the answers dont u jonathan, ur a real big shot with ur big words and your condescending over tones.

most of what you say is idealistic, just because we have processes in place it doesnt mean they work.

Idealistic?
He seems to be more attached to the objective reality (due to his knowledge of the ins and outs of the police/legal system), than you are (with your bold ascertions of wide-spread corruption, planting of evidence, etc).
You make alot of ascertions that are simply wrong or misinformed. How can you claim that he's idealistic when you don't really know the situation enough to have a slightly objective view of what goes on?
I'm not saying you don't have a right to say what you believe, but please, when people counter your opinions with what seems to be a much more objective, "truthful" answer, can you please investigate whether that answer is true and voids your claim before you continue?

 

[tattoodguy]

Yes they are innocent until proven guilty, in which they are. So you're argument is flawed.

My argument is not flawed, my piont is the government shoudlnt be harrasing innocent citizens the fact of the matter is, not all searches result in arrests etc they are sometimes little more than a stab in the dark.

If you are a freind of someone who is a suspect etc - that shouldnt give police any right to raid you etc? do you agree with that? there should be alot more evidence?
Agree?


some police abuse their power.

Some citizens abuse their rights, and it's the role of the police with the legitimised powers by both the state and the people to stop that.
-I have no problem the police stopping people from abusing their rights and those citizens should be punished.

But at the same time, police who abuse their power and over step the mark should be on very serious charges.

Its unfair that only citizens are punished.

In WA there was a cop he helped fabricate evidence and as far as im aware he didnt even go to jail or if he did, it was for only a minimal amount of time - why is that?

How many times have police raided people and found no evidence - i dont care if suppossedly they have alledgedly honorable intentions to get rid of crims off the street- it means nothing - its no justification to harrasss completely innocent citizens.

Ive been searched - and i was totally 150% innocent - so i can only imagine how many other people this has happened too.

When police do that they should be thrown in jail. Thats abuse of power do you agree jonathan?.


How about charging this dude with the maccas thing? is it correct that he wasnt involved he wasnt even in sydney at the time? thats what i heard? can anyone confirm this?

Why do police only receive disciplinary action - when we break the rules we end up in jail, but when police break the rules they get a warning almost always.

They shouldnt get warnings, when they screw up, they should be fired.

Thats why we have corruption etc, because we keeep giving pieces of shit chance after chance.

How can we operate a legal system with dishonest police or police who break the rules.


Im just saying...........like they are seraching all these ppple etc.... whats the fucking reason...........just because u ring a criminal or know a criminal.......that shouldnt be enufff to allow the police to search you etc.

Yes it is. A search does not pertain to an arrest. It is the gathering of evidence. Evidence doesn't necessarily aim to lock someone up, it's there to ascertain what has happened.

You really are disgraceful, i know its not an arrest and they must gather evidence. But just knowing a criminal doesnt mean u commit crimes its unfair for anyone to jump to that conclusion and it certainly shouldnt be sufficient reason for police to impose on the privacy of ur own home.

Your a law dude right? so you are sayiing its legallly sufficient just because you speak to a criminal or know a criminal - that is sufficent evidence reason for the police to come and search you?

What is the burdan of prooof before police can get a warrant to search a house?


The police should fuck offf.......unlesss they have cold hard evidence.

How can they gather evidence if you don't let them search????

They should have evidence before they search. Sure they can then gather more evidence, but they should first have some compelling evidence linking you to a particular crime.




relatedly why cant we have fucking cameras and shit inside prisons to seee their conditions and hear their stories.......why did the prisoners riot etc?????????????? why does our government stop us...seeeeing whats inside prisons..what does it have to hide????????????????

Cos that's another breach of human rights.

But what about prisoners who want the truth to come out?

Isnt it only illegal to embarrass them etc? if they want to be on television wouldnt that be alright? i think its more to hide the truth than any concern for human rights of prisoners.

They show some on tv, so i dont think what ur saying is right. Buts its very rare and usually only for negative purposes. Its not to give them a fair go and let them speak freely etc.


Like that fucking dude.........ford who testified in bali...........he is on remand.....i dont think he has been convicted of anything........and our government let him be stabbed?

You know you can make your points without using the f-word.

what the fuck is that. He should sue the government for $1 million. Seriously..our government needs to be accountable for its bull shit

And he probably can or at least the prison authorities, under L v Commonwealth a precedent is in place to allow prisoners to sue the prison where they are harmed by other inmates. But for $1 million? In negligence you need to prove there was $1 million damage before you will be awarded that.

Well it should be alot. The government i think limits prison claims i think there is special legislation that further restrains the amounts prisoners can get. Thats totally unfair. Its immoral.

If they want prisoners to learn responsiblility they shoudl show responsibility.

 

[tattoodguy]

not that bright.

number 1 regarding jonathan i havent heard him say anything that i havent read in one of my hsc legal studies text books. Dont make him out to be a genius.

Im not saying every officer is corrupt.

But there is alot of corruption and its been proven.

Police have planted evidence, co-operated with criminals, stolen from criminals, lied in courts, and the list goes on.

They have tipped of criminals, accepted bribes etc.

Heaps of ppple are in jail because of bad policing. They dont take responsibility.

Jonathan thinks because we have a few mechanisms in place it protects the public from the police. If that was the case all the above corruption wouldnt occur.

The facts speak for themselves.

Jonathan u need a reality check dude.

 

[tattoodguy]

What is the burdan of prooof to search someones house?

jonathan.

also answer the qeuestion about the bali drug bust.

ur a law dude- answer the question about the death sentence and australian police co operation in that other thread.

bali 9 and afp.

also in relation to the shooting at maccas. I know u know stufff - what happened there? did the police do something wrong.


thanks and tell the truth.

 

[s0k0y0e0]

I would prefer to see neither executed! I do not agree with capital punishment! :uhhuh:

 

[nick1048]

both guilty...

although yes, I would not like to see anyone get executed...

 

[samuelblayden]

well shapelle is innocent the bali 9 were caught red handed

 

[absolution*]

Idealistic?
He seems to be more attached to the objective reality (due to his knowledge of the ins and outs of the police/legal system), than you are (with your bold ascertions of wide-spread corruption, planting of evidence, etc).
You make alot of ascertions that are simply wrong or misinformed. How can you claim that he's idealistic when you don't really know the situation enough to have a slightly objective view of what goes on?
I'm not saying you don't have a right to say what you believe, but please, when people counter your opinions with what seems to be a much more objective, "truthful" answer, can you please investigate whether that answer is true and voids your claim before you continue?

Could you possibly be more spastic?

And for fucks sake. Its spelt "assertion". Obviously grammar isnt highly regarded within UWS marking criteria.

 

[spin spin sugar]

absy youre so mean to uws

 

[Jonathan A]

you have all the answers dont u jonathan, ur a real big shot with ur big words and your condescending over tones.

most of what you say is idealistic, just because we have processes in place it doesnt mean they work.

It's worked for at least 100 years. You have made accussations and inferences that police are corrupt and you have furthermore doubted our evidence system with no basis. I may use big words, but I know where they go.

 

[soha]

i cant believe people would rather 9 dead then just one

 

[Jonathan A]

[/I]


Well it should be alot. The government i think limits prison claims i think there is special legislation that further restrains the amounts prisoners can get. Thats totally unfair. Its immoral.

If they want prisoners to learn responsiblility they shoudl show responsibility.

I agree, the Civil Liability Act limits the amount of provisions to many people, I am against this intervention.

 

[Jonathan A]

not that bright.

number 1 regarding jonathan i havent heard him say anything that i havent read in one of my hsc legal studies text books. Dont make him out to be a genius.

.

Didn't help you that much did it? There is no point learning if you don't apply... And I have not heard of the Evidence Act being taught in legal studies.

Im not saying every officer is corrupt.

But there is alot of corruption and its been proven.

As with every industry. But the very fact you bring into your argument to justify your stance for police making arrests, shows your intention.


Police have planted evidence, co-operated with criminals, stolen from criminals, lied in courts, and the list goes on.

They have tipped of criminals, accepted bribes etc.

And criminals have smuggled drugs, murdered innocent people, stolen from civilians, taken advantage of police insiders, threatened people and the list goes on.

Heaps of ppple are in jail because of bad policing. They dont take responsibility.

"Heaps" is not a number and open to discussion. How long is a piece of string?

Jonathan thinks because we have a few mechanisms in place it protects the public from the police. If that was the case all the above corruption wouldnt occur.

DO you know the process of preventing and investigating corruption? I think you have no idea how it came about, nor how it is viewed. And from my point of view, based on what I know - police get the rough end of the stick.

The facts speak for themselves.\

When you bring facts into it and prove me wrong, then I will take this point seriously from you.



Jonathan u need a reality check dude

tattooguy, u need a tattoo saying, "I AM UNFAIR WHEN IT COMES TO POLICE"

 

[Jonathan A]

What is the burdan of prooof to search someones house?

.

There is no burden of proof, it's not a trial. It's the gathering of evidence. Police should and are allowed to make enquiries.

jonathan.

also answer the qeuestion about the bali drug bust.

ur a law dude- answer the question about the death sentence and australian police co operation in that other thread.

When I get round to them. In short I don't agree with capital punishment, however if it were imposed, I would like to see it for only the most horriffic crimes.


also in relation to the shooting at maccas. I know u know stufff - what happened there? did the police do something wrong.

I like facts, so when I get the full set, I will let you know.


thanks and tell the truth

Always do and thank you