- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Get Better Work Stories! You can beat a mentally ill man on tape and get away with it!


You are fucking kidding me! There is no limit to the beating and torture our cops can met out to a mentally ill man all caught on tape! UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE, my faith in the system just sunk to a new low!

Jury clears four policemen of assault
Four police officers accused of repeatedly using pepper spray and batons on a prisoner in a cell have been found not guilty on all charges.

Sergeants Keith Parsons and Erle Busby, Senior Constable Bruce Laing and Constable John Mills are accused of assaulting Rawiri Falwasser at the Whakatane police station on Labour Day 2006.

The four faced nine charges between them and all of them face assault with a weapon.

Judge Patrick Treston, at Tauranga District Court, finished summing up the case this morning.

"Effectively there are nine trials going on at the same time," Judge Treston told the jury.

He said the jury would need to consider the evidence in relation to each charge and each defendant separately.

Judge Treston outlined the defence of self defence and defence of another person. He said the jury had to take into account what they believed the defendants were thinking at the time and whether they were in fact acting in self defence or defence of another.

Judge Treston said if they believed that was the case then they would then have to decide if it was a reasonable use of force.

He said there had to be a balance between the threat and the force used.

"I say that because you can't use a sledge hammer to crack a nut," Judge Treston said.

25 Comments:

At 25/6/08 5:24 pm, Blogger Tim Selwyn said...

We demand to see that tape. They have to release the tape.

 
At 25/6/08 5:31 pm, Blogger Bryan Spondre said...

Try flicking through to page 2 of the NZ Herald story before getting on your hobby horse:

"who had refused to be fingerprinted or photographed for more than an hour-and-a-half.

She said the incident involving Parsons had lasted no more than 35 seconds,"

 
At 25/6/08 6:03 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I second Tim Selwyn comment.
" I want to see that tape"

I have lost faith in the jury system
I have lost faith in the Westminster judicial system, and the underfunded Police system

send tape here
peterquixote

 
At 25/6/08 6:31 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Until I see evidence to the contrary I trust the good sense of a jury who have seen and heard the full story over Bomber's less informed frothing.

 
At 25/6/08 6:51 pm, Blogger peterquixote said...

but wait on dude, New Zealand people are stupid, we already know that or wwe wouldn't be slipping into oblivion on the world map.
Juries are stupid dude. the system doesn't work. believe in babies if you like.

 
At 25/6/08 6:57 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

disgusted but not surprised. I would have been surprised if they HAD been found guilty because it just doesn't happen ...who they gonna believe ? 4 white cops or a brown crim ?

 
At 25/6/08 7:21 pm, Anonymous Legio X said...

So Bo ber - What do you propose to replace the Jury system with?

Maybe you and Tim reading a few news reports and then using your well balanced judgment to pass sentence?

This was not the Police Complaints Authority finding their own not guilty. This was not some high ranking cop saying 'theres nothing to see here'. This was a jury of 12 citizens good and true listening to the evidence and then passing judgment.

Just because you don't like what they decided you decide that the system has fallen to a new low.

Its a very interesting insight into your thinking and all the more reason why NO ONE should take you at all seriously.

xxx

Legio

 
At 25/6/08 10:32 pm, Blogger Tim Selwyn said...

I heard TV One's reporter saying the judge refused to release the tape because the media might use selected parts of it out of context! Ridiculous. It must be really damaging. Rodney King type damaging if they aren't releasing it.

It sounds... unjust.

 
At 26/6/08 2:10 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its funny how Bomber will somehow blame the cops for this. Remember Bomber it was the Police and the area commander who was disgusted by what he saw who decided to prosecute these people, it was a jury of citizens who decided to dismiss the charge.

And Tim, re media using selected parts of tapes out of context. Whatever happened to TV3's infamous pepper spray footage showing? ever wondered why we never got to see the full tape and why TV3 never revealed the outcome of the court case and complaint?

 
At 26/6/08 6:25 am, Anonymous jack said...

Juries are queer cattle. They got it right in the Chris Kahui and Murry Forman cases, then this. Oh well, you win some, you lose some.

 
At 26/6/08 8:04 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Juries are queer cattle. They got it right in the Chris Kahui and Murry Forman cases, then this. Oh well, you win some, you lose some."

The jury heard the evidence, you didn't Jack.
The jury found the police not guilty, you wanted them guilty Jack.
The jury are not queer cattle, rather you wanted to see the police convicted, regardless of evidence.

 
At 26/6/08 8:44 am, Blogger rangi said...

id say that a video of police smashing someone who didnt really deserve it is quite compelling evidence, jack

 
At 26/6/08 8:48 am, Anonymous jack said...

Was the Police prosecution corrupt anonymous? Did they bring a malicious prosecution?

 
At 26/6/08 9:02 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well rangi, 12 jurors, who saw the WHOLE video, found the evidence to be not so compelling.

Jack, what are you talking about?

 
At 26/6/08 10:24 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Until I see evidence to the contrary I trust the good sense of a jury who have seen and heard the full story over Bomber's less informed frothing."

How true.

Whats the point of seeing the video? The media would only take a ten second snippet and show it out of context, muddying the waters and distorting the truth even more.

Argox.

 
At 26/6/08 10:42 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um ... where did my comment go actually?

NS

 
At 26/6/08 11:02 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some comments seem to going missing at the moment....

 
At 26/6/08 1:41 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Rickards the rapist got away with it, so can these scum.

Release the tape.

 
At 26/6/08 2:18 pm, Anonymous jack said...

What am I talking about?

The Crown believed the 4 coppers had a case to answer hence the charges. Are you saying the Crown got it wrong or are corrupt?

I believe the jury was stacked. I simply can't think of any other explanation for the not guilty verdict. If these cops did use reasonable force let us see the cctv footage.

 
At 26/6/08 2:26 pm, Anonymous Bosco said...

Because the media will manipulate the footage and sensationalize it.

Just like they did with the TV3 pepperspray incident.

 
At 26/6/08 2:48 pm, Anonymous Phoebe Fletcher said...

Let's hope the jury weren't playing Sudoku like the Aussies while listening.

 
At 26/6/08 3:02 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Crown believed the 4 coppers had a case to answer hence the charges. Are you saying the Crown got it wrong or are corrupt?"

The Police prosecutors thought there was a prima facie case to answer, which the subsequent court case has found to be untrue.

No one is talking corruption here but you Jack.

"I believe the jury was stacked. I simply can't think of any other explanation for the not guilty verdict."

Well thats your subjective opinion isn't it Jack.
Perhaps another explanation is that the jury saw the evidence and decided the police were not guilty.

"If these cops did use reasonable force let us see the cctv footage."

What. All 3+ hours, or just the bits where you can vent your hatred of the police.

 
At 26/6/08 3:58 pm, Anonymous jack said...

“The Police prosecutors thought there was a prima facie case to answer, which the subsequent court case has found to be untrue.”

Did the Police prosecutors do their best, did they weed out the pro police idiot jurors?

“Well thats your subjective opinion isn't it Jack.
Perhaps another explanation is that the jury saw the evidence and decided the police were not guilty.”

I’m not being subjective anonymous old chap, I’m just playing the devils advocate.


“What. All 3+ hours, or just the bits where you can vent your hatred of the police.”

Yep I want to see the whole thing, does utube accommodate footage of such length?

 
At 26/6/08 4:04 pm, Anonymous jack said...

Who pays Gregg O'Connor's wages?

 
At 26/6/08 8:20 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I’m not being subjective anonymous old chap, I’m just playing the devils advocate."

Well in that case Jack, you're right.
It's a conspiracy, dude, their all in on it. The Police, the Crown, The Defence, Judge and Jury, all out to get these four police off.
They picked the Jury by their skin colour dude, and the ones "in the know".

Youtube could certainly accomodate a 3 hour video, trouble is it's being suppressed.
The reasons given were so sections of it are not played by, say, the media out of context.

But as it's a conspiracy they would say that, wouldn't they?
Playing devils advocate of course, right, Jack.

Greg O'conners wages are paid by the Police Association one would assume.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home