Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 54953	2005-02-26 23:26:00	All Black Named	Obelix (752)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
328575	2005-02-28 01:42:00	But if this woman is his wife, and pregnat to boot, who was it that complained and took it to court? somebody must of and if it was her, there must have been enough reasonable doubt in the lawyers or judges mind to start with to actually get it that far? no? yes?. Good question Beet. In all criminal cases the police make the decision to prosecute. The complainant/victim doesn't get to decide this. And in domestic cases, judges will accept the evidence of police officers as to what they were told and observed. This is allowed because often a battered wife or child will refuse to give evidence later on, having forgiven the poor misunderstood bully. I've now read a media report on the case. It appears that the offender did get a type of diversion, as alluded to earlier. And discharged without conviction, which I'd expect. Final name suppression was because: "Judge Recordon said publicity of the man's name would have an effect on him, his family and his career and on balance the presumption that his name should be made public was overturned" Yeah Right!	Winston001 (3612)
328576	2005-02-28 02:13:00	who ever ... forcebly moves another is considered assault. no matter who it is they should be punished. So if i give my mate a ride in the car that's "assault"? (jokes)	Greg (193)
328577	2005-02-28 02:20:00	I noticed the judges name - Phil Recordon. He was coincidently, the patheticaly inadequate counsel for my children during the marriage split I had several years ago. He's a twit - possessing the kind of mentality that helps perpetuate the levels of crime we have to deal with in this country. Having said that, I think the decision in this case was warranted - it's not like he beat her about, from what's reported.	Greg (193)
328578	2005-02-28 02:44:00	Assault Definition An assault is touching another person against that person's will, however slightly. Threatening to do this is also considered assault, as long as the harasser has the immediate power to carry out the assault. Assault is an offence under the Crimes Act, 1961. The maximum penalty for common assault is one year imprisonment, the maximum penalty for assault with intent to injure is three years, and wounding with intent carries a penalty of up to fourteen years. Taken from www2.auckland.ac.nz There is no argument as to if he is guilty or not. He pled guilty so guilty he is. Most permenant supressions you see in the news seem to arise from cases of sexual assault where to name the offender would identify the victim and cause harm/embarrasment to them. If the Judge had decided to supress the players name based on potential harm to his wife then fine, and that could even extend to protecting her by preventing player losing his job. Lets face it though. The Judge was foolish enough to mention the attacker in his reasons for supression. Once again in New Zealand it would seem the Criminal not the victim has the rights. Another side to this is: Do we believe for a minute the the NZRFU dont know who the player is? Not on your nelly. Yet they dont seem in a hurry to fire him do they? Would it be any different if the name was not suppressed?	Sam I Am (1679)
328579	2005-02-28 02:51:00	Another side to this is: Do we believe for a minute the the NZRFU dont know who the player is? Not on your nelly. Yet they dont seem in a hurry to fire him do they? Would it be any different if the name was not suppressed? Xavier Rush passed out on the side of Parnell Road from drinking... Tana Umaga was involved in a drunken brawl in the street... Spencer had assault charges in Tauranga dropped... Muliaina got thrown out of a Parnell for urinating against the wall, etc. All sensationalist stuff at the time, but more a storm in a teacup and frankly speaking, most people have enough sense to look past a newspaper reporter looking to gloss up a story for publication. I don't condone violence, but there are always 2 sides to any story. We're basing all our judgements on 3rd hand reports. Lo.	Lohsing (219)
328580	2005-02-28 03:06:00	DIE THREAD,DIE!!!! that is all.	Metla (12)
328581	2005-02-28 03:09:00	DIE THREAD,DIE!!!! that is all. :D	Sam I Am (1679)
328582	2005-02-28 03:17:00	Xavier Rush passed out on the side of Parnell Road from drinking . . . Tana Umaga was involved in a drunken brawl in the street . . . Spencer had assault charges in Tauranga dropped . . . Muliaina got thrown out of a Parnell for urinating against the wall, etc . <snip> Lo . And yet none of these involved assaulting a pregnant woman . How are we supposed to teach our children to take responsibility for their actions when the Judiciary refuses to set examples? What lesson has this player learnt from this? Dont get caught? Rugby was a good career choice for so many reasons? Knock her out next time? You have to draw the line somewhere . The fact is that any form of assault by a male on a female is sickening . There is no excuse ever . And on that note I think I'll take metlas advice . (Not for the 1st time I might add) :xmouth:	Sam I Am (1679)
328583	2005-02-28 08:16:00	The All Black pleaded guilty to the assault after trying to force his wife, who was five months' pregnant at the time, back into the house during an argument . However, on Wednesday he was discharged without conviction . The court was told last week that, in October, the player attempted to drag his five-months pregnant wife back to their home when she left to go her mother's house . Judge Recordon said the All Black and his wife had undergone counselling and a conviction would be out of proportion to the offending . He said the assault, which would normally carry a maximum prison sentence of one year, was at the "lower end of the scale" . He said the man's wife, who was five months pregnant at the time, had left their house after a disagreement . "She kept walking while you tried to bring her back . You grabbed her . . . tried to pull her back towards the house . There was a struggle . " I'm sure he had very good reasons to attempt to forcibly detain his pregnant wife . I'm sure the police had no reason to charge him . He was probably pressured into pleading guilty . He probably had an unhappy childhood and feels misunderstood . It was probably a well meaning attempt to protect his spouse . And monkeys fly out of my @rse riding tv aerials As to his side of the story---- who gives a monkey's toss . He's guilty . End of my contribution to this thread .	the highlander (245)
328584	2005-02-28 08:58:00	And yet none of these involved assaulting a pregnant woman. So by your definition, it's now ok to do all the above so long as a pregnant woman isn't involved?? Lo.	Lohsing (219)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8