law VIC police get random strip search powers

[Wally Carter]

Originally Posted by bzparkes

So you admit it was a ridiculously stupid suggestion then? Good.

No, not at all.

It was a tactically stupid suggestion.

It gave the "holier than thou clique" an excuse to hijack the thread and take a morally superior position without actually contributing anything.

Originally Posted by bzparkes

I personally don't think it's such a big deal. Obviously the article paints it in a bad light but most media these days is sensationalist so this article needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Do you also take the same "grain of salt" for the massively blown out of proportion "Melbourne is under seige" articles that appear in the daily papers?

Originally Posted by bzparkes

Police have a lot of powers these days but I'm yet to witness any abuse of such powers. are a lot more heavy handed and strict with the rules than any police I've met.

Blowing away 15 year old kids? Murdering police informants?

How about choosing to shoot someone instead of using a taser?

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/bre...1118-il3r.html

How about 3 male cops and a security guard tasering a 16 year old girl?


How To: Embed a YouTube video.


How about tasering a kid because they wouldn't take a shower?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...88-952,00.html

3 cops taser a man in handcuffs:

http://media.brisbanetimes.com.au/wo...fs-860240.html

I could go on and on.

Originally Posted by bzparkes

Can't say I've ever had a problem with them though. Don't give them a reason to be interested in you and you most likely will never have a problem.

Is it really that hard to stay out of trouble?

You must shower regularly.

Originally Posted by bzparkes

You also seem to have a hard time dealing with the long sentence of the kid convicted of assault.

The term "Draconian" was invented for situations just like this. That kid got 5 years off the judge and 15 years off the media.

Originally Posted by bzparkes

Whilst I agree that his sentence may be slightly excessive, the person in question shows a long history of violence and will most likely never change.

How can a 20 year old have a long history of violence and go undetected from the law for so long?

Originally Posted by bzparkes

What about the victims? Why do you seem to be supporting the perpetrators whilst disregarding the victims?

Well it's going to cost at least $800,000 in todays value to keep this kid in jail, let's try to get the kid cured and share the money amongst the victims instead?

[bzparkes]

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

No, not at all.

It was a tactically stupid suggestion.

It gave the "holier than thou clique" an excuse to hijack the thread and take a morally superior position without actually contributing anything.

There's nothing morally superior about it. It was a rubbish suggestion which noone would take seriously, anywhere. It's like suggesting a jewel thief work in a jewellery store as 'rehabilitation'..

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

Do you also take the same "grain of salt" for the massively blown out of proportion "Melbourne is under seige" articles that appear in the daily papers?

Don't live in Melbourne so I wouldn't have a clue about the type of articles you're mentioning here. Feel free to post a link if you feel like it.

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

How about choosing to shoot someone instead of using a taser?

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/bre...1118-il3r.html

Obviously I can't say for sure what the situation was like but in the article it never mentioned whether the man had died from the shooting or from self-harm. It says the officer shot him in the right shoulder. Don't know of many people dying after they'd been shot in their right shoulder. Maybe the officer in question deemed the situation dangerous enough to use his firearm?

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

How about 3 male cops and a security guard tasering a 16 year old girl?


How To: Embed a YouTube video.

How about saying it like it really happened? "One officer tasers girl in leg after being assaulted by the girl. Needed 2 other officers and a security guard to restrain her".

The person who reviewed the matter found no fault in the officer's actions, so I fail to see the problem. Just another case of sensationalist journalism I'm afraid. You need to take it with 'A grain of salt'...

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

How about tasering a kid because they wouldn't take a shower?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...88-952,00.html

I read that article and the girl's own mother gave permission for the officer to taser the girl. Not that I'm suggesting that's in any way the right thing to do but I think what happened is more indicative of the way the mother treats her child rather than the way the officer handled the situation.

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

3 cops taser a man in handcuffs:

http://media.brisbanetimes.com.au/wo...fs-860240.html

Officer in question who tasered the man was suspended from duty. Obviously did the wrong thing and was punished for it.

The above incident and the 10 year old girl both occurred in the US anyway. I thought we were discussing the change of law in Australia?

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

I could go on and on.

Why? You're not proving anything. I'm sure I could find videos and articles of random assaults to make my point, instead of actually explaining it in my own words. Have you formed a concise opinion, or are you merely scared that the sky is falling on your head?

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

You must shower regularly.

I do, thanks for asking.

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

The term "Draconian" was invented for situations just like this. That kid got 5 years off the judge and 15 years off the media.

How can a 20 year old have a long history of violence and go undetected from the law for so long?

i don't know the whole story, only snippets of what I've read from here. Why don't you post the story and breakdown for me what you thing is wrong with the sentence?

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

Well it's going to cost at least $800,000 in todays value to keep this kid in jail, let's try to get the kid cured and share the money amongst the victims instead?

Yeah, they try to cure prisoners all the time to prevent them from repeat offences, unfortunately some people will always be bad people. Lack of education, poor upbringing, poverty, social circles, etc.. all play a part in whether a person is going to be a repeat offender or not. When they're released, you can't prevent them from socialising with the same people or getting into the same situations. A person has to want to change, you can't force them to be different.

[Wally Carter]

Originally Posted by bzparkes

There's nothing morally superior about it. It was a rubbish suggestion which noone would take seriously, anywhere. It's like suggesting a jewel thief work in a jewellery store as 'rehabilitation'..

Do you take the view that no criminal is ever rehabilitated?

Originally Posted by bzparkes

Don't live in Melbourne so I wouldn't have a clue about the type of articles you're mentioning here. Feel free to post a link if you feel like it.

CBF. Get the Melbourne Herald Sun for the next week.

Originally Posted by bzparkes

Obviously I can't say for sure what the situation was like but in the article it never mentioned whether the man had died from the shooting or from self-harm. It says the officer shot him in the right shoulder. Don't know of many people dying after they'd been shot in their right shoulder. Maybe the officer in question deemed the situation dangerous enough to use his firearm?

Oh.

So, it's okay to shoot a person instead of tasering a person as long as you don't kill them?

Originally Posted by bzparkes

How about saying it like it really happened? "One officer tasers girl in leg after being assaulted by the girl. Needed 2 other officers and a security guard to restrain her".

Speechless.

Originally Posted by bzparkes

I read that article and the girl's own mother gave permission for the officer to taser the girl. Not that I'm suggesting that's in any way the right thing to do but I think what happened is more indicative of the way the mother treats her child rather than the way the officer handled the situation.

That's it, I can't take you seriously any longer.

[DeanoT]

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

That's it, I can't take you seriously any longer.

That line gave me a hearty laugh.

[Wally Carter]

Originally Posted by DeanoT

That line gave me a hearty laugh.

Very nice of you to come down off your cross and contribute that.

Thanks.

[DeanoT]

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

Very nice of you to come down off your cross and contribute that.

Thanks.

Just providing a much needed mirror for your own moronic diatribe.

[Wally Carter]

Originally Posted by DeanoT

Just providing a much needed mirror for your own moronic diatribe.

Thank you Jesus.

[bzparkes]

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

Do you take the view that no criminal is ever rehabilitated?



CBF. Get the Melbourne Herald Sun for the next week.



Oh.

So, it's okay to shoot a person instead of tasering a person as long as you don't kill them?



Speechless.

So basically you have no points to contribute or can't rebut my arguments?

Can't remember one instance where I said it's ok to shoot someone instead of tasering, merely said the officer obviously deemed it appropriate.

Can't remember saying that tasering a 16 year old girl is ok, other than the fact that the girl appeared to strike the officer first and the person who reviewed the incident said the officers acted appropriately.

Can't remember saying I agree with the tasering of a 10y.o. girl.

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

That's it, I can't take you seriously any longer.

I don't think anyone on this board takes you seriously. You put forward no argument other than 'OMG, the sky is falling'. It's obvious you have an issue with police, why is that? It's also obvious that you have no argument at all other than a reactive rant to sensationalist media stories.


Maybe you could try addressing the points instead of giving up so easily?

[Wally Carter]

Originally Posted by bzparkes

So basically you have no points to contribute or can't rebut my arguments?

Can't remember one instance where I said it's ok to shoot someone instead of tasering, merely said the officer obviously deemed it appropriate.

Can't remember saying that tasering a 16 year old girl is ok, other than the fact that the girl appeared to strike the officer first and the person who reviewed the incident said the officers acted appropriately.

Can't remember saying I agree with the tasering of a 10y.o. girl.



I don't think anyone on this board takes you seriously. You put forward no argument other than 'OMG, the sky is falling'. It's obvious you have an issue with police, why is that? It's also obvious that you have no argument at all other than a reactive rant to sensationalist media stories.


Maybe you could try addressing the points instead of giving up so easily?

Yes, you win.

Remember to vote Laborel at the next election.

Have a nice day.

[bzparkes]

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

Yes, you win.

Remember to vote Laborel at the next election.

Have a nice day.

Winning isn't the point, merely someone pulling your posts apart with comments like "Shower often?" and "Speechless" just goes to prove you have nothing to say, which you seem to think you do.