Scandal Alastair Clarkson whacking port fan

[Chief]

I think everyone needs to simmer down and get back to normal footy stuff.

Here is a Photoshop Challenge to take everyone's mind off it all.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/photoshop-challenge-we-havent-had-one-in-ages.1095663/

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

This wasn't on the football field.

It sure wasn't.

But we'll see plenty of posters making excuses for a cheap shot in the middle of the quarter with little to no provocation, and probably from the same people who are in here saying Clarkson should be held to account for shoving someone out of his personal space.

 

[Chief]

It sure wasn't.

But we'll see plenty of posters making excuses for a cheap shot in the middle of the quarter with little to no provocation, and probably from the same people who are in here saying Clarkson should be held to account for shoving someone out of his personal space.

Dumbest post ever. And I've made some in my time.

Seen some. I meant to say I've seen some in my time.

 

[Laphroaig]

I'm guessing you haven't had much experience with the police, especially detectives

If he presented this footage wanting to press charges he would be laughed out of the cop shop.

He was the aggressor not Clarkson,

Most amusing post I've seen for a while.

You lecture me on my ignorance of the police, and at the same time think this is a matter for "detectives". And that the "press charges" idea you got from trashy American television has even the slightest relevance.

Great work. It's a rare talent to slam your own knob in the door twice in a 30 word post.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Dumbest post ever. And I've made some in my time.

Seen some. I meant to say I've seen some in my time.

haha, it's not dumb and you know it.

The outrage in here is laughable. The very same posters in here wanting the book thrown at Clarkson because of what 'might' have happened, will find ways to overlook jumper punches, elbows, strikes or whatever else being dealt on the footy field.

 

[Chief]

haha, it's not dumb and you know it.

The outrage in here is laughable. The very same posters in here wanting the book thrown at Clarkson because of what 'might' have happened, will find ways to overlook jumper punches, elbows, strikes or whatever else being dealt on the footy field.

They are dealt with by a tribunal.

Any sportsperson wanting to sue for physical actions outside of the rules of the game is free to do so.

 

[JeffDunne]

haha, it's not dumb and you know it.

The outrage in here is laughable. The very same posters in here wanting the book thrown at Clarkson because of what 'might' have happened, will find ways to overlook jumper punches, elbows, strikes or whatever else being dealt on the footy field.

No, we're making those calls based on what 'did' happen.

Clarkson's defense is based on what 'might' have happened.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

They are dealt with by a tribunal.

Any sportsperson wanting to sue for physical actions outside of the rules of the game is free to do so.

Correct, and in a lot of instances, hits that are far more forceful than Clarkson's are deemed to be of insufficient force.

Yet, here we have all the squealers stating what a bad man Clarkson is, how he shouldn't have done it, and how he could've caused damage.

So if violence offends posters as much as has been suggested in this thread, I would think that these boards will be full of condemnation for any acts of unprovoked violence on the field.

As long as it's not a player from their own team, of course.

 

[JeffDunne]

Echols, you've lost the plot.

 

[Andronicus]

People suggesting he did nothing wrong and acted out of fear have been sucked in by either Clarksons feeble attempts at justifying what he did, or are too brown and gold to see sense.

He didn't act out of fear and desperation. He acted out of frustration and anger.

 

[H2F]

Anyone who says this isn't the best deal in town has rocks in their head.

 

[H2F]

I dunno who this grizzly guy is - he never even answers my phone calls.

You're best bet is texting him ...

He's a busy dude.

grizzlym come out and play

 

[H2F]

Echols hold your ground mate, you're 100 percent right, Chief knows it he just loves stirring you and I'm wondering if JD had a similar tattoo or something because he seems a little warped about the issue ...

 

[Procrastinator35]

People suggesting he did nothing wrong and acted out of fear have been sucked in by either Clarksons feeble attempts at justifying what he did, or are too brown and gold to see sense.

He didn't act out of fear and desperation. He acted out of frustration and anger.

Wrong on all Counts....He acted out of Self-Defense....Ergo, there will be no charges.

Clarko was not the instigator, nor the provocateur here....He did not seek put this situation, nor ask to be harassed, corralled into a corner & be the subject of assault & ridicule....That was all the perps doing, And he copped his JUST desserts as a consequence.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the art of Jurisprudence before making any further comment on the matter.

 

[Laphroaig]

People suggesting he did nothing wrong and acted out of fear have been sucked in by either Clarksons feeble attempts at justifying what he did, or are too brown and gold to see sense.

He didn't act out of fear and desperation. He acted out of frustration and anger.

Indeed. Who in the wide world, apart from the tooth fairy believers, has any doubt that if Hawthorn win the punch doesn't get thrown - no matter how much of a knob the guy in the street is being.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Echols, you've lost the plot.

And you've yet to find it!

 

[Laphroaig]

Wrong on all Counts....He acted out of Self-Defense....Ergo, there will be no charges.

Clarko was not the instigator, nor the provocateur here....He did not seek put this situation, nor ask to be harassed, corralled into a corner & be the subject of assault & ridicule....That was all the perps doing, And he copped his JUST desserts as a consequence.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the art of Jurisprudence before making any further comment on the matter.

You use ergo to make yourself look smarter. Sadly, it is not nearly enough to balance against the ample evidence to the contrary. And seriously dude, "art of jurisprudence" just makes it worse. And "perp? FFS man.

Self defence is only a legal defence for assault if the physical act is the ONLY means of protection available in the circumstances. Given that Clarkson punched and ran away (no why does that sound familiar) he clearly had another course of action. To bolt without throwing the punch.

 

[MinerBoy]

None of them believe the self defence story.


But geez how quick they jump on the "he regrets it story" like those were his very own thoughts and feelings. Haha.


I wonder who's being sucked it.

 

[Procrastinator35]

You use ergo to make yourself look smarter. Sadly, it is not nearly enough to balance against the ample evidence to the contrary. And seriously dude, "art of jurisprudence" just makes it worse. And "perp? FFS man.

Self defence is only a legal defence for assault if the physical act is the ONLY means of protection available in the circumstances. Given that Clarkson punched and ran away (no why does that sound familiar) he clearly had another course of action. To bolt without throwing the punch.

No mate...Ergo is a concept germane to the general populace as a whole....As popularized by the French philospher, Rene Descartes....'Cogito Ergo Sum'...'I think therefore I am'....That particular piece of Cartesian philosophy is generally accepted to be the beginnings of modern philosophy & has henceforth become a popular catch-phrase in the Anglo vernacular since!....You'll hear it at pretty much any pub across the land.

Also, ergo is used commonly in mathematical formulae!...It's a basic Latin term that has become part of mainstream culture.

Perp is merely a foreshortening of Perpetrator, nothing complex there either....Though I can see how a mind such as your own might struggle to cope & get around these high-end concepts....Don't get lost or tied up in semantics....They are never a substitute for a well placed argument.

You entire self-defense premise is flawed from the start!...Proportionality & reasonableness are always the standard measures for assessing the actions so far as legal consequences apply....Read up before making such erroneous assumptions!

Your final comment referring to his 'Battle of Britain' act, rather portrays you as somewhat biased & prejudiced on the matter....To say the least.

 

[Laphroaig]

You entire self-defense premise is flawed from the start!...Proportionality & reasonableness are always the standard measures for assessing the actions so far as legal consequences apply....Read up before making such erroneous assumptions!

Under Australian Law.

A successful defence against assault can either reduce the penalties, or lead to an acquittal if a complete defence was established. Defences generally speaking are made when an individual has no other option but to defend themselves in the manner they did. This may mean that there was a threat either against themselves, or another person , and there was no other option available in preventing an assault but to defend themselves in the manner they have.

Proportionality is only a small element of that - although it seems you believe that a left hook qualifies as a proportional response to taunting.

As for the rest of the verbose garbage, you're just making it worse. Try to look smart, end up confirming to the world that you are far from it.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Under Australian Law.

A successful defence against assault can either reduce the penalties, or lead to an acquittal if a complete defence was established. Defences generally speaking are made when an individual has no other option but to defend themselves in the manner they did. This may mean that there was a threat either against themselves, or another person , and there was no other option available in preventing an assault but to defend themselves in the manner they have.

Proportionality is only a small element of that - although it seems you believe that a left hook qualifies as a proportional response to taunting.

As for the rest of the verbose garbage, you're just making it worse. Try to look smart, end up confirming to the world that you are far from it.

Ah yes....So much for your ONLY MEANS premise being the first consideration....You really are running off at the mouth here sport.

Clarko felt that he had 'No other option but to defend himself'....That much is obvious!....Was the way he did it proportionate & sufficient?...That can only be assessed in a court of Law!...And THAT is the principal consideration here.

It won't even get THAT far, because the level of counts mounted up by the perp, mean that it's highly unlikely the police will press charges against Clarko.

It's interesting when a posters comments & critiques quite regularly turn on themselves like a reflexive mirror.....Your wee faux outrage here is rather amusing.

I don't need to try & look smart, you do a good enuf job of that for me all on your own there sport!

 

[Andronicus]

Wrong on all Counts....He acted out of Self-Defense...

Absolute rubbish.

If we felt the need to hit someone as self defense every time we had someone yell at us the world would be a very different place.

 

[AM]

Absolute rubbish.

If we felt the need to hit someone as self defense every time we had someone yell at us the world would be a very different place.

The drunk did more than merely yell at him. And if you perceive what Clarkson did as a 'hit' you can't get out much.

 

[Donners]

It won't even get THAT far, because the level of counts mounted up by the perp

Charges, my dear lad. Counts went out seven years ago with the CPA.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Echols hold your ground mate, you're 100 percent right, Chief knows it he just loves stirring you and I'm wondering if JD had a similar tattoo or something because he seems a little warped about the issue ...

#winning