Scandal Dustin Martin in drunken scuffle

[blackshadow]

Ever hear of the term re trial ?

Courts are founded on due process. They hear evidence yes, but they also analyze actions taken by law enforcement into account. Lets say I shoot someone, but they search my place, find the gun without a warrant. Even though I killed a person i can still walk free.

That is beside the point though .You stated police do not determine if a crime happened. I disagree as no action would be before the courts if the police do not lay charges....due to believing criminal activity took place.

its not that hard

A belief that a crime was committed does not make it a fact.

A belief that a crime was not committed does not make it a fact.

The police cannot make a determination that no crime was committed - police can determine that they didn't find enough evidence to believe a crime occurred but only the courts can actually make that determination.

 

[Tiger71]

The police only present evidence. They don't test it in open court. The other side does that.

Actually, the police test the evidence to see if its strong enough to lay charges. If evidence is to weak or untrue, it never gets to that stage.

 

[blackshadow]

Again you are missing the point. Police do that all the time. The courts are there to allow the evidence to be analyzed, process held to account etc.

Police determine if a crime take place. They dont ENFORCE the law

Courts enforce the rule of law.

Again mate, I am just refuting your point that police dont determine a crime takes place as imo that is wrong.

You're the one missing the point.

See my previous post above.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Excellent. Let's now argue legal semantics.

The findings of VIC Police that there's no case to answer are clearly not good enough for the "Dusty's actions are completely unacceptable and he should face heavy sanctions!!!!" crew. Victim blaming is a dire offence in here (and no, I haven't engaged in it) but continuing to assert that Dusty must be guilty despite VIC Pol's unequivocal statement is perfectly fine.

BF - home of the double standard.

 

[RockJobster0312]

Both the police and the courts form part of the criminal justice system. The role of the police is to evidence gather and determine if a crime has been committed pursuant to their understanding of the legislation. The role of the court is for a group of society to hear the evidence and decide whether a crime has indeed been committed. It is not a court's duty to determine if a crime has been committed, they are there to ensure a fair trial for an accussed and handle any punishment should the accussed be found guilty. The only people that have the ability to determine whether a crime has been committed is our peers i.e. a jury.

Point is, neither the police nor the cpurts in of themselves determine whether a crime has been committed. However, play pivotal roles in such a determination.

 

[Tiggytigers]

People love to drag dusty down and make out he's this horrible thug but look once again you fail

 

[Tiger71]

Both the police and the courts form part of the criminal justice system. The role of the police is to evidence gather and determine if a crime has been committed pursuant to their understanding of the legislation. The role of the court is for a group of society to hear the evidence and decide whether a crime has indeed been committed. It is not a court's duty to determine if a crime has been committed, they are there to ensure a fair trial for an accussed and handle any punishment should the accussed be found guilty. The only people that have the ability to determine whether a crime has been committed is our peers i.e. a jury.

Point is, neither the police nor the cpurts in of themselves determine whether a crime has been committed. However, play pivotal roles in such a determination.

Spot on

 

[Moshie The Mook]

Excellent. Let's now argue legal semantics.

The findings of VIC Police that there's no case to answer are clearly not good enough for the "Dusty's actions are completely unacceptable and he should face heavy sanctions!!!!" crew. Victim blaming is a dire offence in here (and no, I haven't engaged in it) but continuing to assert that Dusty must be guilty despite VIC Pol's unequivocal statement is perfectly fine.

BF - home of the double standard.

Agree. Yes, let's test every 'no criminal offence' finding in a court of law:

"Members of the jury, after a vigorous investigation, police found no criminal offence had taken place, and in fact, did not even charge the defendant with a crime....HOWEVER!"

I'm starting to think this thread is now just a wind up.

 

[JackFlash]

Can someone confirm that this is what hearsay is? I would have thought a person actually at the event who observed it (eg other restaurant patrons, staff, manager) would be considered witnesses and their accounts are hearsay. I always thought hearsay would be along the lines of "my son is the manager of the restraunt and was working that night, and he told me ......".

For any police investigation to proceed they must have sufficient evidence that will lead to a conviction in a court of law. It has to stand up in court. If the information about a fact is the direct observation of a witness, the court may simply disbelieve the witness. This may occur for a number of reasons. For example, it may have been a long time since the events in question happened, the witness may give confused testimony, or may have some physical incapacity (e.g. poor eyesight) maybe some of the other patrons had been drinking with their meal that night? Does this impair their judgement? Or do some have personal inclination or motivation that causes the court to disbelieve their evidence (e.g. it may be shown that the witness is inclined to lie, or bears ill-will against someone connected with the proceeding). Martin is a well known figure and was certainly recognised that night. The rules of evidence apply to an ordinary document in writing, if the key witness does not provide this document then Martin is exonerated due to insufficient evidence in order to proceed, thus the the ruling "no criminal offence occurred".
This was exactly the outcome Richmond were hoping for and they got it....they have now closed up shop for the Christmas break, they are still in damage control, but their star player will be playing football in 2016 and that's all they really care about.

 

[Tiger71]

For any police investigation to proceed they must have sufficient evidence that will lead to a conviction in a court of law. It has to stand up in court. If the information about a fact is the direct observation of a witness, the court may simply disbelieve the witness. This may occur for a number of reasons. For example, it may have been a long time since the events in question happened, the witness may give confused testimony, or may have some physical incapacity (e.g. poor eyesight) maybe some of the other patrons had been drinking with their meal that night? Does this impair their judgement? Or do some have personal inclination or motivation that causes the court to disbelieve their evidence (e.g. it may be shown that the witness is inclined to lie, or bears ill-will against someone connected with the proceeding). Martin is a well known figure and was certainly recognised that night. The rules of evidence apply to an ordinary document in writing, if the key witness does not provide this document then Martin is exonerated due to insufficient evidence in order to proceed, thus the the ruling "no criminal offence occurred".

Police statement is very clear. If it was as you suggested they would have stated " due to insufficient evidence"...they did not. They were quiet clear that no criminal action happened.....that is streets a head of insufficient evidence. Bottom line, they investigated the evidence before them. Interviewed witnesses, Tracy herself etc and determined nothing criminal happened..that is fact, everything else is just rumor/spun bullshit.

 

[UpTheGuts]

You're the one missing the point.

See my previous post above.

Maybe Majak was only 80% guilty

Beyond reasonable doubt and all that.

See? It's silly. He's been found not guilty.

With Dusty there wasn't even a charge. Is he still guilty? No, he's not. He's been exonerated.

 

[Chief]

Actually, the police test the evidence to see if its strong enough to lay charges. If evidence is to weak or untrue, it never gets to that stage.

That isn't how it works.

 

[DrMike]

That is why it is contentious: nobody has tested the evidence they do have. We only get to use words like "proven", "unproven", "exonerated" once the evidence has been tested.

Flip it on its head:
"We've spoken to everyone involved and decided a criminal offence took place and sentenced Dustin to 18 months in minimum security."

Doesn't work, does it?

No they would have said after speaking to everyone involved we are charging Dustin with assault and it's up to the courts to test that and apply appropriate sentencing. They can't charge Dustin with assault because they, in their official powers of investigate, found that he didn't do anything that equates to a criminal offence.

So what story do people believe? The one that has commercial incentive or the one with no commercial incentive and driven by the power of the state for the state?

 

[Freya]

Obviously Martin is off the hook as far as criminal proceedings go, but there are still conduct issues that the AFL has recommenced investigating.

It's a good time to revisit Martin's apology:

"Regrettably, I was intoxicated and that, in itself, is completely unacceptable.

"I do, however, take responsibility for my behaviour and I am deeply embarrassed.

"If anything I have said or done has caused anyone to feel threatened, then that is totally inappropriate."

The intoxication is a club matter but the last paragraph must be of some concern to the league. The fact that he felt the need to apologize for the possibility that someone might have felt threatened is enough to make a case for misconduct.

Given, however, the public nature of this circus (for want of a better word) and the thorough police investigation it has to be said that there has already been some form of punishment received.

In that case I'd be suggesting a short suspension of 2-4 home and away games only, not including pre-season, and let's be done with it.

 

[Chief]

No they would have said after speaking to everyone involved we are charging Dustin with assault and it's up to the courts to test that and apply appropriate sentencing. They can't charge Dustin with assault because they, in their official powers of investigate, found that he didn't do anything that equates to a criminal offence.

So what story do people believe? The one that has commercial incentive or the one with no commercial incentive and driven by the power of the state for the state?

You're assuming there is no negative incentive for the police in clashing with the AFL.

 

[RockJobster0312]

Obviously Martin is off the hook as far as criminal proceedings go, but there are still conduct issues that the AFL has recommenced investigating.

It's a good time to revisit Martin's apology:

"Regrettably, I was intoxicated and that, in itself, is completely unacceptable.

"I do, however, take responsibility for my behaviour and I am deeply embarrassed.

"If anything I have said or done has caused anyone to feel threatened, then that is totally inappropriate."

The intoxication is a club matter but the last paragraph must be of some concern to the league. The fact that he felt the need to apologize for the possibility that someone might have felt threatened is enough to make a case for misconduct.

Given, however, the public nature of this circus (for want of a better word) and the thorough police investigation it has to be said that there has already been some form of punishment received.

In that case I'd be suggesting a short suspension of 2-4 home and away games only, not including pre-season, and let's be done with it.

He said he didn't remember anything of the night. Im personally not okay with someone being cleared of a police investigation and getting punished worse than Carlisle or Luke Hodge.

I believe the AFL/ clubs shouldn't punish players for criminal activities. That is the job of the criminal justice system. The AFL/ clubs should only punish for code of conduct violations (I should add proven) or bringing the game into disrepute

 

[Chief]

He said he didn't remember anything of the night. Im personally not okay with someone being cleared of a police investigation and getting punished worse than Carlisle or Luke Hodge.

I believe the AFL/ clubs shouldn't punish players for criminal activities. That is the job of the criminal justice system. The AFL/ clubs should only punish for code of conduct violations (I should add proven) or bringing the game into disrepute

If the league does punish them, they can bring that up in consideration for sentencing. So the league takes some court power for itself. Should it? I don't know.

 

[BF Tiger]

Geez some people need convincing.

 

[mick]

Again the alternative is that the evidence was insufficient to determine that an offence took place. They are the same thing.

.

They are not "the same thing". The police did get evidence, they reviewed CCTV footage and spoke to all parties involved, including numerous independent witnesses. The evidence they uncovered was indicative that NO offence had been committed. I have never seen a more definitive statement from VICPOL before regarding a the innocence of a person being investigated. The police generally like to leave some wriggle room just in case further evidence is found.

If you can find one other Victoria Police statement that is so emphatic about there not being a crime committed please send a link. You might try looking at some catholic priest pedo cases, they sometimes used the phrase "no offences disclosed".

There was no charge. There was no review of evidence in open court. That's a red herring.

How can there be a review of incriminating evidence if that evidence does not exist? Police have heresay evidence of what a woman told reporters, none of what the "victim" alleges is admissable in court because she is unprepared to make a statement subject to perjury provisions. It would be a complete waste of time for this to go to court, even if the "victim" did decide to make a statement. The Police have stated that after reviewing all of the other evidence "investigators determined that no criminal offence took place." They didn't say it couldn't be proven, or there was insufficient evidence for a charge they said "no criminal offence took place"

Ask yourself:
Why was he kicked out of the restaurant?
Why were his mates urgently dragging him away from the lady?
Why didn't he ask his mate(s) fill in the gaps in his memory?
.

We do not need to ask ourselves those questions because It is reasonable to assume that those questions were asked by the Police, and they have determined that "no criminal offence took place"

I can't see an exoneration. I can't see anything that is proven or not proven. It is an unsatisfying end, but if everyone is leaving it at that then we have to live with not knowing.

The only reason to have found this an unsatisfying end is if you were hoping for Martin to go to Court, which is not going to happen if there is no prima facie evidence to support a charge, let alone a guilty verdict.
The ONLY evidence that indicates Martin has assaulted anyone is from a person who is not prepared to make a statement admissable in court. Yet she is prepared to besmirch his name by going to the media and contacting his employers.

I'm not prepared to call "Tracey" a liar, she might have been trying to do Martin a favour by going to the Club, but if she is going to do interviews with the media it is only fair that she speak to Police. Martin has had his character questioned and has been denied the right to face his accuser in court because she refused to make those same statements under oath.

Of course he has been exonerated, and there could not be a clearer outcome save "Tracey" being sued for slander. This would be an awful outcome, violence against women ought to be reported.

I initially thought Martin was a numpty bogan who has behaved appallingly and assaulted a brave woman who had the temerity to ask him to moderate his loutish behaviour. Now I think he is a victim.

 

[Punt rd end]

Maybe Majak was only 80% guilty

Beyond reasonable doubt and all that.

See? It's silly. He's been found not guilty.

With Dusty there wasn't even a charge. Is he still guilty? No, he's not. He's been exonerated.

Lets hang Majak anyway, after all he was charged.

 

[JackFlash]

Police statement is very clear. If it was as you suggested they would have stated " due to insufficient evidence"...they did not. They were quiet clear that no criminal action happened.....that is streets a head of insufficient evidence. Bottom line, they investigated the evidence before them. Interviewed witnesses, Tracy herself etc and determined nothing criminal happened..that is fact, everything else is just rumor/spun bullshit.

"The woman had decided not to make a statement to police for fear of being identified in any potential future court proceedings" It was always going to be her version of events that holds the key to Martin committing any offence. Without her written statement the police have no other choice.
Your defence of Martin and his actions are quite astounding. Once the police investigation began i knew instantly he would get off and with that comes the character assassination of the woman victim. The only thing Tigers fans care about is Martin missing games, it's a perfect out for Richmond, it's exactly the outcome the club envisaged, they can counsel their boy, slap his wrist and move forward to round 1.
Martin himself stated
"Regrettably, I was intoxicated and that, in itself, is completely unacceptable.

"I do, however, take responsibility for my behaviour and I am deeply embarrassed.

"If anything I have said or done has caused anyone to feel threatened, then that is totally inappropriate."

As i said in an earlier post, chopsticks were certainly in use at Mr Miyagi's Japanese bar...for what purpose other than eating is now closed.

 

[Freya]

He said he didn't remember anything of the night. Im personally not okay with someone being cleared of a police investigation and getting punished worse than Carlisle or Luke Hodge.

I believe the AFL/ clubs shouldn't punish players for criminal activities. That is the job of the criminal justice system. The AFL/ clubs should only punish for code of conduct violations (I should add proven) or bringing the game into disrepute

So he got so blasted that he 'didn't remember anything' (your words), issued a general apology suggesting he might have carried on like a dick and made someone feel threatened, caused a police investigation (they do cost money) yet somehow he hasn't breached any code of conduct or brought the game into disrepute?

 

[RockJobster0312]

If the league does punish them, they can bring that up in consideration for sentencing. So the league takes some court power for itself. Should it? I don't know.

It's a grey area regardless. Obviously the AFL have a very visible brand to protect, as do the clubs. But there has to be a clear distinction between criminal legislation and the laws of the game, and the punishments handed out accordingly. I am also aware however that by potentially punishing somone under codes of conduct or bringing the game into disrepute may start to branch into criminal legislation - but it should be minimised as much as possible.

What I think is that if people and the public want the AFL to take a stand on threats to women then that's fine (but only if proven ). But it has to be in line with their jurisdiction, and any punishment inline with others. Looking at recent events of AFL players, the AFL has had an opportunity to make a stand on drink driving, physical assault and illicit drug use but have found wanting.

Is it fair that young Clem Smith - who assaulted someone and proven to be so - gets a slap on the wrist, and Martin who has found out to not have undertaken a crime gets 2-4 weeks?

So he got so blasted that he 'didn't remember anything' (your words), issued a general apology suggesting he might have carried on like a dick and made someone feel threatened, caused a police investigation (they do cost money) yet somehow he hasn't breached any code of conduct or brought the game into disrepute?

Oh no, I wasn't saying that. I agree that he uas breached that. But he should be punished for that alone, and must be done with an eye to previous punishments of AFL players who committed similar breaches. I don't think that is 2-4 weeks without pre season games. You may show evidence of similar punishments which may sway my opinion in another direction however.

 

[The Darkman]

I believe the AFL/ clubs shouldn't punish players for criminal activities. That is the job of the criminal justice system. The AFL/ clubs should only punish for code of conduct violations (I should add proven) or bringing the game into disrepute

I totally agree. Otherwise there is a possibility of another Brett Stewart (NRL) scenario.

In that case I'd be suggesting a short suspension of 2-4 home and away games only, not including pre-season, and let's be done with it.

Why should Dustin's 'penalty' be greater than Luke Hodge's drink driving charge. He didn't get behind the wheel of a car & put the public at risk plus the police have stated no crime has been committed after viewing video footage & witness statements.

 

[Tiger71]

"The woman had decided not to make a statement to police for fear of being identified in any potential future court proceedings" It was always going to be her version of events that holds the key to Martin committing any offence. Without her written statement the police have no other choice.
Your defence of Martin and his actions are quite astounding. Once the police investigation began i knew instantly he would get off and with that comes the character assassination of the woman victim. The only thing Tigers fans care about is Martin missing games, it's a perfect out for Richmond, it's exactly the outcome the club envisaged, they can counsel their boy, slap his wrist and move forward to round 1.
Martin himself stated
"Regrettably, I was intoxicated and that, in itself, is completely unacceptable.

"I do, however, take responsibility for my behaviour and I am deeply embarrassed.

"If anything I have said or done has caused anyone to feel threatened, then that is totally inappropriate."

As i said in an earlier post, chopsticks were certainly in use at Mr Miyagi's Japanese bar...for what purpose other than eating is now closed.

You have based all that on the fact what she said was true