Scandal Dustin Martin in drunken scuffle

[Moshie The Mook]

The AFL need to take a public stand here in support of their player. Setting a dangerous precedent if you start kowtowing to every media outlet with an axe to grind.

 

[Chief]

Exoneration is an appropriate term.

Statement was unequivocal - no offence occurred. The evidence was sufficient for the police to determine that.

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

It's not possible for the police's conclusion to have been more definitively stated. After a thorough investigation.

This isn't having a charge not proven. This is exoneration.

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

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?

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.


I have no real opinion about Dustin in general, apart from thinking he was hard done by to be fined for his handcuffs gesture. That was just political correctness gone mad.

 

[Gosha]

If they suspend him for 8+ weeks?

I'd be surprised if he wasn't traded at years end.

Can you tell me what the eight week suspension is for please?

And lol.

 

[_Cayz_]

The allegation is the reported fact. The removal of Dustin from the restaurant is reported fact. His friends or others shouting "Dustin! Dustin! Leave it!" is reported fact (seen on video).

The police could have decided that it amounted to a public argument, which is not a crime. Without the lady's statement - she declined because she didn't want to go through the court case etc - they couldn't ever say more than that as they don't have any officially reported context of how she felt at the time. But we have what she said on TV, so we can make a pretty good guess that something nasty happened.

If nothing happened - why was he kicked out? Why were people getting him away from the lady?

Nothing is proven to have happened or not to have happened. It is not proven that she lied.

But we can see the bits and pieces that came out and work out that it wasn't just a pleasant exchange of views.

"After reviewing CCTV footage and speaking to all parties involved, including numerous independent witnesses at the restaurant on the night, investigators determined that no criminal offence took place.

"Police take all reports of violence towards women seriously and investigate all complaints thoroughly."

 

[Jade]

Can you tell me what the eight week suspension is for please?

And lol.

Maybe you should go read the post instead of relying on quotes of quotes that other people have posted hey?

 

[Frank Grimes]

Probably the most important of the exclusionary rules is known as the rule against hearsay.The other people at the restaurant!

Evidence that amounts to hearsay will not be admitted. Basically, this means that a person (person A) cannot give evidence of something another person (person B) said in an effort to prove that what was said by that person (person B) was true. There are also several exceptions to the general rule. A statement, for example, which is made at the same time as the central event, will not be subject to the rule. She made no such statement to the police in their investigation. When a person gives evidence it must normally be a direct account of what he/she actually saw or heard. A person's interpretation or opinion will not usually be admitted as evidence.

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 ......".

 

[Chief]

The only fact is that an allegation was made. The allegation itself is not fact.

Allegation. Removal from restaurant. People dragging him away from the situation.

These are all facts. To say all that exists is one allegation in a vacuum is clearly wrong.

 

[Hot tigers]

The allegation is the reported fact. The removal of Dustin from the restaurant is reported fact. His friends or others shouting "Dustin! Dustin! Leave it!" is reported fact (seen on video).

The police could have decided that it amounted to a public argument, which is not a crime. Without the lady's statement - she declined because she didn't want to go through the court case etc - they couldn't ever say more than that as they don't have any officially reported context of how she felt at the time. But we have what she said on TV, so we can make a pretty good guess that something nasty happened.

If nothing happened - why was he kicked out? Why were people getting him away from the lady?

Nothing is proven to have happened or not to have happened. It is not proven that she lied.

But we can see the bits and pieces that came out and work out that it wasn't just a pleasant exchange of views.

"After reviewing CCTV footage and speaking to all parties involved, including numerous independent witnesses at the restaurant on the night, investigators determined that no criminal offence took place." - Victoria Police

Deal with it...

He may have been drunk and acted like a drunk but no criminal offense took place, unless you are suggesting the police have other interests. Case closed!

 

[Chief]

"After reviewing CCTV footage and speaking to all parties involved, including numerous independent witnesses at the restaurant on the night, investigators determined that no criminal offence took place.

"Police take all reports of violence towards women seriously and investigate all complaints thoroughly."

So the lady did make a statement?

 

[DrMike]

Prove it.

It is pretty simple: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We know something happened. His mates were there pulling him away. When he says he doesn't remember, did his mates offer to fill in the blanks? I bet they did, but we get "I don't remember".

Apparently Police asked the person she was with who disagreed with her version of events, so there seems to be proof.

Dusty saying "I don't remember" is towing the line as it stops any further questioning. He apologised for the same reason because he's a public figure. The apology was for anything she perceived, not for his actions as he didn't accept liability for her statement.

 

[blackshadow]

"After reviewing CCTV footage and speaking to all parties involved, including numerous independent witnesses at the restaurant on the night, investigators determined that no criminal offence took place." - Victoria Police

Deal with it...

He may have been drunk and acted like a drunk but no criminal offense took place, unless you are suggesting the police have other interests. Case closed!

Last time I checked in the state of Victoria it is up to courts to actually determine if a criminal offence took place - it's up to the police to decide whether to press charges.

Deal with it.

 

[Chief]

"After reviewing CCTV footage and speaking to all parties involved, including numerous independent witnesses at the restaurant on the night, investigators determined that no criminal offence took place." - Victoria Police

Deal with it...

He may have been drunk and acted like a drunk but no criminal offense took place, unless you are suggesting the police have other interests. Case closed!

There are far more loose ends than you want to admit. That's fine: you have an investment in the outcome. I don't in any real sense. I just see words like "proven" and "exoneration" when no such thing has happened either way.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Tiger71]

The allegation is the reported fact. The removal of Dustin from the restaurant is reported fact. His friends or others shouting "Dustin! Dustin! Leave it!" is reported fact (seen on video).

The police could have decided that it amounted to a public argument, which is not a crime. Without the lady's statement - she declined because she didn't want to go through the court case etc - they couldn't ever say more than that as they don't have any officially reported context of how she felt at the time. But we have what she said on TV, so we can make a pretty good guess that something nasty happened.

If nothing happened - why was he kicked out? Why were people getting him away from the lady?

Nothing is proven to have happened or not to have happened. It is not proven that she lied.

But we can see the bits and pieces that came out and work out that it wasn't just a pleasant exchange of views.

Bottom line, the police investigated the incident. her statement was public record in what happened and the police investigated what she claimed and found that no criminal action took place. That to me has more weight based on a alleged threat that nobody, not one witness, step forward and said they heard it....i wonder why ?

Seriously, if joe public at the table heard and saw Dusty do what she stated, they would have taken there 15 minutes of fame, but nobody came forward backing her version of events. What happened when interviewed by the police, they obviously stated what they knew to have happened and the police decided Dusty had no case to answer.

The police statement was pretty clear. They did not state, that due to her not giving a official statement, they could not prosecute Dusty. Simply she did not make an official complaint to the police to protect herself from any further action. Again, your last statement is where I disagree, you are happy to assume/guess Dusty did something "nasty" because of what she stated on TV.

As to Dusty's friends saying Leave it as whats on the video, its simply Dusty's mates trying to remove him from a situation that he just could not win.

Its a sad world where we "believe/guess" the truth because someone said something on TV.

 

[DrMike]

Last time I checked in the state of Victoria it is up to courts to actually determine if a criminal offence took place - it's up to the police to decide whether to press charges.

Deal with it.

If that's the case why is everyone jumping on Dusty after the publicised statement by a worker of Channel 7? Shouldn't everyone be waiting for the State of Victoria to determine whether a criminal offence took place? Or are people just in it to see a player hanged?

I don't mind people clarifying wording but don't be a hypocrite about it.

 

[_Cayz_]

So the lady did make a statement?

No she didn't. Never trust an afl.com.au journalist .

 

[Moshie The Mook]

Its a sad world where we "believe/guess" the truth because someone said something on TV.

Even sadder when people take a HS article as gospel. We have been gradually conditioned to accept hysterical opinion as fact.

 

[SnakeMan86]

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


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

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?

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.


I have no real opinion about Dustin in general, apart from thinking he was hard done by to be fined for his handcuffs gesture. That was just political correctness gone mad.

Why was he kicked out of the restaurant? Pissed, pretty simple.
Why were his mates urgently dragging him away from the lady? Pissed and getting in an argument, pretty simple.
Why didn't he ask his mate(s) fill in the gaps in his memory? We don't know he didn't

 

[blackshadow]

If that's the case why is everyone jumping on Dusty after the publicised statement by a worker of Channel 7? Shouldn't everyone be waiting for the State of Victoria to determine whether a criminal offence took place? Or are people just in it to see a player hanged?

I don't mind people clarifying wording but don't be a hypocrite about it.

The Police spokesman may have stated that no criminal offence took place but in reality they don't have the authority to actually make that claim as fact therefore the Richmond supporters crowing in here about the statement are talking through their arses.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Allegation. Removal from restaurant. People dragging him away from the situation.

These are all facts. To say all that exists is one allegation in a vacuum is clearly wrong.

None of those things are facts that in any way determine the truth of the allegation at the core of the incident.

 

[Tiger71]

Last time I checked in the state of Victoria it is up to courts to actually determine if a criminal offence took place - it's up to the police to decide whether to press charges.

Deal with it.

I bow to your knowledge as you have experience with majak Daw being accused of rape. That is why I find your stance laughable. Majak was accused of rape when he was 16, evidence was sufficient enough for police to actually lay charges , something Dusty never reached. The courts believed Majaks version of events even though the women still alleges the rape happen. Any sane person would then back the courts, trust in the processes and move on, unless the women appeals.

Yet you are going on like Dusty has commited the "crime" even though the police have stated quiet clearly nothing criminal happened.....quiet strange and rubbish behavior imo

 

[Suma Magic]

Even sadder when people take a HS article as gospel. We have been gradually conditioned to accept hysterical opinion as fact.

The article reporting that he's been cleared by police?

 

[Frank Grimes]

Last time I checked in the state of Victoria it is up to courts to actually determine if a criminal offence took place - it's up to the police to decide whether to press charges.

Deal with it.

Yet going to the media and the persons employer to punish them for a serious offence such as threatening physical harm with no evidence except what appears an exaggerated version of events is perfectly okay.

 

[blackshadow]

Yet you are going on like Dusty has commited the "crime" even though the police have stated quiet clearly nothing criminal happened.....quiet strange and rubbish behavior imo

No I am not saying that - I am saying that the police don't actually determine whether a crime occurred, the courts do. Hopefully this isn't a concept beyond you.

 

[DrMike]

The Police spokesman may have stated that no criminal offence took place but in reality they don't have the authority to actually make that claim as fact therefore the Richmond supporters crowing in here about the statement are talking through their arses.

They are representatives of the state, they have much more authority than you or I. I'll be trusting a police statement more than any statement said through gutter "journalism".

Richmond supporters have every right to feel vindicated after the treatment Dusty has received in the media. So no, they're not talking through their arses Mr Hypocrite.

 

[blackshadow]

They are representatives of the state, they have much more authority than you or I. I'll be trusting a police statement more than any statement said through gutter "journalism". They have every right to feel vindicated after the treatment Dusty has received in the media. So no, they're not talking through their arses Mr Hypocrite.

Did you just fart?

Simple question - is it up to police or courts to determine if a crime was committed in VIC?