Murray Newman

[Eagle87]

It will be up to the judge to decide if threats constitute premeditation or otherwise. E87 actually think's alcohol and drug related violence is looked upon by judges better than other violence? shows how bloody clueless he is.

And then there is the part where Newman didn't punch and stop on Marris as he lay motionless on the ground. Newman was involved in an altercation with a drunk individual and received blows of his own. The threats and injury seemed enough to bring the charge of GBH.

As for E87's interpretation of the trail. I wouldn't place any value on the opinion of such a narcissistic POS.

It's nice to see you starting to flesh out posts with the occasional considered thought, unfortunately it seems to mainly occur when rushing to the aid of one of your like minded imbecilic "friends". But still it's progress from much of the unconsidered dross you usually throw out.

I did not claim that judges look more favourably on alcohol or drug related violence. However it's hardly an uncommon position to argue that "I did it while drunk, it's unforgivable, but it's also out of character - the drink made me do it". As opposed to the position of someone who stalks a bloke, finds out where he is via social media and then turns up sober and beats a drunk bloke up to the point of permanent injury.

One is a hot blooded/substance induced brain snap (arguably); the other is a callous, premeditated act.

Newman attacked a heavily intoxicated individual and hit him repeatedly for 30+ seconds. The only difference is that Newmans victim was not knocked out via hitting the ground and so he threw 1 or 2 back in self defence.

By the way it's more arrogance than narcissism. It seems your poster evaluation is about as accurate as your increasingly flawed player evaluation.

Have a lovely day

 

[Eagle87]

This is BigFooty, not the official court record

Fair point.

We need more "look, over there, it's a big bus..." or "wow, the sky is blue today" type offerings on BF.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Based on Packers case I would of thought (hope) Newman would get a 12 month suspended sentence.

Judge made specific mention in packer case of head hitting the ground but not receiving any injuries as others had done.
cowardly act to stomp plus packer is 112kg and 24 years old. the attack was unprovoked!!!!

Newman - there were punches by both parties yes other party sufferred a broken jaw and there seemed to be intentent. hard to know who started it.
so mainly based on intent and injury (not life threatening, nor did he get knocked out or head hit the ground).

Different circumstances in a different state, pretty hard to base anything on the outcome of Packer's trial really.

 

[worsfold]

Different circumstances in a different state, pretty hard to base anything on the outcome of Packer's trial really.

I agree different circumstances in different states but all previous judgements are considered when sentencing - Packer was a possible threat to society - as unprovoked attack where Newman is ok with society in general unless you sleep with his ex girlfriend.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I agree different circumstances in different states but all previous judgements are considered when sentencing - Packer was a possible threat to society - as unprovoked attack where Newman is ok with society in general unless you sleep with his ex girlfriend.

No, cases from different states aren't considered

 

[kane249]

It's nice to see you starting to flesh out posts with the occasional considered thought, unfortunately it seems to mainly occur when rushing to the aid of one of your like minded imbecilic "friends". But still it's progress from much of the unconsidered dross you usually throw out.

I did not claim that judges look more favourably on alcohol or drug related violence. However it's hardly an uncommon position to argue that "I did it while drunk, it's unforgivable, but it's also out of character - the drink made me do it". As opposed to the position of someone who stalks a bloke, finds out where he is via social media and then turns up sober and beats a drunk bloke up to the point of permanent injury.

One is a hot blooded/substance induced brain snap (arguably); the other is a callous, premeditated act.

Newman attacked a heavily intoxicated individual and hit him repeatedly for 30+ seconds. The only difference is that Newmans victim was not knocked out via hitting the ground and so he threw 1 or 2 back in self defence.

By the way it's more arrogance than narcissism. It seems your poster evaluation is about as accurate as your increasingly flawed player evaluation.

Have a lovely day

You keep adding more and more time every day, the whole incident lasted 10 seconds
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-12-16/eagles-assault-trial-begins

 

[eaglespremiers]

No, cases from different states aren't considered

But Packer's was high-profile, so surely it is comparable?
After all, it's the same vibe.

 

[Eagle87]

You keep adding more and more time every day, the whole incident lasted 10 seconds
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-12-16/eagles-assault-trial-begins

That says "about 10 seconds" which was based on guesstimates.

Newman's Facebook post the next morning indicated they were into each other for more than 30 seconds. It was presented on Day 1 at the trial.

But yes, a guesstimate in a report on the clubs website is biblical authority.

It's a joy dealing with the minimally minded dregs on this site ...

 

[eaglespremiers]

It's a joy dealing with the minimally minded dregs on this site ...

 

[Eagle87]

NFI.

Probably so the children get to post asinine pics they apparently find amusing enough to either create or save. Sad bastards.

 

[eaglespremiers]

NFI.

Probably so the children get to post asinine pics they apparently find amusing enough to either create or save. Sad bastards.

We all miss Ian Dargie, why must your hurt turn into hate?

 

[Eagle87]

We all miss Ian Dargie, why must your hurt turn into hate?

Who?

 

[eaglespremiers]

Who?

And now denial.

 

[Eagle87]

And now denial.

Of?

 

[eaglespremiers]

Of?

So much.

 

[kranky al]

Just try to imagine everyone's fascination with every single post of this cripple fight......

 

[Broken_Chairs]

That says "about 10 seconds" which was based on guesstimates.

Newman's Facebook post the next morning indicated they were into each other for more than 30 seconds. It was presented on Day 1 at the trial.

But yes, a guesstimate in a report on the clubs website is biblical authority.

It's a joy dealing with the minimally minded dregs on this site ...

to be fair, the facebook post of an idiot kid bragging about some fight he got into at a nightclub on the weekend is likely to be subject to exaggeration.


as for this case... i dunno, i've seen a lot of idiots fighting in nightclubs, and it seems to be an alarming trend that's on the rise. honestly, not a night goes by when you don't see some jacked up, roid-head douchebag throwing a punch at someone else. it seems very normalised in youth and club culture. with this in mind - my issue with newman's situation, and i think it's been brought up in this thread already, is that the punishment is aligned to the outcome of the action and not the action itself. the same punch might have not broken the guys jaw and nothing would have come of this, but because the punch broke his jaw he's been charged with GBH and is facing years in prison. i like that the courts are obviously trying to deter this behaviour by issuing harsher penalties to offenders... but prison seems unfair in my mind until they go after everyone who acts like this.

imo - 2 years suspended sentence, community service + compensation payments to the guy he attacked should suffice.

 

[the harry]

It's nice to see you starting to flesh out posts with the occasional considered thought, unfortunately it seems to mainly occur when rushing to the aid of one of your like minded imbecilic "friends". But still it's progress from much of the unconsidered dross you usually throw out.

I did not claim that judges look more favourably on alcohol or drug related violence. However it's hardly an uncommon position to argue that "I did it while drunk, it's unforgivable, but it's also out of character - the drink made me do it". As opposed to the position of someone who stalks a bloke, finds out where he is via social media and then turns up sober and beats a drunk bloke up to the point of permanent injury.

Where did you read that he found where he was via social media? Also, permanent injury? The guy had a broken jaw that was fixed with surgery. A serious injury no doubt, but permanent?

One is a hot blooded/substance induced brain snap (arguably); the other is a callous, premeditated act.

It's clear your anger at Newman for "lowing the bar" of Eagles players is impacting on your rational thought, to the point where you are seemingly completely free of it.

Newman attacked a heavily intoxicated individual and hit him repeatedly for 30+ seconds.

Have a BAC reading of the vic do you?

You're also being pretty liberal with the use of "facts".

The only difference is that Newmans victim was not knocked out via hitting the ground and so he threw 1 or 2 back in self defence.

By the way it's more arrogance than narcissism. It seems your poster evaluation is about as accurate as your increasingly flawed player evaluation.

Have a lovely day

Other difference is Newman didn't stomp on anyones head. An act vastly more likely to cause serious injuries than anything that Newman did.

You make it sound as if Newmans victim was in a wheel chair with no arms, while the other matter involved two men who agreed to enter a ring together. I don't want to play down the severity of Newmans crime (as it is undoubtably very serious), however I feel the approach that you wish to take with regard to the respective offences is completely illogical.

 

[Eagle87]

Where did you read that he found where he was via social media? Also, permanent injury? The guy had a broken jaw that was fixed with surgery. A serious injury no doubt, but permanent?

It's my understand that he still had screws/pins in his jaw at the the time if the trial and that he has an anxiety disorder as a result of the offence.

It's clear your anger at Newman for "lowing the bar" of Eagles players is impacting on your rational thought, to the point where you are seemingly completely free of it.

I'm less angry at Newman than the Club.

I'm less angry at the Club than the morons on here, who by various means, seek to downplay the significance of this offence.

Have a BAC reading of the vic do you?

The victim says he had 10 drinks on the evening of the offence. That was disputed.

Newman claimed that he was the only one sober and that Marris was "very drunk". He argued that as a point in his favour as to the whose recollection was better.

Other difference is Newman didn't stomp on anyones head. An act vastly more likely to cause serious injuries than anything that Newman did.

You make it sound as if Newmans victim was in a wheel chair with no arms, while the other matter involved two men who agreed to enter a ring together. I don't want to play down the severity of Newmans crime (as it is undoubtably very serious), however I feel the approach that you wish to take with regard to the respective offences is completely illogical.

It was suggested by the prosecution that Newman turned up reasonably late in the evening, looking for Marris and he knew Marris was there.

They were unable to provide proof that he had been told Marris was there - so yes, it's a stretch to say that my claim is definitive. Newman turned up late; hasn't touched a drink and his first interaction was with the Vic. The dots were laid out that he'd gone there looking for him.... it seems entirely likely based on the preceding events.

That's why I reported in that I thought Newman was in trouble after day 1 of the trial.

I'd debate whether the head stomp was more likely to cause, say, death than punching a drunk bloke in the face multiple times. It's more "cowardly" given the guy was already unconscious in the Sydney case. But every punch Newman threw could have caused death.

I'm pretty sure my view re Newman is considered and logical. It may prove wrong when the judge lines up all facts and precedent. We shall see.

 

[Eagle87]

to be fair, the facebook post of an idiot kid bragging about some fight he got into at a nightclub on the weekend is likely to be subject to exaggeration.


as for this case... i dunno, i've seen a lot of idiots fighting in nightclubs, and it seems to be an alarming trend that's on the rise. honestly, not a night goes by when you don't see some jacked up, roid-head douchebag throwing a punch at someone else. it seems very normalised in youth and club culture. with this in mind - my issue with newman's situation, and i think it's been brought up in this thread already, is that the punishment is aligned to the outcome of the action and not the action itself. the same punch might have not broken the guys jaw and nothing would have come of this, but because the punch broke his jaw he's been charged with GBH and is facing years in prison. i like that the courts are obviously trying to deter this behaviour by issuing harsher penalties to offenders... but prison seems unfair in my mind until they go after everyone who acts like this.

imo - 2 years suspended sentence, community service + compensation payments to the guy he attacked should suffice.

That'll be a real deterrent as he's seen playing AFL at the G while under a suspended jail sentence.

And, as has already been detailed elsewhere in the thread, of course the seriousness of the injury is significant. That's life. If you break the law then the consequences of your legal breach will most certainly impact the punishment.

If Newman got 2 years inside maybe the next dickhead who decides beating people up is normal might think twice. Certainly if Newman gets the sentence you suggest it will have zero deterrent impact.

 

[the harry]

my issue with newman's situation, and i think it's been brought up in this thread already, is that the punishment is aligned to the outcome of the action and not the action itself. the same punch might have not broken the guys jaw and nothing would have come of this, but because the punch broke his jaw he's been charged with GBH and is facing years in prison.

The example we were given in class once as to how serious the risk is when breaking is as follows:

A man desperate for a bit of cash realises that the local post office has large quantities of money and little security. He figures out that in order to avoid any unwated violence he will use an unloaded gun.

On the day of his planned robbery the man gets everything organised (mask, gun, getaway vehicle) and feels comfortable that he is able to undertake the robbery without anyone getting hurt, getting the money he wants, and getting away safely.

So he walks in to the post office, pulls out the gun and yells "everyone get on the ground". A woman near the door decides to make a run for it, rushing out into the busy street and unfortunately gets hit by a car.

The robbery goes wrong and the man is arrested. The person hit by the car however is rushed to the hospital in for surgery, but is not that seriously injured. However, during surgery negligence from the doctor/surgeon results in the unfortunate death of the woman.

The crime that the man who committed the robbery (along with the obvious relating to the actual robbery)? Murder.*

The point being that when you choose to break the law, the fact you didn't mean for something to happen that did means very little. You essentially waive that right. While this may seem harsh, it is the seriousness of breaking the law that

*heaps of case law Re the negligence of of doctors being attributed to those that put the person in the hospital to begin with.
While s 3A of the CA (unintentional killing in the course or furtherance of a crime of violence) "shall be liable to be convicted of murder as though he had killed that person intentionally."

 

[the harry]

I'd debate whether the head stomp was more likely to cause, say, death than punching a drunk bloke in the face multiple times. It's more "cowardly" given the guy was already unconscious in the Sydney case. But every punch Newman threw could have caused death.

You know what kills people when they get punched in the head? It's not the punch, it's the impact of their skull on the ground.

Ever known anyone to have died on their feet?

 

[Eagle87]

You know what kills people when they get punched in the head? It's not the punch, it's the impact of their skull on the ground.

Ever known anyone to have died on their feet?

Is there a point?

 

[the harry]

Is there a point?

Yes. Your head is far more likely to hit the ground when stomped when already on the ground, than when a standing person is punched in the head.

When it's the impact with the ground that kills, and impact is far more likely with a stomp, it's logically more likley to kill.

 

[Eagle87]

Yes. Your head is far more likely to hit the ground when stomped already on, than when a standing person is punched in the head.

When it's the impact with the ground that kills, and impact is far more likely with a stomp, it's logically more likley to kill.

Well yes, except for physics.

The trauma that kills is force, in particular the force of a complete free fall from say 180cm onto a hard surface by a person weighing 100kg.

Once you are on the floor there is no distance for the head to travel. Obviously it's resting on the hard surface and a significant stomp delivered from say a half metre or so above ones head is still highly dangerous ....

I'm not sure it's as simple though as there was higher risk of death. Newman hit the Vic multiple times. Every punch could have knocked him out resulting in the fall and the head trauma that kills. The fact this didn't happen doesn't to me indicate a higher risk of death ....

It's impact with the ground from a fall that gives the high risk of death. The high degree of Force arising from the distance the head travels in said fall. Once distance is reduced to zero cos you're on the ground it's a different matter ....