Remove this Banner Ad

Murray Newman

  • Thread starter Thread starter West123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Eagle87 said:
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.
Click to expand...


why should the possibility of him playing AFL at the G factor into it at all? surely he should be treated like anyone else. the crime should be considered on its merits, not the media/public influence.

of course the seriousness of injury is important, that's not what i was saying - my point was: i feel there needs to be a better bridge between the action and outcome of the crime. as i said idiots starting fights in clubs is ridiculously common. what happens to these guys? literally nothing, to the point where they probably don't even realise they're doing crime. they might get banned from the venue, but most often not. they walk away, brag about it on facebook, and get to be heroes/tough c***s in their worlds. if we're going to push the hard line and jail guys like newman for 2 years, we also need act more harshly on the anyone who starts fights in clubs.

i also don't agree that taking an overly punitive approach is a necessity. i mean people still speed, people still drink drive. everyone knows what horrific outcomes those actions can bring, but again, accidents are so rare that the consequences don't correlate with the behaviour. the negative reinforcement just isn't there.

i also don't feel that jail should be used in cases like this except as an absolute last resort. jail is ****ed. seriously. it ruins people and if anything, does nothing but make them better criminals/more likely to re-offend. do we really think that the best way to rehabilitate someone who in their first offence has broken someone's jaw in a fit of rage is to throw them into an environment that perpetuates everything we're punishing them for? where it's dog eat dog, where physical violence and aggression a way of survival, where being "a tough c***" is how you get by? jail's going to do more harm than good for this kid. and as it stands, what's the likelihood that he's going to re-offend? i'd say it's fairly low. is he remorseful? seems to be. does he have a stable/supportive environment? he sure does. so make him go to anger management counselling, make him pay all costs associated with the injury he delivered (which i doubt will be insignificant), give him a suspended sentence so he knows if that if he does continue to behave in this way he'll go straight to jail. - also let's not scoff at suspended sentences.

anyways, that's just my personal opinion on the matter, not how i think the courts will act.
 
Seems a somewhat mixed message.

I'm with you that guys who start fights in pubs should be punished. But if it's a fine and a telling off it'll achieve nothing, maybe even be a badge of honour.

Prison is ****ed and your life might be ****ed up going there. Civilised people know that and tend to avoid beating people up as a result.

Fights in pubs have always happened from time to time but back in the day, if you got fired up and ready to fight your mates told you to pull your head in and usually dragged you outside.

Now they seem to join in. Bogan culture.

And a fair few of you on here seem in the middle of that and it reflects in the wishy washy, all over the shop thinking as regards this stuff.

Newman committed a very serious violent offence. Serious injury against members of the public out enjoying themselves in a public place is exactly the sort of thing that people need protecting from and exactly what jail is there for.
 
Eagle87 said:
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 ....
Click to expand...

And if you are lying on your side or your head is actually elevated (as can be the case when one is knocked out in the same manner people's arms can be vertical)?

Packer (who you seem to think committed a less dangerous crime than Newman) initially punched the vic as well. There is no way you can twist it to make Newman appear worse than he.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I think the main problem Newman has here (apart from the actual crime), is the paper trail of intent leading up to the moment, and then the apparent lack of remorse immediately afterwards in the texts that were sent. If that were not readily available he may get a more lenient sentence, whether that is right or wrong is another debate.
 
In terms of the factors I imagine the judge will look at when sentencing Newman :

Negatives :
- The guys jaw was broken so it's a serious injury
- There was a degree of premeditation to the assault
- He hasn't seemed particularly remorseful
- Whilst not alcohol related it's the type of assault that the legal system is trying to stamp out and the judge is unlikely to what to be seen to condone this type of behaviour
- It was a series of blows rather than a one-off punch, instigated by newman on a guy who was pissed and likely unable to defend himself properly.

Positives :
- Whilst premeditated, it does appear to be a one-off, so the risk of re-offending is low
- Newman is currently employed and has the public backing of his employer with no indication that his employment is about to be terminated (whether it should is a separate issue)
- He has conducted himself in a positive manner from a legal perspective since the assault
- There is no evidence of a drug or alcohol problem that might cause a regression in his behaviour

Probably not quite as simple as all that. Personally, I'm not sure what they should do - I don't think there is much to be gained from a rehabilation point of view sending him to prison, however, this type of assault seems all too common and I don't think it sends a good message to the wider community if he escapes a prison term.

If he does escape with a suspended sentence it will be interesting to see if the club keeps him on their list as I suspect his employment with the eagles would possibly be a determining factor in not choosing a prison term. It is not a good look if we retain a convicted criminal on our list, yet I've seen little outcry in the media or from the AFL over the fact they we have kept him on our list despite the original charge that he has since been found guilty of - certainly nothing like what we went through with Cousins et al.
 
Keyser Soze said:
In terms of the factors I imagine the judge will look at when sentencing Newman :

Negatives :
- The guys jaw was broken so it's a serious injury
- There was a degree of premeditation to the assault
- He hasn't seemed particularly remorseful
- Whilst not alcohol related it's the type of assault that the legal system is trying to stamp out and the judge is unlikely to what to be seen to condone this type of behaviour
- It was a series of blows rather than a one-off punch, instigated by newman on a guy who was pissed and likely unable to defend himself properly.

Positives :
- Whilst premeditated, it does appear to be a one-off, so the risk of re-offending is low
- Newman is currently employed and has the public backing of his employer with no indication that his employment is about to be terminated (whether it should is a separate issue)
- He has conducted himself in a positive manner from a legal perspective since the assault
- There is no evidence of a drug or alcohol problem that might cause a regression in his behaviour

Probably not quite as simple as all that. Personally, I'm not sure what they should do - I don't think there is much to be gained from a rehabilation point of view sending him to prison, however, this type of assault seems all too common and I don't think it sends a good message to the wider community if he escapes a prison term.

If he does escape with a suspended sentence it will be interesting to see if the club keeps him on their list as I suspect his employment with the eagles would possibly be a determining factor in not choosing a prison term. It is not a good look if we retain a convicted criminal on our list, yet I've seen little outcry in the media or from the AFL over the fact they we have kept him on our list despite the original charge that he has since been found guilty of - certainly nothing like what we went through with Cousins et al.
Click to expand...

Not to trivialise things too much or to continue the us vs them debate but i think if Murray Newman was a big a star as Cuz when this happened, i believe there would of been much more outcry from VFL headquarters and the media in general. The fact he is relatively unknown may be working in his favour here.
 
Eaglemaniac said:
Not to trivialise things too much or to continue the us vs them debate but i think if Murray Newman was a big a star as Cuz when this happened, i believe there would of been much more outcry from VFL headquarters and the media in general. The fact he is relatively unknown may be working in his favour here.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats probably true. Similar situation with Marley Williams at Collingwood - not such a big deal about his stuff up but had it been one of their big names there would be a much bigger fuss
 
no special privileges that aren't available to everyone else should be applied. i mean, he just kicks a leather ball around. if i have a job, a high paying job, who pays bucketload more taxes than 99.5% of people, should I be excused just because i have something else going on as opposed to someone say who is a unemployed began?
 
Galileo9 said:
no special privileges that aren't available to everyone else should be applied. i mean, he just kicks a leather ball around. if i have a job, a high paying job, who pays bucketload more taxes than 99.5% of people, should I be excused just because i have something else going on as opposed to someone say who is a unemployed began?
Click to expand...


Only if you hurt the unemployed bogan.
 
Keyser Soze said:
In terms of the factors I imagine the judge will look at when sentencing Newman :

Negatives :
- The guys jaw was broken so it's a serious injury
- There was a degree of premeditation to the assault
- He hasn't seemed particularly remorseful
- Whilst not alcohol related it's the type of assault that the legal system is trying to stamp out and the judge is unlikely to what to be seen to condone this type of behaviour
- It was a series of blows rather than a one-off punch, instigated by newman on a guy who was pissed and likely unable to defend himself properly.

Positives :
- Whilst premeditated, it does appear to be a one-off, so the risk of re-offending is low
- Newman is currently employed and has the public backing of his employer with no indication that his employment is about to be terminated (whether it should is a separate issue)
- He has conducted himself in a positive manner from a legal perspective since the assault
- There is no evidence of a drug or alcohol problem that might cause a regression in his behaviour

Probably not quite as simple as all that. Personally, I'm not sure what they should do - I don't think there is much to be gained from a rehabilation point of view sending him to prison, however, this type of assault seems all too common and I don't think it sends a good message to the wider community if he escapes a prison term.

If he does escape with a suspended sentence it will be interesting to see if the club keeps him on their list as I suspect his employment with the eagles would possibly be a determining factor in not choosing a prison term. It is not a good look if we retain a convicted criminal on our list, yet I've seen little outcry in the media or from the AFL over the fact they we have kept him on our list despite the original charge that he has since been found guilty of - certainly nothing like what we went through with Cousins et al.
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree with your positives. The `whilst premeditated, it does appear to be a one of, so the risk of re offending is low` seems an overtly positive spin. Newman is young, he hasn't actually had that much time to commit these sorts of offenses. This wasn't an out of character brain fade. The fact he had time to consider his actions, and reconsider, and reconsider again, and then still do it suggests this action is actually a reflection of character. If that is the case, I think his chance of re offending is actually reasonably high (in the right circumstances).
 
jatz14 said:
I would have to disagree with your positives. The `whilst premeditated, it does appear to be a one of, so the risk of re offending is low` seems an overtly positive spin. Newman is young, he hasn't actually had that much time to commit these sorts of offenses. This wasn't an out of character brain fade. The fact he had time to consider his actions, and reconsider, and reconsider again, and then still do it suggests this action is actually a reflection of character. If that is the case, I think his chance of re offending is actually reasonably high (in the right circumstances).
Click to expand...

As far as I know, he hasn't belted anybody else which means this assault isn't part of an established pattern of behavior whereby Newman runs around hitting people, planned or not.

Whether he has learnt from his mistake to the point where the sentencing judge feels he is unlikely to act in the same manner again in similar circumstances is another matter and I think is the point you're trying to make. If so its a fair point
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Galileo9 said:
no special privileges that aren't available to everyone else should be applied. i mean, he just kicks a leather ball around. if i have a job, a high paying job, who pays bucketload more taxes than 99.5% of people, should I be excused just because i have something else going on as opposed to someone say who is a unemployed began?
Click to expand...
I ****en hate begans.
 
INSANE said:
I ****en hate begans.
Click to expand...
Its what Australia has become, just sit on a train here for 30 minutes and see who gets on and off. I have a made it my mission to bring up my kids not to be Bogan, lets face it being a bogan is a blight on our for fathers who fought to keep this Country safe from invasion. Now we have been invaded from within by these moronic heavily tattoo'd twits that have a vocabulary of under 30 words...including the swear words.
 
Keyser Soze said:
As far as I know, he hasn't belted anybody else which means this assault isn't part of an established pattern of behavior whereby Newman runs around hitting people, planned or not.

Whether he has learnt from his mistake to the point where the sentencing judge feels he is unlikely to act in the same manner again in similar circumstances is another matter and I think is the point you're trying to make. If so its a fair point
Click to expand...
I think my point is actually more relevant from the Eagles perspective than the judges. As a consequence of his actions, the Eagles now know more about Newmans character than they did before. Statistically speaking, it is much more likely that a person who has committed a crime once will do it again, than it is that a person who has never done it will do it once. On that basis the chance that Newman will bash someone else is much more likely than than for the other players.

On both these grounds, I think he is and should be done as an Eagle. I hope they have held off just to appear to not abandon him at a crucial time.
 
jatz14 said:
I think my point is actually more relevant from the Eagles perspective than the judges. As a consequence of his actions, the Eagles now know more about Newmans character than they did before. Statistically speaking, it is much more likely that a person who has committed a crime once will do it again, than it is that a person who has never done it will do it once. On that basis the chance that Newman will bash someone else is much more likely than than for the other players.
Click to expand...
I would've thought likelihood of reoffence is a key consideration in sentencing.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Galileo9 said:
no special privileges that aren't available to everyone else should be applied. i mean, he just kicks a leather ball around. if i have a job, a high paying job, who pays bucketload more taxes than 99.5% of people, should I be excused just because i have something else going on as opposed to someone say who is a unemployed began?
Click to expand...


A vegan bogan?????
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom