Current Rye bashing resulting in tragic death *Man Charged*

[grizzlym]

I know Grizz and I am not having a crack at you, but my bullshit detector is off the charts in relation as to how this has been presented.

I don't have any present doubts that the young bloke they have grabbed is the very likely the assailant, and that some very strong mitigatory evidence would want to arise before I would want anything less than the assailant paying very severely for this act.



How can you hang a judge for a bail hearing they are statutorily bound to hear, but haven't heard?

Not even the Hun would pull that crap (yet).

The suspect is within their rights to appeal to the Supreme Court.

I know. I loathe the Sun and the so-called journalism they peddle. I despise right-wing bullies like Andrew Bolt who use the rag as a mouthpiece. So I'm the last guy to stand up for them. But the bail hearing was pretty much as reported.

Just knowing some of the background about the case and the alleged, the press could have very easily painted by quietly feeding the press, a very damning picture. And then leveraged 'the law is going soft thing'. But, I'm sensing since the Jill Meagher case, a kind of renewed sensitivity towards cases, especially with the pollination potential of social media. Cases can be ruined; people unfairly maligned, without the press doing it but just by picking up what was said etc.

If he gets bail, then look out for the likes of the Hun.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

The defence wouldn't do it because tactically it is incompetent timing until they get the assembled facts from the prosecution.

In other words...what was reported was how it happened (in court, of course, not necessarily on the night). If that's agreed on, it's pretty tough to be critical of the media in this instance.

The fact that Balmer has intimated that he will bang in a supreme court app suggests that he either has strong factors in gaining bail and/or he wants to tidy up the lynch crew in the media.

If he gets bail, then look out for the likes of the Hun.

My understanding is, based on the factors of the case (besides the public outrage, which really means FA), there is absolutely no reason to deny Closter bail, apart from the reason for which his has, potential witness tampering of a co-accused. He's not charged with murder, he doesn't have a criminal history, he's not a flight risk, in all likelihood he's shitting himself whether he's in or out of jail (so he's probably unlikely to start picking off witnesses one-by-one)...get ready for the s**t to hit the fan when he is out next week.

 

[grizzlym]

Yes, Magistrate Thompson when refusing bail said - as posted earlier - that once the interstate witness was interviewed another application could be filed. I'd suggest, which seems to be the consensus, that he'll make bail. So, yes, there are plenty of opportunities for the likes of the Hun to disgrace themselves yet.

And from what I understand, there's apparently not much doubt or many mitigating circumstances with the case.They've got the guy; the act was captured on CCTV and there are multiple witnesses. In all likelihood he'll go and go meekly with contrition. There is nothing to escape here; only a price to pay and a very hard lesson to be learned. What that price is may very well depend on how he approaches the trial and defence.

The above is all my opinion, I must stress.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

In other words...what was reported was how it happened (in court, of course, not necessarily on the night). If that's agreed on, it's pretty tough to be critical of the media in this instance.

Let's put it this way.

If the police contend that the suspect uttered "that's what we're here for" with no contextual support, and the defence have decided that they are not going to comment as they are not in possession of the relevant facts (as they rarely ever are at this point in time, relative to the investigators), then do you consider it ethical journalism for that statement to be presented in the manner it was in the tabloid press?

Do you seriously believe that the assembled minds of the tabloid press were unaware as to the incitement factor of that comment in isolation, without context and without response?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Let's put it this way.

If the police contend that the suspect uttered "that's what we're here for" with no contextual support, and the defence have decided that they are not going to comment as they are not in possession of the relevant facts (as they rarely ever are at this point in time, relative to the investigators), then do you consider it ethical journalism for that statement to be presented in the manner it was in the tabloid press?

Yes I do. They're reporting what was said. That's the story. The current murder case in Ballarat, do you want the media outlets to draw up maps and timelines and give us a few different 'possible scenarios'? If you want news reporters to give these sort of hypotheticals in all of their stories, the 6pm news would go for three hours, and the newspaper would be about 400 pages long.

Do you seriously believe that the assembled minds of the tabloid press were unaware as to the incitement factor of that comment in isolation, without context and without response?

If it's proven that it was Closter who said it (not sure whether that is being disputed or not), it's a pretty inciteful comment, no matter what context you put it in. Yes, I seriously believe that. Feel free to put it into some sort of context where it doesn't sound like a disgusting thing to say if you like. Let's see how likely it sounds.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Yes I do. They're reporting what was said. That's the story. The current murder case in Ballarat, do you want the media outlets to draw up maps and timelines and give us a few different 'possible scenarios'?

Perish the thought.

We can't have people evaluating articles beyond the 3 second emotional response.

If they start actually thinking then they won't bother buying newspapers.

If you want news reporters to give these sort of hypotheticals in all of their stories, the 6pm news would go for three hours, and the newspaper would be about 400 pages long.

1) The police contend that the accused uttered, "That's what we're here for" immediately after the incident.

2) The accused has reserved his right to silence and is yet to respond to this allegation.

Fair, ethical and balanced.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Perish the thought.

We can't have people evaluating articles beyond the 3 second emotional response.

If they start actually thinking then they won't bother buying newspapers.

I'm quite capable of evaluating a story, without needing someone to put in two sentences of 'context' for every one sentence of 'news'. It's pretty patronising to believe that this is beyond the average person. Of course they write stories that people want to read. In this case, it's a factual report. Send it through to MediaWatch if you're unhappy with it.

1) The police contend that the accused uttered, "That's what we're here for" immediately after the incident.

2) The accused has reserved his right to silence and is yet to respond to this allegation.

Fair, ethical and balanced.

You're taking the piss. The equivalent of 'Calls from (media outlet) to Mr. Scumbag were not immediately returned.' Do you think any members of the public who have already convicted him and sentenced him to prison for life would be swayed by that waffle? I bet a lot of the audience haven't studied law either; should probably give them a word-for-word legal definition of 'manslaughter'. Probably 'unethical' not to.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Mr. Scumbag

'
I shouldn't have bothered.

 

[Grizzly_82]

'
I shouldn't have bothered.

Yes we are all peasants compared to your highly ethical and intellectual being.

We all now to your superiority and highly opinion as we can't measure up to your greatness

 

[Dan Moody]

'
I shouldn't have bothered.

Well what would you call the accused ?
This *******s F/B page was open for a few days, visible to the public.
It made for interesting viewing, sometimes things are exactly as they appear, especially in this dickheads case.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Well what would you call the accused ?

The accused.

This ****wits F/B page was open for a few days, visible to the public.
It made for interesting viewing, sometimes things are exactly as they appear, especially in this dickheads case.

I cannot take the opinions of a person seriously when they utilise the contents of a teenagers facebook page in a discussion.

 

[footy75]

I didn't say it was murder. Putting him away will however stop him whacking people in the street. Happy for other methods to be engaged to assist in changing the violent mindset in some young people but my view is that offenders guilty of crimes like these need to be doing time. Hard time.

i agree totally...u want to get drink and go and hit someone in the street * off to jail because that's where you belong and if u become institutionalised who gives a *-your problem... think about that before u assault people. better still don't drink if your a dickhead because it will only make you a bigger dickhead.

all these young thugs running around hitting people don't have the right to be part of the community.

 

[Paul Kersey]

Agree. I have no tolerance for them whatsoever.

 

[jackn]

Well what would you call the accused ?
This ****wits F/B page was open for a few days, visible to the public.
It made for interesting viewing, sometimes things are exactly as they appear, especially in this dickheads case.

HtB doesn't believe facebook pages tell you anything about a person's personality. I believe he and Dayle Garlett are the only two in Australia of this opinion.

 

[Paul Kersey]

HTB also puts words in your mouth to suit his "argument".

 

[Dan Moody]

The accused.



I cannot take the opinions of a person seriously when they utilise the contents of a teenagers facebook page in a discussion.

you've racked up 7000 posts in just 5 months!
I'd expect to see at least 1 or 2 that make sense.

 

[grizzlym]

HtB doesn't believe facebook pages tell you anything about a person's personality. I believe he and Dayle Garlett are the only two in Australia of this opinion.

I am a little surprised that the Facebook page stayed up as long as it did, to be honest.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I think we need to pay jackn to scour facebook pages in order to identify murderers.

Think of all the lives that could be saved?

 

[grizzlym]

Now, that would have been a classic cheap-shot opening for a tabloid i.e. 'as of the time of writing, his Facebook page was still live'.

 

[grizzlym]

So, as expected, the accused made bail today:

"A man charged with killing a 22-year-old man during a brawl on Victoria's Mornington Peninsula has been freed on bail with a $50,000 surety.
David Cassai died after the encounter when two groups clashed outside a pizza shop at Rye early on December 31.
Dylan John Closter, 18, is charged with his manslaughter and successfully made a second bid for bail in the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Monday.
Detective Sergeant Sol Solomon told the court police no longer opposed bail now they had interviewed a co-accused in the case."

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/br...-vic-bashing-death-bailed-20130107-2cc4v.html

 

[Paul Kersey]

Beat me to......the punch.

 

[grizzlym]

Beat me to......the punch.

So to speak.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

As expected. The coppers have obviously got this stitched up.

Something has to be done about getting young blokes to understand the damage that a punch can do.

 

[lemon chicken]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cassai-accused-released-on-bail-20130107-2cc3v.html

Some more details here. Is claiming he was attacked first after being a law abiding citizen who saw people vandalising a street sign and denies the "thats what we're here for" comment.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

........... denies the "thats what we're here for" comment.

Well, there you go.