Walker brothers and friend jailed

Remove this Banner Ad

No law is fine as long as you write a nice letter and say the right things before a panel. Don’t know about the others.

Agree its not wiped out, but would take years to prove they are "fit and proper persons" now. Significantly hampered.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

In general the police are pigs, but you are a special type of ****** if the man has identified himself as a police officer or off duty police officer during the assault.

Linking that as well one of them was on bail and has tried to flee. I understand trying to link it but there are numerous differences in both cases

If you think Police are in general pigs for risking their lives to keep your family safe then you are a complete and utter fool. Of course every big organisation has a few bad eggs, but only criminal scum labels all police as pigs
 
If you think Police are in general pigs for risking their lives to keep your family safe then you are a complete and utter fool. Of course every big organisation has a few bad eggs, but only criminal scum labels all police as pigs
if we assault the police then we assault the manner in which we achieve the rights of the people of Australia... the lads and lasses are there to protect and
apportion their support to us australians...
 
If you think Police are in general pigs for risking their lives to keep your family safe then you are a complete and utter fool. Of course every big organisation has a few bad eggs, but only criminal scum labels all police as pigs


plenty of people who are not criminals know they are pigs

they are not here to make us safe, they are here to protect property
 
it never does... run with it...
Well they did mention in court an argument initially over a cab.

It never got a run that the two old blokes were violently beating Fitt up before his mates driving past in the cab hopped out and then started beating up the older blokes.

The old blokes were even more intoxicated than the ones charged too.
 
If you think Police are in general pigs for risking their lives to keep your family safe then you are a complete and utter fool. Of course every big organisation has a few bad eggs, but only criminal scum labels all police as pigs
Get a load of this bootlicker!
 
Nice argument, never finished high school I take it?

When someone breaks into your house and you're hiding in your bedroom crying I'm guessing you're going to call the police and beg them to save you.. those damn pigs !
Almost worn the leather off the boots with that post W/D. Enjoyed the scenario of emasculating both education and as how I would react to a scenario.

For the record. Police do a job, Idolizing them as heroes however is toxic is one of the core reasons for empowerment of corruption and bad behaviour.
 
Almost worn the leather off the boots with that post W/D. Enjoyed the scenario of emasculating both education and as how I would react to a scenario.

For the record. Police do a job, Idolizing them as heroes however is toxic is one of the core reasons for empowerment of corruption and bad behaviour.

Right, please quote exactly which post I idolised them all as heroes?

Do you think labelling them all as pigs is also toxic?
 
I’ve got it on fairly good authority that they were provoked.

The media never reported it though. Didn’t suit their agenda.
Provocation isn’t a defence as far as I know.

It can be argued as a mitigating factor, but I believe proportionality still overrides it.

What does the judgement say?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Provocation isn’t a defence as far as I know.

It can be argued as a mitigating factor, but I believe proportionality still overrides it.

What does the judgement say?
I’m not saying it was.

Just saying these two older guys being portrayed as two innocent men wanting to get home doesn’t sit well with me.
 
I’m not saying it was.

Just saying these two older guys being portrayed as two innocent men wanting to get home doesn’t sit well with me.
Their dad must be a s**t lawyer because it doesn’t seem it was mentioned in court.
 
Well they did mention in court an argument initially over a cab.

It never got a run that the two old blokes were violently beating Fitt up before his mates driving past in the cab hopped out and then started beating up the older blokes.
These guys had the best defence money can buy + QC dad and somehow this 'violent beating' never got mentioned. Funny that.
 
I think you find that after ten years convictions like this are spent, they can say they dont have a criminal record. What were they doing job wise before this?

No spent convictions in Victoria and any term of greater than 36 weeks will always be reported as per VicPol's policy regarding disclosure.
 
Well they did mention in court an argument initially over a cab.

It never got a run that the two old blokes were violently beating Fitt up before his mates driving past in the cab hopped out and then started beating up the older blokes.

The old blokes were even more intoxicated than the ones charged too.
Yeah...nah, calling BS on the above.
 
0
Provocation isn’t a defence as far as I know.

It can be argued as a mitigating factor, but I believe proportionality still overrides it.

What does the judgement say?

Provocation or no provocation plays a big part in sentencing. People who attack without provocation are obviously seen as greater risks to the community
 
Their dad must be a s**t lawyer because it doesn’t seem it was mentioned in court.
These guys had the best defence money can buy + QC dad and somehow this 'violent beating' never got mentioned. Funny that.
You can doubt me all you like. I know someone involved. Makes total sense that it goes from a cab argument to full blown bashing doesn’t it?

Wasn’t mentioned because that put them at risk of things escalating and copping all those other charges they originally had.
 
Last edited:
You can doubt me all you like. I know someone involved. Makes total sense that it goes from a cab argument to full blown bashing doesn’t it?

Wasn’t mentioned because that put them at risk of things escalating and copping all those other charges they originally had.
Uh huh. Despite being 'violently beaten' Fitt sustained no injury, was never hospitalised and still able to enthusiastically participate in bashing of the two older men (who you claim were more intoxicated). Sounds legit.
 
You can doubt me all you like. I know someone involved. Makes total sense that it goes from a cab argument to full blown bashing doesn’t it?

Wasn’t mentioned because that put them at risk of things escalating and copping all those other charges they originally had.
Except from the judgement the court had evidence of what happened prior... they stated that the older men were drunk, and that Fitt and one of the old blokes were arguing and the old bloke had a hold of him.

you knowing someone involved doesn’t make it fact. It makes it bullshit that a person involved would make up to make themselves sound better


Uh huh. Despite being 'violently beaten' Fitt sustained no injury, was never hospitalised and still able to enthusiastically participate in bashing of the two older men (who you claim were more intoxicated). Sounds legit.
Thank you. Add in the evidence of the old blokes trying to leave the situation after it started.

they’re scumbags. Cowards.
 
Uh huh. Despite being 'violently beaten' Fitt sustained no injury, was never hospitalised and still able to enthusiastically participate in bashing of the two older men (who you claim were more intoxicated). Sounds legit.
Whatever I really don’t care what you think
 
It was a very violent, one-sided fight. No amount of provocation can justify what they did. The vision from the videos is just too damning and in one particular frame both of the older men are prone on the ground. They aren't fighting back. They're just getting beaten up by three blokes who clearly don't know when enough is enough.

I think if one of the older blokes initially had a hold of Fitt then that's certainly a provocation or escalation of the situation. It's probably why Fitt ended up with the lesser jail sentence. You can't beat up blokes like the sentenced did, but I agree with the sentiment that the older blokes' actions weren't pristine (specifically, the one who grabbed Fitt). Basically, you can't reasonably expect to grab someone in the middle of a heated argument without the situation getting more complicated (obviously, he felt more comfortable grabbing Fitt while it was just him and only backed off once Fitt's two friends showed up). 2 vs 1 turned into 2 vs 3. I don't buy that the two older men were "violently beating Fitt up" for one second, but it's certainly believable that one of them in particular was grabbing hold of Fitt in a way meant to intimidate him in the midst of their argument.

It's probably a hard-earned lesson to "keep your hands to yourself", or you risk getting into a fight with someone who won't be intimidated and is willing to get far more violent. The law won't protect you from getting your ass violently beaten to a pulp or killed. It can't. It can only punish those in the wrong after the fact. You're better off extracting yourself away from a drunken argument with a stranger because you simply don't know if they're a psycho or not. There's a line earlier in this thread that the attackers are lucky nobody died. That's true, but I feel like the ones attacked are luckier. In the same way, these jail sentences are a hard-earned lesson to know that there's still such a thing as going too far even if you're standing up for a friend (in reality, the brothers should have showed up, told the older blokes to back off from Fitt, and things should have ended there).
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top