Was Chick driving erratically too???

[GoOsH]

I think people get 2 issues very mixed up

One is Cousins as a footballer

One as Cousins as a citizen.

I don't defend Cousins the footballer - he has made his bed and deserved to be sacked. I get the feeling there are a lot of relieved players at the eagles now that he has gone.

However you seem to confuse his disdain for the footy community with his rights as an individual.

Clearly this was a sting - and badly handled. The police have been embarassed by cousins before and tried to nail him. Yet they bungled it again. I love the term - he got off on a technicality - the technicality being of course he didn't have anything illegal on him.

As far as I am aware he doesn't have a criminal record - he has traffic infringements - but not a criminal record - or if he does - it is pretty minor. (Again I am not talking about as a footballer here, just as a citizen)

He wasn't involved in nightclub shootings - he was 3500kms away in Victoria at the time of the shootings - which is a pretty fair alibi. As a citizen he has every right to remain silent should he wish - i don't agree that he should have - but it is your right unless compelled ot give evidence in court.

Again as a citizen - he has never been foudn guilty of drug dealing, never had his day in court to defend any accusations. I am not saying he is an innocent boy - just that as a citizen he deserves the presumption of inncocence

As a footballer on the other hand - he is shot

100% agree with that. It's amazing how quickly people are willing to let the rights of the individual get trampled because they figure the a person is a 'bad' person. They may very well be, but we all deserve the same rights and presumption of innocence. I don't defend cousins as a footballer, but I definitely defend his rights as a citizen, no matter what he may or may not have done in the past

 

[GoOsH]

You dont have to be driving 'eratically' to be pulled over so who really cares.

ummm because you can't search a car without reason, one of the reasons the police can use is 'driving erratically', they can't just search your car normally. Seems to me they used driving erratically as a reason to search the car because getting an actual search warrant was difficult without solid evidence - but we'll see what comes out.

 

[Murray]

So if we agree on the KNOWN facts that the Police gave as their reason for pulling the car Cousins was in as 'erratic driving' whilst not offering an excuse for pulling Chick's car over. If we now assume your insight that the reason Chick's was pulled over was "drugs". What you are saying then is that it was only Chick's car that was part of a sting, after constant surveillance led them to believe drugs would be found in the car?

I didn't say anything of the kind.

Cousins, Chick, Chick's passenger and probaly others were under surveillance for some time and were all a part of the operation.

Now read that ^ again slowly 3 times

 

[Murray]

So you're agreeing with me that the "driving erratically" story they fed the media is probably BS then? If you read my original post that's all I'm saying.

No, its probably true.

What makes you think both issues are mutually exclusive?

 

[Murray]

My OP says the police should be ashamed if they lied and it's the crux of my original post. You disagree with my OP. So you think police should lie? Great argument.

The Police didn't lie

 

[Crankitup]

The Police didn't lie

And you know this how?

 

[Murray]

And you know this how?

And you know they did lie, how?

See how it works?

 

[Crankitup]

And you know they did lie, how?

See how it works?

You have definitively said they haven't lied.

The difference is that all I said in my original post was IF they've lied they should be ashamed. To me it's a distinct possibility that it was just a pretext. Guess we'll find out in a few months if the Police decide to tell the truth in court.

 

[Freodoc]

I always feel like I am repeating myself

He isn't guilty as he has yet to be proven so in court.

Given all these allegations and innuendo - and how wrecked he is and Major Crime on his tail - you wouldn't think it would be that hard to make a charge stick on a junkie.

yes he is a twit, no he doesn't deserve to play footy anymore - but he deserves the freedom that we all enjoy - presumption of innocence

Your blind and unerring faith is admirable, but there is no smoke without fire, and there is SOOO much smoke here you'll need breathing apparatus to survive!!

 

[BBFFC]

Thanks. I feel great now that I have official sanction from the thought police.




When it goes back to court, or Cousins sues the Police (as his lawyer has intimated) I believe it will be answered.

Thanks again for your permission to engage in freedom of speech.

I very much doubt that it will ever be covered in the detail it has on here. And as such you get an answer to the OP.

Way to be a smartass on the other points . You were the one suggesting I said you couldnt discuss it, which was and is not the case.

 

[Crankitup]

I very much doubt that it will ever be covered in the detail it has on here. And as such you get an answer to the OP.

Way to be a smartass on the other points . You were the one suggesting I said you couldnt discuss it, which was and is not the case.

What you doubt will happen and what will actually happen is speculation ATM and by your line of reasoning is irrelevant & pointless. Not that I agree with your reasoning BTW.

I never said that you'd said we couldn't discuss it. I have however made points about you acting like thought police though. Why would I do that?

Maybe because in your first post you intimated I & anyone else thinking along the same lines on this issue was "deluded". You finished that first post by asking "who really cares?". In subsequent posts you said discussing it was pointless & "hiding from the REAL issues." What those REAL issues are you have yet to define or start a thread on, despite my invitation. You seem to prefer to come in here and discuss what you see as this 'non-issue'. So yeah thought police is an accurate description for someone presuming to tell us all what is and isn't worthy of discussion.

BTW, way to ignore the most important closing response I made to you;

If it's pointless, what are you doing here? Arguing that it's pointless? I can't think of anything more pointless than that. As to "hiding from the real issues", as I've already said, I've contributed to several other threads which deal with other aspects. Don't believe I'm hiding at all. If you believe I am, why not start a thread that discusses what you believe to be the REAL issues & I'll gladly contribute to it. You could even call it 'The REAL issues'. I'll be looking out for it.

 

[BBFFC]

Maybe because in your first post you intimated I & anyone else thinking along the same lines on this issue was "deluded". You finished that first post by asking "who really cares?". In subsequent posts you said discussing it was pointless & "hiding from the REAL issues." What those REAL issues are you have yet to define or start a thread on, despite my invitation. You seem to prefer to come in here and discuss what you see as this 'non-issue'. So yeah thought police is an accurate description for someone presuming to tell us all what is and isn't worthy of discussion.

Having an opinion and expressing it is not telling you that you cant have yours. I can call you delluded ask 'who cares' thats called disagreeing with you, get used to it. If it weren't for me this thread would of died in the ass days ago. Healthy debate stop sooking about it.

Seems you dont like and or can't handle someone that doesnt share the same opinion as yourself.

Plenty of threads discussing the more pertanent issues as a result from this saga, no need for me to start another one even at your suggestion (very shallow argument).

 

[Crankitup]

Having an opinion and expressing it is not telling you that you cant have yours. I can call you delluded (sic) ask 'who cares' thats called disagreeing with you, get used to it. If it weren't for me this thread would of died in the ass days ago. Healthy debate stop sooking about it.

Seems you dont like and or can't handle someone that doesnt share the same opinion as yourself.

Having another opinion is fine. Telling everyone that the issue is pointless discussing is a little different. If you started a thread I had no interest in, or I thought was a waste of time discussing. Guess what I'd do? That's right not discuss it.

Plenty of threads discussing the more pertanent (sic) issues as a result from this saga, no need for me to start another one even at your suggestion (very shallow argument).

OK. Before you go then how about telling me what the REAL issues were in your opinion.

 

[BBFFC]

Having another opinion is fine. Telling everyone that the issue is pointless discussing is a little different. If you started a thread I had no interest in, or I thought was a waste of time discussing. Guess what I'd do? That's right not discuss it.



OK. Before you go then how about telling me what the REAL issues were in your opinion.

It's my view that you are focusing on the wrong part of the issue, the Police found drugs (small in quantity as the may be) in Ben's car, and a significant ammount of drugs resulting from stopping Daniel Chick, the 'reason' for pulling either of them over is justified based on that alone, they obviously knew something was up call it a sting or stopping someone for driving 'erratically' doesnt matter to me.

Maybe they didnt want to suggest it was a sting operation as they are still investigating others who may be involved. Witholding information from the public is commonly done by the Police for a number of reasons, we dont have to know everything.

Your OP suggested it was a bungled sting operation, I call it a job well done, you want to suggest they were 'looking' for a reason to 'get ben' when the real problem is he is doing a good enough job of that himself.

I dont like your OP because it seems like someone trying hard to make excuses for someone who is all out of them.

Obviously I had great interest in your way of thinking even though I think it is something that is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[GoOsH]

It's my view that you are focusing on the wrong part of the issue, the Police found drugs (small in quantity as the may be) in Ben's car, and a significant ammount of drugs resulting from stopping Daniel Chick, the 'reason' for pulling either of them over is justified based on that alone, they obviously knew something was up call it a sting or stopping someone for driving 'erratically' doesnt matter to me.

that is really stupid, you can't justify infringing somebody's rights without evidence just because you happened to be proven right. we have stop and search laws and search warrants for a reson, you're basically they're not needed.

 

[Crankitup]

It's my view that you are focusing on the wrong part of the issue, the Police found drugs (small in quantity as the may be) in Ben's car, and a significant ammount of drugs resulting from stopping Daniel Chick, the 'reason' for pulling either of them over is justified based on that alone, they obviously knew something was up call it a sting or stopping someone for driving 'erratically' doesnt matter to me.

Maybe they didnt want to suggest it was a sting operation as they are still investigating others who may be involved. Witholding information from the public is commonly done by the Police for a number of reasons, we dont have to know everything.

Your OP suggested it was a bungled sting operation, I call it a job well done, you want to suggest they were 'looking' for a reason to 'get ben' when the real problem is he is doing a good enough job of that himself.

I dont like your OP because it seems like someone trying hard to make excuses for someone who is all out of them.

Obviously I had great interest in your way of thinking even though I think it is something that is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

OK I read it all. I can see you now are willing to agree with my original post in that it was sting operation, you don't like the word 'bungled' attached to it.

Nowhere in your post however, do I see you outlining definitively what you see as the REAL issues in this case. Seeing as you have been arguing all the way through that I should be focussing on those REAL issues rather than the possibility the Police have lied to us, I find it strange that despite me inviting you 3 times to do so, you still haven't told me what those issues are.

 

[BBFFC]

OK I read it all. I can see you now are willing to agree with my original post in that it was sting operation, you don't like the word 'bungled' attached to it.

Nowhere in your post however, do I see you outlining definitively what you see as the REAL issues in this case. Seeing as you have been arguing all the way through that I should be focussing on those REAL issues rather than the possibility the Police have lied to us, I find it strange that despite me inviting you 3 times to do so, you still haven't told me what those issues are.

I thought it was pretty clear in my last post but here are a few of them

• Police find drugs, get drugs off street more important than how.
• Ben Cousins is stupid enough to put himself in a situation where he can be arrested.
• Drug culture amongst WA footballers (Cousins, Chick, Mainwarring, add kerr and Gardiner)
• Management of the WCE or lack of it.

Those are just afew that are worth more weight than if someone was driving 'erratically' at the end of the day they will say he was, pretty hard to prove otherwise, does that make them Liars? You will never know because you were not there.

I never called for you to create threads on all these issues, there are plenty, i just can't understand why you care so much.

Sympathy for Ben? He put himself in that position, as did Chick and got what he deserved.

 

[BBFFC]

that is really stupid, you can't justify infringing somebody's rights without evidence just because you happened to be proven right. we have stop and search laws and search warrants for a reson, you're basically they're not needed.

This is the thing, i dont think they did infringe on his rights at all. And noone here or otherwise can prove it either way.

Facts are he is obviously associating with people who the Police are seriously interested in and as such got caught up also. That is not infringing on someone's rights.

The police can search me and my car all they want- they wont find anything and I won't care.

FFS let them do their Jobs.

 

[GoOsH]

This is the thing, i dont think they did infringe on his rights at all. And noone here or otherwise can prove it either way.

Facts are he is obviously associating with people who the Police are seriously interested in and as such got caught up also. That is not infringing on someone's rights.

The police can search me and my car all they want- they wont find anything and I won't care.

FFS let them do their Jobs.

it doesn't matter if you 'think' they infringed his rights or not - by law unless you can show that it was reasonable to assume that there was prohibited items in the car, then you can't search!
Whether you would let cops search you car as much as they want is irrelevant, you have the right to say no, under law.
FFS, they can do their job, as long as they do it lawfully!

 

[BBFFC]

it doesn't matter if you 'think' they infringed his rights or not - by law unless you can show that it was reasonable to assume that there was prohibited items in the car, then you can't search!
Whether you would let cops search you car as much as they want is irrelevant, you have the right to say no, under law.
FFS, they can do their job, as long as they do it lawfully!

How was it unlawful, you cant prove that is was, the facts are you dont know what went on at all, yet you will argue that they have infringed on his rights based on what?

Seems it was pretty reasonable assumption to make given the circumstances.

How can you argue otherwise. The Police were watching known drug dealers, Ben came into contact with these people as did daniel, thats basis enough to make some assumptions.

 

[Crankitup]

• Police find drugs, get drugs off street more important than how.

Getting drugs off the street is more important than how you do it??? I can think of some pretty frightening scenarios that would make your simplistic generalization appear ridiculous.

As to getting drugs off the street, in Cousins case (and that was who I was focussing on) he had tablets you can buy at a Pharmacy in his possession. The title of my thread & the mention of Chick in my original post was to demonstrate what I thought appeared to be the bogus cover story for pulling Ben over.

I will however wholeheartedly agree with you that any drugs found in the other car or on other people, are now safely off the streets, and that's a good thing.

• Ben Cousins is stupid enough to put himself in a situation where he can be arrested.

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone in WA has been wrongfully arrested. The IQ of the anyone found in such a situation should be irrelevant, wouldn't you say? Additionally, I fail to see why you would see it as one of the REAL issues in this whole fiasco.

• Drug culture amongst WA footballers (Cousins, Chick, Mainwarring, add kerr and Gardiner)

Gardiner left how many years ago? Cousins is in rehab, Chick is delisted etc, etc.

• Management of the WCE or lack of it.

This is where I partially agree with you. I've never been completely happy with the way Nisbett has conducted himself. I was however very happy with Brian Cook before he was basically forced out of the club & went to Geelong. Having said that, I fail to see how WCE management would be one of the key issues in this whole charade. There is an off-season last time I checked.

...driving 'erratically' at the end of the day they will say he was, pretty hard to prove otherwise, does that make them Liars? You will never know because you were not there.

Well I'm glad you can predict court proceedings so far in advance. I suppose we shall see when the big day arrives what sort of a prophet you really are.

Sympathy for Ben? He put himself in that position, as did Chick and got what he deserved.

How is that relevant? I didn't create this thread to get sympathy for Ben. I've already outlined my reasons for starting it and it revolved around public statements given by the police in this matter.

As for Cousins "getting what he deserved." Well what are the circumstances here? We have a man who has admitted to having a drug problem, despite never failing an AFL drug test, trying to overcome that problem by entering rehab, subsequently being targetted by police in what I've speculated may have been a bungled sting operation, not long after mate of long standing has died. Despite being overwhelmingly tried by the court of public opinion & the media in the hours following his arrest, we later find out that he was in fact charged incorrectly, and is still to have his day in court on the remaining matter which his lawyer has stated will be vigorously defended.

If that's getting what he deserved, then I suggest you get your 'scales of justice' calibrated.

 

[BBFFC]

We are starting to do circle work so i won't rebut to your post.

Safe to say i understand your view point better now, but still hold firm in my reasons for not agreeing with you.

Thankyou for your intelligent debate, does not happen often on here.

 

[Crankitup]

We are starting to do circle work so i won't rebut to your post.

Safe to say i understand your view point better now, but still hold firm in my reasons for not agreeing with you.

Thankyou for your intelligent debate , does not happen often on here.

Likewise.