Page 3 of 5
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:24 am
by HEKTIK
Barry is the name of one of the POI's in this assult.
Wish all the best to Butcher Family, they must be going through hell at the moment.
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:38 am
by Toottoot
HEKTIK wrote:Barry is the name of one of the POI's in this assult.
Wish all the best to Butcher Family, they must be going through hell at the moment.
I expect that the Butcher family are feeling what Barry McLeod was feeling when he saw his father being tasered with the exception that the Butcher family exercised more self control, or had the benefit of time to gather their senses. I expect the truth will come out in court, which is the most appropriate forum, as to what happened on that evening.
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:39 am
by HEKTIK
I tend to disagree. Ill leave it at that.
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:07 pm
by westernwedgey
Toottoot wrote:According to the ABC website that was Constable Barry Butcher, not Matthew Butcher
According to the West Australian front page it was Matthew Butcher , not Barry Butcher
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:39 pm
by Genesis
Here we go again... Are we going to hear the same bulls**t excuses again? Excuses like: "I didn't mean to hurt him when I hit himâ€
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:04 pm
by Toottoot
[quote="Genesis"]Here we go again... Are we going to hear the same bulls**t excuses again? Excuses like: "I didn't mean to hurt him when I hit himâ€
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:05 pm
by WPXZBP
Genesis wrote:None of this would have happened if the people that started the whole affair acted like responsible adults from the outset of their journey to the pub.
Hear hear!
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:09 pm
by Toottoot
WPXZBP wrote:Genesis wrote:None of this would have happened if the people that started the whole affair acted like responsible adults from the outset of their journey to the pub.
Hear hear!
What actually happened? Where is the article about what happened before and after the taser was drawn?
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:21 pm
by WPXZBP
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:30 pm
by Toottoot
None of these give the alleged offenders or other witnesses side of the story.
How do you know what occurred during the mellee? It will be interesting to see what comes out in court as to the circumstances surrounding the incident.
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:07 pm
by playworth
butcher was in office with five other staff. two cars had rock up and need back up P1.
five officer from joondalup walk over to help there fellow officers, as the fight was outta contro, A female officer was pushed which resulted in Officer bucther using is taser. shot the POI but never zap the poi and that when he got headbutt from behind by another person and then officer butcher hit the gravement.
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:00 pm
by CHEV4EVR
Toottoot wrote:None of these give the alleged offenders or other witnesses side of the story.
How do you know what occurred during the mellee? It will be interesting to see what comes out in court as to the circumstances surrounding the incident.
Defence counsel, Michael TUDORI, has stated that it will be a not guilty plea on all the television networks. TUDORI concedes that it is MCLEOD that struck Matt BUTHCER but they will either claim provocation or self defence (ie whatever sounds better in court on the day). Video footage of the incident has already been shown to the court.
In order for either of those defences to succeed the defence will have to demonstrate that it was the police that were acting unreasonably. By acting unreasonably the defence will argue because of this that he did not have to listen to the police or abide by their instructions or in the case of self defence he entered the melee to save his dad from the bad policeman who wouldn't do what he was told.
This is becoming a very common defence in Assault PO trials and is a sure sign of the selfish "nobody tells me what to do" attitude prevailing society these days.
Anyway down off the horse and back to the football.......
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:06 pm
by Toottoot
Now thats what I like to see some balance.
It is telling that the accused has been remanded in custody I suppose. Is it possible there is some previous history on his file?
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:14 pm
by playworth
Toottoot wrote:Now thats what I like to see some balance.
It is telling that the accused has been remanded in custody I suppose. Is it possible there is some previous history on his file?
he
remanded in custody
because if he goes back out on the street.he gunna get bash. by SOME BAD police men.
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:21 pm
by Toottoot
playworth wrote:Toottoot wrote:Now thats what I like to see some balance.
It is telling that the accused has been remanded in custody I suppose. Is it possible there is some previous history on his file?
he
remanded in custody
because if he goes back out on the street.he gunna get bash. by SOME BAD police men.
That probably wouldn't happen.