|
>> Firstly,your comments about Hurley misrepresent the facts. >> >> >> According to reports of peers Hurley did volunteer to work in Aboriginal
>> >> >> communities and was keen to assist the aboriginal community. >> >> Um .. which is why I wrote: >> >> Senior Sergent Chris Hurley was unlucky enough to either volunteer or be
>> >> volunteered for the task, >> >> In what way have I misreprented facts here? >> I took the view that you weren't referring to volunteering to help aboriginal
>> people because the rest of the sentence was "and he seems to have approached
>> his job with a little too much zeal". Perhaps you can explain what you
>> meant. To me it read like he wasn't community spirited but had volunteered so
>> he can beat up on aboriginal people. Zeal is not necessarily a bad thing. You may be familiar with Tim Priest's
writings about his experience with Lebonese thugs in Sydney. The Sydney police
long ago learned to either turn a blind eye or back down when confronted with
aggressive Lebonese gangs [a factor which has greatly contributed to Lebonese
'issues' in Sydney]. Tim Priest approached his job with a little more 'zeal'
than most Sydney police. Something which didn't make him many friends in high
places. I also wrote in that article that Hurley may have "misunderstood his role on
the island (and thought he was actually there to prevent violence)" instead of
just to "keep the violence at a low enough level to stay out of the
papers". Perhaps my use of the word 'zeal' is now more clear? >> Again it was that "seems to have approached his job with a little too much
>> zeal" comment that you will now no doubt explain. It makes it sound like Hurley
>> beat up Mulrunji and caused his death. So what did you mean? I think that Hurley did cause Mulrunji's death. If he had left Mulrunji to
cause trouble or to beat up on his missus (or whatever Mulrunji was arrested
for), then he would still be alive. But that doesn't mean that Hurley's actions
in this regard were wrong. If used reasonable force to protect others then his
actions were justified. >> Perhaps...or perhaps not. Wasn't Shanahan (a judge?)considered for the review
>> but rejected because he had been involved in the Qld Director's appointment? If
>> so is it as simple as an appointment by the government of the day? Just because justice is 'seen to be done' doesn't mean that it is done. It just
means that the government of the day is good at hiding the decision process. >> >> "This is like describing the ABC as unbiased." >> Something I would never do. We certainly have common ground there. :) >> The political interference was when Beattie hired Jessie Street's son to
>> review the DPP decision. (The review was the interference regardless of who did
>> it. Being the son of an aboriginal activist I just thought I'd throw in as it
>> didn't get much mention in the media.) Government appoint such people for such committees. There is no such thing as
an 'independent comittee'. In this case the interference was more obvious. That
is all. In fact, I suspect that Beattie deliberately made it more obvious to appease
The Left. >> >> "And what do you mean 'unprecedented'? You mean that governments have never
>> >> interfered in judicial issues before? Ha ha!" >> No. I mean that the government has never had a DPP decision reviewed in this
>> way before. Therefore it was a left field thing for Hurley. >> >> >> >> "Anyone who voluntarily becomes a police officer is giving up their own
>> >> >> >> morality and replacing it with the morality of the law. The morality of the
>> >> >> >> government. The morality of the masses. The morality of the mob." >> >> >> That is a bit lateral don't you reckon. It is a bit of a stretch as an
>> >> >> excuse for Hurley to be hung out and dried. >> >> Where did I pose this as an excuse? I merely said that Hurley decided to swim
>> >> with sharks and got bitten. >> You are excusing/downplaying the gross injustice that Beattie has perpetuated
>> with this mob rule approach by blaming the victim. Beattie is the problem not
>> Hurley. The problem goes a whole lot deeper that Beattie. >> >> >> >> "Morality and justice are replaced by 'due process'." >> >> >> But due process wasn't followed. There was political interference. >> >> Wrong. There was both due process and political interference. >> The political interference derailed the due process. The Socialist organisation
>> protests and media campaign got their way. Again. >> "Details about punches, kicks and weights can be presented in court as part of
>> >> the 'due process' - the process that Hurley signed up to. Claims about who was
>> >> biased, who was not biased, or who was the most suitable Elite to hear the
>> >> claims can also be brought up in court." >> Easy to say but how would you like to be on trial for manslaughter suspended
>> from work for the next year. Part of me can't help but be sympathetic to Hurly, but the difference between
us is that I have not made an oath to violate other people's rights. The
policeman swears an oath that he will violate the rights of gamblers, drug
takers, prostitutes (and their clients), and even people who question the
government's right to take half of the wealth they create. On this occasion Hurley might have had good reason to arrest Doomadgee. But how
many times had he arrested people for smoking pot? Smoking pot is surely a
stupid thing to do, but it is not Hurley's business. Just because Hurley
swore an oath to arrest such people does not make it right. Just because
Beattie was paying him to do it does not make it right. Hurley used the system
to violate people's rights. The same system that (it is argued) is about to
violate his. What goes around comes around. [As an aside I know policemen who deliberately turn a blind eye to victimless
crimes, because they understand the distinction, but let's be clear about that
too - these police are breaking their oath to uphold the law. There are no
innocent police]. >> It is a bitch of a thing to happen when the DPP
>> decided there wasn't sufficient evidence and if the people hadn't slotted into
>> the specific categories they did and the media hadn't misrepresented the facts
>> it never would have gone to trial. Indeed, The Left have controlled the agenda. Again.
| 
