|
>> Just a few things: >> 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? >> >> "Cameron Doomadgee was arrested and died in custody after a scuffle with the
>> >> Senior Sergent." >> This does not automatically mean that Doomadgee was murdered. The facts
>> provide another explanation. I don't recall writing that it did. Could you indicate where I wrote that
Doomadgee was murdered? >> >> "And any decision about what do do with Sergent Hurley was also going to be
>> >> made on political grounds. Like the decision to not charge Sergent Hurley..." >> Why? It fits the facts and was made by an independent department based on
>> the advice of a retired judge. There is no indication it is political. Ha ha! An 'independent department'? You mean an 'independent department'
appointed by the government of the day? This is like describing the ABC as unbiased. >> >> "It's difficult not to sympathize with someone who has so obviously been
>> >> charged due to political reasons, but he was a policeman, and that's the system
>> >> he agreed to when he signed up." >> He couldn't have known there would be this type of political interference in
>> the judicial process. It is unprecedented. Your argument is weird. First you claim no political interference, and then
you claim political interference on an 'unprecedented' scale. And what do you mean 'unprecedented'? You mean that governments have never
interfered in judicial issues before? Ha ha! >> >> "There will be a trial, and there will be process ('due process' is what
>> >> they like to call it in some circles).">> Due process would have been the normal process followed which would mean the
>> DPP decision would have been the end of the line. That is the way it is with
>> everyone else. Who defines what 'due process' is? The government of the day. Paperwork was
done, committees were formed, opinions documented .. due process was done. >> >> "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. >> >> "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. >> Again in spite of your lateral stretch he may have signed up for due process
>> not a breach of due process. It was unprecedented until it happened to him. Ha ha. You have only just noticed that government officials lie, cheat and
manipulate situations to achieve a desired outcome? How old are you? For that matter how old is Hurley? >> Secondly news reports have been a bit misleading. It is often quoted that: >> "In her detailed 35-page report, Clements found that Hurley hit Mulrunji
>> whilst he was on the floor a number of times. An Aboriginal witness saw Hurley
>> bending over the prostrate Mulrunji, with Hurleys elbow going up and down three
>> times, and Hurley saying, Have you had enough, Mr Doomadgee? Do you want more,
>> Mr Doomadgee? Do you want more?... " >> This fails to mention that the witness said that the punches were to the
>> head and were followed by kicks. Medical evidence ruled out kicks. This left
>> the punches as a possibility. The coroner said it was open to her to rule that
>> the punches were to the body to explain the fatal liver injury because she
>> believed that the witness didn't have a good view. Really? You mean that there is bias in media reporting? SOMEONE ALERT THE
MEDIA! Oh .. um. At least there's always that bastion of fairness and balance:
the ABC's Media Watch. Hang on .. you mean that Media Watch wasn't interested
in presenting evidence which might have been construed as 'anti-Aboriginal'?
I'm shocked! Shocked! [Other evidence cut for the sake of saving internet bandwith] 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. >> Hurley has now been charged and is facing the stigma and stress of a trial
>> for manslaughter. A verdict will probably be produced within about a year. Maybe Hurley can spend that time carefully considering the relationship between
freedom and justice. Thanks for writing John, but you still haven't indicated where I misrepresented
the facts. Strawman
| 
