Herkes tarafından bilinerek sevilen site olan 1xbet canlı adresi sizlere büyük avantajlar ile farklı bahis imkanları sunmaktadır. Bilindik bir firma olması nedeni ile her defasında yeni bir 1xbet güncel adrese taşınıyor. Paylaşılan adreslerden sizlere en uygun 1xbet türkiye giriş güncel adresine kolaylıkla hemen ulaşabilirsiniz. Sizlerde kolaylıkla her cihazınızda aktif olan 1xbet mobile ile bahis yaparak, üyelik oluşumunu halledebilirsiniz. Büyük promosyonlardan yararlanarak üyelik açmak için 1xbet live adresini kullana bilirsiniz. Üyelik oluşturduktan sonra kolaylıkla yatırım yapmak için mobil ödeme bahis kabul gördüğünü anlayabilirsiniz. Hiç bir yerde olmayan canlı bahis özelliklerini sizlerde hemen kullanın. Aktif bir şekilde işlem yapan canlı bahis sitesi editörler tarafından özenle araştırılarak seçilmiştir. Ülkemizde resmi yayın yapmayan sitelerin çoğu kaçak bahis adı altında görev yapmaktadır. İnternetten yayın yapan kaçak bahis siteleri kullanıcılarına yüksek oranlar sunan bir adrestir. Hemen sizlerde casino oyunun farkına ve eğlencesine varmak için kayıt oluşturun.
Forum
Index
Docker Discussions
Dusty a bit dusty

TOPIC: Dusty a bit dusty

hypen Dusty a bit dusty 8 years 4 months ago #71

hypen
And that uppity woman at the Dockers game, i bet she wont make the mistake of challenging a pissed alpha males behaviour in public again.

Nelson. Stupid and deplorable. Not now Nelson, i am all Trumped out.
The topic has been locked.
PurpleNails said You Beaut

jimb2 Dusty a bit dusty 8 years 4 months ago #72

jimb2
Not an alpha male.
The topic has been locked.

darthmarto Dusty a bit dusty 8 years 4 months ago #73

darthmarto
Hypen that woman was a copper.

Reckon the majority of her working life has revolved around challenging pissed males behaving like idiots.

Im gonna stir the pot a little here and draw a few parallels to the Clarko v Idiot incident earlier this year.
The topic has been locked.

shane Dusty a bit dusty 8 years 4 months ago #74

shane
You mean when the police investigated him for losing it and assaulting a man on the street?
The topic has been locked.

pollyanna Dusty a bit dusty 8 years 4 months ago #75

pollyanna
Clarko has form with non-gender-specific gyprock - that dope in Adelaide simply resembled a piece of drywall panel. Chapel Street must be the new George Street though - Clem Smith got dusted-up (oops, bad choice of terms) there recently as well.
The topic has been locked.

darthmarto Dusty a bit dusty 8 years 4 months ago #76

darthmarto
When the police cleared him as the evidence supported his reasonably held perception that he was about to be assaulted & acted in self defence?

Yeah that one.

The point being that Australia has a cultural problem with drunken behaviour and this is what we end up with. It is really long overdue for the country to grow up a bit.
The topic has been locked.
DougGreen, ManInPurple, PurpleNails said You Beaut

shane Dusty a bit dusty 8 years 4 months ago #77

shane
I didn't know Clarkson had been drinking.
The topic has been locked.

darthmarto Dusty a bit dusty 8 years 4 months ago #78

darthmarto
Well, I thought that was a given ...
The topic has been locked.

Nodgey Dusty a bit dusty 8 years 4 months ago #79

Nodgey
I was sitting barely 6 or 8 seats away from that incident at the prelim. The bloke was acting improperly for some time - throwing stuff - and needed to be removed. When security came to do just that he got up, made some gesture with his arms as if to say "yep, ok, you got me, I'm coming" and then made his way down the row of seats toward the aisle where security were waiting for him.

Then the woman stood up in front of him and blocked his path. I couldn't hear her words, but her demeanour made it clear she was telling him (quite correctly) that he was being, and had been, acting like an idiot. Then he shoved her in the throat with his hand and all hell broke loose. Saw it all clearly.

He was wrong, he should have left quietly, and I find it hard to find any circumstances where it is ok to make forceful physical contact to a woman. It was 100% his fault. But you know what, and I could be wrong, but I will go to my grave believing that he would have left the ground peacefully had he not been confronted like that.

I don't know what this all means I feel sorry for Yarran. Yet on the other hand I feel as if Dusty should have the book thrown at him. Life is always so complicated. More so when our tribal football allegiances come into it...
The topic has been locked.
pollyanna, DockerKnockers said You Beaut

4x4 Dusty a bit dusty 8 years 4 months ago #80

4x4
An angry woman confronts and provokes a aggressive drunk.
It could have turned into a scene from "Once were Warriors", instead it was a more like a scene from "Dumb and Dumber".
This is just a BS story, because no punches were thown and no one was hurt.
If Dustman shoved those choppies where the sun does not shine, then by all means crucify him.
I am not justifying Dustbins behaviour, but one was clearly drunk while the others motive is yet to be determined.
One knew what they were doing, while the other was a knobber on autopilot.
I dont condone getting pissed and messing up other peoples vibes, so a relevent fine is definitely required.
However let the punishment fit the crime, that being drunk, loud and a aggressive knobber.
The topic has been locked.

shane Dusty a bit dusty 8 years 4 months ago #81

shane
www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s20.html

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 20

Threats to kill
A person who, without lawful excuse, makes to another person a threat to kill that other person or any other person—
(a) intending that that other person would fear the threat would be carried out; or
(b) being reckless as to whether or not that other person would fear the threat would be carried out—
is guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).
The topic has been locked.
The_Yeti, FDB, DockerKnockers said You Beaut

DockerKnockers Dusty a bit dusty 8 years 4 months ago #82

DockerKnockers
When the incident occurred at the Freo vs Hawks Prelim, being a Freo supporter, part of me felt for the offender, given it's an emotional situation and he obviously had a brain fade. But, at the end of the day, he still deserved his penalty and whether he was under the influence of alcohol or other, it's no excuse to handle another person (especially a woman), the way he did, in that type of situation.

So on to the Dusty incident. If I have any bias, it is most certainly not against Martin. I think he is a brilliant footballer and I would not enjoy seeing him absent from the AFL game for any reason. But, at the end of the day, if the Channel 7 woman, had have been an off duty police woman and Dusty was just a normal member of society, I feel he would likely now be facing serious assault charges for his actions (and deservedly so). In any case, his actions are extremely serious and I feel any defence, whether that is under the influence of alcohol (or drug) or a media related provocation cannot and should not lessen the seriousness of his reported threats and physical intimidation to a woman in a public place. In my head, if I replace Dusty with a Freo player, part of me would feel sorrow for them and I would want to defend them, while the rest of me would accept and expect a suitable lengthy AFL suspension. If the incident did occur as reported, and I currently have little reason to believe otherwise, then I will feel a little less human if he does not get at the very least, a lengthy suspension by Richmond (and or the AFL).
Gone to bigfooty where there's fewer Docker Haters.
The topic has been locked.
Raglan Matt said You Beaut

darthmarto Dusty a bit dusty 8 years 4 months ago #83

darthmarto
If it were only so easy as the statues suggest ... I'd go poking around for something from the High Court but it's Saturday & this is just intended to show how case law impacts the application & interpretation of things that can seem clear cut.

7.4.6 - Threats to Kill

7.4.6.1 - Bench Notes

Threats to Kill

Overview

1. Making a threat to kill is an offence under the Crimes Act 1958 s20.
1. The offence has the following three elements that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
a) The accused made a threat to the complainant to kill either the complainant or another person;
b) The accused either:
i) intended the complainant to fear that the threat would be carried out; or
i) was reckless as to whether or not the complainant would fear that the threat would be carried out; and
c) The threat was made without lawful excuse.
Threats to Kill

2. The first element is that the accused must have made a threat to kill.
Nature of the Threat

3. While the prosecution must prove that the complainant received the threat, s/he need not be the person threatened. The accused may have threatened to kill another person (Crimes Act 1958 s20).
4. It is not necessary that the complainant have any particular relationship with the person threatened. This element will be satisfied even if the accused threatens to kill someone that the complainant does not know (R v Solanke [1970] 1 WLR 1; R v Syme (1911) 6 Cr App R 257).
5. The threat must be to kill. Threats to cause serious injury or any lesser harm are not sufficient (R v Leece (1995) 125 ACTR 1).
6. It is not necessary that the accused threaten to personally kill the complainant or other person. The threat may be to have someone else carry out the killing (Barbaro v Quilty [1999] ACTSC 119).
7. A threat can be conditional on the occurrence of a future event. It is not necessary that the accused have the immediate capacity or intention to carry out the threat (R v Leece (1995) 125 ACTR 1; Barbaro v Quilty [1999] ACTSC 119).
How Can a Threat be Made?

8. A threat can be made by words or conduct or both (R v Rich Vic CA 17/12/1997).
9. A threat can be made in writing and delivered or left with another person. The threat does not have to be received at the same time that it is made (R v Jones (1851) 5 Cox CC 226).
10. It is not necessary for the prosecution or the judge to identify the precise words or conduct that constituted the threat. Where the accused acted in a continuously threatening and abusive manner, the jury may consider whether his or her conduct as a whole amounted to a threat (R v Rich CA Vic 17/12/1997).
Impact of the Threat

11. It not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the complainant feared that the threat would be carried out, nor is it sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the complainant did feel such fear (R v Rich Vic CA 17/12/1997; R v Alexander [2007] VSCA 178).
12. In making its determination, the jury must consider the relationship between the accused and the complainant. Violent or colourful language that may appear threatening at first sight, may in fact not be a “threat” when the relationship is taken into account. For example, it may be clear, in the context of the parties’ relationship, that the accused did not intend to move beyond heated words and gestures (Barbaro v Quilty [1999] ACTSC 119).
The Accused’s State of Mind

13. The second element requires the accused to have either:
i) Intended the complainant to fear that the threat would be carried out; or
ii) Been reckless as to whether or not the complainant would fear that the threat would be carried out (Crimes Act 1958 s20).
Intention
14. It is not necessary for the accused to have intended to carry out the threat. The only issue is whether the accused intended the complainant to believe that the threat would be carried out (R v Alexander [2007] VSCA 178; Barbaro v Quilty [1999] ACTSC 119).
15. The motive for making the threat is irrelevant (R v Solanke [1970] 1 WLR 1).
16. To establish the requisite intention, all of the circumstances of the statement or conduct must be considered (R v Leece (1995) 125 ACTR 1; R v Alexander [2007] VSCA 178).
Recklessness
17. To have been reckless as to whether or not the victim would fear that the threat would be carried out, the accused must have been aware, when s/he made the threat, that it was probable that the complainant would fear that it would be carried out (R v Crabbe (1985) 165 CLR 464; R v Sofa Vic CA 15/10/1990).
18. The accused must have been aware that it was “probable” or “likely” that the complainant would fear that the threat would be carried out. It is not sufficient for him/her to have been aware that this fear was merely “possible” or “might” result (R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464; R v Campbell [1997] 2 VR 585; R v Nuri [1990] VR 641).
19. The accused him/herself must have been aware that the complainant would probably fear that the threat would be carried out. It is not sufficient that a reasonable person in the accused’s circumstances would have realised that the complainant would probably fear the threat (R v Sofa Vic CA 15/10/1990; c.f. R v Nuri [1990] VR 641).
20. It is not appropriate to invite the jury to apply their normal understanding of the meaning of “recklessness”. Conventional understanding of the term may include conduct that is negligent (Banditt v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 262).
21. When explaining recklessness to the jury, it is common for judges to require them to also find that the accused was indifferent to the consequences of his or her conduct (see, e.g., R v Sofa Vic CA 15/10/1990; R v Nuri [1990] VR 641; R v Campbell [1997] 2 VR 585; R v Wilson [2005] VSCA 78).
22. While the abovementioned authorities suggest that an indifference to consequences is an independent element of recklessness at common law, there is strong authority for the proposition that an awareness of the probable consequences of conduct is all that is required (R v Crabbe (1985) 165 CLR 464).
Threat Made Without Lawful Excuse

23. The threat to kill must have been made without any lawful justification or excuse (Crimes Act 1958 s20).
24. Self-defence and prevention of crime are common forms of justification in this area (R v Cousins [1982] 1 QB 526).
25. A person acts in self defence when s/he believes, on reasonable grounds, that his/her actions are necessary (Zecevic v DPP (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645. See Bench Notes: Common Law Self-Defence).
26. A person may justifiably make a threat to kill in circumstances where it would not be reasonable to carry out that threat. A threat is a lesser form of harm than the execution of the threat (R v Cousins [1982] 1 QB 526).
2
The topic has been locked.

shane Dusty a bit dusty 8 years 4 months ago #84

shane
My point was not that he committed a crime but, in reference to the post before mine, making a threat can be a crime.
The topic has been locked.
Raglan Matt said You Beaut
Forum
Index
Docker Discussions
Dusty a bit dusty