[ - ] dulcima 1 point 1.2 yearsFeb 24, 2023 01:54:31 ago (+1/-0)
WTF.
It is actually worse than that, trucks. This isn't a judge, but a magistrate. All criminal cases are heard in the Magistrates' Court first where the magistrate decides whether a jury, on the evidence before it, could make a finding of guilt in a higher court (in America they do this process with a Grand Jury.)
So this magistrate made a finding that there was no evidence. WTF. This state is beyond corrupt.
Incidentally recently I learned that a pizza shop was visited by a group of heavies who threatened the owner because he objected to a certain rail upgrade that is happening out here in the east. (Business owners are losing money and customers from this unwanted and unasked for upgrade.) I bet other shops had visits from the heavies as well. There was a lot of opposition to this rail work.
If I recall correctly, he was talking with another cop, then four others rocked up and just slammed him.
Had an absolute right to protest he had an absolute right to expression, he had an absolute legal right to safety, he had an absolute legal right to a fair trial sections 9,10,15,16,24,25 Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006), Section 462a of the Crimes Act 1956 IF... IF he has 'committed a crime which he had not, which means cop also breeched Section 462 - Finds Committing, probable cause for septic tanks in the room, maybe at a debatable stretch he didn't have a right to 'harangue' as per the article (which is quite simply 'he annoyed the fuck out of me' which he didnt, as he was interacting with ANOTHER police officer and this fucking thug just rocked up out of the blue, and therefore Cop was triggered by a legal protestor conversing with another police officer who did NOT use ANY force) but ultimately he was an unarmed teen who was absolutely zero threat to anyone. And he got fucking slammed. On any other day that is excessive force. And thats just under the Human Rights act which is still an act in force as per the state government.
To get a pistol license in Vic to be a guard you MUST as part of the license exam, be able to both write correctly and say correctly, the '52 words' with t-s crossed and i-s dotted, on a 100% pass mark exam. There is no fluffing it, if you can't do both you quite simply don't pass. 'Vicarious Liability' which is drilled into every cop and armed guard would infer the cop that the protestor was ACTUALLY interacting lawfully with was liable for not stopping the fucking thug from body slamming him.
That cop by admitting himself "a bit over the top" admits he breeched section 462a. And that magistrate by admitting 'thats not illegal is it" admits that he either does not know that law (he does) or that he is absolutely overriding that section of the CRIMES ACT which he has NO authority to do.
This is blatant absolute disregard for both the Crimes ACT under which NO police officer has an exemption, the Human Rights Act of 2006, and basic jurisprudence.
It sets a fucking precedent which other magistrates can freely follow.
It's fucking disturbing.
Other questions on that pistol exam after 462a - "What are the two most important words in that section?" Answer - "Not disproportionate" "What does it mean?" Answer "Not over the top, not excessive" - Ive done that exam that many times that you could put it in front of me now and I would have it completed in 15 minutes and pass. No cop in the state can pretend they don't know what it means or have an exemption. They do the exact same training I did for many years.
So only two things can be inferred from what ive said either a) it is correct under the 'emergency mandate' those righs are suspended in which case the crimes act is suspended in which case you cannot be arrested for any crime or the judge and cop involved have conspired to breech multiple laws
If I recall correctly, he was talking with another cop, then four others rocked up and just slammed him.
It is Victoria Police who bring matters to the Magistrates Court (they're listed as Police v John Smith) for example. There was no way this case was going further than committal stage.
In non clown world before this bullshit it absolutely would have, (unless we are talking organised crime types like the Carlton Crew but thats a whole other kettle of fish... aka people like the carlton crew were allowed to slide to stop other more serious stuff occuring) but an unarmed teen... no, the cop would have been raped in the past.
And ill tell you what, any non police law enforce caught doing that on camera would have lost everything and absolutely would have been jailed for it, and if they said 'my trainer said thats ok' then the TRAINER would have been jailed and all licenses approved under that trainers signature would have been revoked instantly EVEN IF ONLY TO PREVENT BLOWBACK ON THE SECURITY FIRM AND TRAINING FIRMS.
[ + ] dulcima
[ - ] dulcima 2 points 1.2 yearsFeb 24, 2023 01:56:17 ago (+2/-0)
https://archive.vn/mir9I
[ + ] i_scream_trucks
[ - ] i_scream_trucks [op] 0 points 1.2 yearsFeb 24, 2023 02:37:23 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] dulcima
[ - ] dulcima 1 point 1.2 yearsFeb 24, 2023 01:54:31 ago (+1/-0)
It is actually worse than that, trucks. This isn't a judge, but a magistrate. All criminal cases are heard in the Magistrates' Court first where the magistrate decides whether a jury, on the evidence before it, could make a finding of guilt in a higher court (in America they do this process with a Grand Jury.)
So this magistrate made a finding that there was no evidence. WTF. This state is beyond corrupt.
Incidentally recently I learned that a pizza shop was visited by a group of heavies who threatened the owner because he objected to a certain rail upgrade that is happening out here in the east. (Business owners are losing money and customers from this unwanted and unasked for upgrade.) I bet other shops had visits from the heavies as well. There was a lot of opposition to this rail work.
[ + ] dulcima
[ - ] dulcima 1 point 1.2 yearsFeb 24, 2023 01:12:44 ago (+1/-0)
https://files.catbox.moe/gl8wvc.mp4
[ + ] i_scream_trucks
[ - ] i_scream_trucks [op] 1 point 1.2 yearsFeb 24, 2023 02:38:11 ago (+1/-0)*
If I recall correctly, he was talking with another cop, then four others rocked up and just slammed him.
Had an absolute right to protest he had an absolute right to expression, he had an absolute legal right to safety, he had an absolute legal right to a fair trial sections 9,10,15,16,24,25 Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006), Section 462a of the Crimes Act 1956 IF... IF he has 'committed a crime which he had not, which means cop also breeched Section 462 - Finds Committing, probable cause for septic tanks in the room, maybe at a debatable stretch he didn't have a right to 'harangue' as per the article (which is quite simply 'he annoyed the fuck out of me' which he didnt, as he was interacting with ANOTHER police officer and this fucking thug just rocked up out of the blue, and therefore Cop was triggered by a legal protestor conversing with another police officer who did NOT use ANY force) but ultimately he was an unarmed teen who was absolutely zero threat to anyone. And he got fucking slammed. On any other day that is excessive force. And thats just under the Human Rights act which is still an act in force as per the state government.
To get a pistol license in Vic to be a guard you MUST as part of the license exam, be able to both write correctly and say correctly, the '52 words' with t-s crossed and i-s dotted, on a 100% pass mark exam. There is no fluffing it, if you can't do both you quite simply don't pass. 'Vicarious Liability' which is drilled into every cop and armed guard would infer the cop that the protestor was ACTUALLY interacting lawfully with was liable for not stopping the fucking thug from body slamming him.
That cop by admitting himself "a bit over the top" admits he breeched section 462a. And that magistrate by admitting 'thats not illegal is it" admits that he either does not know that law (he does) or that he is absolutely overriding that section of the CRIMES ACT which he has NO authority to do.
This is blatant absolute disregard for both the Crimes ACT under which NO police officer has an exemption, the Human Rights Act of 2006, and basic jurisprudence.
It sets a fucking precedent which other magistrates can freely follow.
It's fucking disturbing.
Other questions on that pistol exam after 462a - "What are the two most important words in that section?" Answer - "Not disproportionate" "What does it mean?" Answer "Not over the top, not excessive" - Ive done that exam that many times that you could put it in front of me now and I would have it completed in 15 minutes and pass. No cop in the state can pretend they don't know what it means or have an exemption. They do the exact same training I did for many years.
So only two things can be inferred from what ive said either a) it is correct under the 'emergency mandate' those righs are suspended in which case the crimes act is suspended in which case you cannot be arrested for any crime or the judge and cop involved have conspired to breech multiple laws
[ + ] dulcima
[ - ] dulcima 0 points 1.2 yearsFeb 24, 2023 02:58:04 ago (+0/-0)
It is Victoria Police who bring matters to the Magistrates Court (they're listed as Police v John Smith) for example. There was no way this case was going further than committal stage.
Yeah, it stinks.
[ + ] i_scream_trucks
[ - ] i_scream_trucks [op] 1 point 1.2 yearsFeb 24, 2023 03:07:35 ago (+1/-0)
And ill tell you what, any non police law enforce caught doing that on camera would have lost everything and absolutely would have been jailed for it, and if they said 'my trainer said thats ok' then the TRAINER would have been jailed and all licenses approved under that trainers signature would have been revoked instantly EVEN IF ONLY TO PREVENT BLOWBACK ON THE SECURITY FIRM AND TRAINING FIRMS.