Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Anti-Lockdown Protester Wins Massive Case Against Lying Police.


Link of Hyrule

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

"As I have said I rule that this evidence is inadmissible at trial that includes both the video footage and the statements by police". 

As many people don't watch videos, I've quoted the video for those interested, and these quotes are all direct quotes from the Judge's decision (they are not commentary from the YouTube creator, but direct quotes from the case itself). The quote above in red is the final concluding remarks by the Judge, and represents her overall conclusions. However, the real shocking part of this is in the details as the judge lays out in detail:

* "I am also satisfied that the accused acted as they did in direct response to the unwarranted violence perpetrated on Mr Reeves (Patterson's friend).... "In other words I am satisfied that by their unlawful violence police instigated the response by the accused which underlines the charges they now face". 

* Police Statement: "I observed Leading Senior Constable Gabb push Reeves away from the line at which point Reeves menaced the police in a threatening stance and pushed PORT members away". In fact on my observation of being pushed, Mr Reeves took a further step back" away from police and stayed away with his arms relatively down with police advanced upon him. He took no threatening stance. 

This next part is where it gets really scary, and I am confident in saying that the police intentionally lied to try and make this worse than it was: 

Police statement Continues: "Verbal directions were given to Mr Reeves to get on the ground however he refused to comply. I saw Senior Constable Gabb attempt to effect the arrest of Reeves using standard contact tactics, mainly contact head control, however Reeves resisted and broke free of his grip. Reeves immediately escalated his use of force by throwing a combination of left and right hands. Following the punches I grabbed a hold of Mr Reeves' right arm and assisted by other PORT members pulled Reeves through the police line and forced him to the ground". I find Mr Chapman's statement to be disturbingly different to the scene revealed by police footage and containing no mention whatsoever of the two punches he clearly inflicted upon Mr Reeves. The footage contained no escalation of violence by Mr Reeves involving a combination of punches. Nor was Mr Reeves told to get on the ground. Nor was he pulled through a police line but was downed where he stood. I have read other police statements and found them to be similarly inaccurate when compared to body cam footage".

* Judge continues" "at the very least in my view the impropriety by police was reckless. The actions of Mr Reeves and the accused during the day presented no threat to police and did not warrant the violence they eventually inflicted upon Mr Reeves. Given the briefing police received in relation to Mr Patterson it should also have been clear to police that in treating Mr Reeves as they did they would most likely incite responsive action by Mr Patterson". 

* "I am satisfied that in the way that police behaved towards Mr Reeves, he was subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention"... I am satisfied that the police failed to have regard to the ground and procedures established in law in the way they arrested Mr Reeves. 

A reminder that these quotes above are the judge's conclusions, not YouTuber commentary. And a reminder, for those who aren't aware of the original story, how it was originally presented by the media: 

Quote

Melbourne anti-lockdown rebellion leader charged with assault police

A professional cage fighter turned key figure of Melbourne’s anti-lockdown rebellion has been hit with more than 20 charges after clashing with police during heated protests over the weekend.

Nick Patterson, 38, was arrested for at least the second time in just three days following the allegedly violent demonstrations in the CBD on Saturday and Narre Warren on Sunday.

Mr Patterson was taken into custody at Dandenong on Monday evening, with dozens of his supporters reportedly jamming the police station’s phone lines after calling up to do a “welfare check”.

He was also reportedly taken to hospital with a dislocated shoulder after a scuffle with police at the protest event in Melbourne’s CBD on Saturday.

Photos from the scene show Mr Patterson with a bloodied head being attended to by police after he was arrested in North Melbourne while walking away from the demonstration at Flagstaff Gardens.

The group claims they were trying to leave the area when they were surrounded by police and a scuffle broke out.

Source for full article

I haven't found a mainstream news source for this yet, I don't know if the media ever will report on it, or whether Rebel News just got in first. In any case, this proves everything that Patterson alleged - he was in fact leaving when the police attacked them, and it proves everything the anti-lockdown crowd was saying from the start. The media lied, the police lied, the police instigated this and they are responsible. This is a win for civil rights in Australia! I wonder if the media will admit it. 

Now, I don't want to end on a downer, but I hope this thread does not devolve into a "look at the source, Rebel News isn't trustworthy"... every quote I've provided is a judge denouncing the police, not Rebel News. Please try and address the actual court case. 

~ Link (formerly PA)

Edited by Link of Hyrule
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I found an article (link) that has a copy of the Judge's decision attached for anyone who wishes to read it. I thought the video would have shown the worst of it, but after reading it I think Rebel News undersold just how scathing Judge Gaynor was to the police in laying out just how badly the police screwed up. 

If anyone wishes to read the Judge's decision, feel free to use the link in this post. The ruling does a good job of laying out a timeline of events, you can decide for yourself if the cops acted appropriately! Personally,  I wouldn't be surprised if Nick Patterson was successful in suing the cops for their illegal, brutish behaviour (they'll probably settle so they don't have to admit guilt, but he's getting a BIG payout either way, imo).

~ Link

Edited by Link of Hyrule
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2024 at 5:09 PM, Link of Hyrule said:

"As I have said I rule that this evidence is inadmissible at trial that includes both the video footage and the statements by police". 

As many people don't watch videos, I've quoted the video for those interested, and these quotes are all direct quotes from the Judge's decision (they are not commentary from the YouTube creator, but direct quotes from the case itself). The quote above in red is the final concluding remarks by the Judge, and represents her overall conclusions. However, the real shocking part of this is in the details as the judge lays out in detail:

* "I am also satisfied that the accused acted as they did in direct response to the unwarranted violence perpetrated on Mr Reeves (Patterson's friend).... "In other words I am satisfied that by their unlawful violence police instigated the response by the accused which underlines the charges they now face". 

* Police Statement: "I observed Leading Senior Constable Gabb push Reeves away from the line at which point Reeves menaced the police in a threatening stance and pushed PORT members away". In fact on my observation of being pushed, Mr Reeves took a further step back" away from police and stayed away with his arms relatively down with police advanced upon him. He took no threatening stance. 

This next part is where it gets really scary, and I am confident in saying that the police intentionally lied to try and make this worse than it was: 

Police statement Continues: "Verbal directions were given to Mr Reeves to get on the ground however he refused to comply. I saw Senior Constable Gabb attempt to effect the arrest of Reeves using standard contact tactics, mainly contact head control, however Reeves resisted and broke free of his grip. Reeves immediately escalated his use of force by throwing a combination of left and right hands. Following the punches I grabbed a hold of Mr Reeves' right arm and assisted by other PORT members pulled Reeves through the police line and forced him to the ground". I find Mr Chapman's statement to be disturbingly different to the scene revealed by police footage and containing no mention whatsoever of the two punches he clearly inflicted upon Mr Reeves. The footage contained no escalation of violence by Mr Reeves involving a combination of punches. Nor was Mr Reeves told to get on the ground. Nor was he pulled through a police line but was downed where he stood. I have read other police statements and found them to be similarly inaccurate when compared to body cam footage".

* Judge continues" "at the very least in my view the impropriety by police was reckless. The actions of Mr Reeves and the accused during the day presented no threat to police and did not warrant the violence they eventually inflicted upon Mr Reeves. Given the briefing police received in relation to Mr Patterson it should also have been clear to police that in treating Mr Reeves as they did they would most likely incite responsive action by Mr Patterson". 

* "I am satisfied that in the way that police behaved towards Mr Reeves, he was subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention"... I am satisfied that the police failed to have regard to the ground and procedures established in law in the way they arrested Mr Reeves. 

A reminder that these quotes above are the judge's conclusions, not YouTuber commentary. And a reminder, for those who aren't aware of the original story, how it was originally presented by the media: 

I haven't found a mainstream news source for this yet, I don't know if the media ever will report on it, or whether Rebel News just got in first. In any case, this proves everything that Patterson alleged - he was in fact leaving when the police attacked them, and it proves everything the anti-lockdown crowd was saying from the start. The media lied, the police lied, the police instigated this and they are responsible. This is a win for civil rights in Australia! I wonder if the media will admit it. 

Now, I don't want to end on a downer, but I hope this thread does not devolve into a "look at the source, Rebel News isn't trustworthy"... every quote I've provided is a judge denouncing the police, not Rebel News. Please try and address the actual court case. 

~ Link (formerly PA)

The sad part is from what I can tell your fellow countrymen on this website will mainly say that the police were justified making you all safer by stopping a conspiracy theorist from endangering your country with covid misinformation.  Judging by UM Australia is mainly full of people that will roll over and beg their bellies to be pet by an over reaching government.

3298338013_b2f714d16f_z.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, OverSword said:

The sad part is from what I can tell your fellow countrymen on this website will mainly say that the police were justified making you all safer by stopping a conspiracy theorist from endangering your country with covid misinformation.  Judging by UM Australia is mainly full of people that will roll over and beg their bellies to be pet by an over reaching government.

Some of them certainly will (there's one or two I expected to make a comment, but they haven't been around). But I think most Australians are able to see beyond the headlines. The recent referendum demonstrated how out of touch some of the left wing Aussies here are. While my views aren't always representative of the mainstream, I will tell you when my views go against the norm and when they are right in line with the mainstream, I am self aware enough to know where my extremes lie.  

With that said, I do not see how anyone can read the judge's decision and arrive at any conclusion other than the police were thugs who ganged up to bash up a protester, then lied in their report about it. At the very VERY VERY least (and I am certain I put at least one too many "very's" in there) the way NOT to arrest someone is to confront them without any warning, say "all right, mate" and then put him in a headlock with no further warning, then when they escape and push back (just a push, though the cop lies about that in the report and says he responded with a series of punches) the cops punch the person twice in the face and claim they are resisting arrest (oh, the cop didn't write in his report that he punched the guy twice, and that he started the punches).

Most Australians would support Patterson after reading the ruling. Though most Australians will never know the case took place, it hasn't been reported on any mainstream website, though they reported his arrest and the allegations made by police on the front page of every newspaper back in 2021.

 

Edited by Link of Hyrule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For those interested, here is an interview with Nick Patterson on Rumble. It's an interesting listen. It sounds like Patterson is going to be suing them for a lot of money. After he was charged with these bogus charges his Working With Children Check was no longer valid and he wasn't able to run his martial arts studio because it was no longer financially viable to run them without the kids he wasn't allowed to teach anymore. If the cops didn't lie and intentionally target Patterson, he would not have been charged, he would not have been arrested, and he would not have lost his business. By my reckoning, the government/police owes him at least 2-3 years of his salary, plus compensation for the physical damage done to him as well as the mental grievances put on him for sitting in prison for 29 days because of this unlawful arrest after the cops initiated a fight with him.

Edited by Link of Hyrule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Remember how furniture movers from Sydney, Australia started a second wave of COVID in Melbourne, Australia in 2020, and managed to kill their own mother, and all because they broke the quarantine and drove interstate while infected and wouldn't even wear masks?  My sympathy when people protest about quarantine...😈 Burn !

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Remember how furniture movers from Sydney, Australia started a second wave of COVID in Melbourne, Australia in 2020, and managed to kill their own mother, and all because they broke the quarantine and drove interstate while infected and wouldn't even wear masks?  My sympathy when people protest about quarantine...😈 Burn !

You dislike them, I get that. My question is - in your opinion, does your dislike for them justify illegal police actions? If you think it does then say so and we can disagree with each other and move on.  Though the judge agrees that illegal actions by police make a huge difference, so you will be disagreeing with the judge who ruled on the case if you go down that route. If you go down that route, can you cite the court case as to where you disagree with the judge? 

If you agree, then the reason for why this guy was protesting is irrelevant - illegal police action is illegal police action, no matter what! 

Edited by Link of Hyrule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

You dislike them, I get that. My question is - in your opinion, does your dislike for them justify illegal police actions?

I don't know what laws are on the books regarding quarantine procedures in Victoria, Australia.  There should be severe punishments for breaching a legally declared quarantine when a dangerous disease needs to be stopped.  Many countries have these laws on the books, but have forgotten they exist because we haven't had an epidemic for such a long time.  As to the matter of whether the police were excessively violent, it is a matter of of conflicting testimony, and the judge decided the police had behaved badly.  The fact is Australian judges are destroying the country, by letting criminals off far too lightly over and over again.  They are likely all corrupt. The fact that Patterson was breaching quarantine to protest tells me everything I need to know about his character and it doesn't surprise me he wants to sue; of course he does, as he thinks he can cash in.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, OverSword said:

The sad part is from what I can tell your fellow countrymen on this website will mainly say that the police were justified making you all safer by stopping a conspiracy theorist from endangering your country with covid misinformation.  Judging by UM Australia is mainly full of people that will roll over and beg their bellies to be pet by an over reaching government.

3298338013_b2f714d16f_z.jpg

But your just dog food. 

Here you are enabling thugs again. A wife basher gloating over a known thug wining a court case who breaks the law on a regular basis. 

Your ideology is twisted. Nobody actually has to stand up for wife bashers and thugs. But feel free to give those animals a hug. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Some of them certainly will (there's one or two I expected to make a comment, but they haven't been around). But I think most Australians are able to see beyond the headlines. The recent referendum demonstrated how out of touch some of the left wing Aussies here are. While my views aren't always representative of the mainstream, I will tell you when my views go against the norm and when they are right in line with the mainstream, I am self aware enough to know where my extremes lie.  

That's just a flame bait and you are a bonafide dick for doing it 

I said I expected the referendum to fail although I supported it. My reasoning was clear. 

10 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

With that said, I do not see how anyone can read the judge's decision and arrive at any conclusion other than the police were thugs who ganged up to bash up a protester, then lied in their report about it. At the very VERY VERY least (and I am certain I put at least one too many "very's" in there) the way NOT to arrest someone is to confront them without any warning, say "all right, mate" and then put him in a headlock with no further warning, then when they escape and push back (just a push, though the cop lies about that in the report and says he responded with a series of punches) the cops punch the person twice in the face and claim they are resisting arrest (oh, the cop didn't write in his report that he punched the guy twice, and that he started the punches).

And you honestly can say that thug hasn't done the very same?

It's ok when he does it though.

10 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Most Australians would support Patterson after reading the ruling. Though most Australians will never know the case took place, it hasn't been reported on any mainstream website, though they reported his arrest and the allegations made by police on the front page of every newspaper back in 2021.

 

No. Most Australians don't like bullies and thugs. You just suck up to them and likely for protection. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

But your just dog food. 

Here you are enabling thugs again. A wife basher gloating over a known thug wining a court case who breaks the law on a regular basis. 

Your ideology is twisted. Nobody actually has to stand up for wife bashers and thugs. But feel free to give those animals a hug. 

Maybe you should go read the article again.  The police violated a mans rights and that's the issue here not a fight between a married couple, I know nothing about that and don't care.  Unlike you I don't fear what other people say and believe until it starts affecting others ability to do the same.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I don't know what laws are on the books regarding quarantine procedures in Victoria, Australia.  There should be severe punishments for breaching a legally declared quarantine when a dangerous disease needs to be stopped.  Many countries have these laws on the books, but have forgotten they exist because we haven't had an epidemic for such a long time.  As to the matter of whether the police were excessively violent, it is a matter of of conflicting testimony, and the judge decided the police had behaved badly.  The fact is Australian judges are destroying the country, by letting criminals off far too lightly over and over again.  They are likely all corrupt. The fact that Patterson was breaching quarantine to protest tells me everything I need to know about his character and it doesn't surprise me he wants to sue; of course he does, as he thinks he can cash in.

If there are severe laws on the books to deal with people who break quarantine, awesome. Then the police can find a LEGAL METHOD of arresting them! I should also point out that you didn't actually answer my question, I asked if you felt that your dislike for them justified illegal police actions. The best you managed was some kind of hand wave about "conflicting testimony", when anyone who's read the article knows it's much more detailed than that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's just a flame bait and you are a bonafide dick for doing it 

I said I expected the referendum to fail although I supported it. My reasoning was clear. 

The amount of times you have whinged and complained about Australians not voting Yes tells me much about your views, thank you very much. You have done nothing but attempt to justify why Australians were misled or scared, and why only you and those who think like you had the correct future for Australia in mind. 

Saying you guys have a different view of life than most Australians is not an uncontroversial thing to say when it comes to this - just as I am happy to admit that my views are not the majority when it comes to issues like media bias.  

 

14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

And you honestly can say that thug hasn't done the very same?

It's ok when he does it though.

I'm going to answer this one in reverse - starting with "it's ok when he does it", and I respond with an emphatic NO! When have I EVER said that it's ok for ANYONE to attack a police officer without cause (or anyone, for that matter)??? To answer the first question, no I cannot honestly say he "hasn't done the very same". I don't know him well enough. If Nick Patterson has assaulted people without provocation, then provide a link and we can condemn him together. Condemning him for other acts of violence does not have any bearing on the illegal activities of the police during this particular event.

IF Nick Patterson has attacked someone before, then I hope he is/was dealt with by the full extent of the law. Just like I hope these police officers who broke the law are dealt with in the same manner. This is where the two of us differ, I think - you don't want to hold police accountable for their illegal activities, as long as the illegal activities are being done to someone you disagree with. This leads us neatly into your last sentence: 

 

14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No. Most Australians don't like bullies and thugs. You just suck up to them and likely for protection. 

I didn't say Australians will like Nick Patterson. I didn't say they would agree with his values or his anti-lockdown stance. I didn't say they wouldn't call him a bully or a thug. All of these are immaterial to what I DID say, which was that most Australians would agree that Nick Patterson was dealt with illegally and unfairly by the police! To demonstrate this, may I set a scene for you in the hopes of asking you a question? Hopefully you can put yourself in this scenario:

Imagine you are at a BLM rally (if you can't imagine yourself there, imagine a random stranger there). The cops say you can't enter a particular place, you argue for a bit, then the police says "we will arrest you if we have to, but we'd rather not do that". Then within 5 minutes, you and your group of 20 friends starts walking away from the protest zone. Then over the next 30 minutes your group of 20 breaks up into smaller groups of about 5 people, going further away from the protest zone. The police are still following you so you say "why are you still following us, we're going home".

You are with your 5 friends on your way to your car, still moving away from the protest zone. Suddenly a police officer stands in your way and says "All right, mate", and grabs you in a headlock. You react by breaking free of the headlock and pushing the officer away. The officer responds by punching you twice in the face before tackling you to the ground with a group of other officers.

If you were watching this, or if you were experiencing this, do you believe the officer was justified in attempting to arrest you in this manner? If one of your friends reacts to this (Remember, the officer never said "I am putting you under arrest", he simply says "all right, mate", and puts you in a headlock) by trying to help you from being attacked for apparently no reason, are they justified in their reaction? 

 

As a follow up question, what would your reaction be if the police officer wrote in his witness statement that you were the one who started punching him first? This is, of course, contradicted by video evidence. In fact, all the police officers make similarly misleading statements. The only people whose story largely matches the video footage are the statements from you and your friends.

Do you still believe this is an appropriate act by the police? If so, then I guess we'll never agree. If you don't agree, then perhaps you can say why a BLM rally is different to an anti-lockdown rally.  If you think I'm misrepresenting what the officers did, please point it out because what I have described is a blow by blow repeat of the judge's ruling as linked in post #2 as best as I understood it.  Alternatively, maybe we'll actually agree that the police illegally attacked Patterson and his friends.

I stand by my statement that most Australians would support this decision if they knew the details of what the police did to Nick Patterson. 

~ Link

Edited by Link of Hyrule
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, OverSword said:

Maybe you should go read the article again.  The police violated a mans rights and that's the issue here not a fight between a married couple, I know nothing about that and don't care.  Unlike you I don't fear what other people say and believe until it starts affecting others ability to do the same.

Maybe you should learn about who and what your defending. 

Unlike you I don't support thugs and wife bashers for the notion of an ideology. What people do should matter. And ti normal people, it does. 

Look at the type of person benefiting and for what. Once that's obvious it's also obvious why your personal ideology is a failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, OverSword said:

Maybe you should go read the article again.  The police violated a mans rights and that's the issue here not a fight between a married couple, I know nothing about that and don't care.  Unlike you I don't fear what other people say and believe until it starts affecting others ability to do the same.

It's nothing but a huge ad hominem attack. He can't attack the facts of the case so he attacks the person presenting them. There's a judge's decision to read through and he's more interested in attacking the person who made a video about the judge's decision. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

It's nothing but a huge ad hominem attack. He can't attack the facts of the case so he attacks the person presenting them. There's a judge's decision to read through and he's more interested in attacking the person who made a video about the judge's decision. 

No it's not. You're unable to consider just who the people you are supporting and what they represent.

You keep on supporting the worst elements of society and giving them freedoms. Wife bashers and thugs everywhere salute you no doubt. 

You're ideology is harmful to society as a whole. Domestic violence is a key issue in Australia right now with a unprecedented number of ipd. But you're making sure those people walk the streets free. 

A judge is just doing his job. Victorian police have been under investigation a number of time and have their own share of controversy. The system works. Duh. We already knew that from past cases. Corruption proves, behaviour investigations etc. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

The amount of times you have whinged and complained about Australians not voting Yes tells me much about your views, thank you very much. You have done nothing but attempt to justify why Australians were misled or scared, and why only you and those who think like you had the correct future for Australia in mind. 

Saying you guys have a different view of life than most Australians is not an uncontroversial thing to say when it comes to this - just as I am happy to admit that my views are not the majority when it comes to issues like media bias.  

Out of touch you said which is not warranted considering I said it was likely to fail. And yes, the labour government did a very poor job with too much money. That's not a controversial, unclear or incorrect statement.

Suffice to say you're misrepresenting me!

3 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I'm going to answer this one in reverse - starting with "it's ok when he does it", and I respond with an emphatic NO! When have I EVER said that it's ok for ANYONE to attack a police officer without cause (or anyone, for that matter)??? To answer the first question, no I cannot honestly say he "hasn't done the very same". I don't know him well enough. If Nick Patterson has assaulted people without provocation, then provide a link and we can condemn him together. Condemning him for other acts of violence does not have any bearing on the illegal activities of the police during this particular event.

IF Nick Patterson has attacked someone before, then I hope he is/was dealt with by the full extent of the law. Just like I hope these police officers who broke the law are dealt with in the same manner. This is where the two of us differ, I think - you don't want to hold police accountable for their illegal activities, as long as the illegal activities are being done to someone you disagree with. This leads us neatly into your last sentence: 

No we don't differ there. I feel the law applies to all including politicians and police. You broad brush police is lists as you have done here and st the same time condemned all the good police and the forces outside of Victoria, who's police already have a controversial reputation, in one sweeping statement. 

3 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I didn't say Australians will like Nick Patterson. I didn't say they would agree with his values or his anti-lockdown stance. I didn't say they wouldn't call him a bully or a thug. All of these are immaterial to what I DID say, which was that most Australians would agree that Nick Patterson was dealt with illegally and unfairly by the police! To demonstrate this, may I set a scene for you in the hopes of asking you a question? Hopefully you can put yourself in this scenario:

Imagine you are at a BLM rally (if you can't imagine yourself there, imagine a random stranger there). The cops say you can't enter a particular place, you argue for a bit, then the police says "we will arrest you if we have to, but we'd rather not do that". Then within 5 minutes, you and your group of 20 friends starts walking away from the protest zone. Then over the next 30 minutes your group of 20 breaks up into smaller groups of about 5 people, going further away from the protest zone. The police are still following you so you say "why are you still following us, we're going home".

You are with your 5 friends on your way to your car, still moving away from the protest zone. Suddenly a police officer stands in your way and says "All right, mate", and grabs you in a headlock. You react by breaking free of the headlock and pushing the officer away. The officer responds by punching you twice in the face before tackling you to the ground with a group of other officers.

If you were watching this, or if you were experiencing this, do you believe the officer was justified in attempting to arrest you in this manner? If one of your friends reacts to this (Remember, the officer never said "I am putting you under arrest", he simply says "all right, mate", and puts you in a headlock) by trying to help you from being attacked for apparently no reason, are they justified in their reaction? 

I don't do rallies and I have no problem with lawbreakers being punished. 

3 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

As a follow up question, what would your reaction be if the police officer wrote in his witness statement that you were the one who started punching him first? This is, of course, contradicted by video evidence. In fact, all the police officers make similarly misleading statements. The only people whose story largely matches the video footage are the statements from you and your friends.

Do you still believe this is an appropriate act by the police? If so, then I guess we'll never agree. If you don't agree, then perhaps you can say why a BLM rally is different to an anti-lockdown rally.  If you think I'm misrepresenting what the officers did, please point it out because what I have described is a blow by blow repeat of the judge's ruling as linked in post #2 as best as I understood it.  Alternatively, maybe we'll actually agree that the police illegally attacked Patterson and his friends.

I stand by my statement that most Australians would support this decision if they knew the details of what the police did to Nick Patterson. 

~ Link

This is where we differ. For complete ratbags nobody cares. Most Australians would simply see it as karma or an eye for an eye. Anti vax, anti mask and anti lockdown protestors are a small contingent of grubs that don't care about society so that comes back on them. Live by the sword, die by the sword. 

 

Where's the justice there? He should be out on trial for Covid misinformation and charged with any cases of Covid his lack of community care caused. All anti vaxers should pay sick pay and health bills for those they infect. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No it's not. You're unable to consider just who the people you are supporting and what they represent.

You keep on supporting the worst elements of society and giving them freedoms. Wife bashers and thugs everywhere salute you no doubt. 

You're ideology is harmful to society as a whole. Domestic violence is a key issue in Australia right now with a unprecedented number of ipd. But you're making sure those people walk the streets free. 

A judge is just doing his job. Victorian police have been under investigation a number of time and have their own share of controversy. The system works. Duh. We already knew that from past cases. Corruption proves, behaviour investigations etc. 

An ad hominem is a fallacy where you ignore a point made and instead choose a characteristic of the person, or something that the person has done and using that to disqualify them as having anything of value to say about said ignored point. 

You can keep claiming it's not an ad hominem, but it's the literal definition of one!

I'd love to talk to you about the "unprecedented" number of ipd. What definition of "unprecedented" are you using, considering that number's fallen by 2/3rds over the past 30 years. 

1935bff18653e89ee71fbcf6a93da60a48ef7b50

There's a whole range of interesting discussions to be had, from the Prime Minister going as far as to include the 5 murdered women from the Bondi stabbing event in the list of IPD victims in 2024, to why sadly the rate of violence by strangers has remained steady over that same period, and the vast majority of those victims are MEN (you're getting outraged by a number that has been slowly declining for the past 30 years, but not about the numbers that aren't changing that disproportionately affect men).

So, what do you want to talk about? 

@JordanKatz11's video Tweet

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Out of touch you said which is not warranted considering I said it was likely to fail. And yes, the labour government did a very poor job with too much money. That's not a controversial, unclear or incorrect statement.

Suffice to say you're misrepresenting me!

I don't believe I ever claimed you didn't know what the Australian consensus was, I simply said you demonstrate that you don't understand the Australian consensus - the fact that you made all sorts of excuses why we got it wrong and why people were allegedly led astray by misinformation shows how out of touch you are. 

If you feel that is misrepresenting you, I apologise but cannot change it. 

 

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

No we don't differ there. I feel the law applies to all including politicians and police.

With respect, how do you square what you write here with what you say in your next section below: "For complete ratbags nobody cares. Most Australians would simply see it as karma or an eye for an eye. Anti vax, anti mask and anti lockdown protestors are a small contingent of grubs that don't care about society so that comes back on them. Live by the sword, die by the sword"? 

 

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

You broad brush police is lists as you have done here and st the same time condemned all the good police and the forces outside of Victoria, who's police already have a controversial reputation, in one sweeping statement. 

I did no such thing! I shared a case of specific officers breaking the law (Officers Chapman and Gabb specifically, but those were only the two most prominent figures in the court case), I don't know how you turned that into a "broad brush" approach! 

 

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

I don't do rallies and I have no problem with lawbreakers being punished. 

To repeat myself: "if you can't imagine yourself there, imagine a random stranger there"!

 

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

This is where we differ. For complete ratbags nobody cares. Most Australians would simply see it as karma or an eye for an eye. Anti vax, anti mask and anti lockdown protestors are a small contingent of grubs that don't care about society so that comes back on them. Live by the sword, die by the sword. 

 

Where's the justice there? He should be out on trial for Covid misinformation and charged with any cases of Covid his lack of community care caused. All anti vaxers should pay sick pay and health bills for those they infect. 

I don't know how you square what you wrote here with your earlier statement that you think the law applies to all, including police, and yet you don't think the officer did the wrong thing in this instance. With that said, it sounds like you have no problem with what these officers did to Nick Patterson and his friends, which says far more about you than it does about me. You try and play the holier-than-thou figure but then turn around and justify this violence because you don't like anti-lockdown protesters. 

I'm glad most Australians are not like you, Psyche. It would be a terrible country we live in. 

Edited by Link of Hyrule
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

 I asked if you felt that your dislike for them justified illegal police actions.

Well, I definitely think they are criminals, but if they weren't resisting arrest, then the police should have been more professional.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

Well, I definitely think they are criminals, but if they weren't resisting arrest, then the police should have been more professional.

They weren't told they were under arrest, so how could they resist arrest? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2024 at 1:57 AM, OverSword said:

The sad part is from what I can tell your fellow countrymen on this website will mainly say that the police were justified making you all safer by stopping a conspiracy theorist from endangering your country with covid misinformation.  Judging by UM Australia is mainly full of people that will roll over and beg their bellies to be pet by an over reaching government.

3298338013_b2f714d16f_z.jpg

As if you wouldn’t enjoy a belly rub…. My ex (and I think I’m at the “damn, I miss her” phase) used to rub my belly when she wanted …. Something something family friendly forum …. Wink wink …

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

An ad hominem is a fallacy where you ignore a point made and instead choose a characteristic of the person, or something that the person has done and using that to disqualify them as having anything of value to say about said ignored point. 

You can keep claiming it's not an ad hominem, but it's the literal definition of one!

The ignored point is the hypocrisy of you and OS. Violent thugs crying for protection is laughable. 

Supporting thugs disgusts me. As it would any person with ethics and morals.

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I'd love to talk to you about the "unprecedented" number of ipd. What definition of "unprecedented" are you using, considering that number's fallen by 2/3rds over the past 30 years. 

1935bff18653e89ee71fbcf6a93da60a48ef7b50

There's a whole range of interesting discussions to be had, from the Prime Minister going as far as to include the 5 murdered women from the Bondi stabbing event in the list of IPD victims in 2024, to why sadly the rate of violence by strangers has remained steady over that same period, and the vast majority of those victims are MEN (you're getting outraged by a number that has been slowly declining for the past 30 years, but not about the numbers that aren't changing that disproportionately affect men).

So, what do you want to talk about? 

@JordanKatz11's video Tweet

No your wrong. About wanting to discuss it, because you know it will become a crap show with your head in the sand views, and in your information. Even your paywall link says so. 

An increase in the number of victims in Australia in the 12 months ending June – when 34 died at the hands of their partners, up from 26 the year before – is at odds with long-term and global trends in criminality. 

Familiarise yourself before saying more dumb things.

This is what is happening in your and my country right now. 

11883-article_infographic_image-domestic

Domestic and family violence in Australia statistics
1. Women are more likely to experience abuse at the hands of a partner
1 in 6 women have experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner, while for men it is 1 in 16.1
75% of victims of domestic violence reported the perpetrator as male, while 25% reported the perpetrator as female.2 
Overall, 1 in 5 women and 1 in 20 men have experienced sexual violence.3 
On average, one woman every nine days and one man every month is killed by a current or former partner.4

https://www.missionaustralia.com.au/domestic-and-family-violence-statistics#:~:text=Domestic and family violence in Australia statistics&text=1 in 6 women have,it is 1 in 16.&text=75% of victims of domestic,reported the perpetrator as female.

And just to add, you can't meme. 

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I don't believe I ever claimed you didn't know what the Australian consensus was, I simply said you demonstrate that you don't understand the Australian consensus - the fact that you made all sorts of excuses why we got it wrong and why people were allegedly led astray by misinformation shows how out of touch you are. 

If you feel that is misrepresenting you, I apologise but cannot change it. 

Yes you are misrepresenting me, now deliberately. That doesn't even make sense if you think about it. 

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

With respect, how do you square what you write here with what you say in your next section below: "For complete ratbags nobody cares. Most Australians would simply see it as karma or an eye for an eye. Anti vax, anti mask and anti lockdown protestors are a small contingent of grubs that don't care about society so that comes back on them. Live by the sword, die by the sword"? 

 

I did no such thing! I shared a case of specific officers breaking the law (Officers Chapman and Gabb specifically, but those were only the two most prominent figures in the court case), I don't know how you turned that into a "broad brush" approach! 

Look at the title of your thread! 

Them reread the paragraph. 

You are accusing "police" not a couple of cops from Victoria who got caught being heavy handed. You love to generalise media, politics and any authority figure to force your ideology. All part of your ridiculous jihad.

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

To repeat myself: "if you can't imagine yourself there, imagine a random stranger there"!

Right. A person I see as a menace. I don't get what goes through people's heads to want to be obstructive to others. It's just an ahole act. 

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I don't know how you square what you wrote here with your earlier statement that you think the law applies to all, including police, and yet you don't think the officer did the wrong thing in this instance. With that said, it sounds like you have no problem with what these officers did to Nick Patterson and his friends, which says far more about you than it does about me. You try and play the holier-than-thou figure but then turn around and justify this violence because you don't like anti-lockdown protesters. 

Again your misrepresenting me. 

I simply don't care. Couldn't give a hoot. Officers got caught. Tough for them. A thug got a touch up. Tough for him. Cops will get a punishment, the thug will clash with them again. 

Police deserve respect. I have little doubt that you have seen his rants against the police. He doesn't show respect, so he doesn't get it. You're just using him as a soap box. 

5 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I'm glad most Australians are not like you, Psyche. It would be a terrible country we live in. 

Isn't it funny how I think the same everytime you post these days 

I take comfort in that Australian posters here in general reject your views and ideology as do a great many posters overall. It tells me most of Australia isn't like you. Most people aren't like you. You're more the little sad group of anarchists that gets off on disrupting society and yelling a lot while you hide behind corners and over dramatize you're little world. Look at me everybody's. Meh. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Police over here are corrupt and not nice people in general, I've seen them shamelessly lie in court and get caught out, not even flinching. They seem to recruit anyone these days, they need serious quality control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

My ex (and I think I’m at the “damn, I miss her” phase) used to rub my belly when she wanted …. Something

Are you Buddha?

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Maybe you should learn about who and what your defending. 

Unlike you I don't support thugs and wife bashers for the notion of an ideology. What people do should matter. And ti normal people, it does. 

Look at the type of person benefiting and for what. Once that's obvious it's also obvious why your personal ideology is a failure.

What people do should matter in that particular instance.  If a wife beater is caught speeding that does not give a policeman license to kick his ass.  You are ridiculous.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.