Hard News: Stop the Enabling
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
Gareth, that is possible but very much speculation. However, it is equally possible that they quickly decide on the two that they found him not guilty on. They could have then either taken the time deciding if he punched his son with a closed fist in the face - I assume their was no brusing and/or deciding if he should be found guilty because of pulling his son's hair and flicking or pulling his ear which he clearly assault.
i still think if it was clear he punched his son in the face they would not have taken nine hours.
If the police officer was breaking up a left wing protest I am sure many on this blog would consider the possiblity that she embellished the facts.
It would appear Mason was none to polite. She could well have embellished her story.
It does not seem possible that Mason punched his son in face with any force or there would have been brusing.
I have not closed my mind on this issue. I will be watched the Sunday about Mason with interest.
-
Gareth, that is possible but very much speculation
Ha.
You've leapt to the most extraordinary speculation of events to attempt to reinforce your beliefs. I simply illustrated how speculation could be used to argue any position, so you should give up on it and go back to the fact that witnesses saw it happen (including police), the jury found him guilty of it, and the judge explicitly stated that he could "understand that verdict and that it implies acceptance of the evidence of the people who were at the scene".Inventing "Lefty embellishments" that you have zero evidence of, in the face of stated evidence, just to avoid cognitive dissonance is mindboggling.
-
As Russell pointed out at least twice upthread, we are told that the bloke voluntarily confessed to a witness at the time that he smacked his son in the face.
I guess Gareth and Chuck are agreeing that in the absence of much detail, spin is likely to be part of any coverage or discussion. However, some is clearly drawing more of a long bow, like that florid passage from Family "Integrity" above.
-
If there was compelling evidence that he punched his boy in the face can you explain why a jury would take nine hours to reach a verdict?
I've never been on a jury, but if I did, I think I'd find the evidence from several witnesses that the accused said "yeah, I punched him in the face, that woman can bugger off", or similar, fairly compelling.
-
If the police officer was breaking up a left wing protest I am sure many on this blog would consider the possiblity that she embellished the facts.
What exactly is your point? Sure, the police have been known to sometimes embellish their evidence. But what evidence do you have of any embellishment in this case? Did you see the incident? Were you in the courtroom to assess the witnesses and their reliability?
So basically you don't know on what basis the jury reached its verdict. Nor do we.
You've obviously been reading the Family Fists press releases - because your argument sounds familiar.
-
If there was compelling evidence that he punched his boy in the face can you explain why a jury would take nine hours to reach a verdict?
Because some people aren't really that bright? Or there was some aspect of the evidence that was more complex, or difficult to piece together, than I'm aware of? Who knows, but I really wouldn't read too much into the time taken.
Also, I don't know about anyone else but when I've been on a jury, its rather sobering to consider the decision you come to could have pretty serious effects on someone's life. Not something you rush through because you want to be home in time for Friends.
-
I imagine the instruction not to treat this as a "test case" may have helped slow things down in the jury room.
-
When the liberal Left do not like someone they find it very easy to embellish the story or even out and out lie. Just look how the Herald lied about Christine Rankin dancing with the man who is now her husband at a function she attended me left early and did not dance.
Right excuse me people but Chuck Bird why don't you piss off with your antagonistic crap. "The liberal left". Fuck off. Since when does the Herald claim to be liberal let alone left. You may be hoping that Mason should have been able to punch his kid, fact is he wasn't and you are shit out of luck.
-
Get off the slab...
...an aside to a caring audience - there are only a few days left to vote for your favourite NZ music video - go to the Film Archive''s Ready To Roll Project site: vote - Toy Love - Bride of Frankenstein and you'll be voting for the brilliant animation work of one of your favourite PAS posters - master delineator Joe Wylie!
We can't let that "slapper" Maxine steal his thunder : ) Some great other stuff here too...
(Russell - a plug on Fun Friday maybe?)yrs
The Vault Keeper -
I imagine the instruction not to treat this as a "test case" may have helped slow things down in the jury room.
Quite possibly, but I sure hope when someone's reputation, or even their freedom, is at stake that anyone on a jury is going to take it extremely seriously.
-
Oh, I mean as well as that.
-
Right excuse me people but Chuck Bird why don't you piss off with your antagonistic crap. "The liberal left". Fuck off.
Sofie, you are an excellent argument for MPs to support John Boscawen’s private members bill.
http://section59.blogspot.com/2009/05/john-boscawens-private-members-bill.html
Did your mother ever wash your mouth out with soap?
-
Chuck, seriously now, bugger off back to kiwiblog yeah. You've nothing constructive to contribute, you're disinterested in others' opinions and you've said enough elsewhere to make your views well known. What could you possibly hope to achieve here? Mason's reputation isn't going to be rehabilitated by you.
-
Chuck, I am armed with garlic, crucifixes and holy water, and I'm not afraid to use them
-
A jury has found him guilty of assault for punching his four year-old son in the face.
A number of you have correctly pointed that I did not hear what the jury discussed. I might point out that neither did any of you including Russell Brown.
No one has been able to support his statement above. How do any of you know what evidence the jury accepted and what evidence they rejected?
I have not heard any allegation that there were any marks or bruising on the boys face so it should be obvious that he did not punch him hard in the face if at all.
It is possible that the jury believed that Mason punched his boy lightly in the face. It is possible that the jury did not accept that Mason punched his boy lightly in the face yet correctly under this legislation found him guilt of assault. Pulling someone by the hair is assault.
Unlike some I was on a jury. Some women who could not handle being rejected tried to fit some poor guy up for rape. The trail lasted three days but it took us less than half an hour to find the guy not guilty. If the case is clear you do not have to waste nine hours.
The case involving Mason was obviously not that clear. It is pure speculation to claim that the jury accepted that Mason punched his boy in the face.
Judging by the above comments the typical Left when unable to debate an issue first resort to embellishment and lies and when that fails then comes the abuse.
-
Chuck, you just don't get it, do you?
Nobody other than the 12 members of the jury knows on what basis they reached their verdict.
You're clearly one of the smacking-brigade, so I hardly expect reason from you. But this point shouldn't be too hard to grasp. We just don't know.
Judging by the above comments the typical Left when unable to debate an issue first resort to embellishment and lies and when that fails then comes the abuse.
Like "You're a Dickhead"?
-
So. If I punch Dicky Bird in the face, really hard, in a forest where nobody can see it, does it matter?
-
No Steve, it's not ok!
-
It is possible that the jury believed that Mason punched his boy lightly in the face. It is possible that the jury did not accept that Mason punched his boy lightly in the face yet correctly under this legislation found him guilt of assault. Pulling someone by the hair is assault.
Lightly in the face? You're not for real are you? Chuck, my tolerance for what you're saying is limited. Very limited. Sadly, NZ has a pretty poor record of child abuse. It needs addressing. Parental attitudes to physical discipline are part of that. Anyone who punches a four year old, lightly or otherwise, should be prosecuted for assault.
Mason admitted the punch and was convicted the crime of assault - you want to quibble about what the jury determined were the relevant facts? I think you'll find it hard to argue that they didn't consider that a punch was administered. A first year law student understands the need for both actus reus and mens rea. Are you suggesting the punch wasn't the act for which Mason was convicted?
I honestly hope you have minimal contact with children.
-
Oh shit, it was like I got sprung having impure thoughts.
What? Has the catholicism seeped through into this thread too?
-
So. If I punch Dicky Bird in the face, really hard, in a forest where nobody can see it, does it matter?
Chucky? He'll probably attempt to bite your ankle (cop this, you typical lefty!).
-
Lightly in the face? You're not for real are you?
Seconded. With extra astonishment that it might need to be said to an adult.
-
Sorry Steven, wrong Steve. I understand when someone of narrow minded intelligence thinks they should talk crap to others but to assume we need to listen sometimes really gets my goat and this up chuck who thinks he can control people, whether it be by being on a jury with women he obviously thought were not allowed a view or trying to manipulate with a pathetic smokescreen of words over here and then has the audacity to link my name with the filth that Boscawen claims in the interest of others will continue to reap my wrath. I read him once here and that sealed it for me. Hey, I'm Mexican, bito'the eye for eye. It should be fair.
-
Chuck Bird and all the 'hoes you rode in on.
When are you right wing tossers going to realise that all the value that you claim to have produced for society, you are welcome to, keep it all. Take it, its yours.
All the debt, all the cheating, all the manipulation, all the underhand dealings, all that pretend money you created, all those laws that protect you and your kind, all of your enemies, all of your fears, all of your sadness, all of your tears.
Mommy needs you to care. -
Chuck is right that we don't know on what basis the jury reached its verdict.
He's misguided, though, to keep banging on about the lack of evidence of a punch and to insinuate the jury found him guilty because of a "mere ear-flick". He talks of mere speculation, then speculates himself.
Anyway, Paul, did I go to Waikato University with you? Law School? And I may have encountered you during my brief but disreputable foray into student politics.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.