8 December 2011

No more self defence when assaulting a police officer

| johnboy
Join the conversation
70

For the small numbers of our readers who make a habit of punching on with the cops Simon Corbell has the sad news that a common law loophole is being removed.

The ACT Labor Government will today propose changes to the law on self-defence involving assaults on police officers and improve sentencing considerations for offences against police officers, emergency service workers, care and protection workers, nurses and other officials providing a service to the public, Attorney General, Simon Corbell, announced.

“This bill overrides the common law, which currently allows people to claim self defence when they assault police in the course of an arrest or while under police restraint,” he said.

“This bill means that a defendant would not be able to claim self defence if they assault police where the arrest or restraint by police is lawful or the police have acted in good faith and used reasonable force.

“We currently have the unfortunate situation where a person can argue that they believe their arrest is unlawful to justify the use of violence against police. This is simply not acceptable.

If a person believes they have been arrested unlawfully, the issue can be quickly and properly remedied when the person is brought before a magistrate. This would ordinarily happen within hours. Further people unlawfully arrested may lodge a civil claim for damages or complain to bodies such as the Ombudsman.

Self defence will still be available to a defendant if they responded with violence to protect themselves against some other unlawful act by police, such as an assault or imminent assault by police.

Join the conversation

70
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

jcitizen said :

Tooks said :

jcitizen said :

Tooks said :

fgzk said :

“Cops can not arrest when they like. They can arrest when they are justified by law to do so.”

But if they do, its the Judge that will have to decide. So what happens after the judge has decided that it wasn’t a lawful arrest?
Will this law bring back an emphasis on police clearly identifying who they are?
Does it also apply to the “secret police”, you know the ones we can’t identify?

If it wasn’t a lawful arrest, then you’d probably be off the hook and have costs awarded.

What are secret police?

Good diagnosis Doctor Dog Breath.
“off the hook”. Yes , a corrupted “hook” that shouldnt have been sunk in the first place.Thats exactly what happened. Legal costs were awarded mate. But not life costs…

Must be terrible being a victim your whole life.

Not my whole life, just the period that seargent Baker was at the Belconnen Police Station.

You said you had paperwork to prove your claims, so where is it?

jcitizen – You are simply coming off as a one issue nutjob. Your argument is inconsistent and not well constructed. You have claimed proof which is unable to be verified (unless you take the letter to JB). Get off your own topic and back on this one.

Force is only used by Police if force is presented to them. It is not ok to assault someone. Simply really.

Tooks said :

jcitizen said :

Tooks said :

fgzk said :

“Cops can not arrest when they like. They can arrest when they are justified by law to do so.”

But if they do, its the Judge that will have to decide. So what happens after the judge has decided that it wasn’t a lawful arrest?
Will this law bring back an emphasis on police clearly identifying who they are?
Does it also apply to the “secret police”, you know the ones we can’t identify?

If it wasn’t a lawful arrest, then you’d probably be off the hook and have costs awarded.

What are secret police?

Good diagnosis Doctor Dog Breath.
“off the hook”. Yes , a corrupted “hook” that shouldnt have been sunk in the first place.Thats exactly what happened. Legal costs were awarded mate. But not life costs…

Must be terrible being a victim your whole life.

Not my whole life, just the period that seargent Baker was at the Belconnen Police Station.

Devils_advocate made this observation about justice else where.
“It’s an adversarial system and everyone is entitled to the most thorough defence their advocate can make. Think about the position you would be in if you were accused of a serious crime – would you want your advocate making up their own mind about whether you were guilty or innocent and then moderating his efforts accordingly? No, you would want him trying as hard as he could to ensure you remain free.

In cases like these, people can and do lie. The system’s not perfect but it’s axiomatic that it’s better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent to be imprisoned.”

Yet I’m still to see any evidence that one person has actually gone free in the ACT by claiming self defense, let alone 100.

jcitizen said :

fgzk
you passed three posts about six posts ago.
Does that make you a nine post nut bag?

No, not in theory…….3 Consecutive post. Sorry, I was off topic. You do what you want.

matt31221 said :

Assaulting a police officer is abhorrent and wrong – and should be punishable to the maximum extent of the law no question.

@jcitizen , You must not be telling the full story regarding being threatened by an AFP community police officer like that. I would have to see that to believe it that’s for sure. I have spoken to many police mainly for advice over the years, walked into a couple of the stations many times to seek advice for various matters. I have been pulled over a couple of times for minor traffic infringements (u-turn across double lines, 10km over the limit speeding etc) and the police have always been friendly and respectful to me not one exception. I have seen them deal with drug affected persons swearing and abusing them at Strathgordon court when I used to live there – many times, they kept composure and were professional even in the face of abuse. I do not believe you jcitizen but I imagine you don’t care what I believe.

matt
Its up to you what you believe, i cant do anything about that.
ive got the IA letter for me mate. Thing is i was not accused of assaulting police and i have never been convicted either. Ive also seen some people going off their rocker at police in a crazed manner but thats not what happened hear. I was ordered out of the police station because I tried to hand seargent Baker a set of six keys that had been cut when the original threat had been made to steal and torch the car, he called me a paranoid wanker and i was told that he had more important things to woorry about. Yes i gave him some lip as im sure sure most people would be offended after that. But that should not give him the right to then turn up yelling abuse at me as I stated before.
Believe what you want mate, the truth has been told and an apology was recieved via a letter. Police are only human and therefore are in no way perfect

fgzk said :

Slumlord said :

This article sure attracted it share of nutter comments.

Three post nutbag. Jc if you cant make your point in two consecutive posts, then you don’t have a point and your just raving mad. “Whatever” credibility you had in the thread evaporates regardless.

” 3 post nutjob.” used to be a RA thing, once upon a time.

fgzk
you passed three posts about six posts ago.
Does that make you a nine post nut bag?

Buzz

“So now you are starting to understand why this is brought in, people were being placed under arrest under the above circumstances, resisting arrest and assaulting Police, then claiming self defence.”

You did claim this was happening. You hinted at understanding why. You should share where you got this idea.

fgzk said :

buzz819 That is very astute of you. Maybe you might know who these “people” are that have been claiming this defense in the ACT. How many people have argued this successfully in front of a judge in the ACT? Lets say in the last ten years.

I don’t know? Do you?

buzz819 That is very astute of you. Maybe you might know who these “people” are that have been claiming this defense in the ACT. How many people have argued this successfully in front of a judge in the ACT? Lets say in the last ten years.

PantsMan said :

buzz819 said :

PantsMan said :

Siren said :

PantsMan said :

Mate, you don’t get it do you?

If after a Police officer clearly identify’s themselves ie. producing ID etc. AND the Police officer places someone under arrest AND the Police officer uses reasonable force, wait – let’s recap this little bit 1) Police office ID’s them self 2) the arrest is lawful AND 3) the reasonable amount of force is used (which could mean no force used at all), AND the person being arrested decides to punch the Police officer – they can no longer try and use the defence of self defence.

Do you get it? Or is the aluminium hat getting in the way of the screen?

In the above matter which you keep alluding to, it has already been found in court that the action was not lawful, if someone was able to fight Police after getting a dose like that, then self defence would have been a defence. Is that clearer?

So you only loose the defence when it would never be available anyway?

So now you are starting to understand why this is brought in, people were being placed under arrest under the above circumstances, resisting arrest and assaulting Police, then claiming self defence.

buzz819 said :

PantsMan said :

Siren said :

PantsMan said :

So when you are capsicum sprayed, like that guy in the city watchhouse, you cannot resist? Our Human Rights Act has created some great pamphlets and public servants to administer it, but little else.

Did you read the OP?
“This bill means that a defendant would not be able to claim self defence if they assault police where the arrest or restraint by police is lawful or the police have acted in good faith and used reasonable force.”
Surely you’re aware that the ex-officer involved in the watch house ‘spraying’ video was charged (ie his actions were not lawful) and is no longer working for the AFP?
I’m all for this change. I hate to think of a time when people won’t work for the police, ambos or as a nurse because when they’re going about their job LAWFULLY and some other idiot jumps in and punches on, they get off charges in court on the basis of “I was only protecting XXX”.
I think about that poor young WA cop who ended up with brain damage, and a Tuggeranong cop who was in plain clothes and intervened in a fight at Lanyon only to get flogged by bystanders a few years ago.
Same thing has happened to ambos & nurses – patients & family members hurting them while they are doing their thing – it’s just not OK.
No-one in this thread is saying any person deserves to be assaulted, whether at work or not, but I do think that this change is necessary given past court outcomes.
Lots of people (including me) have a relative or friend that works in law enforcement and/or emergency services. I’m thankful for the job they do and am keen to ensure that the right people work in these positions. Closing this ‘loophole’ and ensuring magistrates’ hands aren’t tied in sentencing is one of the ways we can help ensure the right people work in these positions.
There are oversight bodies to complain to if you believe you have been treated poorly – resisting and hurting someone, or ending up hurt yourself as a result of resisting lawful actions isn’t helpful. The qualifier is lawful. I can’t see any issue with the proposal, just some people failing to understand the difference between lawful and unlawful actions.

So if someone who says they’re a plain clothes cop physically restrains or assaults you, you have to assume that 1. they are not impersonating a police officer, 2. they are acting within their powers and not performing a citizens arrest, 3. and their actions are otherwise lawful. These things can only be determined after the fact. The capsicum spray guy was supposed to predict whether or not what was happening to him was lawful before deciding whether to cop a criminal assault from some lowlife, while other officers stood by (waiting to batten him presumably) if the tried to defend himself. Human rights anyone?

With a handle like ‘Siren’ I presume that you are a bit closer to the AFP than you suggest.

Mate, you don’t get it do you?

If after a Police officer clearly identify’s themselves ie. producing ID etc. AND the Police officer places someone under arrest AND the Police officer uses reasonable force, wait – let’s recap this little bit 1) Police office ID’s them self 2) the arrest is lawful AND 3) the reasonable amount of force is used (which could mean no force used at all), AND the person being arrested decides to punch the Police officer – they can no longer try and use the defence of self defence.

Do you get it? Or is the aluminium hat getting in the way of the screen?

In the above matter which you keep alluding to, it has already been found in court that the action was not lawful, if someone was able to fight Police after getting a dose like that, then self defence would have been a defence. Is that clearer?

So you only loose the defence when it would never be available anyway?

The Antichrist4:45 pm 18 Dec 11

Slumlord said :

……This article sure attracted it share of nutter comments…..

Got that right – pretty sure that every Coles & Woolies within a 200km range is also right out of tin foil !!

PantsMan said :

With a handle like ‘Siren’ I presume that you are a bit closer to the AFP than you suggest.

Actually my handle is drawn from Homer’s Odyssey. Try not to hurt yourself jumping to conclusions.

PantsMan said :

Siren said :

PantsMan said :

So when you are capsicum sprayed, like that guy in the city watchhouse, you cannot resist? Our Human Rights Act has created some great pamphlets and public servants to administer it, but little else.

Did you read the OP?
“This bill means that a defendant would not be able to claim self defence if they assault police where the arrest or restraint by police is lawful or the police have acted in good faith and used reasonable force.”
Surely you’re aware that the ex-officer involved in the watch house ‘spraying’ video was charged (ie his actions were not lawful) and is no longer working for the AFP?
I’m all for this change. I hate to think of a time when people won’t work for the police, ambos or as a nurse because when they’re going about their job LAWFULLY and some other idiot jumps in and punches on, they get off charges in court on the basis of “I was only protecting XXX”.
I think about that poor young WA cop who ended up with brain damage, and a Tuggeranong cop who was in plain clothes and intervened in a fight at Lanyon only to get flogged by bystanders a few years ago.
Same thing has happened to ambos & nurses – patients & family members hurting them while they are doing their thing – it’s just not OK.
No-one in this thread is saying any person deserves to be assaulted, whether at work or not, but I do think that this change is necessary given past court outcomes.
Lots of people (including me) have a relative or friend that works in law enforcement and/or emergency services. I’m thankful for the job they do and am keen to ensure that the right people work in these positions. Closing this ‘loophole’ and ensuring magistrates’ hands aren’t tied in sentencing is one of the ways we can help ensure the right people work in these positions.
There are oversight bodies to complain to if you believe you have been treated poorly – resisting and hurting someone, or ending up hurt yourself as a result of resisting lawful actions isn’t helpful. The qualifier is lawful. I can’t see any issue with the proposal, just some people failing to understand the difference between lawful and unlawful actions.

So if someone who says they’re a plain clothes cop physically restrains or assaults you, you have to assume that 1. they are not impersonating a police officer, 2. they are acting within their powers and not performing a citizens arrest, 3. and their actions are otherwise lawful. These things can only be determined after the fact. The capsicum spray guy was supposed to predict whether or not what was happening to him was lawful before deciding whether to cop a criminal assault from some lowlife, while other officers stood by (waiting to batten him presumably) if the tried to defend himself. Human rights anyone?

With a handle like ‘Siren’ I presume that you are a bit closer to the AFP than you suggest.

Mate, you don’t get it do you?

If after a Police officer clearly identify’s themselves ie. producing ID etc. AND the Police officer places someone under arrest AND the Police officer uses reasonable force, wait – let’s recap this little bit 1) Police office ID’s them self 2) the arrest is lawful AND 3) the reasonable amount of force is used (which could mean no force used at all), AND the person being arrested decides to punch the Police officer – they can no longer try and use the defence of self defence.

Do you get it? Or is the aluminium hat getting in the way of the screen?

In the above matter which you keep alluding to, it has already been found in court that the action was not lawful, if someone was able to fight Police after getting a dose like that, then self defence would have been a defence. Is that clearer?

Siren said :

PantsMan said :

So when you are capsicum sprayed, like that guy in the city watchhouse, you cannot resist? Our Human Rights Act has created some great pamphlets and public servants to administer it, but little else.

Did you read the OP?
“This bill means that a defendant would not be able to claim self defence if they assault police where the arrest or restraint by police is lawful or the police have acted in good faith and used reasonable force.”
Surely you’re aware that the ex-officer involved in the watch house ‘spraying’ video was charged (ie his actions were not lawful) and is no longer working for the AFP?
I’m all for this change. I hate to think of a time when people won’t work for the police, ambos or as a nurse because when they’re going about their job LAWFULLY and some other idiot jumps in and punches on, they get off charges in court on the basis of “I was only protecting XXX”.
I think about that poor young WA cop who ended up with brain damage, and a Tuggeranong cop who was in plain clothes and intervened in a fight at Lanyon only to get flogged by bystanders a few years ago.
Same thing has happened to ambos & nurses – patients & family members hurting them while they are doing their thing – it’s just not OK.
No-one in this thread is saying any person deserves to be assaulted, whether at work or not, but I do think that this change is necessary given past court outcomes.
Lots of people (including me) have a relative or friend that works in law enforcement and/or emergency services. I’m thankful for the job they do and am keen to ensure that the right people work in these positions. Closing this ‘loophole’ and ensuring magistrates’ hands aren’t tied in sentencing is one of the ways we can help ensure the right people work in these positions.
There are oversight bodies to complain to if you believe you have been treated poorly – resisting and hurting someone, or ending up hurt yourself as a result of resisting lawful actions isn’t helpful. The qualifier is lawful. I can’t see any issue with the proposal, just some people failing to understand the difference between lawful and unlawful actions.

So if someone who says they’re a plain clothes cop physically restrains or assaults you, you have to assume that 1. they are not impersonating a police officer, 2. they are acting within their powers and not performing a citizens arrest, 3. and their actions are otherwise lawful. These things can only be determined after the fact. The capsicum spray guy was supposed to predict whether or not what was happening to him was lawful before deciding whether to cop a criminal assault from some lowlife, while other officers stood by (waiting to batten him presumably) if the tried to defend himself. Human rights anyone?

With a handle like ‘Siren’ I presume that you are a bit closer to the AFP than you suggest.

PantsMan said :

So when you are capsicum sprayed, like that guy in the city watchhouse, you cannot resist? Our Human Rights Act has created some great pamphlets and public servants to administer it, but little else.

Did you read the OP?
“This bill means that a defendant would not be able to claim self defence if they assault police where the arrest or restraint by police is lawful or the police have acted in good faith and used reasonable force.”
Surely you’re aware that the ex-officer involved in the watch house ‘spraying’ video was charged (ie his actions were not lawful) and is no longer working for the AFP?
I’m all for this change. I hate to think of a time when people won’t work for the police, ambos or as a nurse because when they’re going about their job LAWFULLY and some other idiot jumps in and punches on, they get off charges in court on the basis of “I was only protecting XXX”.
I think about that poor young WA cop who ended up with brain damage, and a Tuggeranong cop who was in plain clothes and intervened in a fight at Lanyon only to get flogged by bystanders a few years ago.
Same thing has happened to ambos & nurses – patients & family members hurting them while they are doing their thing – it’s just not OK.
No-one in this thread is saying any person deserves to be assaulted, whether at work or not, but I do think that this change is necessary given past court outcomes.
Lots of people (including me) have a relative or friend that works in law enforcement and/or emergency services. I’m thankful for the job they do and am keen to ensure that the right people work in these positions. Closing this ‘loophole’ and ensuring magistrates’ hands aren’t tied in sentencing is one of the ways we can help ensure the right people work in these positions.
There are oversight bodies to complain to if you believe you have been treated poorly – resisting and hurting someone, or ending up hurt yourself as a result of resisting lawful actions isn’t helpful. The qualifier is lawful. I can’t see any issue with the proposal, just some people failing to understand the difference between lawful and unlawful actions.

Pantsman let me translate. “No”. Surrounded by three armed police officers, one of which has just given you a good dose of spray, any kind of self defense is going to be limited. As it is in reality.

poetix you need to consult the Doctors “magic doctors bag” if you have a problem with hearing. The bags is the give away for her being employed by the ACT health dept.

Can your guess whats in the bag. Whats the sound of civil liberties being overrode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg_NMQ2NFIc&feature=endscreen&NR=1

PantsMan said :

So when you are capsicum sprayed, like that guy in the city watchhouse, you cannot resist? Our Human Rights Act has created some great pamphlets and public servants to administer it, but little else.

I guess you didn’t bother reading this part:

This bill means that a defendant would not be able to claim self defence if they assault police where the arrest or restraint by police is lawful or the police have acted in good faith and used reasonable force.

fgzk said :

How about a childish case study…….”improve sentencing considerations for offences against police officers, emergency service workers, care and protection workers, nurses and other officials providing a service to the public, “

I know some “Workers”, a Doctor, a Fireman, a Builder, a Policeman, and a Ballerina. Say they were assaulted by a white, middle aged male, over a misunderstood genre, at work. Three of them work for the government serving the public, two don’t. When it comes to sentencing what will happen? Are some people worth more than others under the proposed law, when it comes to sentences handed out?

The Ballerina may lose her career. The builder his wage. The three public servants already have systems in place to help them deal with the assault.

Bad example. All those Workers *deserve* to be assaulted. He was acting in self defence of his ears.

So when you are capsicum sprayed, like that guy in the city watchhouse, you cannot resist? Our Human Rights Act has created some great pamphlets and public servants to administer it, but little else.

How about a childish case study…….”improve sentencing considerations for offences against police officers, emergency service workers, care and protection workers, nurses and other officials providing a service to the public, “

I know some “Workers”, a Doctor, a Fireman, a Builder, a Policeman, and a Ballerina. Say they were assaulted by a white, middle aged male, over a misunderstood genre, at work. Three of them work for the government serving the public, two don’t. When it comes to sentencing what will happen? Are some people worth more than others under the proposed law, when it comes to sentences handed out?

The Ballerina may lose her career. The builder his wage. The three public servants already have systems in place to help them deal with the assault.

jcitizen said :

Tooks said :

fgzk said :

“Cops can not arrest when they like. They can arrest when they are justified by law to do so.”

But if they do, its the Judge that will have to decide. So what happens after the judge has decided that it wasn’t a lawful arrest?
Will this law bring back an emphasis on police clearly identifying who they are?
Does it also apply to the “secret police”, you know the ones we can’t identify?

If it wasn’t a lawful arrest, then you’d probably be off the hook and have costs awarded.

What are secret police?

Good diagnosis Doctor Dog Breath.
“off the hook”. Yes , a corrupted “hook” that shouldnt have been sunk in the first place.Thats exactly what happened. Legal costs were awarded mate. But not life costs…

Must be terrible being a victim your whole life.

Classified said :

I think the majority of cops do a great job most of the time. That said, there have been two instances I’ve seen where cops have behaved well below the standard I’d expect.

They do a good job, but let’s not pretend they’re perfect.

I don’t think anyone is pretending that, are they?

What is the legal opinion about what Mr Corbell suggests?

I think the majority of cops do a great job most of the time. That said, there have been two instances I’ve seen where cops have behaved well below the standard I’d expect.

They do a good job, but let’s not pretend they’re perfect.

Slumlord said :

This article sure attracted it share of nutter comments.

Three post nutbag. Jc if you cant make your point in two consecutive posts, then you don’t have a point and your just raving mad. “Whatever” credibility you had in the thread evaporates regardless.

” 3 post nutjob.” used to be a RA thing, once upon a time.

Assaulting a police officer is abhorrent and wrong – and should be punishable to the maximum extent of the law no question.

@jcitizen , You must not be telling the full story regarding being threatened by an AFP community police officer like that. I would have to see that to believe it that’s for sure. I have spoken to many police mainly for advice over the years, walked into a couple of the stations many times to seek advice for various matters. I have been pulled over a couple of times for minor traffic infringements (u-turn across double lines, 10km over the limit speeding etc) and the police have always been friendly and respectful to me not one exception. I have seen them deal with drug affected persons swearing and abusing them at Strathgordon court when I used to live there – many times, they kept composure and were professional even in the face of abuse. I do not believe you jcitizen but I imagine you don’t care what I believe.

This article sure attracted it share of nutter comments.

Tooks said :

fgzk said :

“Cops can not arrest when they like. They can arrest when they are justified by law to do so.”

But if they do, its the Judge that will have to decide. So what happens after the judge has decided that it wasn’t a lawful arrest?
Will this law bring back an emphasis on police clearly identifying who they are?
Does it also apply to the “secret police”, you know the ones we can’t identify?

If it wasn’t a lawful arrest, then you’d probably be off the hook and have costs awarded.

What are secret police?

Good diagnosis Doctor Dog Breath.
“off the hook”. Yes , a corrupted “hook” that shouldnt have been sunk in the first place.Thats exactly what happened. Legal costs were awarded mate. But not life costs…

Jethro said :

Not a Canberra event, but still worth pondering….

Under the new system what would happen to the girl stripped of her costume tent in Melbourne by the group of 5 or 6 police officers? As far as I have been able to work out she was breaking no laws and the police had no legal basis to restrain her and, in particular, remove her clothes (albeit tent-costume-clothes). Under the new laws, would she be able to defend herself using the self defence argument, given that:

Self defence will still be available to a defendant if they responded with violence to protect themselves against some other unlawful act by police, such as an assault or imminent assault by police.

I don’t want this to be seen as an anti-police thing, or a pro-OWS thing (I basically see them as misguided at best). Nonetheless, I did think the incident in Melbourne was disturbing and wondered at the time what would have happened if the girl fought back.

She would be labelled a” nutbag”, bankrupted trying to fight it and terrorised by the culprits( and their mates).

Special G said :

The new legislation does nothing to increase police powers it simply reinforces legislation in line with community views. Police and other government workers do a service to the community by putting themselves in situations where most people don’t want to be.

A person can be arrested with 0 force. eg. ‘mate you are under arrest for XXX’ person is compliant and goes along.
Even then an Police must proceed by summons unless certain criteria are satisfied Section 212 of the Crimes Act 1900 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/ca190082/s212.html)
The only time force is warranted is when the person being arrested creates circumstances where it is required.

Back to you MWH, Jcitizen and fgzk – Why in any circumstances is it ok to assault a police officer or other govt worker.

Dont you mean assault anybody. Why are you lot a protected species?

When you go above and beyond. And you do go above and beyond. Sometimes.

Thumper I was hoping it was just an illusion.

Let a judge decide what is acceptable. This legislation only mentions employees of the Government. So it wants to give a consideration towards Government workers only. The “community view” would also hold true for the salvation Army, Doctors and nurses in private hospitals, security guards (only those on contract to the government) etc etc. I don’t see them mentioned.

This community view you talk about. Who made the submissions to the Government. Would the community view be represented only by other Gov Dept and their Associations/unions.

The community view that there is no defense against the “good faith” actions of Government workers.

Special G when its in self defense.

jcitizen said :

KeenGolfer said :

jcitizen, the ridiculously outrageous claims you have made in this and the other thread make me think you forgot to take your meds last night.

Hey Keen Golfer
If they are so ridiculous , then why have i got the paperwork to prove it?
Problem is I couldnt at the time find a Canberra solicitor who had big enough balls to take it on.
They all seemed to be “keen golfers” too.You know part of the inner circle. Even though i have their own reports, the solicitors I saw for one reason or another wouldnt touch it. Doesnt mean its not true mate.

Unlike a lot of people here, Im not medicated, and I dont play Golf.

So now that the issue has expired, why not scan and post the file here? Don’t sit on good stuff!

The new legislation does nothing to increase police powers it simply reinforces legislation in line with community views. Police and other government workers do a service to the community by putting themselves in situations where most people don’t want to be.

A person can be arrested with 0 force. eg. ‘mate you are under arrest for XXX’ person is compliant and goes along.
Even then an Police must proceed by summons unless certain criteria are satisfied Section 212 of the Crimes Act 1900 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/ca190082/s212.html)
The only time force is warranted is when the person being arrested creates circumstances where it is required.

Back to you MWH, Jcitizen and fgzk – Why in any circumstances is it ok to assault a police officer or other govt worker.

…. and how will it affect us children.

Rawhide Kid Part311:35 am 11 Dec 11

Mental Health Worker said :

No reasoned responses, as usual. Just abuse. Whatever happened to debate? Playing the ball and not the man?

I mean what kind of a response is “the longer you’re held, the longer you have to get a lawyer/for your lawyer to prepare your case”. Is the poster really recommending longer periods on remand in custody to allow preparation of a case? And you’ll pay for the lawyer how?

Out of touch are the people who clearly have no knowledge of the workings of the criminal justice system.

Taking a swing at a police officer is obviously never to be recommended, but to outlaw self-defence in ANY circumstances, however narrow, would probably be unconstitutional in countries that had a modern constitution.

MHW

Could this go against the ACT’s Human Rights Commission Act 2005 ?

You black listed me months ago. I’m not sure what it is about this idea that pisses me off. I just see a piece of legislation that once again increases police powers. The only benefit I see is a political one. So I want to understand what benefit it has. Why it is needed? Who is it going to effect? When will it be used? How can it be miss used?

“Fair questions. I even tryed to spell write. “

fgzk said :

So when confronted with overwhelming force to gain compliance, civilians will have to resist the fight or flight reaction. Will there be a training course for the civilian population to overcome natural reactions?

How about when the police have removed their number from their uniform and charge on mass? Does that count as clearly identified?

People here keep referring to “taking a swing”. But that is not really the case, is it. You can just struggle or resit to get charged with assault. You don’t have to strike.

Sorry, for a moment I thought you wanted to have a serious discussion. Now I can see you are just trolling, as your questions are absolutely ridiculous and I won’t waste any more of my time responding to you.

You are now on the blacklist. Congratulations. I’ll leave you with the advice to grow up and leave serious discussion to the adults.

What about the stats on this one. How many people were charged with assault of a “government officer “in the last ten years? How many of them successfully argued self defense? Are we talking 100’s or tens, or a couple of.

So when confronted with overwhelming force to gain compliance, civilians will have to resist the fight or flight reaction. Will there be a training course for the civilian population to overcome natural reactions?

How about when the police have removed their number from their uniform and charge on mass? Does that count as clearly identified?

People here keep referring to “taking a swing”. But that is not really the case, is it. You can just struggle or resit to get charged with assault. You don’t have to strike.

fgzk said :

You know, the ones that cant be identified.

I take it by “costs” you mean court costs. What happens to the police?

Which police don’t identify themselves when they arrest you?

Re your other question. If police have acted in good faith and the magistrate or judge finds the arrest was unlawful, nothing will happen to them.

Tooks said :

fgzk said :

“Cops can not arrest when they like. They can arrest when they are justified by law to do so.”

But if they do, its the Judge that will have to decide. So what happens after the judge has decided that it wasn’t a lawful arrest?
Will this law bring back an emphasis on police clearly identifying who they are?
Does it also apply to the “secret police”, you know the ones we can’t identify?

If it wasn’t a lawful arrest, then you’d probably be off the hook and have costs awarded.

What are secret police?

Clearly the AFP employs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo

You know, the ones that cant be identified.

I take it by “costs” you mean court costs. What happens to the police?

fgzk said :

“Cops can not arrest when they like. They can arrest when they are justified by law to do so.”

But if they do, its the Judge that will have to decide. So what happens after the judge has decided that it wasn’t a lawful arrest?
Will this law bring back an emphasis on police clearly identifying who they are?
Does it also apply to the “secret police”, you know the ones we can’t identify?

If it wasn’t a lawful arrest, then you’d probably be off the hook and have costs awarded.

What are secret police?

“Cops can not arrest when they like. They can arrest when they are justified by law to do so.”

But if they do, its the Judge that will have to decide. So what happens after the judge has decided that it wasn’t a lawful arrest?
Will this law bring back an emphasis on police clearly identifying who they are?
Does it also apply to the “secret police”, you know the ones we can’t identify?

jcitizen said :

Tooks said :

Mental Health Worker said :

“If a person believes they have been arrested unlawfully, the issue can be quickly and properly remedied when the person is brought before a magistrate. This would ordinarily happen within hours.”

In Canberra? Get real, Corbell. “within hours” means the next court day, which can be more than 36 hours, especially on long weekends. Your day in court may well follow an unpleasant night or two in the Watchhouse (hopefully without being sprayed with capsicum foam for fun, as used to happen in the WH) and possibly even in the AMC, mixing with hardened criminals. (Police no longer keep arrestees for more than 36 hours, so on weekends they hand some over to the AMC.)

And the chances of a complex question like this being “remedied” on the first court appearance is pretty slim, especially as you’re locked up unable to prepare your case, so expect your name to be sullied, you may lose your job due to absence (while in custody) or the damage to reputation, while you to try to mount your defence. Plus the cost of defending the charges.

“Arrest” may sound anodyne, but it involves the deprivation of liberty, which if you or I commit it, is a serious and violent offence, but apparently the cops can do it when they like, and you can’t resist if it’s unjustified.

Corbell claimed on ABC yesterday morning that there are no dodgy police officers, which is so patently impossible (what are they, robots?) and has been shown in the past to be untrue, that you have to wonder what his motives are – he’s clearly trying to butter up the AFP for some reason.

MHW

You really are absolutely clueless, aren’t you?

He has more of an idea than you.

You are both nut bags. Your post at #14 shows all the signs of a paranoid schizophrenic. Take your meds. As for the other goose, I could dissect his entire post, but I’ll pick out a couple of the stupider comments he made:

In Canberra? Get real, Corbell. “within hours” means the next court day, which can be more than 36 hours, especially on long weekends.

No, it doesn’t necessarily mean the next court day. Offenders are frequently brought before court the same day they are arrested. Sometimes in a matter of 2-4 hours.

hopefully without being sprayed with capsicum foam for fun

When was fun ever used as a reason? Looked through the judgement (Birch) and couldn’t find the word fun in it. Not even the DPP tried to claim that ‘fun’ was a reason for the assaults.

Arrest” may sound anodyne, but it involves the deprivation of liberty, which if you or I commit it, is a serious and violent offence, but apparently the cops can do it when they like, and you can’t resist if it’s unjustified.

1) you don’t know what anodyne means. 2) You have no idea. A citizen can lawfully arrest someone under the Crimes Act 1900. This comment alone shows you have no idea what you’re talking about.
3) Cops can not arrest when they like. They can arrest when they are justified by law to do so.

If you want to make stupid ill-informed comments, then don’t cry foul when you’re picked up on it.

KeenGolfer said :

jcitizen, the ridiculously outrageous claims you have made in this and the other thread make me think you forgot to take your meds last night.

Hey Keen Golfer
If they are so ridiculous , then why have i got the paperwork to prove it?
Problem is I couldnt at the time find a Canberra solicitor who had big enough balls to take it on.
They all seemed to be “keen golfers” too.You know part of the inner circle. Even though i have their own reports, the solicitors I saw for one reason or another wouldnt touch it. Doesnt mean its not true mate.

Unlike a lot of people here, Im not medicated, and I dont play Golf.

MHW “Corbell claimed on ABC yesterday morning that there are no dodgy police officers, which is so patently impossible (what are they, robots?) and has been shown in the past to be untrue, that you have to wonder what his motives are – he’s clearly trying to butter up the AFP for some reason.”

The AFP Police Association wants to drug test Judges, lawyers and politicians. Everyone seems to be over indulging in self interest these days. Id suggest Corbell has been buttered up to screw the rest of us.

jcitizen, the ridiculously outrageous claims you have made in this and the other thread make me think you forgot to take your meds last night.

Mental Health Worker said :

No reasoned responses, as usual. Just abuse. Whatever happened to debate? Playing the ball and not the man?

Taking a swing at a police officer is obviously never to be recommended, but to outlaw self-defence in ANY circumstances, however narrow, would probably be unconstitutional in countries that had a modern constitution.

MHW

I read your post several times. To say that assaulting a police officer is “never to be recommended” is very provocative phrasing, to say the least. Assaulting a police officer is something that simply shouldn’t and wouldn’t be considered by any reasonable person, and I wasn’t surprised by the heated responses.

The vibe I got from reading your post was that you feel cops are out there doing the wrong thing all the time, arresting innocent people left, right and centre and that as a result of this, biffing arresting police officers is a viable alternative that people should consider when being placed under arrest.

Maybe that wasn’t what you intended, but that’s the message I got, and I didn’t think it was a particularly thrilling message.

I’m sure there are cases where people are arrested without justification, but I would think that the numbers of those cases would be vanishingly small. If unjustified arrests are happening all the time, why isn’t the news appearing in the CT, local ABC and RiotAct? Where are the false arrest lawsuits? Where are the compensation claims? Where are the people who’ve lost their jobs as a result of being unjustly arrested? I would’ve thought they’d be complaining to anybody who will listen.

I don’t believe that the tsunami of bad busts that you’ve implied is actually happening, and therefore the “defend your rights by punching the arresting officer” option that you are proposing is simply not valid.

Mental Health Worker said :

No reasoned responses, as usual. Just abuse. Whatever happened to debate? Playing the ball and not the man?

I mean what kind of a response is “the longer you’re held, the longer you have to get a lawyer/for your lawyer to prepare your case”. Is the poster really recommending longer periods on remand in custody to allow preparation of a case? And you’ll pay for the lawyer how?

Out of touch are the people who clearly have no knowledge of the workings of the criminal justice system.

Taking a swing at a police officer is obviously never to be recommended, but to outlaw self-defence in ANY circumstances, however narrow, would probably be unconstitutional in countries that had a modern constitution.

MHW

The same people attacking the man not playing the ball all over this web site. Narrow minded bully types (thugs). They are all in bed with each other ,I say.

TheObserver said :

Bloody hell. The Yellow Pages will be at a premium. The thing is, if it is as clear as a dick on a dog that the cops did go OTT and the person took a swing, there are still Magistrates and Judges with enough decency to recognise that – and ensure and acquittal. Canberra Juries have pretty good BS detectors also. Dumb move by a dumb Attorney. Simon – do us a favour and bugger off and get a law degree and then do at least 15 years in practice. Up until then you wont be a pimple on an Attorney General’s right buttock.

Bloody well said !!

Tooks said :

Mental Health Worker said :

“If a person believes they have been arrested unlawfully, the issue can be quickly and properly remedied when the person is brought before a magistrate. This would ordinarily happen within hours.”

In Canberra? Get real, Corbell. “within hours” means the next court day, which can be more than 36 hours, especially on long weekends. Your day in court may well follow an unpleasant night or two in the Watchhouse (hopefully without being sprayed with capsicum foam for fun, as used to happen in the WH) and possibly even in the AMC, mixing with hardened criminals. (Police no longer keep arrestees for more than 36 hours, so on weekends they hand some over to the AMC.)

And the chances of a complex question like this being “remedied” on the first court appearance is pretty slim, especially as you’re locked up unable to prepare your case, so expect your name to be sullied, you may lose your job due to absence (while in custody) or the damage to reputation, while you to try to mount your defence. Plus the cost of defending the charges.

“Arrest” may sound anodyne, but it involves the deprivation of liberty, which if you or I commit it, is a serious and violent offence, but apparently the cops can do it when they like, and you can’t resist if it’s unjustified.

Corbell claimed on ABC yesterday morning that there are no dodgy police officers, which is so patently impossible (what are they, robots?) and has been shown in the past to be untrue, that you have to wonder what his motives are – he’s clearly trying to butter up the AFP for some reason.

MHW

You really are absolutely clueless, aren’t you?

He has more of an idea than you.

Mental Health Worker said :

“If a person believes they have been arrested unlawfully, the issue can be quickly and properly remedied when the person is brought before a magistrate. This would ordinarily happen within hours.”

In Canberra? Get real, Corbell. “within hours” means the next court day, which can be more than 36 hours, especially on long weekends. Your day in court may well follow an unpleasant night or two in the Watchhouse (hopefully without being sprayed with capsicum foam for fun, as used to happen in the WH) and possibly even in the AMC, mixing with hardened criminals. (Police no longer keep arrestees for more than 36 hours, so on weekends they hand some over to the AMC.)

And the chances of a complex question like this being “remedied” on the first court appearance is pretty slim, especially as you’re locked up unable to prepare your case, so expect your name to be sullied, you may lose your job due to absence (while in custody) or the damage to reputation, while you to try to mount your defence. Plus the cost of defending the charges.

“Arrest” may sound anodyne, but it involves the deprivation of liberty, which if you or I commit it, is a serious and violent offence, but apparently the cops can do it when they like, and you can’t resist if it’s unjustified.

Corbell claimed on ABC yesterday morning that there are no dodgy police officers, which is so patently impossible (what are they, robots?) and has been shown in the past to be untrue, that you have to wonder what his motives are – he’s clearly trying to butter up the AFP for some reason.

MHW

I was threatened to be shot in the head, by a AFP member over the telephone, when I tried to make a complaint requiring Police attendance. A Police officer arrived within two minutes of threat being made wearing a helmet and he had a gun. He was asked to remove his helmet. He refused. He then stated that it wasnt him who had made the threat and that it was a different officer from the station. Internal investigations were coplained to and upheld this version of events. They were counseled by their superior officer and that was it.The officers that were involved have since been promoted.

I still have their own report that internal Investigations issued.

Dont tell me that there is only good cops in Canberra because I could give a long, long list of them that are nothing but self serving thugs. ( and thats putting it nicely)

Sorry, that should be S.C (Simon Corbell), not C.S! 😛

Mental Health Worker said :

No reasoned responses, as usual. Just abuse. Whatever happened to debate? Playing the ball and not the man?

I mean what kind of a response is “the longer you’re held, the longer you have to get a lawyer/for your lawyer to prepare your case”. Is the poster really recommending longer periods on remand in custody to allow preparation of a case? And you’ll pay for the lawyer how?

Out of touch are the people who clearly have no knowledge of the workings of the criminal justice system.

Taking a swing at a police officer is obviously never to be recommended, but to outlaw self-defence in ANY circumstances, however narrow, would probably be unconstitutional in countries that had a modern constitution.

MHW

Dont freak out but may I suggest a couple of things:
1) I imagine the poster who commented on ‘being held longer meaning more time to prepare case’ was simply responding (in a devils advocate fashion) to your complaint of people were commonly being held longer than was mentioned by C.S., yet you also complained that they were ‘unable to prepare (their) case’. I guess they were simply pointing out to you that IF they were held longer (one of your issues) they WOULD have more time to get a lawyer and prepare a case etc (another of your issues)? This argument of yours probably seemed a contradiction to many people, that’s all…..
2) I’m also guessing that people didn’t bother with a ‘resoned response’ to your posts as you already have a strong stance that cannot be ‘reasoned’ (i.e debated) with, so why would they bother trying to convince you of their viewpoint….?
Just my 2 cents….!

Not a Canberra event, but still worth pondering….

Under the new system what would happen to the girl stripped of her costume tent in Melbourne by the group of 5 or 6 police officers? As far as I have been able to work out she was breaking no laws and the police had no legal basis to restrain her and, in particular, remove her clothes (albeit tent-costume-clothes). Under the new laws, would she be able to defend herself using the self defence argument, given that:

Self defence will still be available to a defendant if they responded with violence to protect themselves against some other unlawful act by police, such as an assault or imminent assault by police.

I don’t want this to be seen as an anti-police thing, or a pro-OWS thing (I basically see them as misguided at best). Nonetheless, I did think the incident in Melbourne was disturbing and wondered at the time what would have happened if the girl fought back.

Mental Health Worker7:20 pm 09 Dec 11

No reasoned responses, as usual. Just abuse. Whatever happened to debate? Playing the ball and not the man?

I mean what kind of a response is “the longer you’re held, the longer you have to get a lawyer/for your lawyer to prepare your case”. Is the poster really recommending longer periods on remand in custody to allow preparation of a case? And you’ll pay for the lawyer how?

Out of touch are the people who clearly have no knowledge of the workings of the criminal justice system.

Taking a swing at a police officer is obviously never to be recommended, but to outlaw self-defence in ANY circumstances, however narrow, would probably be unconstitutional in countries that had a modern constitution.

MHW

Bloody hell. The Yellow Pages will be at a premium. The thing is, if it is as clear as a dick on a dog that the cops did go OTT and the person took a swing, there are still Magistrates and Judges with enough decency to recognise that – and ensure and acquittal. Canberra Juries have pretty good BS detectors also. Dumb move by a dumb Attorney. Simon – do us a favour and bugger off and get a law degree and then do at least 15 years in practice. Up until then you wont be a pimple on an Attorney General’s right buttock.

Mental Health Worker said :

“If a person believes they have been arrested unlawfully, the issue can be quickly and properly remedied when the person is brought before a magistrate. This would ordinarily happen within hours.”

In Canberra? Get real, Corbell. “within hours” means the next court day, which can be more than 36 hours, especially on long weekends. Your day in court may well follow an unpleasant night or two in the Watchhouse (hopefully without being sprayed with capsicum foam for fun, as used to happen in the WH) and possibly even in the AMC, mixing with hardened criminals. (Police no longer keep arrestees for more than 36 hours, so on weekends they hand some over to the AMC.)

And the chances of a complex question like this being “remedied” on the first court appearance is pretty slim, especially as you’re locked up unable to prepare your case, so expect your name to be sullied, you may lose your job due to absence (while in custody) or the damage to reputation, while you to try to mount your defence. Plus the cost of defending the charges.

“Arrest” may sound anodyne, but it involves the deprivation of liberty, which if you or I commit it, is a serious and violent offence, but apparently the cops can do it when they like, and you can’t resist if it’s unjustified.

Corbell claimed on ABC yesterday morning that there are no dodgy police officers, which is so patently impossible (what are they, robots?) and has been shown in the past to be untrue, that you have to wonder what his motives are – he’s clearly trying to butter up the AFP for some reason.

MHW

You really are absolutely clueless, aren’t you?

Self defence will still be available to a defendant if they responded with violence to protect themselves against some other unlawful act by police, such as an assault or imminent assault by police.

Still a fair bit of lee way here for lawyers to waste a lot of court time arguing for self defence.

“I thought the cops were going to assault me so I hit ‘um.”

“What happened then?”

“They hit me.”

“Your Honour, I put it too you that my clients assumption that the cops were about to hit him was born out by events….”

Mental Health Worker – Where do you hang out so I can avoid you?

whitelaughter9:17 am 09 Dec 11

@mental health worker – do you really think that taking a swing at the copper arresting you is going to improve matters?
Also, the longer you’re held, the longer you have to get a lawyer/for your lawyer to prepare your case, so swings and roundabouts.
When I was getting my security licence, we were repeatedly warned that the penalty for false arrest was five grand – granted that they probably emphasised the high end to discourage idiocy, even the possibility of a fraction of $5000 in damages would be enough to encourage me to play along and be a good little citizen.

colourful sydney racing identity8:08 am 09 Dec 11

Mental Health Worker said :

“If a person believes they have been arrested unlawfully, the issue can be quickly and properly remedied when the person is brought before a magistrate. This would ordinarily happen within hours.”

In Canberra? Get real, Corbell. “within hours” means the next court day, which can be more than 36 hours, especially on long weekends. Your day in court may well follow an unpleasant night or two in the Watchhouse (hopefully without being sprayed with capsicum foam for fun, as used to happen in the WH) and possibly even in the AMC, mixing with hardened criminals. (Police no longer keep arrestees for more than 36 hours, so on weekends they hand some over to the AMC.)

And the chances of a complex question like this being “remedied” on the first court appearance is pretty slim, especially as you’re locked up unable to prepare your case, so expect your name to be sullied, you may lose your job due to absence (while in custody) or the damage to reputation, while you to try to mount your defence. Plus the cost of defending the charges.

“Arrest” may sound anodyne, but it involves the deprivation of liberty, which if you or I commit it, is a serious and violent offence, but apparently the cops can do it when they like, and you can’t resist if it’s unjustified.

Corbell claimed on ABC yesterday morning that there are no dodgy police officers, which is so patently impossible (what are they, robots?) and has been shown in the past to be untrue, that you have to wonder what his motives are – he’s clearly trying to butter up the AFP for some reason.

MHW

Oh come on. Even I think that is over the top.

Mental Health Worker6:50 am 09 Dec 11

“If a person believes they have been arrested unlawfully, the issue can be quickly and properly remedied when the person is brought before a magistrate. This would ordinarily happen within hours.”

In Canberra? Get real, Corbell. “within hours” means the next court day, which can be more than 36 hours, especially on long weekends. Your day in court may well follow an unpleasant night or two in the Watchhouse (hopefully without being sprayed with capsicum foam for fun, as used to happen in the WH) and possibly even in the AMC, mixing with hardened criminals. (Police no longer keep arrestees for more than 36 hours, so on weekends they hand some over to the AMC.)

And the chances of a complex question like this being “remedied” on the first court appearance is pretty slim, especially as you’re locked up unable to prepare your case, so expect your name to be sullied, you may lose your job due to absence (while in custody) or the damage to reputation, while you to try to mount your defence. Plus the cost of defending the charges.

“Arrest” may sound anodyne, but it involves the deprivation of liberty, which if you or I commit it, is a serious and violent offence, but apparently the cops can do it when they like, and you can’t resist if it’s unjustified.

Corbell claimed on ABC yesterday morning that there are no dodgy police officers, which is so patently impossible (what are they, robots?) and has been shown in the past to be untrue, that you have to wonder what his motives are – he’s clearly trying to butter up the AFP for some reason.

MHW

This is a bloody great move!

There must be a serious disturbance in The Force. In one week I’ve approved of something done by the greens, the libs *and* ACT labor. Surely these are The End of Days…

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.