A JURY has acquitted a Queensland police officer over the death of a man in custody on Palm Island.

Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley had pleaded not guilty in the Townsville Supreme Court to one count each of manslaughter and assault over 36-year-old Mulrunji Doomadgee's death at the Palm Island police watchhouse on November 19, 2004.

The jury of eight women and four men took just over three hours to deliver their not guilty verdict on both charges.

A week after Mulrunji's death, Palm Islanders rioted and burnt down the police station, courthouse and the home of officer-in-charge Senior Sergeant Hurley.

In his closing instructions to the jury, Justice Peter Dutney urged the 12-member panel to judge the case against Sen Sgt Hurley on its own merits and consider their verdict carefully.

Justice Dutney told the jury: “This trial is not concerned with police in general, it is not concerned with the riots which occurred after Mulrunji's death was published.”

Last week, the trial heard Mulrunji died of internal bleeding after his liver was cleaved in two across his spine and his portal vein burst under pressure.

The injuries resulted from the application of what was described to the court as moderate to massive force.

Medical experts testified that the injuries could have occurred as a result of Sen Sgt Hurley falling on top of Mulrunji with his knee protruding as they tripped through the doorway of the watchhouse.

Alternatively, the court was told the officer could have intentionally performed a “knee-drop” immediately after the incident.

Justice Dutney said it was up to the jury to decide whether or not the injuries had occurred before or after the fall and whether or not Hurley had lied in his accounts of the incident.

Sen Sgt Hurley initially told investigating police he fell beside Mulrunji, but when taking the stand last week he conceded he “must have” landed on top of him.

Justice Dutney said if the jury decided Sen Sgt Hurley intentionally injured Mulrunji they needed to decide whether “a reasonable person” would have considered his actions could result in the 36-year-old Aboriginal man's death.

Premier Peter Beattie said earlier today the verdict should be calmly accepted.

“This has been a difficult case ... but I think it's absolutely imperative that everybody, regardless of who they are, accept the decision of the court,” Mr Beattie said.


And rightfully so in my opinion. GG

Good!

Damn right, there's NO evidence to suggest the injury was intentional and therefore since there's reasonable doubt - not guilty!

Manslaughter doesn't require mens rea.

this means the CBD will be shut down sometime over the next week for a fkn stupid protest :(

police lie.

Manslaughter doesn't require mens rea.

No it does not. Criminal Code pretty much states that a delibrate killing = murder, any other killing = manslaughter.

BUT,
section23 Intention—motive
(1) Subject to the express provisions of this Code relating to
negligent acts and omissions, a person is not criminally
responsible for—
(a) an act or omission that occurs independently of the
exercise of the person’s will; or
(b) an event that occurs by accident.


he plead it occurred on accident, which the jury accepted. Case Closed.

I'll decide whether the case is closed or not, thanks

I wouldn't trust you with filling up my car.

this isnt going to go down well

diesel, right infi?

cos you know that the general aboriginal community that have never been to palm island are far, far better informed than the courts. bah.

FARK YOU!

Just because you're appointed in a court of law doesn't mean you're always right.

I got friends that have finished their law degree and are gunning for judicial positions and they're RACIST as hell towards Aboriginal's, seems like you are too.

I bet they carry knives.

so who exactly is responsible for his untreated unjurys which occured in his death?

He'll never live that one down :)


Jim, I was about to make a comment about diesel lol

so who exactly is responsible for his untreated unjurys which occured in his death?

Nobody because he is a police officer and part of the state.

If it was another citizen, I bet things would be different.

so who exactly is responsible for his untreated unjurys which occured in his death?

jury ruled the injuries were accidental. therefore no-one is criminally responsible.

where is the racism here?

against the aborigines because they claim Hurley was let off the hook, or against Hurley because he was put through the ringer and had his life ruined on inconclusive evidence? or both?

cos you know that the general aboriginal community that have never been to palm island are far, far better informed than the courts. bah.

Why would the Palm Island community know more? Were they all there when it happened? Are they all unbiased towards police?
Give me a break.

cos you know that the general aboriginal community that have never been to palm island are far, far better informed than the courts. bah.

That's the racism, nothing to do with the content inside the thread.

He's stereotyping members of a race that he has never met, if that's not racism... not sure what is.

turn on your sarcasm alerter kat./

the baby broke it.

jury ruled the injuries were accidental. therefore no-one is criminally responsible.

I thought unintentional homicide WAS manslaughter? Isn't that the whole point?

*slaps sarcasm alerter*

At the end of the day a white boy gets free, everyones happy.

:(

except s23 of the Criminal Code removes criminal responsibility where the injuries occur by accident.

manslaughter is where the injury is intentional but death not.

for example...

murder. i get a gun and shoot you in the heart
i wanted you dead
manslaughter. i punch you in the ribs, you have a heart conditions which causes you do have a heart attack and you die.
i intended to punch you but i did not intend you to die

accident = i fall from a 2nd storey balcony and you break my fall. accident

s23 is basically a total defense to any charge. i used a similar defense "Mistake of fact" in a traffic case.

A total defense means you must be found not guilty if the grounds of the defense are made out.

Though don't people get manslaughter for car ACCIDENTS all the time?

He's stereotyping members of a race that he has never met

what, by calling them aborigines?

infi = yes

Chub, the argument in car accidents is the defendant has acted in such a way that his actions and choices led to the outcome. the defendant is often negligent and fails to meet the standard expected of a reasonable person in control of a motor vehicle.

Just another case of whitie keeping a brother down.

while i'm not naive and going to declare that race was a non-issue. I do not believe it influence the jury's decision on a major scale. i think that the defence team (he had a top barrister supplied by the Police union), pointed out enough if, but's and maybe's in the prosecutions largely "this is our theory of events" case.

well i'm glad he got off...

i went to a party the other day and some abo chick from melbourne was there.. actually smart girl in a ditzy way.. she was saying when she got back to aus she was going to do indig studies.. she was going on about the problems of the abos then asked where i came from.. i said cairns.. and she said.. o then you would know all about the social problems..

to which i agreed that i did...

you fgts in capital cities have nfi how bad abos get in the regional centres..

it turned me into an uncaring sob when it comes to abo issues

like i said.. glad he got off

yeah basically the best way to deal with any sort of abo problems is give 'em one in the guts.

Yeah I don't disagree with you Superform, I've dealt with a fair amount of rural Aboriginal communities.

Though that's racism and you can't deny it.

Mt Isa for 13yrs has left me with no tolerance for abo's unless they prove themselves a member of the human race first.

Here is my thoughts...

If it was an Asian or a white fella who died while being arrested by a Police Officer..

The police officer would be found not guilty...

The fact the death was of an Aboriginal (note the Capital 'A' show respect people) is irrelevant. lets not make this a racial thing. and accept it as a "Police can do anything they want and get away with it" thing

Much easier to live with

Most of that was facetious, you can choose which parts :)

Yeah I don't disagree with you Superform, I've dealt with a fair amount of rural Aboriginal communities.

By 'dealt with' you mean you pulled out your knife and they left you alone right?

Dont get me wrong here, I think Racism is a real and a very sad issue.
However, there are just as many Racist indigenous as there are 'White' Australians.

My Sister did 2 yeas in a 'Remote' community and the s*** she had to deal with just wasn't right. The crap they called her and put her through EVERY f***ING DAY just because she was white was atrocious.

yeah well the next time the group of homeless people you encounter who live in the vacant block next to your work are trying to piss on you through a chain link fence as you try to work and council or police wont move them on cause they are abos then come see me..

o and i'm not talking about guys.. i mean big fat drunk abo girls spraying you like a f***in cow

it took 3 months for council to move them on..

o and wait.. they have A WHOLE f***IN PENINSULA to live on that the kind people of Australia GAVE to them to live on right across the river in cairns

or wait.. what about the story of my mate who is a cop and was send to doomigie for a stint.. and got chased out of town after having been chased around by drunk abos who where throwing star pickets at him and his car... one of the pickets nearly killing him

or the stories of housing being torn down and burnt cause the f***heads are too lazy to find firewood.. o wait.. not private housing.. public housing that is build and rebuilt for them at taxpayer expense...

dont get me wrong i understand that obos have social issues that need addressing.. and maybe as a society we just arnt addressing them properly.. but ffs dont tell me its from lack of trying.. or that cause white australia is too raciest to care or that abos cop it in goal more then others.

in alot of communities across the north abos are taking matters into there own hands and banning drink, having abo law deal with crime etc.. and there has been a large success rate with some of these programs..

but for the f***ing criminals living in the middle of our regional centres crying racism at every turn whilst committing crimes that would send any other person to jail.. well i feel they should do what the local mayer did a few years back.. hire a bus.. pack em all on.. and send em back to there bush communities

ps i applaud the abos who actually are trying to fix things and i also have seen alot of them - i still have hope.. but i have 0 patience

Exactly! Though you can already tell, multiple people in this thread will hate you if you're an Aborigine regardless of your actions... that's pure racism at its finest.

98% of the Aboriginal's I have met in my travels have been absolute scum, but I still treat each new one I meet based on individual merit, it's not that much to ask.

cos you know that the general aboriginal community that have never been to palm island are far, far better informed than the courts. bah.

CHUB: That's the racism

How is the above comment racist in any way?

white australia has been keeping abo's down for years, its disgusting the way we treat them, and there excessive violence, alcohol and drug abuse is the outcome.

i have nothing but sympathy for the nignogs.

Well clearly it's because we don't provide the same chance for Education to a general Aboriginal community as we do to those in the courts.

So it's our fault that they are not as informed as an educated individual.

By 'dealt with' you mean you pulled out your knife and they left you alone right?

No I've done drug and alcohol abuse social work, so I have dealt with some of the worst communities.

Judge them on their actions. If they're pissing on you or throwing star pickets out of their car windows, yes they are scum and deserved to be locked up.

If you've never met them, give them the benefit of the doubt till they cause you to think otherwise.

o and wait.. they have A WHOLE f***IN PENINSULA to live on that the kind people of Australia GAVE to them to live on right across the river in cairns

Sorry, land rights, something I support 110%.

That's equivalent to someone coming on your land, shooting you, then claiming it for themselves.

last edited by CHUB at 17:09:40 20/Jun/07

I asked the same thing fpot
chub was too busy saying "that's racism" to respond

gawd i hope your being factious

edit for scooter

last edited by Superform at 17:10:51 20/Jun/07

cos you know that the general aboriginal community that have never been to palm island are far, far better informed than the courts. bah.

CHUB: That's the racism
How is the above comment racist in any way?

Well why isn't the general Aboriginal community as informed as the courts?

^^ do you really want a serious answer.

perhaps the rioting and thoughtless destruction of public and private property combined with out and out lawlessness is an indicator.

the jury heard a mammoth of evidence and acquitted. i feel like i can say they know more the ANY general population, aboriginal or not, regarding the facts of this case.

Um Because the Judge/Lawyer's spent HIS/HER WHOLE f***ING ADULT LIFE STUDYING THE LAW?
Maybe, just might be the reason.

As for the Jury, it was a selection of Peers. A Selection of the General comunity.
If we just allowed one section, say the Aboriginal community, having a say... wouldn't *that* be racist?

perhaps the rioting and thoughtless destruction of public and private property combined with out and out lawlessness is an indicator.

That applies to every single Aborigine? So therefor not 1 Aborigine in Australia should allowed any say in the matter, since they're all equally uninformed?

oh and the Aboriginal spokesman said "we wanted justice, but we'll accept the verdict"

newsflash - the verdict is justice. justice is the outcome of a properly conducted trial. someone should tell her that justice is not subjective.

last edited by fade at 17:21:39 20/Jun/07

hahaha

Well why isn't the general Aboriginal community as informed as the courts?

but that's not what he said, or what you quoted - look:

cos you know that the general aboriginal community <blink><flash><strobe><stand_out_for_chub>that have never been to palm island are far, far better informed than the courts.

That applies to every single Aborigine? So therefor not 1 Aborigine in Australia should allowed any say in the matter, since they're all equally uninformed?

it covers more than aboriginals... the jury and presiding judge are in the best position to determine the facts, pass judgement and make statements than ANY person in Australia.

last edited by fade at 17:23:42 20/Jun/07

Um Because the Judge/Lawyer's spent HIS/HER WHOLE f***ING ADULT LIFE STUDYING THE LAW?
Maybe, just might be the reason.

I don't see that as a reason. Just because you study law doesn't mean squat. Every single person knows someone that is studying/is working in law, it's definetely not bulletproof from racists and other s***c***s.

As for the Jury, it was a selection of Peers. A Selection of the General comunity.
If we just allowed one section, say the Aboriginal community, having a say... wouldn't *that* be racist?

Of course?

Why's it matter where the Jury is from? They weren't there when the act was committed... does it make any difference?

last edited by CHUB at 17:23:53 20/Jun/07

I don't see that as a reason. Just because you study law doesn't mean squat.

Que? o.O
Just because someone knows about something doesn't mean that person that knows something knows something more then someone that doesn't know something...

I never said they're would be a racist or indeed many racist people.
Just that said racist people would know the Law better then YOU and the general populace.

Of course?

Then why should we allow this small group of Select individuals try to pervert the course of justice?

this is priceless

let's ditch judges, who are they above anyone else to preside over a court
let's ditch the jury process and just let the aboriginal community decide the outcome

Chub, i see your point. Who's to say that there isn't someone out there who knows more, but wouldnt you think they would have come forward as a witness?

nuke em from orbit.. its the only way to be sure

how do you see his point?

so far his points are:

- that a judge isn't any more qualified to preside over a court than anyone else, because being a judge doesn't preclude you from being racist
- that the jury selection process shouldn't be structered the way it is because the jurors weren't eyewitnesses to the crime

Lets backtrack... lets take Judges out of this, as it was the Jury that made the decision.

I took the comment, as the Jury had a more informed opinion then if a Jury was made up from the Aboriginal community.

Was the Aboriginal community represented in the Jury? If not I retract my statement and I'll upcut myself for wasting so much time.

If the Jury was made up completely of "White people" with no Aboriginal representation and the comment still stood ("that they were more informed"), yes that is racism.

Does that make anymore sense?

- that a judge isn't any more qualified to preside over a court than anyone else, because being a judge doesn't preclude you from being racist
- that the jury selection process shouldn't be structered the way it is because the jurors weren't eyewitnesses to the crime

1)Of course he is, it just doesn't mean his decision is any more moral/ethical then a standard citizen... and I stand by that 110%. The idea that since somebody spends 5 years in Uni and works in the law system makes them some angelic figure is just (N)
2)The Jury should be unbiased, in this case it should have Aboriginal respresentation, and if it did... like I said above, I will uppercut myself for the time wasting.

last edited by CHUB at 17:35:08 20/Jun/07

They are more informed because all the INFORMATION was presented to them in the case.
That's why the courts have a strict PROCESS to assure the Jury isn't Bias.

Was the Aboriginal community represented in the Jury?

The Australian community was. Expecting special treatment just because they are Aboriginal is well... racist.

The Australian community was. Expecting special treatment just because they are Aboriginal is well... racist.

Well you can see just from this thread, the large majority of Australian's are racist towards Aboriginal's... that's my point?

If the Jury was made up completely of "White people" with no Aboriginal representation and the comment still stood ("that they were more informed"), yes that is racism.

Does that make anymore sense?

it was clear that's what you were saying
and no, it doens't make sense


the only thing racist there, is your assertion that a race requires representation on a jury

no.. thats stupid..

the jury is presented with the facts of the case...

they dont make up there own facts

it doesnt matter if the jury is white black or hispanic

or would you prefer to have a baised racially fueled jury full of blacks looking for 'justice'?

1) The is more to consider than moral/ethical standards. such as relevant legal procedures, technicalities etc:
2) Who's to say that an aboriginal wouldn't take in preconceived and predetermined opinions?

.1)Of course he is, it just doesn't mean his decision is any more moral/ethical then a standard citizen... and I stand by that 110%. The idea that since somebody spends 5 years in Uni and works in the law system makes them some angelic figure is just (N)

It takes a hell of a lot more then just '5 years in Uni' to become a Judge.

2)The Jury should be unbiased, in this case it should have Aboriginal respresentation, and if it did... like I said above, I will uppercut myself for the time wasting.

Excluding OR including someone based solely on their race is racist.
Picking a Jury member because they are Aboriginal is racist.

Well you can see just from this thread, the large majority of Australian's are racist towards Aboriginal's... that's my point?

but that's not a point at all, it's just your own illogical conclusion

there's no reason whatsoever, to come to that conclusion based on this thread and the responses it contains

the issue here, is that you are yet another person who wants to cry "racism" without even thinking it through rationally, simply because you see a chance to say it

No it is what it is... the racism comment was purely towards ->

Do you think if the Jury of 100% Aboriginal's is less informed, then a Jury of 100% "Australian's"?

that was never the question.

The point was, that a 100% Aboriginal Jury would be less informed and biased... that's what I have taken from peoples posts, tell me if I'm wrong.

Though if the Jury was 100% white Australian's, even if they got the exact same information, they would somehow be all fair.

No it is what it is... the racism comment was purely towards ->

Do you think if the Jury of 100% Aboriginal's is less informed, then a Jury of 100% "Australian's"?

heh, and that appeared where exactly, in this thread?

That was never the question CHUB, but since you bring it up;

For some reason you seem to think a '100%' Jury is less informed than any other jury picked by our courts.

That's pretty racist.

Thinking those 12(?) people you've never met couldn't perform their duties based solely on the colour of their skin.

Well, Superform may be racist.

As for the rest of us, our points still stand.

I am yet to see a better alternative to trial by jury. For all its flaws it is the best method to serve representative democracy and justice.

I'm pretty confused by this entire thread and who is arguing what exactly.

I would be concerned about any members of a tight-knit community appearing as an entire jury. I think the jury would have been chosen from the area wouldn't they? So chances are that if the jury was entirely Aboriginal then there would be a clear conflict of interest? I don't really understand how it works.

And just a little thing that has been pissing me off in this thread is the use of Aboriginal vs Aborigine. Racist to get that confused? Nah, your.

Aboriginal = adjective. Aborigine = noun.

I am yet to see a better alternative to trial by jury. For all its flaws it is the best method to serve representative democracy and justice.

Studies have shown that less severe crimes need less evidence to convict. People are lousy judges of whether or not someone is lying. Having said that, I have no idea about an alternative to jury decision making.

Any attempt to professionalise the jury process will only lead to less representative juries. It is selective enough at the moment.

For some reason you seem to think a '100%' Jury is less informed than any other jury picked by our courts.

...

cos you know that the general aboriginal community that have never been to palm island are far, far better informed than the courts. bah.

So by your posts, we should be able to pick a jury that contained some members from the general Aboriginal community? Any problem with that?

No, no problem at all. As long as everyone on the jury passed the selection process (to weed out those Bias and otherwise unfit) then all are welcome.

No-where in the thread has anyone (with the exception of Superform) said otherwise.

Ugh. I did jury duty recently. If only I listened to everyone and bothered to get out of it.

Well no problem with me then.

Given the manner in which the comment was made and the obvious racism in this thread, I'm still skeptical.

Studies have shown that less severe crimes need less evidence to convict. People are lousy judges of whether or not someone is lying. Having said that, I have no idea about an alternative to jury decision making.

Police do lie, oh they do... Hurley probably didn't like abo's and this particular one was pissing him off therefore wanted to f*** him up a bit and as a result killed him.

Jury's don't make a decision based on their opinions, they make a decision based on the evidence presented to them by the prosecutor and defense and base their decision on that... It can be ambiguous at times, but that's the best system we have and I personally can't think of a better full proof system.. It all comes down to how good the barrister is at presenting the case and therefore the more money you got, the better the barrister..

Jury's are also directed by the judge to base their decisions on inferences.

[quote]o and wait.. they have A WHOLE f***IN PENINSULA to live on that the kind people of Australia GAVE to them to live on right across the river in cairns[/quote]

I'm pretty f***ing sure we were the ones who forced alot of communities from up north down to cairns idiot.

I still don't understand minorities.

Aborigines are much like women to me.... They don't want to be treated like everyone else, they want special treatment.... then they complain that they aren't being treated like everyone else.

then it's best you just leave the thread if you can't sympathise with the plight of minorities. i hope you never teach your children anything because they'll be a lot better off without any of your opinions (note the lack of the word knowledge)

i never thought i'd say this but, i agree with kat!

nuke em from orbit.. its the only way to be sure

It worked in Tasmania!

( how's that for some racism Chub! )

nice work police union for their retarted radio ads (comparing beatie to mugabe)

hmmm, it appears asif unions in australia are trying to ruin it for themselves for evar

I'm pretty f***ing sure we were the ones who forced alot of communities from up north down to cairns idiot.

wtf are u talking about

there is an area the size of cairns across the inlet that they have free use off and is actually off limits to whites... but no they sit in parks in cairns bashing tourists, deficating into there hands and throwing it at people and calling everyone who passes 'captian cook white c***s'

but of course this behaviour is somehow my fault for being unaborigional and for driving them off there land 200 years ago

o wait.. that wasnt me... i'm the guy living in an age where the curent government bends over backwards to help and gets s***c***ed when abos abuse this generosity by throwing it back in our faces while crying poor us

like i said.. until you live in a rural community with an abo problem.. dont sit in your capital city joining in with the occasional 'say sorry' campaign whilst sipping your lattes in the comfort of an abo free zone

when you have had an abo try to throw his feaces on you whilst yelling capt cook white c*** at 8am while he is drunk off his head and throwing bricks at his comrades heads, day after day then come comment on what i'm talking about

ps i'm not racist.. i'm just fed up

the abos are pretty bad up in cairns, ill give you that

wifey nearly got me bashed in the city centre a few years ago

they were bashing tourists, just while we were walking past and petal decided she couldnt walk around them and gave them some "do you mind!?"

im all like "petal, thats not a good idea" and started legging it

they cursed me out for a bit, but luckily decided to leave petal alone and just went back to bashing the poor tourist they decided to pick on

Native land rights is something I support 110%.

If you're against the general behaviour, that's alright. Though if you're against the congregation of indigenous Australian's on THEIR OWN LAND, that's just whacked.

I'm against anyone committing that sort of behaviour, in any place - including their own land. Common decency has no borders.

1)Of course he is, it just doesn't mean his decision is any more moral/ethical then a standard citizen... and I stand by that 110%. The idea that since somebody spends 5 years in Uni and works in the law system makes them some angelic figure is just (N)

Do you mean all judges are male CHUB?

chub I'd love to know why you think you're in a position to know that it's 'THEIR OWN LAND', how they came by it, and came to own it

chub = new Hunter?

chub I'd love to know why you think you're in a position to know that it's 'THEIR OWN LAND', how they came by it, and came to own it

Well if they can trace back the ownership of their own tribe, yes they own it.

If you can't understand that concept, DIAF.

Do you mean all judges are male CHUB?

Of course not, don't nit pick for no reason.

last edited by CHUB at 22:25:09 21/Jun/07

I don't understand this whole 'land ownerhsip' thing.. white man came, white man kicked ass, white man owns land now. If they want their land back then pick up a spear and fight for it.

native title, mabo, it's the vibe.

I don't understand this whole 'land ownerhsip' thing.. white man came, white man kicked ass, white man owns land now. If they want their land back then pick up a spear and fight for it.

So can I come on your land, shoot you and claim your land?

By your logic I can.

read up on the high court's view on terra nulias some time.

chub yes you can.. as long as you or your army can fight off the people who defend my property from invaders.. ie the army...

gogo taxes

Get a f***ing clue superform.

Seriously, are you f***ing stupid, that's most uninformed statement I've seen on QGL in my over 5+ years.

EDIT: BTW I'm part of the ADF, no we don't defend your personal property. Seriously DIAF, have some respect for the native Australian's.

last edited by CHUB at 23:08:26 21/Jun/07

what.. how?

countries invade other countries..

if you want to take over someones property then yes.. be prepared to bring an army..

your simple simon analogy is no good.. because you dont take into account the strengh of the invader or the defender

its not our fault that at the time of our conquest of australia the english had superior military and social aspects to there society and abos did not.. and therefore couldnt defend 'there' country

they couldnt defend there country back then.. and if they wanted to rise up and take back there country by force today then they wouldnt stand a chance..

your analogy should be.. if you walked onto my property with your knife and tried to kill me.. however my property is defended by some barbed wire alarms auto guns aka alien style and i'm sitting in the top of my house with a m60 waiting for you..

then yes.. if you kill me you can have my property

So you support invasion and murder?

Basically you're condoning it... survival of the fittest type?

your analogy should be.. if you walked onto my property with your knife and tried to kill me.. however my property is defended by some barbed wire alarms auto guns aka alien style and i'm sitting in the top of my house with a m60 waiting for you..

I don't get that though.

last edited by CHUB at 23:23:06 21/Jun/07

in this day and age there is no need for invasion/killing (not murder) for property gain.. only for political gain

and yes i support it

So to relate to my other thread (sorry to bring it up, but Superform seems warped in the head).

You have no problem with me carrying my Beretta in my trousers in public with me?

EDIT: and shooting you, your wife/children and claiming your land (even if the police/and or army (wtf) didn't come defend)).

last edited by CHUB at 23:26:01 21/Jun/07

supporting my country going into another country to spread the love that is democracy is alot different to supporting your rambo wannabe delusions of carrying weapons around in public

Sorry, unless you're a part of the ADF, pull the dick of your ass.

That's insulting to myself and our fellow comrades.

EDIT: I'm out. I consider you highly racist. The people on QGL consider you highly racist.

From your posts you haven't stated you serve an ADF or social service position. I'm not going to take part in this s***house debate.

last edited by CHUB at 23:31:54 21/Jun/07

how so?

EDIT: bahahah

EDIT: I'm out. I consider you highly racist. The people on QGL consider you highly racist.

From your posts you haven't stated you serve an ADF or social service position. I'm not going to take part in this s***house debate.

i think you just 'debated' yourself into a corner and got pwned sorry to see you go

last edited by Superform at 23:38:10 21/Jun/07

o and wait.. they have A WHOLE f***IN PENINSULA to live on that the kind people of Australia GAVE to them to live on right across the river in cairns

umm.... and where did we get this lovely big country from in the first place?

The other thing that frustrates me, is the only actual "facts" displayed about the events of the day of his death is from the police officer himself.

If I was up on a manslaughter/murder charge, I'd be bulls***ting my way out of it, and making the story go in my favour too...

How can anyone say with 100% certainty that his recount of events was exactly how it happened. I'm not saying he's guilty either, however I don't think it can be ever resolved with a good outcome unless there was visual proof of the events of that day.

Justice has been exercised, but I feel it will never be enough for the family of the dead.

umm.... and where did we get this lovely big country from in the first place?

as far as i know i was born here... as an Australian living under Australian law.. .

for me it has always been here and i have always lived in it.. i didnt take it from anyone...

we f***ing barged in and took it by force

if britain hadnt done it some other european douche bags would have

harden up

last edited by Insom at 00:55:50 22/Jun/07

What about the people who go to jail for accidentally running people over? Is it manslaughter if they broke the road rules at the time? Is it an accident if they were doing nothing wrong but it just happened?

Don't you watch those ads? 'Speeding is no accident' is one of their main pushes.

If you were breaking the rules in any way (Talking on Phone, Speeding, Drunk, ...) then you're at fault because you wern't doiing your best to avoid the situation.

If you were following the road rules they Dont charge you with Manslaughter.