Just like it's hard to claim domestic violance if the 'victim' denies it.
Just like it's hard to claim organised gang violance if the 'victim' denies it.
Except in this case, there is video evidence. The 'victim' can say what he likes, especially when he's clearly stated he's not about that snitching life... the evidence presented will overcome that.
In b4 Rickman stomps in here aggressively attacking you or anyone else for insinuating the nrl and it’s constituent organs are incompetent or biased or both.
greeneyed wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 8:47 pm
And now the Judiciary chair is instructucting the panel to consider if Pompey’s evidence is “influenced” by his view that what happens on the field should stay on the field.
In b4 Rickman stomps in here aggressively attacking you or anyone else for insinuating the nrl and it’s constituent organs are incompetent or biased or both.
Deliberating: A very interesting defence for @RaidersCanberra Hudson Young. Judiciary has to go against his word, @NZWarriors Adam Pompey’s word and his on field reaction, which was proven by QC Nick Ghabar to be none. Great case. @FOXSportsNews #NRL #NRLFinals #judiciary
greeneyed wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 8:47 pm
And now the Judiciary chair is instructucting the panel to consider if Pompey’s evidence is “influenced” by his view that what happens on the field should stay on the field.
So he gets off and what has he learned? That if you have the best defence brief you will get away with it and il bet if he does get off he will do it again!
He needs 10 weeks and a very long stint in Mounties next year to think about it
greeneyed wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 8:47 pm
And now the Judiciary chair is instructucting the panel to consider if Pompey’s evidence is “influenced” by his view that what happens on the field should stay on the field.
That's why I would question whether he also reminded them of the direction given that video footage can be deceptive, since the whole case is based on it.
Last edited by edwahu on September 10, 2019, 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
greeneyed wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 8:47 pm
And now the Judiciary chair is instructucting the panel to consider if Pompey’s evidence is “influenced” by his view that what happens on the field should stay on the field.
GreenMachine wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 8:48 pm
You can clearly see this is heading towards a guilty result.
The fact that the panel are reminded to consider Adam Pompey’s evidence as possibly corrupted by a sense of player loyalty is ridiculous.
What about the fact there was no reaction from Pompey directly after the incident?
I am gobsmacked that he has done that, he is pretty much implying Pompey wasnt telling the truth which is firstly incorrect as his actions on the field matches his testimony and secondly thats getting close to defamation- implying Pompey is lying
its also showing how for a multi million dollar sport its pretty amateurish and EDIT
greeneyed wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 8:47 pm
And now the Judiciary chair is instructucting the panel to consider if Pompey’s evidence is “influenced” by his view that what happens on the field should stay on the field.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Kryptonite wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:00 pm
So he gets off and what has he learned? That if you have the best defence brief you will get away with it and il bet if he does get off he will do it again!
He needs 10 weeks and a very long stint in Mounties next year to think about it
no matter the verdict tonight I am certain Ricky and Hudson will be having a very unpleasant conversation and Ricky will be laying down the law in no uncertain terms. Hudson will have a lot of work to do before he is back in first grade
Kryptonite wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:00 pm
So he gets off and what has he learned? That if you have the best defence brief you will get away with it and il bet if he does get off he will do it again!
He needs 10 weeks and a very long stint in Mounties next year to think about it
no matter the verdict tonight I am certain Ricky and Hudson will be having a very unpleasant conversation and Ricky will be laying down the law in no uncertain terms. Hudson will have a lot of work to do before he is back in first grade
I have more faith in Ricky reforming Hudson, than the NRL ever achieving the same with this joke of a process.
Just like it's hard to claim domestic violance if the 'victim' denies it.
Just like it's hard to claim organised gang violance if the 'victim' denies it.
Except in this case, there is video evidence. The 'victim' can say what he likes, especially when he's clearly stated he's not about that snitching life... the evidence presented will overcome that.
Is that the same video evidence that showed no reaction from the player at all. Even the hardest of people react to being poked in the eye that is why it is taught as a self defense target because the eye just can't handle that kind of contact. Yet there was no reaction how is it possible.
Last edited by Raidersteve on September 10, 2019, 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Just like it's hard to claim domestic violance if the 'victim' denies it.
Just like it's hard to claim organised gang violance if the 'victim' denies it.
Except in this case, there is video evidence. The 'victim' can say what he likes, especially when he's clearly stated he's not about that snitching life... the evidence presented will overcome that.
Is that the same video evidence that showed no reaction from the player at all. Even the hardest of people react to being poked in the eye that is why it is taught as a self defense target because the eye just can't handle that kind of contact. Yet there was no reaction how is it possible.
Attempted murder is still a pretty serious **** charge, friend. You dont just get to walk for a serious crime just because you couldnt get the job done. He'll suffer for his intent, and eye gouging is as serious a charge as can be levelled on a footy field, or attempted eye gouging as it may be. And i really dont think the player who said he's not about snitching is going to hold much sway with his testimony haha. But this is a kangaroo court to be sure and certain, anything is possible
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Breaking: @RaidersCanberra Hudson Young found guilty of dangerous contact with eyes of Warrior Adam Pompey. Suspension now to be determined by judiciary @NRLcom
Just like it's hard to claim domestic violance if the 'victim' denies it.
Just like it's hard to claim organised gang violance if the 'victim' denies it.
Except in this case, there is video evidence. The 'victim' can say what he likes, especially when he's clearly stated he's not about that snitching life... the evidence presented will overcome that.
Is that the same video evidence that showed no reaction from the player at all. Even the hardest of people react to being poked in the eye that is why it is taught as a self defense target because the eye just can't handle that kind of contact. Yet there was no reaction how is it possible.
Attempted murder is still a pretty serious **** charge, friend. You dont just get to walk for a serious crime just because you couldnt get the job done. He'll suffer for his intent, and eye gouging is as serious a charge as can be levelled on a footy field, or attempted eye gouging as it may be. And i really dont think the player who said he's not about snitching is going to hold much sway with his testimony haha. But this is a kangaroo court to be sure and certain, anything is possible
So you are trying to suggest that his sole intention in that tackle was all about attacking the eyes rather than trying to stop a try being scored by trying to get under the player to hold him up.
That’s a croc! How can you be found guilty of making contact to the eyes when the person you contacted says you didn’t. Attempted contact maybe but they have said Pompey is a liar!
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.