Curtis Scott police assault charges dropped after court rules arrest 'unlawful'

[BadnMean]

Hmm "waiting on additional materials"...

Scott's defence gets access to all video that police have too, either bodycam or CCTV.

So Greenberg wants to wait until he's seen the footage? That seems pretty reasoanble.

[greeneyed]

Canberra Raiders recruit Curtis Scott faces NRL stand down unless he hands over video footage

Canberra Raiders recruit Curtis Scott has until close of business Monday to provide the NRL with the video footage or face being stood down under the league's no-fault, stand-down policy. It's believed Scott's legal team has previously been asked for the footage, but has refused to hand it over.

Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14239

[edwahu]

What the footage shows is up for debate or else there would be no challenge. So I question how it should impact Greenberg's decision at all.

For mine either the charge itself warrants the stand down rule or it doesn't.

[greeneyed]

It is interesting... what happens when Greenberg sees the footage... and he comes down on one side or the other... isn't that prejudicial to the case? Is Todd Greenberg now the arbiter in a court case? The interpretation of what the video evidence shows appears to be a key matter in dispute.

[Smurfette]

It is interesting... what happens when Greenberg sees the footage... and he comes down on one side or the other... isn't that prejudicial to the case? Is Todd Greenberg now the arbiter in a court case? The interpretation of what the video evidence shows appears to be a key matter in dispute.

There is also the risk that Greenberg’s interpretation is at odds with the court’s. Surely these are all reasons why you would let the legal proceedings run their course, as they are in Reynolds’s case.

[casta66]

It is interesting... what happens when Greenberg sees the footage... and he comes down on one side or the other... isn't that prejudicial to the case? Is Todd Greenberg now the arbiter in a court case? The interpretation of what the video evidence shows appears to be a key matter in dispute.

Spot on.
The idea behind no fault stand down was that the player would be AUTOMATICALLY stood down depending on the maximum sentence possible for the charges they face.

It was not an allowance to give a rugby league official first option to rule on a players innocence or guilt, or to make a decision regarding the likelihood of conviction.

The prosecution/police are conducting an investigation, and the nrl wants to conduct their own parrallel investigation, using the same evidence.

Prejudicial is exactly the word.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[julian87]

Gee we’re skinny if he’s stood down.

Oldfield becomes first choice with kids as back ups and Kris, if he’s about, having no pre season under his belt.

[cat]

We have seen on here how a video can be viewed by a range of people and for each person to have a different opinion on what they see

I would be interested to see what a lawyer would say about him demanding it or else standing Curtis down indefinitely

Greenberg has no legal training to judge the evidence

He should not be stood down until or if he is found guilty.

The only way he should be stood down if it is most likely he will serve 10 yrs or more ala de balin

Greenberg is not above the country's legal system

[BadnMean]

* players charged with a criminal offence carrying a penalty of at least 11 years will be automatically stood down from playing in the NRL competition;

* the suspension will not require any finding of fault by the player and there is no right of appeal;

*players are still able to train with their team and are entitled to be paid their full remuneration under their contracts;

*and the NRL’s CEO can use his discretion to stand down players charged with less serious criminal offences, particularly where the offence involves women and children.

Interesting wording. It would be a weird flex by Todd to invoke the "women and children" clause in the case where said woman is an armed officer of the law but not for Reynold's wife.

The wording doesn't limit his discretionary power to just those cases either.

He wants to see the video to decide if he's going to end up defending a shivers-show video of a drunk, aggressive rampage ending in a taser or something where it looks more like Scott says. Basically he wants to see if Scott has disgraced the game and mums and dads are going to be watching said video on the 6pm news anytime...

I'm not sure if that's within his powers or not.

[sprintman]

CS was always going to be stood down.

[Northern Raider]

* players charged with a criminal offence carrying a penalty of at least 11 years will be automatically stood down from playing in the NRL competition;

* the suspension will not require any finding of fault by the player and there is no right of appeal;

*players are still able to train with their team and are entitled to be paid their full remuneration under their contracts;

*and the NRL’s CEO can use his discretion to stand down players charged with less serious criminal offences, particularly where the offence involves women and children.

Interesting wording. It would be a weird flex by Todd to invoke the "women and children" clause in the case where said woman is an armed officer of the law but not for Reynold's wife.

The wording doesn't limit his discretionary power to just those cases either.

He wants to see the video to decide if he's going to end up defending a shivers-show video of a drunk, aggressive rampage ending in a taser or something where it looks more like Scott says. Basically he wants to see if Scott has disgraced the game and mums and dads are going to be watching said video on the 6pm news anytime...

I'm not sure if that's within his powers or not.

Thats the point here. Greenberg is not looking to pre-empt legal cases. He wants to make judgment on any potential damage to the game's image, particularly if/when footage becomes public. Group sex videos, giving yourself a bubbler or having a dog lick peanut butter off your sack doesn't come with an 11 year jail sentence but it still saw players stood down.

Realistically if the footage supports Scott's lawyers claims then they should be handing it over to the NRL immediately so he can be cleared to play.

[cat]

Well if he hands it over and it suddenly appears in the media we know where it came from...

[BJ]

Well if he hands it over and it suddenly appears in the media we know where it came from...

Agree, the NRL doesn’t have a good track record of securing confidential video information from public view.

Unless it’s additional channel 9 camera angles of the 6 again call that were conveniently deleted at the source to avoid scrutiny.

[cat]

Well if he hands it over and it suddenly appears in the media we know where it came from...

Agree, the NRL doesn’t have a good track record of securing confidential video information from public view.

Unless it’s additional channel 9 camera angles of the 6 again call that were conveniently deleted at the source to avoid scrutiny.

I actually think its a massive point. The fact that its been a few weeks now and no footage has been leaked, no phones videoing it etc, no witnesses etc is incredible in this day of technology

The lawyers won't be leaking it, cops wont leak it, if it leaks it comes from the nrl

And then its only a bad image for the game cause the game leaked it

[simo]

In an instance where there is footage available, it would be negligent of toddles to make a call either way without seeing it. Im all for scott to be stood down if they dont want to cough up the vid. If they cant for legal reasons then he plays until its seen with each week he plays added on to a suspension if found guilty

[Seiffert82]

There will be a great deal of pressure for the club to stand him down, if we don't sack him.

[Coastalraider]

Greenberg is a dunce when it comes to these type of things.

I’m disgusted at the allegations against a player in green. If found guilty, I would have no problem with the team tearing up his contract.

But...

The whole intention of the no fault stand down is to allow the game to avoid the embarrassment of having a player facing serious allegations (which carry 11+ years sentence) playing the game and potentially representing state and country. That is 100% acceptable to me. But it is a ‘no fault’ rule - it is based solely on the severity of the charge.

Greenberg has no place or authority to demand or view any footage, and the footage should have zero outcome on the NRLs decision to stand down or not. It is a no fault rule, and a decision based on video evidence either will or will not imply fault.

[Northern Raider]

Greenberg is a dunce when it comes to these type of things.

I’m disgusted at the allegations against a player in green. If found guilty, I would have no problem with the team tearing up his contract.

But...

The whole intention of the no fault stand down is to allow the game to avoid the embarrassment of having a player facing serious allegations (which carry 11+ years sentence) playing the game and potentially representing state and country. That is 100% acceptable to me. But it is a ‘no fault’ rule - it is based solely on the severity of the charge.

Greenberg has no place or authority to demand or view any footage, and the footage should have zero outcome on the NRLs decision to stand down or not. It is a no fault rule, and a decision based on video evidence either will or will not imply fault.

Didn't Wighton get stood down based on the video of the incident, pending the outcome of his case?

[Coastalraider]

Greenberg is a dunce when it comes to these type of things.

I’m disgusted at the allegations against a player in green. If found guilty, I would have no problem with the team tearing up his contract.

But...

The whole intention of the no fault stand down is to allow the game to avoid the embarrassment of having a player facing serious allegations (which carry 11+ years sentence) playing the game and potentially representing state and country. That is 100% acceptable to me. But it is a ‘no fault’ rule - it is based solely on the severity of the charge.

Greenberg has no place or authority to demand or view any footage, and the footage should have zero outcome on the NRLs decision to stand down or not. It is a no fault rule, and a decision based on video evidence either will or will not imply fault.

Didn't Wighton get stood down based on the video of the incident, pending the outcome of his case?

I’m not sure to be honest, but was that using the no fault stand down? Because that is what is being referenced in these news stories.

[greeneyed]

Greenberg is a dunce when it comes to these type of things.

I’m disgusted at the allegations against a player in green. If found guilty, I would have no problem with the team tearing up his contract.

But...

The whole intention of the no fault stand down is to allow the game to avoid the embarrassment of having a player facing serious allegations (which carry 11+ years sentence) playing the game and potentially representing state and country. That is 100% acceptable to me. But it is a ‘no fault’ rule - it is based solely on the severity of the charge.

Greenberg has no place or authority to demand or view any footage, and the footage should have zero outcome on the NRLs decision to stand down or not. It is a no fault rule, and a decision based on video evidence either will or will not imply fault.

Didn't Wighton get stood down based on the video of the incident, pending the outcome of his case?

Wighton wasn’t stood down. He was suspended after pleading guilty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gerg]

"Consistency in the NRL is overrated" - Todd Greenberg February 2019.

Should have been sacked the moment he uttered these words.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[cat]

Wighton 's footage was out there for the world to see, this isnt.

Curious to know if anyone's boss would expect to see it?

Mine wouldn't, and my code of conduct is pretty strict

[Northern Raider]

I will reiterate. If lawyer Eid's claims are accurate then they should promptly arrange a viewing for the NRL integrity team.

[gerg]

Wighton 's footage was out there for the world to see, this isnt.

Curious to know if anyone's boss would expect to see it?

Mine wouldn't, and my code of conduct is pretty strict

I thought the footage of Wighton came out after he was sentenced?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[cat]

Greenberg is a dunce when it comes to these type of things.

I’m disgusted at the allegations against a player in green. If found guilty, I would have no problem with the team tearing up his contract.

But...

The whole intention of the no fault stand down is to allow the game to avoid the embarrassment of having a player facing serious allegations (which carry 11+ years sentence) playing the game and potentially representing state and country. That is 100% acceptable to me. But it is a ‘no fault’ rule - it is based solely on the severity of the charge.

Greenberg has no place or authority to demand or view any footage, and the footage should have zero outcome on the NRLs decision to stand down or not. It is a no fault rule, and a decision based on video evidence either will or will not imply fault.

Didn't Wighton get stood down based on the video of the incident, pending the outcome of his case?

Wighton wasn’t stood down. He was suspended after pleading guilty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And Curtis has pleaded not guilty, makes it simple really.
He plays until he either pleads guilty or is found guilty

[greeneyed]

Wighton 's footage was out there for the world to see, this isnt.

Curious to know if anyone's boss would expect to see it?

Mine wouldn't, and my code of conduct is pretty strict

I thought the footage of Wighton came out after he was sentenced?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Only issued after he was sentenced.

[cat]

Wighton footage and photos of the event were floating around well before he was sentenced, photos were at least in the media, video may have just been just among people

[BadnMean]

I will reiterate. If lawyer Eid's claims are accurate then they should promptly arrange a viewing for the NRL integrity team.

Seems perfectly reasonable and what an innocent person might do. Especially if he was asking the game to stick its neck out by supporting him- knowing that the video will come out after sentencing and possibly do EVEN MORE harm if it turns out to look really bad.

But not to internet fandom.

"Hey boss, sorry I hit the headlines by getting tasered and arrested, thus damaging our company's battered image even further. But hey, I'm actually innocent. I've got a video to prove it!"

"Great, can I see it? I need to figure out how the company should handle this."

Apparently that is an outrageous stance for Todd or a boss to take. Completely unfair. How VERY DARE he ask to see the video before deciding on the matter.

[Chicka Chicka Chicka]

The NRL are consistently inconsistent

[gangrenous]

I will reiterate. If lawyer Eid's claims are accurate then they should promptly arrange a viewing for the NRL integrity team.

Seems perfectly reasonable and what an innocent person might do. Especially if he was asking the game to stick its neck out by supporting him- knowing that the video will come out after sentencing and possibly do EVEN MORE harm if it turns out to look really bad.

But not to internet fandom.

"Hey boss, sorry I hit the headlines by getting tasered and arrested, thus damaging our company's battered image even further. But hey, I'm actually innocent. I've got a video to prove it!"

"Great, can I see it? I need to figure out how the company should handle this."

Apparently that is an outrageous stance for Todd or a boss to take. Completely unfair. How VERY DARE he ask to see the video before deciding on the matter.

BadnMean is saving me a heap of time by posting all my opinions for me across a number of threads.

It’s great. But I am a little concerned someone stole one of my hairs and cloned me without permission.

[casta66]

I will reiterate. If lawyer Eid's claims are accurate then they should promptly arrange a viewing for the NRL integrity team.

Seems perfectly reasonable and what an innocent person might do. Especially if he was asking the game to stick its neck out by supporting him- knowing that the video will come out after sentencing and possibly do EVEN MORE harm if it turns out to look really bad.

But not to internet fandom.

"Hey boss, sorry I hit the headlines by getting tasered and arrested, thus damaging our company's battered image even further. But hey, I'm actually innocent. I've got a video to prove it!"

"Great, can I see it? I need to figure out how the company should handle this."

Apparently that is an outrageous stance for Todd or a boss to take. Completely unfair. How VERY DARE he ask to see the video before deciding on the matter.

Hang on... This video is not public atm.

Just like the Wighton case. Yes, it MAY. MAY. Become public in the future. If it does, then it will provide a basis for all interested parties to act.

Currently, it is not in the public domain. Its only the prosecution and defence that have access to it.

For greenberg to view it, then pu licly say "I've viewed the video, and on that basis have decided to stand down the player" is hugely prejudicial against his case.

It's also against his constitutional rights, which the last time I checked were a tad higher than the nrl code of conduct.

Personally, I hope the raiders sack him. But I don't appreciate the nrl heavy handedness.

Its the constitution, its Mabo, its the vibe.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[greeneyed]

Wighton footage and photos of the event were floating around well before he was sentenced, photos were at least in the media, video may have just been just among people

There were no photos or videos released of the incident in the mainstream media until after sentencing. The people claiming to have seen video on social media, as I recall, had it completely wrong... and obviously hadn’t seen it. I see a lot of social media, and I certainly saw nothing on social media before the material was released after sentencing.

[-TW-]

Wighton footage and photos of the event were floating around well before he was sentenced, photos were at least in the media, video may have just been just among people

There were no photos or videos released of the incident in the mainstream media until after sentencing. The people claiming to have seen video on social media, as I recall, had it completely wrong... and obviously hadn’t seen it. I see a lot of social media, and I certainly saw nothing on social media before the material was released after sentencing.

Correct, as that would obstruct the right to a fair trial

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

[BJ]

If Greenberg thinks the charges are serious (which they are) it’s logically best to let the courts decide the case and handle the video etc.

The crime doesn’t meet the no fault stand down criteria of 11 years if found guilty, so that’s open and shut. To be supportive of the NRL, surely Greenberg would be best to stand down C Scott for the 9s, trial games and rounds 1 and 2 for his extreme public drunken behaviour, a case that doesn’t seem to be in question from Scott’s lawyers.

If Curtis Scott is later found guilty and given jail time or something close to it for his misdemeanours, Greenberg can stand him down then for that. But best for NRL to deal with the situation in a measured approach.

Or they could just ignore the incident as if it was a Broncos player in Bali who was publicly reported to have bribed a security guard to close the case.

[edwahu]

I will reiterate. If lawyer Eid's claims are accurate then they should promptly arrange a viewing for the NRL integrity team.

Seems perfectly reasonable and what an innocent person might do. Especially if he was asking the game to stick its neck out by supporting him- knowing that the video will come out after sentencing and possibly do EVEN MORE harm if it turns out to look really bad.

But not to internet fandom.

"Hey boss, sorry I hit the headlines by getting tasered and arrested, thus damaging our company's battered image even further. But hey, I'm actually innocent. I've got a video to prove it!"

"Great, can I see it? I need to figure out how the company should handle this."

Apparently that is an outrageous stance for Todd or a boss to take. Completely unfair. How VERY DARE he ask to see the video before deciding on the matter.

Or from Scotts perspective:

"Hey boss, sorry the cops tasered me and arrested me on the weekend when they shouldn't have"

I think you're giving Greenberg far too much credit if you think he will watch the footage and not consider his guilt or innocence to the charges at the same time. I can almost guarantee he will reference them publicly if he stands him down.

As soon as he does that, he is pre-empting the case.