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

All the news on the Canberra Raiders NRL team, all in one place

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
BadnMean
Jason Croker
Posts: 4276
Joined: May 13, 2013, 5:30 pm
Favourite Player: chicka

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

Post by BadnMean »

gergreg wrote: February 20, 2021, 10:02 am

You've been riding Curtis since day one. Interesting to read that you have given Starling the benefit of the doubt with his incident but haven't afforded the same for Curtis - despite both cases being thrown out of court and absolutely no proof of what occurred leading up to the police arriving on the scene for either case.

Part of the point I'm trying to make (and we are just expressing opinions here, not arguing) why should the Raiders be the the 'line in sand' moments where we accept punishment from the NRL, yet six months later the NRL punishes players with a feather.

Sure it is difficult to compare different incidents that these boofheads get themselves into but the NRL clearly needs to be better. I remember saying quite a few years ago that the NRL needs to have some clear guides on what sort of penalty applies to different incidents. Like I said it is difficult because everything is different but fans, clubs and players need something to help understand how these decisions/punishments are decided upon. I think they were heading in the right direction with the 'no fault' stand down but needed to go a bit further.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Yeah as I said, the way the whole C Scott saga played out changed the way I perceived early news of Starling completely. Prior experience shapes the way we perceive and react to events- that's human nature.

I do have to balance that I'm not that excited about Scott's potential as a player- just what I've seen I think Timoko or HSS have shown more in very limited games than Scott shown in quite a few opportunities. That's not disdain though, playing talent is a separate issue for mine.

Perhaps the NRL could grade off field similar to foul play. Disrepute to the game; damage to the game, something like that. It'll always get murky though as each case gets raked over.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11905
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

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

Post by gangrenous »

I think you’ve got it wrong gerg.

There is video showing Scott paralytically drunk sleeping where he shouldn’t be which clearly fits with the allegations about throwing phones at cars that I don’t believe he’s ever denied.

Starling on the other was having lunch at the pub and only got involved when the undercover police were taking his brother away and he tried to intervene. There is no ill behaviour alleged beyond the interaction with the police where all charges bar one have been dropped and he disputes the latter.

There is a clear and obvious difference.
User avatar
gergreg
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9023
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

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

Post by gergreg »


gangrenous wrote:I think you’ve got it wrong gerg.

There is video showing Scott paralytically drunk sleeping where he shouldn’t be which clearly fits with the allegations about throwing phones at cars that I don’t believe he’s ever denied.

Starling on the other was having lunch at the pub and only got involved when the undercover police were taking his brother away and he tried to intervene. There is no ill behaviour alleged beyond the interaction with the police where all charges bar one have been dropped and he disputes the latter.

There is a clear and obvious difference.
I don't think the difference between the two incidents is that clear and obvious. The events leading up to both arrests were not tested or considered in court.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
BJ
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5141
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

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

Post by BJ »

From one of the early court reports it said police were responding to some bad behaviour from a young drunk guy, they thought it was Curtis but it may not have been.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 45765
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

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

Post by The Nickman »

Haha classic gerg, carrying on like a real gangrenous here
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11905
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

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

Post by gangrenous »

BJ wrote:From one of the early court reports it said police were responding to some bad behaviour from a young drunk guy, they thought it was Curtis but it may not have been.
You’re right. I’m sure Curtis just copped a penalty from the nrl on the basis of somebody else’s actions and never objected.

Come on people. Common sense. You’re being a real Nickman BJ
User avatar
gergreg
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9023
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

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

Post by gergreg »

The Nickman wrote:Haha classic gerg, carrying on like a real gangrenous here
Somebody has to raise the standard that you set around here.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11905
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

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

Post by gangrenous »

User avatar
BJ
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5141
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

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

Post by BJ »

gangrenous wrote:
BJ wrote:From one of the early court reports it said police were responding to some bad behaviour from a young drunk guy, they thought it was Curtis but it may not have been.
You’re right. I’m sure Curtis just copped a penalty from the nrl on the basis of somebody else’s actions and never objected.

Come on people. Common sense. You’re being a real Nickman BJ
You’re not reading what I’m saying.

I’m NOT saying he didn’t do anything wrong and didn’t throw his phone, etc.

What I’m saying is that the early news and witness reports of a young man acting erratically, causing various different problems, general havoc and threatening various people (which is what caused police to attend the park) all these events weren’t necessarily all Curtis Scott.

There was other young drunks in the general area. Curtis Scott wasn’t the only drunk person there. He was the one police came across asleep under a tree.

I read it in the paper but I’m searching and struggling to find it online.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11905
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

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

Post by gangrenous »

I’m struggling to see what your point could be. That possibly other people ALSO did stupid **** at the same time that would have warranted a police call out? What’s that got to do with the price of fish?

Because Scott has repeatedly had that levelled at him, and has now had a penalty for it laid down, and he hasn’t said boo about it. There’s evidence for all to see that gels with half the story.

What are you concerned about?
User avatar
BJ
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5141
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

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

Post by BJ »

I’ll make it simpler for you.

You said Curtis behaviour was unacceptable and unchallenged.

I simply said that wasn’t the case that it was unchallenged.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11905
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

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

Post by gangrenous »

By him! Not by you!
User avatar
BadnMean
Jason Croker
Posts: 4276
Joined: May 13, 2013, 5:30 pm
Favourite Player: chicka

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

Post by BadnMean »

Despite Scott pleading guilty yesterday to two counts of offensive behaviour, those charges have now all been withdrawn...
I can see why people are mixed up. Scott did initially plead guilty to two counts of offensive behaviour (presumably him throwing his phone and kicking the bicycle or carrying on like a muppet). So those weren't in dispute. Were they on CCTV? Possibly I can't be bothered to search since he plead guilty.

In the end, the judge was so horrified by the "arrest"/assault on a sleeping man that they just threw it all out in disgust.

That the judge thought Scott had been out of line BUT that no further court punishment was needed- given the horrific acts inflicted on a by that stage defenceless man- is indicated by this statement
"You are clearly a smart person, Mr Scott," she said.
"You are a person on whom this experience has not been wasted and you are unlikely to repeat it. I think we can all be quite confident about that."
In other words- you've been punished enough, don't carry on like a pork chop again. Which is pretty much exactly what a suspended fine from the NRL says. In my opinion.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-10/ ... d/12651504
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11905
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

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

Post by gangrenous »

Precisely
User avatar
gergreg
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9023
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

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

Post by gergreg »

BadnMean wrote:
Despite Scott pleading guilty yesterday to two counts of offensive behaviour, those charges have now all been withdrawn...
I can see why people are mixed up. Scott did initially plead guilty to two counts of offensive behaviour (presumably him throwing his phone and kicking the bicycle or carrying on like a muppet). So those weren't in dispute. Were they on CCTV? Possibly I can't be bothered to search since he plead guilty.

In the end, the judge was so horrified by the "arrest"/assault on a sleeping man that they just threw it all out in disgust.

That the judge thought Scott had been out of line BUT that no further court punishment was needed- given the horrific acts inflicted on a by that stage defenceless man- is indicated by this statement
"You are clearly a smart person, Mr Scott," she said.
"You are a person on whom this experience has not been wasted and you are unlikely to repeat it. I think we can all be quite confident about that."
In other words- you've been punished enough, don't carry on like a pork chop again. Which is pretty much exactly what a suspended fine from the NRL says. In my opinion.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-10/ ... d/12651504
Fair points!

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
BJ
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5141
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

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

Post by BJ »

gangrenous wrote:Precisely
Do you precisely know what the word unchallenged means?
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11905
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

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

Post by gangrenous »

Yes.

Got a point yet?
User avatar
BJ
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5141
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

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

Post by BJ »

gangrenous wrote:Yes.

Got a point yet?
The point is (because you can’t seem to understand it) Scott wasn’t guilty of all the things that came out in the media and from the police at the time of the original incident.

Yes we all know he kicked a bike, threw a phone etc etc.

But he didn’t do a whole lot of other things that were originally raised at the time.

I don’t know why you can’t understand this and try to make a straw man that I said ‘he didn’t do anything’.

In my opinion the ABC report and the judges comments ‘precisely’ back up my thoughts as much as yours.
User avatar
gergreg
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9023
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

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

Post by gergreg »

BJ wrote:
gangrenous wrote:Yes.

Got a point yet?
The point is (because you can’t seem to understand it) Scott wasn’t guilty of all the things that came out in the media and from the police at the time of the original incident.

Yes we all know he kicked a bike, threw a phone etc etc.

But he didn’t do a whole lot of other things that were originally raised at the time.

I don’t know why you can’t understand this and try to make a straw man that I said ‘he didn’t do anything’.

In my opinion the ABC report and the judges comments ‘precisely’ back up my thoughts as much as yours.
They've set the bar/standard BJ. $15,000 fine, suspended for drunk in public and hurtin your big toe on a bicycle and throwing $1000 dollars into traffic (allegedly). Your move NRL. We trust you to be consistent from this point onwards.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11905
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

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

Post by gangrenous »

The debate that was occurring here wasn’t over whether everything that’s ever been written about Curtis was true or not.

Gerg was saying that he shouldn’t be fined if others like Starling weren’t. BnM and I pointed out that in the case of Scott he has acknowledged/not disputed sufficient acts to justify the fine. Starling on the other hand has no acts of wrongdoing that he has not rejected - hence no penalty to now.

But I have no idea what remarking that there may have been further allegations somewhere that weren’t proven true adds to that? Unless it was a throwaway comment and not intended to be on either side of the debate?
User avatar
BJ
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5141
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

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

Post by BJ »

I certainly wasn’t on either side of the debate about Starling and Scott. You jumped on that.

I was saying that Scott didn’t do all the stuff that came out in the news originally and that according to a report I read, the person/s who called the police may have over egged the situation and may have also confused the actions of multiple young drunks in the area.

I’m only making a stand on this because you were misrepresenting my views.

But maybe I understand that now, if you thought I was comparing Starling and Scott.

WHICH I certainly wasn’t.
Post Reply