Earlier this year
A dropping of a charge isn't an acknowledgement of innocence just as it isn't of guilt. Gonna have to put an asterisk next to this one because we likely will never know. Just gotta hope IF he did what he's accused of, what he's learned an extremely valuable lesson and will move ahead in the world far more mindfully.
You are kidding me re the asterisk, he said he wasn't guilty, there obviously wasn’t enough evidence or no evidence as the whole story could have been made up by someone out to get him. This not the nrl where players are regularly on assault chargers. I’m glad his lawyers went into bat for him and he was allowed to play on.
To much trial by media and social media, it’s wrong.
Here come the internet legal experts.
The charges being dropped does not mean he is completely innocent of the alleged crime. They may have been dropped because the victim was unwilling to proceed, or because it was going to be unlikely to get a prosecution because there was no other material evidence.
I'm not trying to say he did it, just that the evidence was never tested and he was never found "not guilty."
Why? The police did a four month long investigation and then at the end of it decided there was enough there to charge him and likely gain a conviction in court. Is he going to sue the police too?
What's likely happened is that the girl has decided she doesn't want to go on with it now, for whatever reason but keep in mind most rapes go unreported for this reason because then the alleged victim has their whole life put on show for the public and media over a lengthy period of time which may not even result in a conviction.
All I know is that all the people that posted stuff about Mitch including some things said on hear are going to have a stressful few months ahead of them
Police only investigated one persons version of events to create the charges, when all the facts where presented it was thrown out
"All I know is that all the people that posted stuff about Mitch including some things said on hear are going to have a stressful few months ahead of them"
Wait, are you seriously suggesting Creek is going to sue people for comments made about him and these people should be shaking in their boots? Hahaha fucking idiot, go and do your homework.
Earlier this year
2 things could happen.
1. he gets charges with different charges or
2. it gets nvr mentioned again.
either way it's an asterix on him.
also nrl has a no fault stand down policy like they have used with that we belong guy, hence the nbl tried the same thing with creek
Thank God there are a few people on here with a brain, not just victim-blaming a**holes. The keyboard experts claiming it must have been "made up" are absolutely full of crap. As others have pointed out, charges being dropped don't mean shit, it's likely it was too stressful to proceed with, NOT because it didn't happen or that Creek is innocent.
I was one that was in favour of Creek standing down until these matters were dealt with.
Now that the charges have been dropped, there are no charges for Creek to answer.
Let's all move on and focus on the season.
I don't care if Mitch did it or not, I care that the legal matters are closed and no barrier exists.
I do not know the victim's motives for reporting it then dropping it, what this has done is wasted a lot of resources for nothing.
That's on you LoveBroker, to your great shame.
Without assigning guilt or innocence everyone should care if he did it or not.
Again I was in favour of due process, to the extent that he stopped representing the NBL/Club until these matters are dealt with in a court of law.
If due process were in operation and he is guilty I would want punishment to the full extent of the law.
Now there's no case to answer. Whether he did it or not is now moot as it isn't going to be heard in court.
" And she presented with serious facial injuries. "
This does not mean that Creek caused those injuries.
I think the NBL should have handled this better but just because the Police charged and then withdrew shouldn't attract speculation that Creek did something wrong or nothing wrong.
963 - that isn't what happens with respect to the rule of law mate.
You aren’t proven innocent. You are innocent until proven guilty.
Unfortunately, as is proven in the Creek example people are no longer innocent until proven guilty as a result of media and social media character assassination.
Even when charges are dropped in full by the prosecutors prior to Trial we still have the keyboard warriors saying he is guilty and the alleged "victim" merely did not want to give evidence when there is no evidence whatsoever that this is in fact the case.
Not even the most minor of assault charges of common assault was pursued.
Yet people were quick to character assassinate Mitch and condemn the NBL and SEM Phoenix.
Innocent until proven guilty is an absolute pillar of any good legal system.
Also, the fact that this has been dropped, is not great for Creek either. While I'm sure he is relieved, sometimes it’s better to have your day in Court and be found not guilty to clear your name. Even if he has done nothing wrong - which only him and the other party know - the entire episode will hang over him from now on.
we still have the keyboard warriors saying he is guilty and the alleged "victim" merely did not want to give evidence when there is no evidence whatsoever that this is in fact the case.
No one said he is guilty, they are merely speculating why the charges were suddenly dropped.
Some keyboard warriors are saying she made it up as payback - do you have issues with those comments too?
Innocent until proven guilty is an absolute pillar of any good legal system.Hoops is not a legal system, you blithering idiot.
Also, the fact that this has been dropped, is not great for Creek either.Yeah, this is 100% the worst possible outcome at this stage.
Turns out Creek was facing more a lot more charges than initially reported too.
He had been hit with 11 charges relating to November 22, 2020, including that he took a photo or video of a woman's private parts without her consent and injured her.
He was charged with "visually capturing the victim’s (private parts) in circumstances where it would be reasonable for the victim to expect that (they) could not be captured", two counts of recklessly cause injury, one count of intentionally cause injury, one count of cause injury, and six counts of unlawful assault.
Earlier this year
You'll find that if the charges are laid, then the cops can’t drop it because the girl doesn’t want to proceed. In matters of violence they will go ahead with the prosecution regardless. People seem to be looking at too many American movies and thinking that the same legal process applies here.
Most likely the police discovered the defence had evidence they never had, such as text messages, and subsequently dropped the case as it would ruin her report.
There's a lot of smoke around this. People who know Creek, know there is some questionable, entitled male athlete behaviour he's prone to, including "Tinder Challenges" which is pretty immature for a man nearly 30.
Unfortunate outcome. Seems like there was a lot more going on.
"He had been hit with 11 charges relating to November 22, 2020, including that he took a photo or video of a woman's private parts without her consent and injured her.
He was charged with "visually capturing the victim's (private parts) in circumstances where it would be reasonable for the victim to expect that (they) could not be captured", two counts of recklessly cause injury, one count of intentionally cause injury, one count of cause injury, and six counts of unlawful assault."
Please see Josh Reynolds incident.
Was arrested and charged with DV and it come out the alleged victim made it all up and had a long history of this behaviour.
She is then rewarded with a spot in reality tv show SAS and 13 different aliases.
Without knowing the facts and evidence you cannot speculate either way.
And by the way, gloating about this is six steps past declaring him innocent a month ago in terms of shitty behaviour. How self-absorbed do you have to be to hear today's news and have your first thought be "well, this proves how awesome I am"?
Considering the seriousness of ALL charges, he should have been stood down from the time he was charged and only reinstated today.
The Basketball Australia Code of Conduct does not need to mimic an entire court process as LV erroneously suggested.
The Hoops peanut gallery, led by teenager KR and his emotional outbursts, carried on like Creek was Jack the Ripper before this whole thing even got to the Committal hearing stage.
Now, charges dropped. No case to answer. Legally innocent. And you're still beating the same drum, still refusing to consider the possibility that your comments lacked foresight and humility, illustrating weakness in your suggested approach.
Ideologues are gonna be Ideologues, I suppose.
"He was not found innocent"
He wasn't "found" innocent. He IS innocent.
Everyone is innocent. Until or unless they're guilty.
These charges have been dropped.
Creek will forever remain legally innocent of these charges.
That's not my opinion. That's just how this works. Don't shoot the messenger.
If you don't like that, fair enough. Explain why. But don't ignorantly or arrogantly throw shade on those who respectfully disagree.
He wasn't "found" innocent. He IS innocent.
Incorrect, he could be guilty of all 11 charges for all you or I know. At no point has he been found innocent, the charges were withdrawn.
Everyone is innocent. Until or unless they're guilty.
If you rob a bank and never get caught it does not mean you've never robbed a bank.
These things shouldn't need to be explained to you LV, you're old enough to know better than this.
Creek is neither innocent nor guilty.
There are simply no charges for him to plead or be found innocent or guilty.
Whatever processes put in place has ended.
Taking about whether Creek did it or not is just pure speculation and conjecture without the arguments being presented in court.
No there should not be any cloud or asterisk over Creek for all time, I hope the fans of other teams stay classy.
Ideologues are gonna be Ideologues, I suppose.This, coming from LV, is absolutely hilarious.
He wasn't "found" innocent. He IS innocent.Not how it works, dude.
Cheers to #020 for saving me the effort of typing that myself.
Here's what we know:
- Mitch Creek has a history of breaking the law
- Mitch Creek has shown a contempt for the enforcement of consequences for said law-breaking
- A woman suffered facial injuries
- The woman alleged Mitch Creek caused those injuries
- False reports of domestic violence happen, but are vanishingly, vanishingly rare
- Police spent months investigating and found enough evidence to prefer charges not just of assault, but of sex crimes as well
Is it possible Creek didn't do it? Sure. Is it likely? Fuck no.
[At no point has he been found innocent, the charges were withdrawn.]
Again this is a simple matter of logic
People aren't "found" innocent. This is just a misnomer, like saying a square is a circle.
People are presumed innocent until or unless they are found guilty.
These charges are dropped, therefore Creek will forever remain what he already was, legally innocent.
[Is it possible Creek didn't do it? Sure. Is it likely? Fuck no.]
This gets back to the discussion in the previous thread, where you went m berserk at the mere questioning your simple black and white thinking here.
So I'll stop there. No point treading back over old ground when you've already proven yourself either or unwilling to think beyond the confines of your ideology.
LV, a few posts ago you asked people to respectfully engage if they disagree with your views. Koberulz just did that but your first reaction is to call him an ideologue again. Maybe it's you who is unwilling to listen if that's going to be your immediate reaction.
" No shit, you think the police might've taken that into consideration during their four month long investigation and before deciding to charge him?"
They would have made their decision based on the admissible evidence available to them at that time. If different evidence became available later or something made them think that the evidence they had earlier was no longer reliable or cogent then that may have changed their thinking and contributed, in whole or part, in them dropping the prosecution. It happens more frequently than you may think. If Police got it right 100% of the time you'd see 100% successful prosecutions and/or no need for a Court process at all.
" If you rob a bank and never get caught it does not mean you've never robbed a bank."
You are right. But until you are prosecuted and tried, usually before your peers, you are innocent in the eyes of the law. This is the golden thread of English criminal law.
In this matter, Creek has not been prosecuted and he has not been found guilty. For us to speculate what he did or didn't do, based on charges that have since been withdrawn, is foolish. Similarly, to speculate about the victim and her motives, is also foolish and bordering on defamatory.
The real problem, in my opinion, is the way the NBL dealt with it and the subsequent backflip. I hope they implement policy to be clear what will happen in the event something like this happens again.
" You don't get found innocent if you're charged, either. You get found either guilty or not guilty. "Not guilty" doesn't mean "didn't do it", it means "prosecution did not sufficiently prove their case"."
Thank you. I was about to have a seizure reading both pro-Creek and anti-Creek groups misunderstanding the criminal law process.
The real problem, in my opinion, is the way the NBL dealt with it and the subsequent backflip. I hope they implement policy to be clear what will happen in the event something like this happens again.Another unfortunate consequence of charges being dropped: the ABPA has another excuse to kick the can down the road. This hanging over the entire season would've been more likely to produce some action on that front.
I cant find the article online KR. Do you have a link?
The woman said in a statement to The Age: "I am hurt and disappointed with the decision of the prosecutor in today's hearing.
“No wonder women don’t come forward in these situations, but I suppose that’s a me problem."
The victim being disappointed makes it likely that the police dropped charges because of a lack of evidence
Or they doubted her credibility.
If you have a co-operating, highly credible witness and solid evidence, why else would a case be withdrawn?
She was co-operating and wanted it to proceed, it seems.
Which suggests the problem was with the other stuff.
" #039 that's what many of us have been suggesting. The initial evidence may no longer be supported by the alleged victim because she didn't want to go through with the court case."
I think some people are putting too much weight on that likely being the case. Reading between the lines of the NBL reinstating Creek and koberulz comment that the victim is disappointed the charges have been withdrawn suggests that this wasn't the victim not wanting to go through with things, but rather there is something else that has swayed the prosecution to drop the charges.
From memory, there was to be a hearing about now. Out of curiosity, did the prosecution drop the charges before or after that hearing?
The victim being disappointed makes it likely that the police dropped charges because of a lack of evidenceThe fact that charges were brought suggests otherwise, especially after such a long investigation.
This whole situation makes absolutely no sense, and it going to trial would have been a far better outcome for all involved.
Reading between the lines of the NBL reinstating CreekThat isn't evidence of anything to do with the case, that's just evidence that the ABPA is terrible.
From memory, there was to be a hearing about now. Out of curiosity, did the prosecution drop the charges before or after that hearing?I now regret responding to you at all, given you clearly haven't bothered to read anything about what's going on.
They dropped the charges at the hearing. It's in literally every article about this development. As is the fact that Creek wore a white shirt, for some reason.
[This whole situation makes absolutely no sense, and it going to trial would have been a far better outcome for all involved.]
It makes no sense to you because you're entire thinking is shrouded in strongly held, pre existing ideology
This has been obvious throughout all of your comments on this issue from day one.
It could be as simple as one person's word against another. I've been both the accused and the victim in assault situations, both got dismissed because it came down to having zero evidence meaning getting a conviction was very unlikely and the process stopped.
They charged with LV counts, LV. They don't do that unless she is credible, particularly over a timeframe of four months.
Thankfully these police took the allegations seriously and saw the process through as best they could. I can only imagine what the outcome would have been if it were left up to the Melbourne sporting fanbase.
*with 11 counts, LVWas gonna say, you seem to have accidentally multiplied by 5.
KR - just curious, have you heard the rumours about what happened in the situation? Not asking you to say the rumours, but wondering if you have heard what allegedly occurred.I've seen what's been reported in the media, and what's been said on here.
" now regret responding to you at all, given you clearly haven't bothered to read anything about what's going on."
I am geoblocked from accessing Australian news from my current location even after VPN.
Given that they've dropped the charges at the hearing suggests that, in my experience, someone on the prosecution side jumped too early to lay charges OR evidence turned up that made the prosecution untenable. I would have also suggested a private settlement or the women’s personal testimony being critical to a successful prosecution being withdrawn, but given her comments on record either of these are not possible. Given the NBL and the prosecution did a serious U turn, in my opinion there must have either been exonerating evidence that came up late in favour of Creek or evidence that cast serious doubt about the victim’s allegations.
"The victim being disappointed makes it likely that the police dropped charges because of a lack of evidence"
Police wouldn't have pressed charges unless they had enough evidence to at least try to prosecute. If they had insufficient evidence to make a decent prosecution case, it would just be thrown out at a preliminary stage and the prosecutor would look like Daniel Johnson trying to play defence: useless.
Something has changed at some point. That change is broadly in Creek’s favour. I am, however, surprised that the prosecution hasn’t commented at all on their reasons given the publicity surrounding the case.
"Such a long investigation".
FYI - the average time period for a criminal investigation is around 120 days give or take. So your long investigation was about on par with the average.
Bottom line - legally innocent. We don't know what happened or if there is anything of concern.
I say this because I personally know of a case where someone was charged and they later had to be dropped because the events alleged did not happen at all, and another where the events were completely misconstrued.
We simply don’t know, his reputation is shot regardless now as a result.
If we use our imaginations there are many possibilities around what played out.
And needless to say, they aren't all morally equivalent as far as Creek's involvement and the extent of malevolence in his actions.
Still, contemplating this requires deeper thinking than many here are willing to do.
Ultimately we'll never know.
" Again, the NBL U-turn means nothing. They didn't have the power to suspend him."
They may not have had a legal basis, but if the case was strong enough they would have worked with SEM to at least stand him down or informally made it impossible for him to play. The fact that they didn't doesn’t pass the sniff test: to me, they did not think these charges would stick and stuck by Creek even given his history. In recent times, the Breakers have suspended Glen Rice Jnr and not suspended Corey Webster when those players have faced charges. I think the player’s side of the story does have weight, and the NBL and SEM felt that the charges weren’t strong. Otherwise, legal basis or not, Creek would not be playing.
I should have said, if the NBL perceived that the case was strong enough based on the information available to them. Much of that would have been based on the information that Creek and his legal team would have disclosed. I am sure they would have provided information to SEM management at least about their side of the story, including evidence or witnesses they may have, which may have also consisted of other SEM players or staff. This is all conjecture, of course, and just an attempt to understand why the prosecution dropped the case. But it is not a small matter for them to do so.
Much of that would have been based on the information that Creek and his legal team would have disclosed.If Creek's lawyers disclosed, or allowed Creek to disclose, anything about the case, they're incompetent.
If the NBL took Creek, or Creek's lawyers, at their word, they're incompetent.
All that happened was that the NBL tried to do the right thing, realised they didn't have a legal basis for it, and gave up. The ABPA knocked back a stand-down policy less than a year ago.
[They charged with 11 counts, LV. They don't do that unless she is credible, particularly over a timeframe of four months.
Thankfully these police took the allegations seriously and saw the process through as best they could. ]
Clearly, further information came to light over the past month, or today, that cast doubt on the likelihood of a successful prosecution.
What that information was, who knows.
It may not be anything that caused the police to doubt her credibility. It may well have been something that arose from the defense side.
We have very little real information to go off.
But of course that didn't stop the sanctimonious, the easily outraged and the Ideologues from jumping to all kinds of conclusions, and today doubling down with lunacy about how he hasn't been "found" innocent, whatever that's supposed to mean.
"Clearly, further information came to light over the past month, or today, that cast doubt on the likelihood of a successful prosecution.
What that information was, who knows.
It may not be anything that caused the police to doubt her credibility. It may well have been something that arose from the defense side.
We have very little real information to go off.
But of course that didn't stop the sanctimonious, the easily outraged and the Ideologues from jumping to all kinds of conclusions, and today doubling down with lunacy about how he hasn't been "found" innocent, whatever that's supposed to mean. "
You were the one who speculated that she wasn't credible. Is your ideology that of toxic masculinity where women need to know their roles in the home and society?
[You were the one who speculated that she wasn't credible. Is your ideology that of toxic masculinity where women need to know their roles in the home and society?]
I suggested that was one possibility for the withdrawal of charges, which it is.
As is a lack of evidence. Potentially because it conflicts with newly found evidence or information from the defense.
Basically we now know the police had a reduced confidence in the likelihood that the evidence would result in a conviction.
The only reason any of us are discussing this, and In fact the only reason any of us have heard of this, is because Mitch Creek is a famous basketball player that we all know
DV is a scourge on society (one of many) but one needn't promote their credentials in calling out DV before having a discussion about a case relating to a bball player on a bball forum, you petulant, potty mouthed child!
"Toxic masculinity" is just an overrated buzzword
Let's keep this to a genuine discussion about Mitch Creek, not some concepts that are popular in university gender studies departments"
You were the one who suggested she may lack credibility, then you went on to say no one else should speculate as to why the charges were dropped. My assumption is that you're OK with criticism towards the alleged female victim, but not against the male athlete whose balls you want to fondle.
If there is another term for toxic masculinity you'd prefer me to use, let me know.
DV is a scourge on society (one of many) but one needn't promote their credentials in calling out DV before having a discussion about a case relating to a bball player on a bball forum, you petulant, potty mouthed child!Ah, yes, the reasoned discourse you asked for.
"DV is a scourge on society (one of many) but one needn't promote their credentials in calling out DV before having a discussion about a case relating to a bball player on a bball forum, you petulant, potty mouthed child!"
What is wrong with you?? You have completely failed to make any salient point in this thread, you are demanding a certain behaviour by others which you don't abide by yourself, and you also demand the subject be changed when an argument gets too close to the crux of the matter. Throw in some ridiculous ad hominem arguments and I'm absolutely baffles why you're even bothering to type words for others to read.
[How did "that's something people who have studied this extensively think" become a rebuttal? ]
Firstly, toxic masculinity is mentioned far more prominently on social media than in real life. If and when that changes, normal people will start taking it seriously.
University departments are run by people with homogenous biases that are unrepresentative of society. This is why universities are full of people who operate within siloes where group think is more prominent than true critical thinking.
Any new concepts should have a healthy scepticism applied until they've been proven to be useful over a long period of time. After they've been checked out from every angle possible.
You might realise this as you get older, KR
Firstly, toxic masculinity is mentioned far more prominently on social media than in real life.What on earth are you talking about? Social media is real life. It doesn't stop counting just because it's social media. And outside of social media, I'm not sure where you're expecting to encounter it...people not using the phrase when you're listening doesn't mean they're not using the phrase.
University departments are run by people with homogenous biases that are unrepresentative of society.Or, as other people call it, "knowledge".
Any new concepts should have a healthy scepticism applied until they've been proven to be useful over a long period of time.What the fuck are you talking about? Who defines "useful"? Why does it need to be proved "over a long period of time"? Oh hey, there's clear evidence of mass injustice, but we've only been working on it for a month so we'd best let more injustices occur over the next few years to improve our dataset. Bullshit.
[What is wrong with you?? You have completely failed to make any salient point in this thread, you are demanding a certain behaviour by others which you don't abide by yourself, and you also demand the subject be changed when an argument gets too close to the crux of the matter. Throw in some ridiculous ad hominem arguments and I'm absolutely baffles why you're even bothering to type words for others to read.]
Pick a user name and it might be easier to have a proper discussion
[University departments are run by people with homogenous biases that are unrepresentative of society.]
[Or, as other people call it, "knowledge".]
Knowledge comes from the science, engineering and business departments.
From the gender studies department we get mostly nonsense rather than knowledge.
LV is spot on. Creek is legally innocent.
There is no ambiguity. There is no competing argument.
Koberulez is just plain wrong - as he has been the entire time since declaring Creek guilty based on The Age article.
Koberulez - instead of worrying about Creek, what are your thoughts on Michael Jordan agreeing to give a speech at Kobe's Hall of Fame induction?
Should he respectfully decline given according to your logic Kobe is guilty of rape? Maybe you should tweet MJ and give him your advice?
Koberulz, you are constantly on here making comments in areas of expertise in which you have none. Creek is innocent of the crime and it has been dropped. By continuing to claim he is not innocent, then you are defaming him and will only be able to defend an allegation of defamation if you can prove what you are saying is true - which I suggest you cannot". I wish you well with this.
Koberulez - instead of worrying about Creek, what are your thoughts on Michael Jordan agreeing to give a speech at Kobe's Hall of Fame induction?I haven't paid any attention to the NBA in almost a decade, and had no idea it was happening.
according to your logic Kobe is guilty of rape?Well, that and the fact that he lost in court. Or does court not count now? I'm confused.
Creek is innocent of the crimeYou have no way of knowing that.
Last warning for those who think it is ok to defame people!The only person who has been defamed in this thread is the woman Creek was accused of assaulting.
" The only person who has been defamed in this thread is the woman Creek was accused of assaulting."
Yes, she has been defamed.
But, by definition, defamation is a published statement that would cause someone to think less of someone. There are posts here that might cause people to think less of Creek and therefore he may have been defamed too.
" Well, that and the fact that he lost in court. Or does court not count now? I'm confused."
If you're talking about the 2003 sexual assault case, Kobe wasn’t found guilty. The criminal charges were dropped and the civil case was settled. He didn’t lose in court though he did issue a public apology.
But, by definition, defamation is a published statement that would cause someone to think less of someone.Uh, what?
to harm the reputation of by communicating false statements about : to harm the reputation of by libel (see libel entry 1 sense 2a) or slander (see slander entry 2 sense 2)
to damage the reputation of a person or group by saying or writing bad things about them that are not true
"Yeah, she totally smashed her own face in to get payback. Dickhead."
While I'm not suggesting it's likely because I know nothing about the case, self-destructive behaviour is far more common than you seem to think. I have first-hand experience with someone suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder who behaved exactly in this way. Again, not making any insinuation about the woman in this case, but it is not unreasonable for an outsider to perceive this as possible.
koberulz, you have cited a dictionary, not the legal test for defamation. The truth element comes in as part of a defence to defamation, not whether the statement itself is defamatory.
In order to determine falsity, you have to prove truth.
You can't prove anything you’ve said about Creek is true.
You also can’t rely on honest opinion because you don’t have a factual basis on which your opinion is based.
koberulz, you have cited a dictionary, not the legal test for defamation. The truth element comes in as part of a defence to defamation, not whether the statement itself is defamatory.For someone who wants to talk about what words mean, you sure as shit don't seem to understand what words mean.
You can't prove anything you've said about Creek is true.Of course I can. I can prove every single thing I've said, factually, about Creek. Obviously I can't prove my opinions, because they're opinions, which brings us to...
You also can’t rely on honest opinion because you don’t have a factual basis on which your opinion is based.Are you illiterate?
[You disagreeing with the conclusions they come to does not make them wrong.]
"Right" or "wrong" is a matter of opinion
It's a proven fact that university humanities departments have a far greater degree of ideological homogeneity than most organisations, and the entire field of humanities has much more ideological homogeneity than society at large.
It's a well established issue that ideological conformity reduces the robustness of the processes by which conclusions are reached. It poses a challenge to critical thinking and discussion.
This doesn't mean everything that arises from university humanities lecturers is "wrong" but it means any thoughtful person should exercise a huge degree of scepticism about anything from these fields, instead of clamouring to recognise it as the latest "knowledge".
A great example would be the concept of "toxic masculinity" and what society should do about it.
[You disagreeing with the conclusions they come to does not make them wrong.]Are you for real?
"Right" or "wrong" is a matter of opinion
It's a proven fact that university humanities departments have a far greater degree of ideological homogeneity than most organisations, and the entire field of humanities has much more ideological homogeneity than society at large.So does the Catholic Church, what's your point?
"Lots of people believe this, therefore it is wrong" is an absolutely bonkers argument.
A great example would be the concept of "toxic masculinity" and what society should do about it.Do go on.
Sigh. You're right koberulz, I'm wrong. I’ll just look up at my LLB (Hons) on the wall and the published peer review research on media law on the shelf as my consolation that I’m not illiterate.Maybe you should spend less time doing that and more time actually reading my posts.
["Lots of people believe this, therefore it is wrong" is an absolutely bonkers argument.]
For someone who loves calling others illiterate and reaches for the dictionary at every opportunity, you do an incredible job of failing to slow down and understand what's being said, and ultimately missing the point and responding to strawmen.
Koberulez - whether or not you followed the NBA for many years is irrelevant to the question.
Should Kobe be inducted into the Hall of Fame applying your very own "logic" you applying to the Creek situation?
Is Michael Jordan a disgrace for agreeing to speak at the ceremony?
Just want to understand your logic.
All I can come up with is you like Kobe (in fact he rules) but you don't like Creek.
Explain to me how I am wrong and it’s not just your personal bias impacting your logic. Explain how you aren’t a hypocrite. Explain that you weren’t too quick to judge and demonstrated great arrogance that Mitch was definitely guilty when you have no way of knowing what actually happened.
You posted on countless occasions that those merely pointing out innocent until proven guilty were wrong.
In the same way you generalised and guessed that Mitch was guilty on the back of an Age article describing a criminal investigation it can be thrown back to you by way of an educated generalisation that no doubt a very experienced team of legal prosecutors had examined all the evidence from both sides and decided they had no prospect at all to prove even the most minor of charges.
Surely you appreciate that merely saying “I don’t know much about the Kobe case” isn’t an answer to my allegation that you are a biased hypocrite.
If you don't see the difference between something happening right now where the accused faced zero consequences, and something that happened 17 years ago where the accused faced genuine consequences and then proceeded to spend a decade and a half bettering himself, eventually becoming a huge ambassador for women's sport, I don't know what to tell you.
We're not having this conversation in 2035, looking at a Mitch Creek who was punished for his misdeeds and has showed contrition, or a Mitch Creek who has shown evidence supporting his innocence. We're having this discussion now, in 2021, as it plays out, in the context of a world where women are generally disbelieved by authorities and have great difficulty obtaining justice in cases of domestic violence.
The only evidence we have, at this point, supports a finding of guilt. There is no other evidence (and with charges dropped that's unlikely to change significantly). But to the extent that the system has biases, it is overwhelmingly biased towards the Mitch Creeks of the world, not towards the Jane Does.
So within that context, and the context of that screenshot that went around a few years back of Creek trying to find someone to take demerit points for him, my sympathy for Creek is severely limited.
[The only evidence we have, at this point, supports a finding of guilt. There is no other evidence (and with charges dropped that's unlikely to change significantly)]
Even though the prosecutors threw out their own case.
You really just are completely blinded by your biases here aren't you?
Challenge for you. Come up with a plausible scenario that explains all the facts we have, but where Creek would be found not guilty if this went to trial.
There are clearly many possibilities. Try to think of a few.
Report back to us KR. Present the scenario that you believe best explains what we know from the various media reports.
But remember, it must explain the fact that the prosecution threw out the case. Which means the people who know this case better than anyone else, with all their knowledge and experience, thought the chances of a guilty verdict were so low that it wasn't worth continuing to even try and convince the magistrate to spend further time considering the merits of proceeding.
[The only evidence we have, at this point, supports a finding of guilt. There is no other evidence (and with charges dropped that's unlikely to change significantly)]...yes? How do you think that constitutes a rebuttal?
Even though the prosecutors threw out their own case.
It never went to trial, so double jeopardy doesn't attach, so Creek would be unwise to talk about it - especially if actually guilty - as charges can be brought again at any time (up to the statute of limitations, obviously).
Literally the only evidence we have is that there is a woman who suffered facial injuries, and alleges Creek caused them. That's it. That's the sum total of available evidence. None of that supports a finding of innocence.
Challenge for you. Come up with a plausible scenario that explains all the facts we have, but where Creek would be found not guilty if this went to trial.Why? What's your point? What does that have to do with anything?
By the way, stop saying you have any evidence. You do not. Take that as helpful advice.What do I not have evidence of?
Present the scenario that you believe best explains what we know from the various media reports.The victim supplied compelling and consistent testimony, but there was no physical evidence with which to support it. It's unclear whether his phone was searched, assuming that's how the picture was taken, or when a report was made or what was done after that (did investigators get onto it quickly enough to examine Creek for offensive injuries, for example).
It's not exactly a rare occurrence, nor is it inconsistent with Creek being guilty.
[Literally the only evidence we have is that there is a woman who suffered facial injuries, and alleges Creek caused them. That's it. That's the sum total of available evidence. None of that supports a finding of innocence].
Actually the most telling piece of evidence or information we have, is this:
The qualified people who spent time thoroughly investigating this case have decided to withdraw the charges because they no longer believe its worth trying to convince a magistrate that public resources should be allocated on a trial.
Didn't want to take the advice Koberulz?
You have no evidence. You are not a member of Vic Police. You are not a member of the Court. You are not a member of the prosecution and you clearly are not a part of Creek’s legal team.
When you post at 163 clearly "that the only evidence we have supports a finding of guilt" then you are engaging in defamatory conduct that also puts Isaac at potential risk.
You cannot possibly support that allegation.
Why you would post that after the prosecution have already spoken that they don’t agree with you (and they, unlike you, have the evidence) beggars belief.
Take the advice and find the next criminal case to worry about.
[Which is evidence of their state of mind, not of what occurred between Creek and the woman.]
One minute- trust what comes out of universities, because it results from study by those who know the subject matter
Next minute- ignore the experts who studied the evidence in the Mitch Creek case.
Do you listen to yourself before hitting "post"???
When you post at 163 clearly "that the only evidence we have supports a finding of guilt" then you are engaging in defamatory conduct that also puts Isaac at potential risk.I can support it with almost literally any news article about the case, all of which mention what evidence is available. 100% of that evidence points towards Creek's guilt.
You cannot possibly support that allegation.
Is it enough to actually convict? No. But all available evidence leans exactly one way.
One minute- trust what comes out of universities, because it results from study by those who know the subject matterHave any of the police or prosecutors claimed they believe Creek to be innocent?
Next minute- ignore the experts who studied the evidence in the Mitch Creek case.
Surely you know the news articles are not evidence. Are you taking the piss or was that serious?
Assuming you are being serious then what news articles are there summarising Creek's version that you based your verdict of guilt on? Oh that is right. There aren’t any.
Or is he guilty because he didn’t tell you his version but rather did so appropriately via the legal system?
Oh that is right. You didn’t like his conduct with the speeding fine. Guilty of that must mean guilty of assault...
At least you have explained your logic that in 2035 you will have "forgiven" Creek (maybe you can change from Koberulz to Creekrulz) if Mitch has a daughter and coaches her basketball team. That makes so much sense. Here I was incorrectly thinking you were a hypocrite this entire time.
I guess you were innocent until proven guilty all along.
Surely you know the news articles are not evidence.Of course they're evidence. This, in case you hadn't noticed, isn't a courtroom (and even if it was, they would still be evidence of my claim).
Assuming you are being serious then what news articles are there summarising Creek's version...? Oh that is right. There aren't any.So then, you agree with me that there is no publicly available evidence in support of Creek's innocence.
At least you have explained your logic that in 2035 you will have "forgiven" Creek (maybe you can change from Koberulz to Creekrulz) if Mitch has a daughter and coaches her basketball team.That's not what I said at all.
Yes, Kobe. I agree with you.
There is no publicly available evidence in support of Creek's innocence.
Well...err...apart from the articles that state that all the charges were withdrawn thus meaning that Creek continues to be innocent of any crimes ... well ... err ... apart from those pesky speeding fines.
I appreciate from your earlier post that you require another 14 years before you will accept any of the above.
Bring on 2035.
[The victim supplied compelling and consistent testimony, but there was no physical evidence with which to support it]
This is not consistent with what we know.
Her injuries provide some degree of physical evidence.
Don't forget George Pell was convicted of a more serious crime, from 25 years ago, despite inconsistencies with the evidence against him and without any physical evidence whatsoever. All because of a highly credible victim.
That was eventually overturned. But only after a guilty verdict at trial (which was the 2nd trial, the first resulting in a hung jury).
If the prosecution believed they had a highly credible victim, you wouldn't expect them to withdraw.
They mightve decided the defense was capable of raising serious doubts about the victim's version of events. Perhaps they realised her story had more holes than they'd previously thought.
Or perhaps it just became apparent there was strong conflicting evidence, or especially strong defense arguments that made the probability of conviction low enough to end the process at this point.
[Have any of the police or prosecutors claimed they believe Creek to be innocent?]
They've decided it's not worth trying to proceed proving his guilt. Meaning they think he'll almost certainly remain legally innocent if trialled.
In other words, effectively yes. They have.
They've decided it's not worth trying to proceed proving his guilt. Meaning they think he'll almost certainly remain legally innocent if trialled.No, they fucking haven't, you absolute trashbag dipshit.
In other words, effectively yes. They have.
They have decided there is insufficient evidence to continue. They may believe that Creek is guilty, but if they have insufficient admissible evidence that doesn't matter.
[To pretend that the circumstances around Pell and Creek are even remotely similar is asinine.]
Massive strawman there Creekrulz.
I wasn't suggesting similarities. Only that the Pell case illustrates the huge value of a highly credible witness in any type of trial.
[No, they fucking haven't, you absolute trashbag dipshit]
Hahaha, there we have it. The teenage outburst again.
If anyone's equivocating, it's you.
In the context of a thread about charges being dropped in court proceedings, what matters is legal innocence. Not moral innocence of whatever it is you're accusing him of, under your standards.
[It illustrates the value of massive amounts of political and social pressure, not the value of a credible witness.]
You think Pell was found guilty because of the societal mileau?
Interesting take. I wasn't expecting you to come out as a Catholic apologist....
You think Pell was found guilty because of the societal mileau?Charged. We were discussing why he was charged. Try to keep up.
It being thrown out on appeal doesn't exactly make it sound like the witness managed to carry the case now, does it?
I have no idea why you think that makes me a Catholic apologist.
The jurors found him unanimously guilty. And you can guarantee several of the jurors (if not most) wouldn't have known anything much about Pell at all.
It's representative of the value of a believable witness.
In any kind of mediation, court case of any kind (especially one like Pell's) the sheer extent to which someone seems believable is massively important.
In the Pell case, it convinced jurors to find him guilty despite the inconsistencies pointed out by Pell's prominent defense team.
Prosecutors don't withdraw charges if they believe their star witness - the centrepiece of the case- is highly credible and likely to be believed despite the arguments brought by the defense.
koberulz: "Is it enough to actually convict? No. But all available evidence leans exactly one way."
"The only evidence we have, at this point, supports a finding of guilt."
koberulz: "Is it possible Creek didn't do it? Sure. Is it likely? Fuck no."
If "all available evidence leans exactly one way", why do you think it's possible Creek didn't do as alleged? Does this imply that you actually do understand that there may be other evidence, which you haven't been exposed to, that may support Creek? Or that there is a possibility that the evidence that you have been exposed to may not represent the truth?
Or is it just easier to ignore all that uncertainty and jump on the train of your perceived highest likelihood? Less complicated. Easier to push an agenda. Again and again.
Koberulz, what's become totally clear, is that you have an agenda to continually cast doubt over Creeks innocence based on an article.
Imagine for a moment, that such compelling evidence was looked at by the prosecutor on the 21st, who you’d assume took on the case that day from what ever police station originally filed the report, and with their superior understanding of how this all works, looked at all the evidence and said, no, we will not proceed! That indicates that they did not think it was going to work.
Further, many a case has been brought to actual trial based on no physical evidence, and just "he said, she said". I wonder what compelling evidence would have been produced in order to stop even the “he said she said” argument? Hmmmmm, now stfu, and go and play your puzzles in the basement.
[So you're just going to continue to ignore the fact that the case was overturned on appeal?]
Yes, after 2 lengthy trials- one hung jury and one guilty.
And again, there was no physical evidence and there were inconsistencies in the stories presented.
And the Creek case isn't even proceeding to trial! Yet you claimed there was a highly credible witness but the case was being withdrawn due to a lack of physical evidence. Not very plausible.
Try again- what scenario best explains all the information we have on the Creek case- the injuries, the specific charges laid and the withdrawal at committal.
Tell us KR. What's your theory?
Earlier this year
In respect of the institutions relating to Criminal law, a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If you assume someone is guilty without the evidence being tested, you go down a very dangerous rabbit hole. Trial by media and trial by public opinion are ever present dangers in the effectiveness of the justice system.
Neither of those fundamental points denies the reality that many assaults and violence goes untested in the Courts for many reasons including either insufficient evidence or sufficient evidence that drops out due to stress factors. It is a very real and sad reality and it is understandable that many don't want to put themselves through it and it’s also very hard to get evidence for lack of CCTV .
None of those points should be controversial to anyone here, and yet somehow I feel they will be!
Earlier this year
In order to prevent this from becoming too cancerous allow me to mention some points I think everyone should
None of us where there so unless there's a 3rd party witness we can’t for sure say what or what not happened
Let’s not pretend that there isn’t a history of police being shit at their jobs
Let’s also not pretend that unfortunately there are some people in this world are fucked up enough to lie about shit just to get a payday out of it
The Investigation process doesn’t mean they were working around the clock everyday when it came to this matter
Being charged can mean a variety of things. It doesn’t inherently mean that you are guilty or innocence in a court of law. In fact I know of a person (who’ll remain anonymous for the sake of their privacy) was accused was charged basically right away
Innocent in a court of law is different to civil cases
Just because you are deemed innocent doesn’t mean you didn’t do something, it just means that the prosecution wasn’t able to prove their case
At the end of the day when it comes to it creek is innocent till proven guilty which is the case. However him being innocent in the court of law doesn’t mean that he didn’t do it.
So I suggest we all tread carefully as charges being dropped too can mean different things when it comes to the reason behind it
P*iss off Musk. That's such a cop out. The percentage for people lying about this kind of thing is INCREDIBLY low. There's a lot of smoke around this and further information from those in the circle, about Creek and his questionable behaviour, who he hangs out with etc. Typical male athlete who believes his own hype and thinks he's above it all.
" There's a lot of smoke around this and further information from those in the circle, about Creek and his questionable behaviour, who he hangs out with etc."
That may all be true. Creek may not be a good person. We may not like how he hangs around with and what they get up to. But none of that matters as to whether, in fact, Creek did the things that were alleged.
248 and 261 - it's not a legal argument. It’s not a gotcha argument.
His username is hypocritical. Change the username or change the guilty until proven innocent rubbish.
It’s like a vegan trying to force the virtues of being a vegan upon others but with the username BigMacRulz or a profile picture of Ronald McDonald.
In this case the picture of Ronald McDonald would be appropriate for Koberulz.
"His username is hypocritical."
Yeah we get it. You think he can't have an opinion on Creek while he has a username like his. Who gives a fuck? You're not making any sort of point that you think you are.
If he had been defending Bryant during his pre-trial issues but then changed his tune for Creek, then you could say he's a hypocrite. But it's a fucking username which he's used since he was a kid so it doesn't matter one iota.
Earlier this year
Anon239, I'm not insinuating in anyway that the individual who accused creek lied, I’m simply stating that it has happened to others in the past and considering no one one this forum witnessed the allegations, let’s just tread carefully into believing what is said.
I fully understand the hardship faced by people (in most cases women) when it comes to dealings with these types of matters, all I’m saying is let’s not act like we were all there and start putting statements forth as to what happened and what the punishment may or may not be.
Again as I said just because it can’t be or wasn’t proven in a court of law doesn’t mean creek didn’t do it, so for everyone no matter what side you may or may not be on, just be very careful with this matter and how we handle it
"All you have seen as reporting of allegations"
Haven't you heard? All you need is an allegation. It's the woke way. 100% believe the accuser (if accuser is the right gender/race/status identity), the accusation signifies the accused must be guilty, no benefit of the doubt for the accused, trial by social media, public shaming, offer mostly vague generalized accusations, group the accused together with all other accused regardless of severity, advocate for cancelation. All good woke warriors should also regularly sprinkle in generalized statements to push for woke activism, usually arguing via identity politics. Ignore the legal system. Who needs that? It just represents the patriarchy. With such a simplistic worldview, don't be surprised that these woke activists show hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is part of being woke. Who needs a court of law when the woke can decide for all of us? Thank you for your service, woke. You may now go back to your social media echo chambers, which is apparently "real life" to them.
"100% believe the accuser"
No one is saying they 100% believe the accuser but the accuser deserves to be taken seriously without suggesting that she is after a payday, or that we hope Creek is found "legally innocent" so we can get an all Melbourne GF series.
"But it's a fucking username which he's used since he was a kid so it doesn't matter one iota."
It does matter. People change all the time. If my username has been weinsteinrulz because I loved miramax movies then I would have taken the 60 seconds needed to change my username once certain unpleasant new information came to light. Having an opinion at some point in the past does not mean the opinion can't be changed. It is called growth and improvement.
Sorry, I should have said not every accusation should be 100% believed but they should be taken seriously. For years we heard excuses for alleged assault victims, like she shouldnt have been wearing that outfit, or in the case of LV, there was potentially provocation.
"I don't know how I could possibly be any clearer."
Let me be clear: you do not know what the evidence is and you do not know which way the evidence leans because you haven't seen it. All you know is that there are allegations and the Police initially pressed charges. From that alone, you have concluded that Creek is likely guilty. This is a fallacy.
"Huh? The evidence is that a woman suffered severe facial injuries and that the police investigated the incident and laid charges. That is the available evidence"
This is not evidence.
Evidence would be, for example, pictures of the facial injuries. Evidence would be testimony of a first responder to the scene about the victim's condition. Supporting evidence would then be medical testimony that the victim's injuries were consistent with assault.
Ideally, there would be evidence showing that Creek caused the injuries. In the absence of such evidence, there should at least be something showing that Creek was with the victim at the time the injuries happened. As it stands, there is nothing publicly available for us to conclude that Creek caused the injuries suffered by the victim or that the injuries were caused by assault.
Evidence would be a statutory declaration of the complainant's account of the events. Evidence would be witnesses' statutory declarations. Creek's version of events and his defence's story could then be used to compare who we think may be telling the truth. There is no publicly available record of either side's story so it is not possible to conclude on who is likely telling the truth or not.
There has been some comment that Creek disregards the law and may not be of great character. But there has been no evidence that Creek has a propensity to be violent towards women. For example, there has been no evidence of previous convictions of a similar nature. Furthermore, there has been no reference of previous dishonesty that suggests that Creek's veracity is questionable and that he is lying about what happened. In the same way, there is no publicly available evidence that the complainant has reason to lie and inferences about her motivations are also improper.
I appreciate this is a high bar for complainants and may deter some complainants where there has been wrongdoing. But this bar can be cleared. The recent case of Jarryd Hayne demonstrates that the Police and the prosecution can successfully obtain convictions. And it does not follow that just because the prosecution did not go ahead, that Creek is guilty. We simply do not know. So, please do not treat this as a Creek is innocent!!!!1111!! I am just stating the facts: there is no evidence publicly available for us to comment on Creek's guilt.
As usual, koberulz started this discussion from a defensible position and has descended into an indefensible one by saying that Creek is likely guilty while not proffering any evidence to support that assertion. This happens on hoops all the time. He was right, then he was wrong, and now he sure as hell won't backtrack. He will dig in and sit at his keyboard responding to every comment. He could save everyone time by just stating that he went too far (he won't). In the meantime, I hope that koberulz is not on a jury any time soon because the defendant would have no chance at a fair trial.
Furthermore, there has been no reference of previous dishonesty that suggests that Creek's veracity is questionable and that he is lying about what happened.Does getting someone else to take your demerits not count as dishonesty now?
As usual, koberulz started this discussion from a defensible position and has descended into an indefensible one by saying that Creek is likely guilty while not proffering any evidence to support that assertion.Which is more likely: that a woman falsely accused her (ex?) partner of assaulting her, or that a man assaulted his (ex?) partner and then fought the charges? One of those things, absent any specific facts, is significantly more likely than the other. The only specific facts we have here are documented injuries to the victim, which does not sway me towards Creek's side of the story in the slightest.
This isn't court. That's all the analysis that needs to be done. Absent any other revelations, the woman's story is vastly more likely to be true than Creek's is, because people who crime have obvious built-in motives to deny criming, and women don't have obvious built-in motives to accuse men of assault.
No, I haven't. But it’s a common thing in Straya. And I don’t believe Creek was convicted on that either. If we want to be technical, his Facebook post itself was not a crime. But either way, it’s chalk and cheese to the current allegations as there is a wide gap between traffic offences and assault. There was a woman in Perth who did similar shortly after, if she alleged rape would we discount her allegations because she tried to avoid demerit points?
" Which is more likely: that a woman falsely accused her (ex?) partner of assaulting her, or that a man assaulted his (ex?) partner and then fought the charges? One of those things, absent any specific facts, is significantly more likely than the other. The only specific facts we have here are documented injuries to the victim, which does not sway me towards Creek's side of the story in the slightest."
It's not about what’s more likely. It’s about what happened in this case between these parties. And there are other facts: the prosecution has dropped the case and the witness is disappointed they’ve done so. Why would the prosecution drop the case if it was more likely her story was true? On your balance of probabilities exercise, there would be a reasonable cause of action for the prosecution to try test in Court. If Creek was not guilty or guilty, that would be for the jury. But the prosecution did not even bother to test it even though it appears the victim has maintained their complaint and wants to see the process through. Why would the prosecution do that? Maybe Creek’s guilt is not as clear as you are asserting?
No, I haven't. But it's a common thing in Straya. And I don’t believe Creek was convicted on that either. If we want to be technical, his Facebook post itself was not a crime. But either way, it’s chalk and cheese to the current allegations as there is a wide gap between traffic offences and assault. There was a woman in Perth who did similar shortly after, if she alleged rape would we discount her allegations because she tried to avoid demerit points?
Hang on mate, before you backtrack yourself back out the door you said this:
Furthermore, there has been no reference of previous dishonesty that suggests that Creek's veracity is questionable and that he is lying about what happened.
I gave you a pretty big account of "previous dishonesty" from Creek when he went on Facebook and asked for someone from the public to give him some of their demerit points and now you're saying it wasn't a crime or that he wasn't convicted. No, but it certainly was "a reference of previous dishonesty".
Except it has been proven to happen often enough where high profile athletes/ movie stars and so on are placed in positions of a lot to lose even with the mentioning of such things.
Creek has been embarrassed and lost sponsorship and potentially an Olympics spot because of one persons story. A story that has been shown to not be able to be proved up.
I haven't seen any news reports saying the women required hospitalisation and a quick search doesn't show any google results of that either. Seems people posting this in this thread have taken it upon themselves to embellish.
Not even sure why idiots bring up demerits "fiasco" it has no relevance to current events.
If you have absolutely no idea what's going on and are unable to follow a simple conversation perhaps you shouldn't be posting on the internet.
1. Essay length post from some anon suggested Creek had no history of dishonesty either forgetting about his demerit points fiasco or worse not knowing it ever happened,
2. Which I then reminded him of and you chime in with the equivalent of "leave Brtiney alone!".
Zodiac, please note I mentioned veracity. This is an evidence law concept. The demerits fiasco would likely be inadmissible as evidence. What I was meant was a dishonesty conviction or a history of having lied before the courts in another matter. I should have been clearer. Sorry.
Earlier this year
Mr. Koberulz & Mr. LV, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul
As above, I've seen nothing of hospital reports, it’s easy to say that she had injuries but where is the evidence.
As stated, no one knows what went on, it’s all conjecture. What we know was Creek was put to a committal hearing and it was thrown out.
End of story.
Koberulz is sad that the criminal prosecutor made him look like a judgmental idiot.
You have donuts. As has been pointed out over and over again it is impossible to take any of your arguments on this topic seriously whilst you use your username.
What do you even mean when you say "this isn't a court"? Are you saying that little things such as the rule of law and rules of evidence shouldn’t apply when deciding if someone is a criminal and publicly sharing your sentiments on the matter online?
What if someone incorrectly assumed from what you posted about injuries that you specifically knew what injuries were allegedly suffered when you don’t. Can’t you see how dangerous that is to someone’s reputation? If you did have inside knowledge then perhaps you could argue you are trying to do others a favour but you don’t.
Details matter. If I allege Koberulz hit someone in the head with a sock causing no injury whatsoever it evokes completely different emotions than if he fractured someone’s skull and left them in an induced coma from a hammer attack. Before you misconstrue what I’m saying, both are wrong but don’t pretend there is no difference. Any form of violence and in particular violence against women (even the sock attack example) are reprehensible. However, rules of evidence matter and the rule of law matter.
When you resort to “demerit point fiasco” as the rebuttal to a well written post at 335 then you know you have lost.
Maybe the criminal prosecutor should have used that Gotcha argument and proceeded to Trial. “Your honour, the accused previously dishonestly asked someone to take his demerit points”. If only Koberulz was available to assist the prosecutor. Between the demerit point argument and all the evidence he possesses then a conviction would clearly have followed.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with their stance but there must be a reason for the club or coach's decision.If he starts tonight, we have our answer.
Why is SEM not starting Creek?
If he doesn't, why does any player come off the bench? There are all sorts of reasons.
Here's an idea for those that hate KR. Just stop replying to the idiot. It's obvious he won't stop and feeds on thinking he's the smartest guy around. So no matter what bullshit he talks, ignore it. As in totally, don't give him the satisfaction no matter what written crap he tries to stir us up with.
" As in totally, don't give him the satisfaction"
I don't think he’s getting any satisfaction. He regularly sounds frustrated. His poor language and name calling suggest he can’t keep his cool. Perhaps an alternative to what you’ve put forward is to troll him more until he spontaneously combusts?
Earlier this year
" I had a quick count of koberulz's posts in this thread for what was meant to be a laugh. But shit, 50+ in a day and a half is just sad... LV has managed about 40 too.
You two idiots need to find new hobbies."
Faux lawyering is cheap - I dare say the amount of time they spent arguing would amount to extraordinarily high legal fees
KET, c'mon, be fair to KobeRulez. Doesn’t he run a Uni faculty in WA? The body is just a vessel to carry around his very large brain.
I can only imagine the hard work that goes on behind the scenes to educate the masses.
I’m kind of disappointed that he isn’t citing all responses from his research on the law.
This thread has been locked and replies are not permitted.
Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.
- Updated every 15 minutes
Sat 23:41- re: Does the NBL fine for So...
Sat 23:07- re: Matt Walsh comments on M...
Sat 22:50- re: Matt Walsh comments on M...
Sat 22:07- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 21:40- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 21:27- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 21:24- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 21:22- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 21:17- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 21:16- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 21:08- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 21:07- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 21:02- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 20:57- re: Brisbane @ Tasmania
Sat 20:40- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 20:32- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 20:23- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 20:21- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 20:17- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 20:17- re: Adelaide @ Perth - Frida...
Sat 20:12- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 20:08- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 20:07- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 19:57- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 19:56- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 19:55- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 19:55- re: Memphis 152, OKC 79 - La...
Sat 19:54- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 19:53- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 19:42- re: Memphis 152, OKC 79 - La...
Sat 19:35- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 19:22- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 19:14- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 19:12- re: New hoops show on ESPN
Sat 18:37- re: Brisbane @ Tasmania
Sat 18:36- re: Adelaide @ Perth - Frida...
Sat 18:27- re: New hoops show on ESPN
Sat 18:17- re: New hoops show on ESPN
Sat 17:58- re: RAC Arena Planning to Ba...
Sat 17:56- re: Adelaide @ Perth - Frida...
Sat 17:32- re: RAC Arena Planning to Ba...
Sat 17:24- re: Adelaide @ Perth - Frida...
Sat 16:55- re: Adelaide @ Perth - Frida...
Sat 16:28- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 15:17- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 14:46- re: NZ @ SEM
Sat 13:52- re: New hoops show on ESPN
Why not ?,
Sat 13:43- re: Does the NBL fine for So...
Sat 13:14- re: Adelaide @ Perth - Frida...
Sat 13:09- re: NZ @ SEM
An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 1:13 am, Sun 5 Dec 2021 | Posts: 905,882 | Last 7 days: 585