kickinit wrote:dedja wrote:What world are you from because it's not Earth
Please provide me with the evidence that supports your assertion that the police office has committed an offence, because the Westminster System doesn't seem to agree with you.
The officer made physical contact with him, which he admits in his voice recording. Below is what SA defines as assault.
(1) A person commits an assault if the person, without the consent of another person (the "victim")—
(a) intentionally applies force (directly or indirectly) to the victim; or
(b) intentionally makes physical contact (directly or indirectly) with the victim, knowing that the victim might reasonably object to the contact in the circumstances (whether or not the victim was at the time aware of the contact); or
See B Dedja, under our law he committed assault. I'm guessing in your twisted brain you probably still think your right. I'm also guessing you think Nick stevens should of been found not guilty.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/c ... 2/s20.html
Lol at least quote the whole thing:
(2) However—
(a) conduct that lies within limits of what would be generally accepted in the community as normal incidents of social interaction or community life cannot amount to an assault; and
(b) conduct that is
justified or excused by law cannot amount to an assault.
And that's not even considering self-defence. It really amazes me how you've convinced yourself not merely that he might be guilty, but that he's definitely guilty. Clearly you know nothing about the law of assault, or the criminal procedure, including examination and cross-examination of all witnesses, the burdens of proof, the realities of policing and the difficult people the police have to deal with.
Are you seriously of the opinion that a policeman, or civilian for that matter, ought not to be allowed to put their hand out in front of them to maintain distance from an aggressor? Even by your lofty standards what you're saying is absurd.