SA Footy

dedja wrote:do you realise you're a raving faarkwit?

I withdraw Your Honour

Is that all you have Dedja? It's probably good you backed out as you clearly don't know what your talking about. Funny thing is the part about issues it would cause them came directly from a police officer.

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.

HH3 wrote:

Spargo wrote:My iPhone 5 keeps freezing after I watch a video clip, ie YouTube.
I press "done" in the top left corner but nothing happens. I end up having to turn the phone off completely then back on which is obviously giving me the shits.
Can this be fixed?

@kickinit

There you go mate. The guru will help you out.

Its probably your fault though. Apples perfect.

1. reinstall the app
2. completely shut down the phone and let it sit for 30 seconds before restarting
3. do a hard reset
4. back up phone, restore to default and resync your phone
5. take it to a apple store.

Haven't had trouble with youtube on my phone or iPad, but have had issues with the update on Apple tv. Pretty much it's a crappy update from google.

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, but the District Court disagrees with you, or doesn't that matter? So you have judicial powers that over rule the District Court? I'm impressed.

Do you realise that Shahin is now being investigated for allegedly attempting to influence police to lay charges. Not sure but if they stick it may amount to perverting the course of justice.

Nick Stevens was convicted of 12 charges by the Ringwood Magistrates Court and will be sentenced on the 11th March. Guilty as charged. Not sure how that is relevant to this discussion though.

Are you familiar with the notion of confirmation bias?

dedja wrote:LOL, but the District Court disagrees with you, or doesn't that matter? So you have judicial powers that over rule the District Court? I'm impressed.

Do you realise that Shahin is now being investigated for allegedly attempting to influence police to lay charges. Not sure but if they stick it may amount to perverting the course of justice.

Nick Stevens was convicted of 12 charges by the Ringwood Magistrates Court and will be sentenced on the 11th March. Guilty as charged. Not sure how that is relevant to this discussion though.

Are you familiar with the notion of confirmation bias?

So your saying that it doesn't matter what the law says? You do realise there have been many cases that have been overturned in the appeal process.

How can they investigate him. The officer admitted to assaulting him, if he had to influence them to lay charges then they should be investigating why they didn't lay the charges straight away. Last thing to leave you with Dedja the Law is black and white and doesn't lie, judges on the other can decide who they are leaning towards before the case even hits the court room.

kickinit wrote:

dedja wrote:LOL, but the District Court disagrees with you, or doesn't that matter? So you have judicial powers that over rule the District Court? I'm impressed.

Do you realise that Shahin is now being investigated for allegedly attempting to influence police to lay charges. Not sure but if they stick it may amount to perverting the course of justice.

Nick Stevens was convicted of 12 charges by the Ringwood Magistrates Court and will be sentenced on the 11th March. Guilty as charged. Not sure how that is relevant to this discussion though.

Are you familiar with the notion of confirmation bias?

So your saying that it doesn't matter what the law says? You do realise there have been many cases that have been overturned in the appeal process.

How can they investigate him. The officer admitted to assaulting him, if he had to influence them to lay charges then they should be investigating why they didn't lay the charges straight away. Last thing to leave you with Dedja the Law is black and white and doesn't lie, judges on the other can decide who they are leaning towards before the case even hits the court room.

According to a court of law in front of a jury of his peers he did not assault the alleged victim. In more simple terms what the Police officer did was not in the parameters of the definition of assault.


This is the one time that Money and influence did not help the alleged victim. From where I see it he can **** off back to his office and continue running his business and bully suppliers/contractors to further his business.

I'm wondering, if someone was suspected of committing a crime, lets just say they pinched something from a shop, and was grabbed by a policeman while trying to escape. Using your "logic" kickinit, the thief should be able to claim assault as they would .."reasonably object to the contact in the circumstances"...

Is that your thinking...?

Maybe kickinit should have prosecuted given he clearly knows more about it than the judge, jury, and all of the lawyers?

I'm usually one that thinks police can overstep the mark sometimes, but clearly this isn't one of those cases n

Yes, kickinit conveniently forgets the legislated powers that a sworn police officer possesses, but then again establishing the full facts wouldn't suit the argument.

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.

We should me up kickinit. im gonna get up in your face, be rude, obnoxious, and just argue with everything you say....then ill expect you to just stand there and take it. And in your face, i mean within arms reach. You cant do shit. And if you do, I now have proof that you think that you have assaulted me.

Clown

Why do people bother arguing with him?

I'm on holidays so it's passing the time

Lol, same reason as me.

I'm sitting here with some popcorn and a beverage.

My wifes gone out so need to have the nightly argument with someone

OK, we've got a posse now. I'll get him back ...

@kickinit

Love how you can summon them like that with this new technology.

I might order a pizza, see if it gets here before the clown comes back.

I seriously need to know...what car(s) do the residents of that house on Mount Barker Road, Bridgewater own...that one with the driveway that has a 70 degree downslope...