-
Social Media justice doesnt care for facts....
-
@taniwharugby We're starting to wallow in some sort of 'everyone is out to get rugby' weariness in this thread...?
A bit like some politicians discover too late at the end of every electoral cycle - Twitter (or Facebook or Stuff Nation) isn't what the average person on the street thinks.
-
@Donsteppa I think the Media are in a bit of an odd space with the ABs and NZRU...the team are going so well, its almost like how else can we chop them down...I mean there is alot of negativity about rugby right now, uncompetitive, boring winning all the time, maybe we could just sit back and enjoy it while it lasts as we know it wont keep going, and as soon as they lose, they'll have somethign else to bitch about.
I reckon the headline woulda been something like: NZRU tear up troubled teens contract
-
@No-Quarter said in Appalling double-standard:
@Stargazer said in Appalling double-standard:
@taniwharugby said in Appalling double-standard:
@hydro11 said in Appalling double-standard:
@taniwharugby said in Appalling double-standard:
@No-Quarter said in Appalling double-standard:
It was him that claimed it had stopped him from playing rugby. Well, sharing your entire life on social media can have consequences. Who would have thought? Lol.
Ah OK, I wasn't sure if it was him, so just said the Media as I expect making shit up is something they might do....
While it appears he still got off very lightly, you have to think the mitigating factors are becoming clearer and you can see this as being why the judge may have gone down the route he did (even if there is never an excuse to stomp on someone on the deck)...is funny how Tew is getting more of a grilling than the Judge though!
The judge explicitly states that a sentence of 1.5 years would be unimpeachable as a starting point. He then says that conventional sentencing would not be appropriate because of his age, it being a first time offence, his remorse etc. He says that the defendant would receive a conviction with conventional sentencing. The judge then says that the punishment would be out of proportion because it could ruin his career. He does also say that this would apply to any career.
The judge did not mention any mitigating factors such as being provoked which took away from the seriousness of the assault. As the judge said, other people would go to prison for what he did.
The
Yeah I read that same summary of facts, and while you would expect him to put that in as a fact, I am sure provocation was something he used in his thought process
From facts coming out, it was not an unprovoked attack (not that this takes away form the seriousness of what he did)
The question being: are these really 'facts'? If there were witnesses, were they heard by the court under oath? If there is video footage, has it been assessed by the court? The sentencing notes from the Judge suggest that they were not. There is no mention of other mitigating factors than his age, no priors etc . The thing is, just as the prosecution must prove the facts that the accused (Losi & co) has done something, the defence must also prove the facts that they think may exonerate him or could affect his sentencing. Just claiming something after the judge had delivered his sentence isn't good enough. And also, if the proof exists, nobody has done Losi & co done any favours by not coming forward or by withholding it.
FFS hydro my whole point this entire time is that we don't have the facts. All we have is the judgement for the sentencing. We don't have the judgement from the trial. They are two different things.
Judgement from the trial: the judge weighs up all of the FACTS of the case and decides whether the accused is guilty or not. In this case Losi took responsibility for his actions and pleaded guilty.
Judgement for the sentencing: judge sentences the accused and gives his reasoning for the sentence.
All we have is the latter, and a very one-sided account of the incident from the "victims". And nothing else. In fact, if you read the judges notes that we do have he states that the "facts are not very clear" - I.E. drunken fucking hearsay.
MSM can get fucked.
We've got a kid that engaged in a fight with his older brother who was obviously a bad influence with previous convictions, and since making this mistake has done a fuckload of growing up. The NZRU and WRU have put the appropriate support systems in place and he has taken full responsibilty for his actions, and is highly unlikely to reoffend. Basically, his life is now heading in a positive direction.
Now, MSM has created controversy for clicks, everyone has worked themselves into a fucking frenzy based on no facts at all, and his fucking contract has been torn up. FFS what does that achieve? Do we want this kid to go off the rails because "FUCK YEAH RETRIBUTION EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE FUCK ACTUALLY HAPPENED!" "I'M A MORALLY SUPERIOR SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR YEAH!!".
What a fucking mess. And all because MSM wanted easy clicks with a bit of fucking controversy. Gah people are stupid. And don't even get me started on Paul fucking Henry. Sorry did I miss the memo where we give a flying fuck about what he thinks?
What are you on about? You made a good post and I didn't reply to it. I said nothing since which contradicted what you said and then you make a post which has nothing to do with what I have been saying. Why are you calling me out without even quoting my post?
We may not have all the facts. However, the judgement for sentencing is not going to contradict the judgement from the trial. In the judgement for sentencing the judge says that the attack seems to be unprovoked. Are you saying that even though the judge has said there is no evidence the attack was provoked in the sentencing, you expect some contradictory evidence to appear in the trial? The defendant has been accused of assault. If the assault was provoked then he should have to give evidence showing this.
You have completely failed to understand my criticisms here. My criticism is not of Filipo or anyone else. I am criticising the sentence laid down by the judge. The judge has stated that the assault in and of itself would lead to other people going to jail. He has then said that as it is a first time offence and he has done community work and has shown remorse he will get a reduced sentence. I have a problem with the showing remorse part is that the defendant initially plead not guilty. How are you remorseful, if you don't even initially think you are guilty? The judge then says that the defendant would have received a conviction but didn't because it would negatively affect his career. That is what I'm criticising. Why is the judgement from the trial not appropriate when you are criticising the judge's sentence?
You may not consider it facts but there are a lot more facts in the judgement of sentencing than you will find in a facebook post.
Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid? Can't someone just have genuinely a different opinion about justice?
-
A few points that seem relevant to the thread so far...
The factors a judge may take into account in sentencing and deciding whether or not to discharge without conviction are laid out in the Sentencing Act. Provocation is not one of them, hence why the judge did not mention it in the sentence.
Family involvement in the defendant's life is a mitigating factor, as is age, as is pleading guilty (the earlier, the better) and as is willingness to participate in restorative justice. Since they are applicable, the judge must consider them as mitigating factors. There were no relevant aggravating factors (violence is an aggravating factor, but not for violent offenses), so he's already going downwards in sentence, not upwards.
The judge must take that into account, must consider whether to discharge without conviction, and must apply the lowest sentence that will achieve the aims of the Act.
The primary focus of discharging without conviction is being satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offense. Impact on a career and earnings is a major factor in that because of the comparison with fines as per previous case law, and also the Bill of Rights Acts (excessive fines are cruel and unusual punishment in the 1688 version and disproportionately severe punishment in the 1990 version).
A discharge without conviction has the effect of an acquittal, so the employer would be hard pressed to do much about it other than, possibly, bringing the employer/sport into disrepute, but even that would be difficult to push given the outcome of the court case. They also couldn't have done much during the case for obvious reasons already stated in this thread.
-
@hydro11 said in Appalling double-standard:
@No-Quarter said in Appalling double-standard:
@Stargazer said in Appalling double-standard:
@taniwharugby said in Appalling double-standard:
@hydro11 said in Appalling double-standard:
@taniwharugby said in Appalling double-standard:
@No-Quarter said in Appalling double-standard:
It was him that claimed it had stopped him from playing rugby. Well, sharing your entire life on social media can have consequences. Who would have thought? Lol.
Ah OK, I wasn't sure if it was him, so just said the Media as I expect making shit up is something they might do....
While it appears he still got off very lightly, you have to think the mitigating factors are becoming clearer and you can see this as being why the judge may have gone down the route he did (even if there is never an excuse to stomp on someone on the deck)...is funny how Tew is getting more of a grilling than the Judge though!
The judge explicitly states that a sentence of 1.5 years would be unimpeachable as a starting point. He then says that conventional sentencing would not be appropriate because of his age, it being a first time offence, his remorse etc. He says that the defendant would receive a conviction with conventional sentencing. The judge then says that the punishment would be out of proportion because it could ruin his career. He does also say that this would apply to any career.
The judge did not mention any mitigating factors such as being provoked which took away from the seriousness of the assault. As the judge said, other people would go to prison for what he did.
The
Yeah I read that same summary of facts, and while you would expect him to put that in as a fact, I am sure provocation was something he used in his thought process
From facts coming out, it was not an unprovoked attack (not that this takes away form the seriousness of what he did)
The question being: are these really 'facts'? If there were witnesses, were they heard by the court under oath? If there is video footage, has it been assessed by the court? The sentencing notes from the Judge suggest that they were not. There is no mention of other mitigating factors than his age, no priors etc . The thing is, just as the prosecution must prove the facts that the accused (Losi & co) has done something, the defence must also prove the facts that they think may exonerate him or could affect his sentencing. Just claiming something after the judge had delivered his sentence isn't good enough. And also, if the proof exists, nobody has done Losi & co done any favours by not coming forward or by withholding it.
FFS hydro my whole point this entire time is that we don't have the facts. All we have is the judgement for the sentencing. We don't have the judgement from the trial. They are two different things.
Judgement from the trial: the judge weighs up all of the FACTS of the case and decides whether the accused is guilty or not. In this case Losi took responsibility for his actions and pleaded guilty.
Judgement for the sentencing: judge sentences the accused and gives his reasoning for the sentence.
All we have is the latter, and a very one-sided account of the incident from the "victims". And nothing else. In fact, if you read the judges notes that we do have he states that the "facts are not very clear" - I.E. drunken fucking hearsay.
MSM can get fucked.
We've got a kid that engaged in a fight with his older brother who was obviously a bad influence with previous convictions, and since making this mistake has done a fuckload of growing up. The NZRU and WRU have put the appropriate support systems in place and he has taken full responsibilty for his actions, and is highly unlikely to reoffend. Basically, his life is now heading in a positive direction.
Now, MSM has created controversy for clicks, everyone has worked themselves into a fucking frenzy based on no facts at all, and his fucking contract has been torn up. FFS what does that achieve? Do we want this kid to go off the rails because "FUCK YEAH RETRIBUTION EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE FUCK ACTUALLY HAPPENED!" "I'M A MORALLY SUPERIOR SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR YEAH!!".
What a fucking mess. And all because MSM wanted easy clicks with a bit of fucking controversy. Gah people are stupid. And don't even get me started on Paul fucking Henry. Sorry did I miss the memo where we give a flying fuck about what he thinks?
What are you on about? You made a good post and I didn't reply to it. I said nothing since which contradicted what you said and then you make a post which has nothing to do with what I have been saying. Why are you calling me out without even quoting my post?
We may not have all the facts. However, the judgement for sentencing is not going to contradict the judgement from the trial. In the judgement for sentencing the judge says that the attack seems to be unprovoked. Are you saying that even though the judge has said there is no evidence the attack was provoked in the sentencing, you expect some contradictory evidence to appear in the trial? The defendant has been accused of assault. If the assault was provoked then he should have to give evidence showing this.
You have completely failed to understand my criticisms here. My criticism is not of Filipo or anyone else. I am criticising the sentence laid down by the judge. The judge has stated that the assault in and of itself would lead to other people going to jail. He has then said that as it is a first time offence and he has done community work and has shown remorse he will get a reduced sentence. I have a problem with the showing remorse part is that the defendant initially plead not guilty. How are you remorseful, if you don't even initially think you are guilty? The judge then says that the defendant would have received a conviction but didn't because it would negatively affect his career. That is what I'm criticising. Why is the judgement from the trial not appropriate when you are criticising the judge's sentence?
You may not consider it facts but there are a lot more facts in the judgement of sentencing than you will find in a facebook post.
Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid? Can't someone just have genuinely a different opinion about justice?
I absolutely respect your right to your opinion, and my comment about people being stupid wasn't so much aimed at you personally but people that read a narrative on MSM and jump straight into outrage with little understanding of the issue and none of the facts.
Just FYI, the majority of the facts would not have been covered in court because of the guilty plea. The defense really doesn't present a case in that instance, but even so the judge still made the comment that the facts that were presented were unclear.
Though I respect your right to your opinion, I strongly disagree that judges should be trying to sentence people with the aim of retribution and to "set an example". We simply do not have the resources to lock everyone up, and if it looks highly likely that they will lead positive lives without reoffending then the judge should sentence accordingly. We are incredibly fortunate to live in a country with a justice system largely free of corruption that has an aim to rehabilitate people.
Your point about people enrolling in a law degree is valid - a very common defense from people on charges like this ask for leniency because it will jeopodise their careers, be that law or anything elss. If the mitigating factors are in their favour (earning potential is important) then more often then not they will escape conviction. This case is not at all unique, and the judge is following the same logic as many many cases before it.
MSM painted a narrative that 4 peoples lives were ruined by this assault and that he got off scott free. That is patently untrue but because so many people are completely incapable of thinking for themselves they bought it hook line and sinker. Easy clicks for MSM.
-
I read something on a facebook post by a friend of mine, where a friend of his, who apparently had "firsthand" knowledge of the victims and offenders and said that there had been some sort of racial taunt made by the victim to the offender. Obviously, I don't believe everything I read on facebook, and hilariously (the poster was polynesian) he was talking about how the judge made a reasoned decision and the right decision had been made, while two weeks ago the same person (friend of a friend) was crying "white privilege" about the Delegat kid.
I'm in two minds about him losing his Wellington contract. While I think he absolutely should have been given a conviction by the courts; firing him from Wellington rugby is going to essentially force him to move away from all his support networks if he wants to carry on his career.. The guy was 17 at the time. I made some really stupid decisions when I was that age that thankfully didn't affect future career prospects.
Not sticking up for him at all, as I said, I think he should have had a conviction entered against his name,, and any of the ferners who follow my rants on the off-topic threads will know I'm not a fan of famous people getting off charges by virtue of their potential careers ahead
-
@Godder said in Appalling double-standard:
Here are a couple of manslaughter cases where the defendants were discharged without conviction:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/69124061/no-conviction-for-woman-in-manslaughter-of-her-son
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5981533/Mum-walks-free-after-daughters-drowning
Negligent rather than deliberate, but on the other hand, someone died.
It's not just rugby players by any stretch.
I would have thought this case was slightly different (albeit far more serious) given the mother was careless/negligent and will punish herself for the rest of her life, moreso than any conviction or prison sentence ever would.
I know of a few cops who got discharged without convction for things like drink driving and other charges because they successfully argues in court that a conviction would end their careers, so definitely not just a rugby thing. But it does seem to be that being good at a sport in this country is a little bit of a blank cheque in terms of the courts. Moala getting no conviction for slashing that guy's neck in a bar fight was a bit of a joke, even though he is now leading the way in educating young players about bad choices (According to Steve Tew). While we shouldn't be out to ruin people's careers, there should also be consequences to seriously breaking the law...
-
@aucklandwarlord said in Appalling double-standard:
@Godder said in Appalling double-standard:
Here are a couple of manslaughter cases where the defendants were discharged without conviction:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/69124061/no-conviction-for-woman-in-manslaughter-of-her-son
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5981533/Mum-walks-free-after-daughters-drowning
Negligent rather than deliberate, but on the other hand, someone died.
It's not just rugby players by any stretch.
I would have thought this case was slightly different (albeit far more serious) given the mother was careless/negligent and will punish herself for the rest of her life, moreso than any conviction or prison sentence ever would.
I know of a few cops who got discharged without convction for things like drink driving and other charges because they successfully argues in court that a conviction would end their careers, so definitely not just a rugby thing. But it does seem to be that being good at a sport in this country is a little bit of a blank cheque in terms of the courts. Moala getting no conviction for slashing that guy's neck in a bar fight was a bit of a joke, even though he is now leading the way in educating young players about bad choices (According to Steve Tew). While we shouldn't be out to ruin people's careers, there should also be consequences to seriously breaking the law...
Agreed, negligence rather than deliberate act, so not directly comparable. My point really was that it's not just sports, and encompasses a wide range of society. As you say, there have been some police officers who have avoided convictions over the years.
has a few examples of successful discharges with name suppression (no sports among them).Discharge Without Conviction | Application for Discharges | DS
Avoid a criminal conviction. Successful criminal lawyer, Daniel Schellenberg, can help you apply for a discharge without conviction to keep your record clean!
- an engineer being discharged,
Drink-driving engineer discharged without conviction
A commissioning engineer who claimed inhaling industrial-strength solvent in a non-ventilated area for 10 hours before drink-driving and crashing...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11717666 has 15 examples of discharges and diversions from rugby.
http://nzhoops.co.nz/te-rangi-sentenced-bar-fight/ - some potentially professional basketballers were not so fortunate.
On the other hand, http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/314421/discharge-without-conviction-numbers-slump shows that discharges without conviction have halved since 2010, so perhaps the media has beaten this up a bit. A quote in that article from the VP of the Bar:
"One of the main things that keeps people out of trouble is having a job and if the person is likely to lose their job as result of a conviction, that is obviously an important factor and important consequence that other people wouldn't face.
If you take the rugby player situation, a rugby player with a contract who's at risk of losing it would be in a different position to a promising rugby player who would hope to get a contract in the future."
Puts the rugby stuff in perspective a little - if they have a contract, they have a genuine career that will be in jeopardy if convicted, hence the discharge without conviction. Incidentally, that means the NZRU (and provinces, clubs etc) do take it seriously - the job would not be in jeopardy if they didn't, so a discharge would be less important. If anything, the more active and strict the NZRU and provinces get, the more likely it is that a discharge will be granted.
A note on visa travel - DIC by itself normally won't get in the way too much, but violent offenses will, and in particular, make it much harder to be selected at short notice for international squads as often there are visa exemptions for international sport, but these won't apply for people with convictions, especially for violent offenses.
-
-
@mimic said in Appalling double-standard:
The whites get name supression
Arf. Yes, that would be hilarious if the one not named & shamed (and photographed) was the one white guy there. Thats actually probably a great story if NZ actually had a functioning press corp...
-
I have no idea why the NZRFU had to apologise. Nothing to do with them. Everything to do with the player concerned. Argh, political correctness.
-
FFS I already thought this guy was really trying to prove himself as a giant ballbag lately and this just confirms it.
don't apologise on my behalf you twat
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11719190
-
@WillieTheWaiter jesus that really fucking pisses me off! I am more pissed off about that article, and JK having the fucking nerve to think he speaks on behalf of the game, and actually thinking this is a rugby issue, than the original case!
And that fucking photo of the victims pisses me off as well. The media coverage is starting to turn me against them, is it just me or do they look like smug fluffybunnies in that photo?
Fuck!
-
this should be yesterdays news...I expect with any investigation into the judges decision will drag it out even further.
-
@taniwharugby said in Appalling double-standard:
Apparently NZRU were only aware of the seriousness of the charges this week, WRU were also not aware, although not sure when they found out the seriousness of it.
Looks like it was the WRU that has dropped the ball here, and NZRU is collateral. I wonder what the media reaction to WRU & NZRU would have been if they sacked him during or before the court hearing, before becoming aware of the nature of the charges?
That's the thing for me. I cannot for the life of me figure out why Steve Tew is getting put in the crosshairs by so many ''media commentators''. Wellington RU deserves all the negative attention it gets, but I cannot fathom why NZR and Tew (who only heard about the incident earlier this week) are bearing the brunt of the abuse.
And I couldn't give two shits if Tew called the victims or not yesterday. It's nothing to do with him. Would we expect David White to call up the victims if a Central Districts under-19 batsman (maybe a relative of BFJ's . . . ) knocked over a couple of people after a few drinks at Turks in Hastings? No.
-
@WillieTheWaiter said in Appalling double-standard:
FFS I already thought this guy was really trying to prove himself as a giant ballbag lately and this just confirms it.
don't apologise on my behalf you twat
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11719190
JK appears to have been taking PR advice from David "I'm Sorry For Being A Man" Cunliffe.
-
@Smudge said in Appalling double-standard:
@WillieTheWaiter said in Appalling double-standard:
FFS I already thought this guy was really trying to prove himself as a giant ballbag lately and this just confirms it.
don't apologise on my behalf you twat
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11719190
JK appears to have been taking PR advice from David "I'm Sorry For Being A Man" Cunliffe.
I doubt it, Silent T's advice, based on his experience, would have been to STFU...
Also, I see Neil Sorensen has been apologising to the victims and NZ on NZRU's behalf.
Appalling double-standard
