So now that that line has been drawn in the sand, I hope the next time something similar happens and the cops stop and double guess themselves resulting in somebody actually getting knifed, the moral dogooders of society don't start screaming about why the cops didn't do this or why the cops didn't do that.
dorian said
02:12 PM Nov 27, 2024
Now we'll find out how much a 95-year-old dementia patient's life is worth. Clearly, there are some, perhaps many, who don't think it's worth much at all.
DMaxer said
04:42 PM Nov 27, 2024
It is not a question of how much someone's life is worth. When a defendant is sentenced there are a range of matters that must be considered. The circumstances of the offending, the character of the defendant, his rehabilitation. remorse shown, likelihood of reoffending are just a few. The criteria has been the case for hundreds of years. It is not an act of revenge or knee jerk hysterics. I feel very sorry for all the people, including the poor woman who died, who have been involved in this sad episode.
One thing that did puzzle me throughout this trial was (and if it has been reported correctly) that the officer concerned was the subordinate member of the duo who attended. I wonder what, if any, responsibility is to be taken by the senior member. It was reported he held the taser for a minute or more before it was deployed and was not told to desist. In fact, and once again if reported correctly, the senior officer stated that she was "comfortable with what happened though not happy.".
I certainly don't envy police and the decisions they need to make during serious events. I usually find that the biggest critics of the police are the first to be running to them when they feel under threat.
A pretty sad day all round I think.
rmoor said
06:02 PM Nov 27, 2024
Yes. Agreed DMaxer.
My 97 year old mum still lives independently but slowly her mind is starting to wander.
Her mother lived to 96 and suffered from Alzheimers and my mum's three sisters all lived beyond 90 and each of them had the same memory affliction in the end.
So one of the present great fears in my family is the slow and steady decline in my lovely mum's mental capacity.
My late father once pointed out to me as people age they sometimes regress to a state of childhood.
One also has to consider such a thing could happen to any one of us in the future.
I am sure I am not the only one who walks into a room now and wonders "what did I come in here for"?
So when the elderly do become confused/childish/aggressive, then what is the policy to tackle same?
Good luck..........
What is the answer, a net, a tranquiliser, what else?
Each could result in a fall, trauma or a heart attack???
I don't think there is a definitive answer to the problem......
DMaxer said
07:09 PM Nov 27, 2024
Yes rmoor. My old mum passed away aged over 100 in aged care. Although my mum had severe dementia towards the end of her life, thankfully she was not violent. On numerous visits to her aged care facility I saw some poor souls, who were demented, really get aggressive and they were intimidating.
I wonder what the the public opinion will be if in the future, if a similar situation occurs like in this sad episode and the staff ring 000 for assistance and the police suggest they contact the immediate family to attend and remedy the situation and if that doesn't work, then call back and we will see if anyone is available to come down a bit later on. in a monitoring capacity only.
I hope eventually justice will prevail.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 28th of November 2024 06:24:47 AM
Magnarc said
07:41 AM Nov 28, 2024
I find it hard to believe that two people who are supposedly well trained, could not disarm a frail 95yr old with a Zimmer frame. Her movements would be a lot slower than normal so why not have one officer distract her whilst the other moves to her rear where it would relatively easy to disarm her????
If it was some bloke with a machete yep. go for it no argument there. You cannot apply the one rule fits all in a case like this. The officer concerned took the easy way out. His comment of "bugger it" tells me that he wanted out of this situation the sooner, the better. As for the female officer intervening that is not the way it works, these guys will always back each other up and, in most cases this is absolutely necessary for them to do their job.
But there will always be that one situation that requires common sense, not the rule book.
dorian said
08:13 AM Nov 28, 2024
Magnarc wrote:
I find it hard to believe that two people who are supposedly well trained, could not disarm a frail 95yr old with a Zimmer frame.
Thankfully the jury found it hard to believe as well. Hopefully the verdict will survive an appeal.
blackstump said
08:28 AM Nov 28, 2024
The sentencing should also reflect the fact that the offender was/is a police officer and as such MUST be held to a higher standard.
smwhiskey said
08:39 AM Nov 28, 2024
Magnarc wrote:
I find it hard to believe that two people who are supposedly well trained, could not disarm a frail 95yr old with a Zimmer frame. Her movements would be a lot slower than normal so why not have one officer distract her whilst the other moves to her rear where it would relatively easy to disarm her????.
I find it hard to believe that out of all the staff in the nursing home, not one of them could disarm a frail 95yr old with a zimmer frame and had to resort to calling the cops, who in protecting those who choose to do nothing themselves and ensuring their own safety, find themselves now branded as criminals.
Are We Lost said
09:45 AM Nov 28, 2024
It's hard to imagine how an agile cop would not be quite safe standing a metre out of her reach. Surely, throwing a blanket over her arm and while she is working to get that off just step forward and hold her.
Or wait for her to move so somebody could come in behind her.
My guess is he was so used to dealing with tough younger men he did not appreciate that there would be such a major difference in effect, or the risks of that action.
rmoor said
10:54 AM Nov 28, 2024
There were also two paramedics in the room.
One would have thought some sort of joint effort would have settled the situation.
I know if my 97 year old mum presented a problem (which I forever hope does not happen!!!!) then I reckon she is so frail there would be little threat to myself or anyone as she moves way too slowly to be of any real risk?
Surely an opportunity to isolate the person and wait for them to tire out would be some sort of solution. Surely waiting them out at an advanced age where they tire quickly is some sort of solution??? Clips from the event indicated there were rooms and doors available, surely the incident could have been isolated and waited out until she became too weak to be of a further threat???
Now it is not sub-judice once the finding of the court has been made public and sentencing is imminent. The one fact that has come out is the "Bugger it" comment indicates somebody's patience ran out. The one thing elderly dementia patients need is patience, understanding and agreeing to their wishes. They soon will forget what the issue was and agreeing with them is the safest policy. A person in authority telling them WHAT they should be doing is the exact opposite of what IS required. Maybe the findings from this will suggest persons in authority and uniformed are a bad idea.
No wonder it ended in tears.
DMaxer said
03:23 PM Nov 28, 2024
The female officer had two attempts to disarm her and also wore leather gloves.
Everyone is held to the same standard Blackstump, there is no sliding scale.
dorian said
04:08 PM Nov 28, 2024
DMaxer wrote:
Everyone is held to the same standard Blackstump, there is no sliding scale.
Clearly that is not the case in NSW. If I were to kill a cop in NSW, I would be jailed for the rest of my life. If a cop were to kill me, he would get at most 20 years. That tells me that my life is worse less than a cop. How did such blatantly discriminatory legislation ever make it through one house of parliament, let alone both?
blackstump said
06:34 PM Nov 28, 2024
DMaxer wrote:
The female officer had two attempts to disarm her and also wore leather gloves. Everyone is held to the same standard Blackstump, there is no sliding scale.
DMaxer note I said "should also reflect the fact that the offender was/is a police officer" we all know that won't be the case, in fact the excuses will come thick and fast, and he will probably come away with a far more lenient sentence than you, or I would receive, after all he did save the community from that extremely dangerous offender,,,, time will tell, but I am predicting little more than a slap on the wrist, hope not though.
DMaxer said
07:16 AM Nov 29, 2024
Killing a police officer to prevent them carrying out their duties is a specific offence Dorian, Instead of hysterical commentary read what the judge says when he passes sentence. He is a Supreme Court judge, he will apply the law, not talk back radio histrionics.
I think Dunning Kruger Effect is rampant in some of the replies.
blackstump said
07:30 AM Nov 29, 2024
DMaxer wrote:
Killing a police officer to prevent them carrying out their duties is a specific offence Dorian, Instead of hysterical commentary read what the judge says when he passes sentence. He is a Supreme Court judge, he will apply the law, not talk back radio histrionics. I think Dunning Kruger Effect is rampant in some of the replies.
How condescending, so basically what you're saying is anyone here with an opinion that differs from yours is an idiot.
The definition of the Dunning Kruger effect for anyone unaware
"The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when a person's lack of knowledge and skill in a certain area causes them to overestimate their own competence"
-- Edited by blackstump on Friday 29th of November 2024 07:31:33 AM
dorian said
08:40 AM Nov 29, 2024
DMaxer wrote:
Killing a police officer to prevent them carrying out their duties is a specific offence Dorian, Instead of hysterical commentary read what the judge says when he passes sentence. He is a Supreme Court judge, he will apply the law, not talk back radio histrionics. I think Dunning Kruger Effect is rampant in some of the replies.
I can read and understand English, perhaps better than most wig-heads. The fact is that a policeman's life, as viewed by NSW law, is worth more than mine. The particular circumstance is irrelevant.
Magnarc said
09:57 AM Nov 29, 2024
The Dunning-Kruger effect has nothing to do with my previous comments. I don't have a degree in law but, I do have a modicum of common sense. The police officer got it badly wrong in this case. So now we await the inevitable appeals backed by the weight of his union.
Dickens got it right when he wrote through the words of Mr Bumble.
msg said
12:06 PM Nov 29, 2024
Or, just leave her alone, and get everyone else out of her way. Often these things are a result of a person being made to do something they don't want to do and they have no defense and the frustration builds.
DMaxer said
12:26 PM Nov 29, 2024
No, I didn't say that Blackstump. You did and then attributed it to me.
What I think some people fail to understand is that the officer was not charged with killing the poor woman. He was charged with doing an act that led to her death. It is the same charge that would be brought if someone drove the fork lift through the factory and ran over and killed a work mate, or turned on the power without checking if anyone was working on the lines. It is an act or an omission that resulted in a death. There is no intent to cause the death, it was a result of the act or omission.
It was a horrible event. It was not a straightforward prosecution. It took 8 days of evidence and addresses and the jury took 4.5 days to come to a verdict.
Spare a thought for the officer. He could lose his liberty, lose his career, be sued into bankruptcy with the expected legal action that will follow and live with this stigma for the rest of his life. It is really easy for everyone to give a view as to what should have happened when they weren't there or involved. It went horribly wrong and now he is being punished.
This waiting for the "inevitable appeals backed by the weight of his union" is classic Dunning Kruger. If the sentence is too lenient the Crown may appeal, likewise, if too excessive the defence may appeal. If the defence asserts there has been an error in law or the jury verdict was not sustainable given the evidence then they may appeal. An appeal is not a natural right or flow on to drag things out. First of all, before you can have an appeal heard one has to convince the Appeals Court that there is sufficient merit. It is not just a matter of appeal after appeal on flimsy grounds. It doesn't get off the ground unless the court first deems it has merit to be even considered.
Anyway, think what you like. I think the law has operated pretty well. The only asses seem to be those that are incapable of understanding it without resorting to histrionics.
Magnarc said
08:16 AM Nov 30, 2024
plural noun: histrionics
1.
melodramatic behaviour designed to attract attention.
Not a remotely accurate description of my post. Whether he acted with the intention of killing
does not come into the equation, since he was charged with manslaughter not murder. If anyone wants to see histrionics in action just go and sit in the public area of a court and you will see, and hear, an accurate description of the the word being acted out many times over.
One can expect a lawyer to defend his profession and that is his right to express his opinion but, that does not prevent me from expressing mine. That is what I did and I stand by what I wrote.
dogbox said
09:09 AM Nov 30, 2024
we were not present at the time of the incident, so we are assuming we could have done a better job in dealing with the situation!
it would appear from what I read/heard in the news, a lack of suitable training for both nursing staff and the attending police /paramedics was a contributing factor.
Southern Cruizer said
05:30 PM Nov 30, 2024
dogbox wrote:
we were not present at the time of the incident, so we are assuming we could have done a better job in dealing with the situation!
it would appear from what I read/heard in the news, a lack of suitable training for both nursing staff and the attending police /paramedics was a contributing factor.
Agree 100%
dorian said
08:05 PM Nov 30, 2024
dogbox wrote:
a lack of suitable training for both nursing staff and the attending police /paramedics was a contributing factor.
How do you train a police constable to be a compassionate, caring human being? You either are or you aren't, and if you aren't, you should be booted out of the force.
Aussie1 said
09:59 PM Nov 30, 2024
dorian wrote:
dogbox wrote:
a lack of suitable training for both nursing staff and the attending police /paramedics was a contributing factor.
How do you train a police constable to be a compassionate, caring human being? You either are or you aren't, and if you aren't, you should be booted out of the force.
And you would appear to be the person best positioned to decide on who should be in or out. Nah, read Dmaxer's post, you may well learn something.
dorian said
04:36 AM Dec 2, 2024
Just the other day a cop who was found guilty of manslaughter when her negligence caused the deaths of two people was given a 6-month suspended sentence. She won't be spending a single minute in jail. White, on the other hand, only killed one person. Does that mean he will get a 3-month slap on the wrist?
Cast your mind back to Richard Pusey who spent 10 months on remand, and who was ultimately convicted of "outraging public decency". He was pulled over for speeding by four traffic cops who were then killed by a passing truck driver. Pusey killed no-one, nor was he responsible for any of the deaths, but he was callously disrespectful of the dead and dying constables. This behaviour was not actually a crime, or at least no-one in Australian history had ever been charged with same, so the powers-that-be had to create a crime especially for him, or perhaps they dredged one up from the days of the Magna Carta.
So, yes, the courts do apply the law much more favourably to police than to us less valued folk.
A former Tasmanian police officer whose negligent driving caused the deaths of a mother and son has been sentenced to six months in jail, wholly suspended.
Cassandra Joy Richardson, 28, was driving near Richmond in Tasmania's south when she veered onto the wrong side of the road in May 2022.
Teresa Brown, who was driving in the opposite direction on Brinktop Road, was forced to take evasive action and collided with another oncoming vehicle.
The 51-year-old and her 16-year-old son were killed in the crash.
DMaxer said
07:30 AM Dec 2, 2024
I assume you travelled down to Tasmania for the duration of this hearing involving the former police officer. I assume you listened intently to the evidence that was given, took into account the circumstances and her prior antecedents and then listened to the submissions made by both the prosecution and the defence counsels.
After this, i imagine you listened closely to the reasons given in the judge's sentencing summary, closely following the legal precedents cited and then, after perusing the sentencing legislation came to the conclusion that judicial error had occurred. I imagine if this is the case you would now be preparing the grounds of appeal to rectify the judicial error in a higher jurisdiction.
Or did you just read an article in a paper and get working on the keyboard?
-- Edited by DMaxer on Monday 2nd of December 2024 07:53:09 AM
Aussie1 said
10:28 AM Dec 2, 2024
DMaxer wrote:
Or did you just read an article in a paper and get working on the keyboard?
-- Edited by DMaxer on Monday 2nd of December 2024 07:53:09 AM
Yep, you nailed it there.
dorian said
02:46 PM Dec 2, 2024
@DMaxer, when you are giving us your view on cases such as this, perhaps it would be better if you were to forget that you are a lawyer and remember that first and foremost you are a human being like the victims. My outrage stems from the fact that these injustices could just as easily have happened to me.
Guilty of manslaughter.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/kristian-white-nsw-police-officer-clare-nowland-taser-death/7f7bac32-abae-48b5-ae9b-b1f8117eef98
So now that that line has been drawn in the sand, I hope the next time something similar happens and the cops stop and double guess themselves resulting in somebody actually getting knifed, the moral dogooders of society don't start screaming about why the cops didn't do this or why the cops didn't do that.
It is not a question of how much someone's life is worth. When a defendant is sentenced there are a range of matters that must be considered. The circumstances of the offending, the character of the defendant, his rehabilitation. remorse shown, likelihood of reoffending are just a few. The criteria has been the case for hundreds of years. It is not an act of revenge or knee jerk hysterics. I feel very sorry for all the people, including the poor woman who died, who have been involved in this sad episode.
One thing that did puzzle me throughout this trial was (and if it has been reported correctly) that the officer concerned was the subordinate member of the duo who attended. I wonder what, if any, responsibility is to be taken by the senior member. It was reported he held the taser for a minute or more before it was deployed and was not told to desist. In fact, and once again if reported correctly, the senior officer stated that she was "comfortable with what happened though not happy.".
I certainly don't envy police and the decisions they need to make during serious events. I usually find that the biggest critics of the police are the first to be running to them when they feel under threat.
A pretty sad day all round I think.
My 97 year old mum still lives independently but slowly her mind is starting to wander.
Her mother lived to 96 and suffered from Alzheimers and my mum's three sisters all lived beyond 90 and each of them had the same memory affliction in the end.
So one of the present great fears in my family is the slow and steady decline in my lovely mum's mental capacity.
My late father once pointed out to me as people age they sometimes regress to a state of childhood.
One also has to consider such a thing could happen to any one of us in the future.
I am sure I am not the only one who walks into a room now and wonders "what did I come in here for"?
So when the elderly do become confused/childish/aggressive, then what is the policy to tackle same?
Good luck..........
What is the answer, a net, a tranquiliser, what else?
Each could result in a fall, trauma or a heart attack???
I don't think there is a definitive answer to the problem......
Yes rmoor. My old mum passed away aged over 100 in aged care. Although my mum had severe dementia towards the end of her life, thankfully she was not violent. On numerous visits to her aged care facility I saw some poor souls, who were demented, really get aggressive and they were intimidating.
I wonder what the the public opinion will be if in the future, if a similar situation occurs like in this sad episode and the staff ring 000 for assistance and the police suggest they contact the immediate family to attend and remedy the situation and if that doesn't work, then call back and we will see if anyone is available to come down a bit later on. in a monitoring capacity only.
I hope eventually justice will prevail.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 28th of November 2024 06:24:47 AM
I find it hard to believe that two people who are supposedly well trained, could not disarm a frail 95yr old with a Zimmer frame. Her movements would be a lot slower than normal so why not have one officer distract her whilst the other moves to her rear where it would relatively easy to disarm her????
If it was some bloke with a machete yep. go for it no argument there. You cannot apply the one rule fits all in a case like this. The officer concerned took the easy way out. His comment of "bugger it" tells me that he wanted out of this situation the sooner, the better. As for the female officer intervening that is not the way it works, these guys will always back each other up and, in most cases this is absolutely necessary for them to do their job.
But there will always be that one situation that requires common sense, not the rule book.
Thankfully the jury found it hard to believe as well. Hopefully the verdict will survive an appeal.
I find it hard to believe that out of all the staff in the nursing home, not one of them could disarm a frail 95yr old with a zimmer frame and had to resort to calling the cops, who in protecting those who choose to do nothing themselves and ensuring their own safety, find themselves now branded as criminals.
Or wait for her to move so somebody could come in behind her.
My guess is he was so used to dealing with tough younger men he did not appreciate that there would be such a major difference in effect, or the risks of that action.
One would have thought some sort of joint effort would have settled the situation.
I know if my 97 year old mum presented a problem (which I forever hope does not happen!!!!) then I reckon she is so frail there would be little threat to myself or anyone as she moves way too slowly to be of any real risk?
Surely an opportunity to isolate the person and wait for them to tire out would be some sort of solution. Surely waiting them out at an advanced age where they tire quickly is some sort of solution??? Clips from the event indicated there were rooms and doors available, surely the incident could have been isolated and waited out until she became too weak to be of a further threat???
Now it is not sub-judice once the finding of the court has been made public and sentencing is imminent. The one fact that has come out is the "Bugger it" comment indicates somebody's patience ran out. The one thing elderly dementia patients need is patience, understanding and agreeing to their wishes. They soon will forget what the issue was and agreeing with them is the safest policy. A person in authority telling them WHAT they should be doing is the exact opposite of what IS required. Maybe the findings from this will suggest persons in authority and uniformed are a bad idea.
No wonder it ended in tears.
Clearly that is not the case in NSW. If I were to kill a cop in NSW, I would be jailed for the rest of my life. If a cop were to kill me, he would get at most 20 years. That tells me that my life is worse less than a cop. How did such blatantly discriminatory legislation ever make it through one house of parliament, let alone both?
DMaxer note I said "should also reflect the fact that the offender was/is a police officer" we all know that won't be the case, in fact the excuses will come thick and fast, and he will probably come away with a far more lenient sentence than you, or I would receive, after all he did save the community from that extremely dangerous offender,,,, time will tell, but I am predicting little more than a slap on the wrist, hope not though.
How condescending, so basically what you're saying is anyone here with an opinion that differs from yours is an idiot.
The definition of the Dunning Kruger effect for anyone unaware
"The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when a person's lack of knowledge and skill in a certain area causes them to overestimate their own competence"
-- Edited by blackstump on Friday 29th of November 2024 07:31:33 AM
I can read and understand English, perhaps better than most wig-heads. The fact is that a policeman's life, as viewed by NSW law, is worth more than mine. The particular circumstance is irrelevant.
The Dunning-Kruger effect has nothing to do with my previous comments. I don't have a degree in law but, I do have a modicum of common sense. The police officer got it badly wrong in this case. So now we await the inevitable appeals backed by the weight of his union.
Dickens got it right when he wrote through the words of Mr Bumble.
No, I didn't say that Blackstump. You did and then attributed it to me.
What I think some people fail to understand is that the officer was not charged with killing the poor woman. He was charged with doing an act that led to her death. It is the same charge that would be brought if someone drove the fork lift through the factory and ran over and killed a work mate, or turned on the power without checking if anyone was working on the lines. It is an act or an omission that resulted in a death. There is no intent to cause the death, it was a result of the act or omission.
It was a horrible event. It was not a straightforward prosecution. It took 8 days of evidence and addresses and the jury took 4.5 days to come to a verdict.
Spare a thought for the officer. He could lose his liberty, lose his career, be sued into bankruptcy with the expected legal action that will follow and live with this stigma for the rest of his life. It is really easy for everyone to give a view as to what should have happened when they weren't there or involved. It went horribly wrong and now he is being punished.
This waiting for the "inevitable appeals backed by the weight of his union" is classic Dunning Kruger. If the sentence is too lenient the Crown may appeal, likewise, if too excessive the defence may appeal. If the defence asserts there has been an error in law or the jury verdict was not sustainable given the evidence then they may appeal. An appeal is not a natural right or flow on to drag things out. First of all, before you can have an appeal heard one has to convince the Appeals Court that there is sufficient merit. It is not just a matter of appeal after appeal on flimsy grounds. It doesn't get off the ground unless the court first deems it has merit to be even considered.
Anyway, think what you like. I think the law has operated pretty well. The only asses seem to be those that are incapable of understanding it without resorting to histrionics.
does not come into the equation, since he was charged with manslaughter not murder. If anyone wants to see histrionics in action just go and sit in the public area of a court and you will see, and hear, an accurate description of the the word being acted out many times over.
One can expect a lawyer to defend his profession and that is his right to express his opinion but, that does not prevent me from expressing mine. That is what I did and I stand by what I wrote.
it would appear from what I read/heard in the news, a lack of suitable training for both nursing staff and the attending police /paramedics was a contributing factor.
Agree 100%
How do you train a police constable to be a compassionate, caring human being? You either are or you aren't, and if you aren't, you should be booted out of the force.
And you would appear to be the person best positioned to decide on who should be in or out. Nah, read Dmaxer's post, you may well learn something.
Just the other day a cop who was found guilty of manslaughter when her negligence caused the deaths of two people was given a 6-month suspended sentence. She won't be spending a single minute in jail. White, on the other hand, only killed one person. Does that mean he will get a 3-month slap on the wrist?
Cast your mind back to Richard Pusey who spent 10 months on remand, and who was ultimately convicted of "outraging public decency". He was pulled over for speeding by four traffic cops who were then killed by a passing truck driver. Pusey killed no-one, nor was he responsible for any of the deaths, but he was callously disrespectful of the dead and dying constables. This behaviour was not actually a crime, or at least no-one in Australian history had ever been charged with same, so the powers-that-be had to create a crime especially for him, or perhaps they dredged one up from the days of the Magna Carta.
So, yes, the courts do apply the law much more favourably to police than to us less valued folk.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-30/casandra-joy-richardson-fatal-crash-sentence-tas/104663134
I assume you travelled down to Tasmania for the duration of this hearing involving the former police officer. I assume you listened intently to the evidence that was given, took into account the circumstances and her prior antecedents and then listened to the submissions made by both the prosecution and the defence counsels.
After this, i imagine you listened closely to the reasons given in the judge's sentencing summary, closely following the legal precedents cited and then, after perusing the sentencing legislation came to the conclusion that judicial error had occurred. I imagine if this is the case you would now be preparing the grounds of appeal to rectify the judicial error in a higher jurisdiction.
Or did you just read an article in a paper and get working on the keyboard?
-- Edited by DMaxer on Monday 2nd of December 2024 07:53:09 AM
Yep, you nailed it there.