• Be cool and Register to set your username and display picture get the full features of the site. Talk Bulldogs NRL News, match reviews, live score, ladder, injuries, player signings and team performance.

News Curtis Scott arrested after Moore Park incident

TwinTurbo

Kennel Addict
Gilded
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
3,456
Reaction score
2,245
Letting Curtis Scott play is 100% BS, completely wrong and here's why;

1. The NRL policy on no fault stand owns says "the criminal offences that apply to this rule are serious offences with a maximum jail term of 11 years or more"
Source https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/02/28/arl-commission-to-announce-new-policy-for-player-misbehaviour/

2. "A charge of assaulting a police officer in their execution of duty carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment"
Source; https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/offences/assault/police/

3. No one but the Courts should be determining guilt or innocence, "the CEO stressed it was not a judgement on his guilt or innocence"
Source https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/02/28/arl-commission-to-announce-new-policy-for-player-misbehaviour/

4. Last time I checked 14 was more than 11.

According to the NRL published policy he should be stood down, it's that simple.

Go Dogs
 

JayBee

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
9,115
Reaction score
674
Letting Curtis Scott play is 100% BS, completely wrong and here's why;

1. The NRL policy on no fault stand owns says "the criminal offences that apply to this rule are serious offences with a maximum jail term of 11 years or more"
Source https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/02/28/arl-commission-to-announce-new-policy-for-player-misbehaviour/

2. "A charge of assaulting a police officer in their execution of duty carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment"
Source; https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/offences/assault/police/

3. No one but the Courts should be determining guilt or innocence, "the CEO stressed it was not a judgement on his guilt or innocence"
Source https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/02/28/arl-commission-to-announce-new-policy-for-player-misbehaviour/

4. Last time I checked 14 was more than 11.

According to the NRL published policy he should be stood down, it's that simple.

Go Dogs
I am one of the more vocal critics of Greenberg. And this proves exactly why he is bad for the game.

What makes him judge, jury and executioner? Why cant he act like the law? Apart of me hoped JDB won his case against the NRL, because it is absolute bullshit. Forget that he is a sh!t c*** for what he allegedly did. Let him and his missus deal with that.

B
 

Natboy

Kennel Addict
Premium Member
SC Top Scorer
SC League Winner
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
4,234
Reaction score
3,373
Letting Curtis Scott play is 100% BS, completely wrong and here's why;

1. The NRL policy on no fault stand owns says "the criminal offences that apply to this rule are serious offences with a maximum jail term of 11 years or more"
Source https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/02/28/arl-commission-to-announce-new-policy-for-player-misbehaviour/

2. "A charge of assaulting a police officer in their execution of duty carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment"
Source; https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/offences/assault/police/

3. No one but the Courts should be determining guilt or innocence, "the CEO stressed it was not a judgement on his guilt or innocence"
Source https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/02/28/arl-commission-to-announce-new-policy-for-player-misbehaviour/

4. Last time I checked 14 was more than 11.

According to the NRL published policy he should be stood down, it's that simple.

Go Dogs
He didn’t inflict grievous bodily harm upon them though mate so the no fault stand down policy doesn’t apply
 

Psycho Doggie

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
5,468
Reaction score
4,357
Wouldn't be surprising to discover when more info comes out that the cops were heavy handed. The fact a tazer was used might imply Scott was out of control, but doubt has to remain purely because of how often cops have overreacted in using one.
 

sgodllubsti

Kennel Addict
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
4,598
Reaction score
430
only thing greenturd is consistent with is his inconsistencies, nrl integrity i think is run by former police officers, i dont understand with the seriousness of the charges relating to allegedly assaulting police that he is not stood down

greenturd needs to go, the bloke is an embarrassment and believes he is some sort of messiah
 

TwinTurbo

Kennel Addict
Gilded
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
3,456
Reaction score
2,245
He didn’t inflict grievous bodily harm upon them though mate so the no fault stand down policy doesn’t apply
The word is "assaulting" not "inflict grievous bodily harm", verbal assault is still assault, pushing is assault, grabbing an arm is assault, poking in the chest with one's finger is assault etc etc.

Go Dogs
 

Natboy

Kennel Addict
Premium Member
SC Top Scorer
SC League Winner
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
4,234
Reaction score
3,373
The word is "assaulting" not "inflict grievous bodily harm", verbal assault is still assault, pushing is assault, grabbing an arm is assault, poking in the chest with one's finger is assault etc etc.

Go Dogs
Exactly right mate and none of them carry over 11 years imprisonment so he’s right to play. I’m very interested in what comes from this case
 

Nexus

Why so serious?
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
8,101
Reaction score
1,230
The word is "assaulting" not "inflict grievous bodily harm", verbal assault is still assault, pushing is assault, grabbing an arm is assault, poking in the chest with one's finger is assault etc etc.

Go Dogs
Yeah but assaulting a police office only carries a maximum of 5 years, actual bodily harm is 7 years and grievous bodily harm or wounding a police officer (which this doesn't fall under) is 12 - 14 years.

You didnt open the link did you?

https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/offences/assault/police/
 

TwinTurbo

Kennel Addict
Gilded
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
3,456
Reaction score
2,245
Exactly right mate and none of them carry over 11 years imprisonment so he’s right to play. I’m very interested in what comes from this case
You could be right, but my understanding is that he was charged with two counts of assault, resisting police, allegedly pushing one officer away and punching the other in the face, behaving offensively in public and trespassing plus an additional charge arising from his actions whilst in custody. I'm not sure where the throwing of a mobile phone at a passing car fits into the charges. I find it extremely hard to believe that the maximum terms of the 7 charges don't add up to more than 11 years. Plus he is hardly a clean skin, so no discount for first offence.

Whether he is guilty or not is irrelevant, it's a "no fault stand down policy", just being charged is enough.

Go Dogs
 

TwinTurbo

Kennel Addict
Gilded
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
3,456
Reaction score
2,245

Nexus

Why so serious?
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
8,101
Reaction score
1,230
Yes I did, and it's 2 counts of assault, refer post above.

Go Dogs
LOL, it doesnt work that way mate. You dont automatically add all the sentences together for all the crimes. In the majority of cases most sentences would be served concurrently. With multiple offences they have to us the principle of totality. Basically the time has to fit the crime. There is not a chance in the pit of Hades that he will be sent away for 11 years or more. I would be very surprised if he gets much more than community service.
 

TwinTurbo

Kennel Addict
Gilded
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
3,456
Reaction score
2,245
LOL, it doesnt work that way mate. You dont automatically add all the sentences together for all the crimes. In the majority of cases most sentences would be served concurrently. With multiple offences they have to us the principle of totality. Basically the time has to fit the crime. There is not a chance in the pit of Hades that he will be sent away for 11 years or more. I would be very surprised if he gets much more than community service.
My understanding is that 7 charges were laid, if I ad up all the maximum sentences for the 7 charges it's more than 11 years. Whether he gets sentenced for more than 11 years is irrelevant, that's not how the NRL no fault stand down policy works.

I don't disagree with you, he has a good lawyer in Sam, and it's most unlikely that he will get anywhere remotely close to the maximums, but again that's not the NRL policy.

Go Dogs
 

Nexus

Why so serious?
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
8,101
Reaction score
1,230
My understanding is that 7 charges were laid, if I ad up all the maximum sentences for the 7 charges it's more than 11 years
As I said already, THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS.
 

The_Chimpster

Kennel Addict
Joined
Mar 12, 2015
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
1,669
I don't know the facts, other than what's out in the media and I don't trust most of the stuff I read but if he's guilty, he shouldn't be allowed to play imo


The whole "no fault" stand down policy is ridiculous
 

Natboy

Kennel Addict
Premium Member
SC Top Scorer
SC League Winner
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
4,234
Reaction score
3,373
You could be right, but my understanding is that he was charged with two counts of assault, resisting police, allegedly pushing one officer away and punching the other in the face, behaving offensively in public and trespassing plus an additional charge arising from his actions whilst in custody. I'm not sure where the throwing of a mobile phone at a passing car fits into the charges. I find it extremely hard to believe that the maximum terms of the 7 charges don't add up to more than 11 years. Plus he is hardly a clean skin, so no discount for first offence.

Whether he is guilty or not is irrelevant, it's a "no fault stand down policy", just being charged is enough.

Go Dogs
I know what you are saying but the court won’t add them up either if he was sent to jail for example. I’ve heard some bad things about him previously but there seems to be more to this incident
 

TwinTurbo

Kennel Addict
Gilded
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
3,456
Reaction score
2,245
As I said already, THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS.
Depends on what you mean by "IT";
If you mean the legal system then no argument here, I agree.
If you mean the NRL no fault stand down policy then that is exactly how it works, it simply relies on the maximum sentences. If you are over 11 years using the maximums then you get stood down and as such Scott should be stood down.


Go Dogs
 

Nexus

Why so serious?
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
8,101
Reaction score
1,230
Depends on what you mean by "IT";
If you mean the legal system then no argument here, I agree.
If you mean the NRL no fault stand down policy then that is exactly how it works, it simply relies on the maximum sentences. If you are over 11 years using the maximums then you get stood down and as such Scott should be stood down.


Go Dogs
Nope, thats not how it works.

No offence but you dont really know what you are talking about, but will keep arguing the point anyway, so we are going to have to agree to disagree.
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
6,353
Reaction score
4,281
Yes but Todd has looked at the video evidence and deemed it not be be of sufficient criminality to be affected by the NRL no fault rules.

That should see him right and prove even more substantial in a court of law than even the character reference Toddy gave to GI ;)
I don't know the facts, other than what's out in the media and I don't trust most of the stuff I read but if he's guilty, he shouldn't be allowed to play imo


The whole "no fault" stand down policy is ridiculous
 

TwinTurbo

Kennel Addict
Gilded
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
3,456
Reaction score
2,245
Nope, thats not how it works. No offence but you dont really know what you are talking about, but will keep arguing the point anyway, so we are going to have to agree to disagree.
OK, I understand that you truly believe that to be the case, but can you please explain it to me because I have read everything available on the no fault stand down policy and I can't see any other interpretation. Help me out here, please.

Go Dogs
 

TwinTurbo

Kennel Addict
Gilded
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
3,456
Reaction score
2,245
Yes but Todd has looked at the video evidence and deemed it not be be of sufficient criminality to be affected by the NRL no fault rules.
That should see him right and prove even more substantial in a court of law than even the character reference Toddy gave to GI ;)
But the police have plainly deemed it to be of sufficient criminality to charge him with 7 offences. For some reason Greenberg believes that he has superior knowledge gained by simply watching the tape, ie; he is playing judge, jury and executioner. It fails the pub test, in comparison May was stood down under the policy but was only sentenced to community service. Possibly what Scott will get, but he isn't being stood down, it smells.

Go Dogs
 
Top