-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
should tracy be sacked?
- Thread starter zgod
- Start date
As an anxiety depression 'sufferer' I can't help but wonder at the massive psychological burden placed on dusty at being labelled a purpitrator of violence against women and poster boy to a serious issue. I hope he is doing ok. I would not.
rosy23 said:
I think you are getting confused on legal issues here.
If you are trying to reference DV cases where men seemingly get "let off" because the woman doesn't press charges, in some ways this is correct as in a large majority of DV cases. the actual violence occurs behind closed doors between a man and a woman, hence if the police cannot get a statement from said lady, they have no case.
This was not the case with Dusty's potential offence. It wasn't even referred to them by the lady in question but apparently by the AFL. The restaurant was apparently busy and they could have easily pressed charges on Dusty even without victims testimony. There is clearly a reason why they have not but you seem to refuse to accept what that reason was.
Sure Dusty was drunk and may have had words, but its still not something he should have received some of the vitriol that he has received. He will certainly receive a club sanction mainly focused arund his drinking but none of us know any more than that and trying to make out that if Tracey had made a statement to the police that the outcome would have been different. Its likely that if she had made that statement but had no witnesses to back her up then there is no doubt that again no charges would have been laid. Dusty had witnesses here so we generally have more knowledge of what did and didn't happen just purely from the fact that the police had actions to witnesses etc.
Compare that to most rape cases (include Majak Daws if you like) and this is why prosecution levels are low on both DV and rape purely because there isn't enough evidence in most of these cases as its generally 1 persons testimony versus anothers. The act could have occurred exactly as the lady has said in these cases but in a lot of cases has nothing to back that up.
Luckily for Dusty he had people to dispute any scenario where a criminal offence was commited. That doesn't mean he's innocent and may have intimidated the lady but no-one knows.
The police know, the dude having the date with Tracey knows, Dustin knows, his mates know and dare I say it the club and AFL know. It was appropriately and well handled I thought especially after the trial by media. The AFL need to get a grip of themselves and stop crossing the line on becoming involved in all facets of players lives, they should be involved in football and leave it at that. The Essendon drugs scandal should have made the AFL realise they have little value in contributing to more than game day issues. They helped create such a mess by sticking their unwanted nose into a federal investigation that they actually implicated themselves. Perhaps ridding the AFL hierarchy of folks with Law degrees would be a start.
Totally agree. The AFL are a sporting corporation and often struggle to cope with that role. They should NEVER be involved in investigating cases of alleged criminal activity. The talk from bush lawyers and amateur sleuths passing judgements on players' lives outside of the football arena gives me the heebie jeebies. The police have the expertise and resources to follow up on what a player does in a restaurant or for that manner any other public place.
It is very sad that the woman involved expected to find justice through an appeal to the RFC, the AFL or the media.
It is very sad that the woman involved expected to find justice through an appeal to the RFC, the AFL or the media.
mrposhman said:
What is the clearly good reason? They probably see similar behaviour week in week out. They were also allegedly serving shots to a very inebriated person and could have been in serious trouble for that.
Yes I admit I am probably confused on legal issues as charged. I have a serious medical condition affecting my brain at the moment but wouldn't purport to be a pseudo legal expert on here anyway. I've been advised that the woman couldn't press charges. What is the difference with the restaurant easily pressing charges as you suggest? I'm happy to learn.
No it shouldn't have received some of the vitriol he received but I have no control over that. Such is the nature of the beast for a high profile player.
Can't speak for Mr Poshman on this, but I think the reason he mentions is that if the venue had chosen to make this into an investigation questions would have been asked as to why they continued to serve a clearly inebriated patron and that could have led to suspension or cancellation of their liquor licence. I'm actually surprised that this hasn't been raised more prominently.rosy23 said:
CarnTheTiges said:
I don't think you've read it very clearly Carn. Poshman said the venue could easily have pressed charges. Several people swooped on me when I mentioned the girl pressing charges earlier. I was just wondering what the difference was. Poshman said the restaurant could have easily pressed charges. It was me (in my post you've quoted) who raised the point they could be in serious trouble for allegedly continuing to serve shots to a clearly inebriated person. I reckon it probably wouldn't have been in their best interest to press charges even if they wanted to. I also suggested the incident probably wasn't that unusual no matter how acceptable or unacceptable it was.
Great post if it is in jest...but......Why did Dusty apologise if he didn't do something stupid?BrisTiger24 said:
Sack one, sack both...restore integrity....oops, we can't do that for media wankers, but we need to sack Dusty for Richmond's integrity.
Every other club knows what Dusty is.....that is why they rejected him when he tried to sell himself as the football messiah.
High applause for Richmond for supporting him....BUT......a LEOPARD CANNOT CHANGE ITS SPOT TO STRIPES.
Come on down Dusty, you have earned your place in INFAMY. It is time to go.
rosy23 said:
Not the restaurant, the police. They are the only ones in our legal system that decide whether to press charges on anyone. The only reason why people use that term in DV cases is because the police need the testimony of the person who was impacted, in a lot of cases people refuse to provide statements against their husband / wife so essentially charges are dropped. In this case there were witnesses, other diners / restaurant staff etc.
Ps. I'm sorry to hear about your health issues, hopefully everything will work out well for you.
rimau35 said:
But if you pay him enough money a tiger can change his stripe to lightning bolts can't he,...now that's integrity.
Well I know from someone at the restaurant that "Tracey" was going around saying "don't you know who I am"......and nobody questioned whether she also had had a few drinks and from my source yes she had......I don't defend what he said or did yo her but there's another story. Why didn't the media ask "we're you having a few too many too?" "Did u say....do you know who I am?".
