Well in that case they still do...should of been refused bail. Don't go through your normal phase of trying to defend the indefensible. Its more tiresome than it already is.



Edited by SocaWho: 16/12/2014 10:28:39 AM

This isn't the minority report.

Was the same woman in the second demand video.

Its not Judge Judy either.

Are you practising to be a criminal lawyer by any chance?

Edited by SocaWho: 16/12/2014 10:41:45 AM

Do you know the parameters that bail would be denied? Judges work within the confines of the law, not on personal whim and fancy.

The only person with blood on their hands is the fruitloop himself.

Hmm...so being accessory to murder is not enough in your books to be refused bail?

So lets just throw out our entire legal system and start all over again because some rapist witch doctor was granted bail based on evidence presented in court that you or anyone else not in the courtroom at the time are privy too.

I love it how some people are overly simplistic in their assessment of a very complexed and convoluted situation by fingering the blame towards one sector of society. If it's not Muslims, it's the Magistrates. If it's not the Magistrates it's the Labor gov't who granted him political asylum. If it's not the Labor gov't, it's the Liberal gov't who didn't deport him after malicious letters sent to deceased soldier's families.

He wasn't an accessory to a murder, he was accused to being an accessory to a murder. As he hadn't been found guilty yet he was to be presumed innocent.

For bail to be denied he would need to either be a risk of flight or being a danger to the community, obviously the latter ended up being true but it's a bit harder to prove beforehand.

My cousin, who's a bit prone to hysterics, just put on Facebook that she went and spent hundreds of dollars at lindt in remembrance of the victims.

Riiiiiight

Really?

Didn't he have about 40 priors even before this murder popped up?

Um.....no

A man holding a gun to his misses head to get his kids back is not politically motivated. Its related to a domestic event. I'm sure the tactical response would've been similar but its not an act of terrorism. Its not designed to terrorise the nation.

I'll repeat.

17 innocent random civilians, were kept hostage by a man, making politically charged demands whilst holding a shotgun threatening to kill them unless his demands were met. His motivation was to terrorise the nation in the name of Islamic extremism.

This was clearly an act of terrorism.

He had quite a lengthy record of criminal offences, ranging from rape to writing threatening letter's to families of the Defence force...so how was it hard prove that he was not a danger to the community.

Im actually shaking my head at how moronic your statement is about how hard it is to prove he is a danger to the community. Complete disbelief actually.

Well as much you like to often be against the status quo...I really can't see how you have a leg to stand on with regards to your argument here.

I would find the only people who would agree with you here are people who preach and facilitate hate.

Edited by SocaWho: 16/12/2014 11:22:32 AM

In NO's books, thats considered too hard to justify the guy to be refused bail.

Unbelieveable

Edited by SocaWho: 16/12/2014 11:14:22 AM

With the amount of priors this guy has he should have been locked up a very long time ago

Not just rape, but sending threatening letters to ADF families, and a whole raft of other offences.
There is something wrong when someone like this gets released on bail after a string of serious offences.
...and yes if it means starting again to go back to some common sense in the courts then Im all for it...because clearly common sense is what the legal system is lacking these days.

runs in the family.....;) ;) ;)

He didn't have 40 priors, he had 40 accusations.

His priors are exactly 1. The sending emails to families of dead soldiers.

Everything else was yet to be proven.

As for everyone losing their emotional spaghetti, I'm not defending anything; I'm explaining how our system works and why you're wrong. Don't shoot the messenger for your own ignorance.

Edited by Notorganic: 16/12/2014 11:40:00 AM

scouse_roar getting his tweet posted all over the interwebs

http://m.mic.com/articles/106442/australians-show-the-world-exactly-how-to-respond-to-terrorism-with-ill-ride-with-you

I'm sure his mum is really proud.

All of this. Socawho has no idea here.

Sad day.

Fucking SocaWho looooooooooooooooooool

-PB

Oh he's back in Brisbane now?

-PB

Yeah, moved back a few months ago, for personal reasons. A split with the Mrs I think?

Did have the pleasure of going to an FFA cup game with him before he left though and I must say I enjoyed his company far, far more than I expected.

I agree with you but I would have assumed being charged with involvement of a murder plus having priors no matter how small would result in remand.

If the priors had included violence, or if he had been accused of actually committing the murder, there's a good chance he would have been remanded... But as he was 'only' accused of being involved, and as the previous was just some nasty correspondence... No real reason for him to be held (hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the courts don't have it at their disposal).

You would think so, I'd be keen to see the comments from the judge as to why they decided to grant bail.

There are many reasons. It may be a lack of evidence, good arguments from defence, poor arguments from prosecution, or even possibly a judge being hesitant to remand out of fear of being branded a racist.

I'm sure it will come out in the wash, but complete ignorance from morons like SocaWho isn't going to help anything.

If I were the prosecution I would be focusing on the alleged sexual assaults to push for remand.

Vintage Scouse.

I'm the same though, I've seen plenty of white guilt on my newsfeed but no actual fuck off we're full type racial outbursts.