Violence and how thugs are getting off - Constable Matt Butcher assaulted and permanently brain injured.
The son attacked the policeman because he said that his father was in ill health and the policeman's use of the tasar may have injured his father.
So please, tell me why the father was in a brawl with his sons if he is in ill health.
I wasn't aware of the rally calling for the police to be protected.
Our Valiant Few - Victoria Cross Winners. Our most recent awardee, Mark Donaldson, with Keith Payne and another fellow from Vietnam - sorry, I have forgotten his name. The transcript will be interesting.
60 Minutes main site here....
20 comments:
"The bar manager of the Old Bailey Tavern in Joondalup, Lara Dushka, testified that she was grateful to the McLeods for protecting her when a group of drunk painters started a fight with two young men and refused to leave"
These guys(the Mcleods) didn't start the fight, Kae.
Constable Butcher is a good guy, just misunderstood the situation.
http://www.perthstreetbikes.com/forum/f20/two-sides-every-story-mcleod-butcher-80231/
The Mcleods are not bad people..
A very unfortunate situation.
It's never cut and dried mate!
Kathy,
a decent young copper was hurt, BADLY.
It IS cut and dried.
Are you from WA Pogria?
No, it is not cut and dried.
That's why the jury found the Mcleods not guilty.
Because these things ARE not cut and dried.
Did you read the link that I provided
It's a nightmare all round mate.
I feel for both sides..
A nightmare all round?
How on earth did you come to that?
ONE person is maimed for the rest of his life?
For doing his job!
The people who caused it are walking freely and in rude health.
Yes, it is cut and dried. The policeman had been hit from behind. Wow, golly gee, it takes a brave man to smash someone from behind, doesn't it? As you'll have guessed, that was a rhetorical question.
What does coming from WA have to do with how this despicable crime is viewed? Does WA have a monopoly on bleeding heart, chest beating apologists of vicious assaults?
There has been a troubling trend recently where the victim is being attacked all over again by a section of the public for having the gall to speak up for himself and show that he has been treated unjustly.
It isn't a nightmare for the McLeods. The only hurt they're feeling are to their pockets. How much hurt does Matt Butcher feel everyday? Do you feel that?
Having read the excerpt at the link, I am inclined to agree with Kae and Pogria. The various McLeod quotes were less than persuasive.
Cheers
Take a chill pill Pogria.
The coverage was huge here in WA!
It was a terrible thing to happen to Constable Butcher. Nobody, not even the Mcleods wanted that to happen to the poor man.
You and I were not on THAT jury.
We did not see and hear the evidence. No one is condoning the actions of Robert Mcleod, here.
"
THE McLeod family wants the WA public to look at the evidence that resulted in the not guilty verdicts in the Matt Butcher assault case.
Bob, Barry and Margaret McLeod have broken their silence to appeal for calm, saying that the hysteria surrounding their case was unwarranted.
They want the public to understand the reasons why they were acquitted.
They say it was unfair that the first seconds of the infamous mobile phone footage were not released to the public. It was edited to protect the identity of one of the people in the footage.
``One policeman arrived with his baton out and he didn't ask questions first, he just grabbed Barry by the neck from behind,'' said Bob McLeod.
``We can see why people watch that edited video and think we look guilty as hell, but the point is that we're not.
``People think that we were brawling in the pub and brawling outside, but we weren't.
``We weren't drunk, we aren't thugs. We are just ordinary working people.
``We went to a woman's aid when she was being assaulted.''
The bar manager of the Old Bailey Tavern in Joondalup, Lara Dushka, testified that she was grateful to the McLeods for protecting her when a group of drunk painters started a fight with two young men and refused to leave.
The painters faced only minor charges and testified for the prosecution against the McLeods.
The jury unanimously acquitted the McLeods of nine charges on police.
They were instructed by the judge to return not guilty verdicts if they believed the police were not acting lawfully and if they did not believe the police testimony about alleged assaults that were not caught on video or witnessed by bystanders.....
Barry McLeod told the court he was genuinely sorry for the injuries caused to Constable Matt Butcher when his head hit the pavement after being the victim of what was described by the prosecution as a flying headbutt.
``I feel terrible,'' he said. ``I didn't mean for him to fall and bang his head. I didn't mean to hurt the guy.
``I didn't know we collided heads. I wish it had never happened. All I wanted to do was save my dad's life.''
He told the jury that he instinctively lunged at Constable Butcher.
``I saw the police officer walking towards (my dad) with the Taser. That is when I ran as quickly as I could and threw myself at him. I just wanted him to stop hurting my dad.''
Barry's only police record consists of riding on a train without a ticket and driving without a valid licence.".......
Until last year, Bob McLeod was a police-registered security agent.
``If I was that kind of person the police would not have given me a licence to install security systems in people's houses and jewellery stores,'' he said.
``I've got friends who are policemen. I think they've got a really hard job to do. But to see your son being struck by a policeman, I was just stunned.
``Bob McLeod told the court he saw Sgt (Gary)-Blackwood punch his son before striking him with a baton.
``He (Sgt Blackwood) didn't try to put Barry under arrest. He didn't try to handcuff him or ask any questions. He just ran over with his baton extended.'' .......
The McLeods were offered money by other media organisations to tell their story, but decided to speak to The Sunday Times for no payment.
``We need the money, but all we want is for people to understand what really happened,'' said Bob's wife, Margaret McLeod, who wasn't involved in the incident.
``This has been a nightmare. They were acquitted, but people are saying the McLeod name with disgust. We remortgaged the house (for the legal fees) and I've gone back to work.''
Mr McLeod can no longer work after his third heart attack, which occurred several minutes after he was shot with the Taser by Constable Butcher.
He was dead for 12 to 14 minutes on the road outside the Old Bailey while police performed CPR.
He was in an induced coma in the same hospital as Constable Butcher, who is now disabled.
Mr McLeod said the case had become political and should not be used to pass mandatory sentencing laws.
He said he was disgusted that politicians and police leaders were making uninformed comments based on a video that was edited before release.
``They took out anything that had (the protected witness) in it and it just so happens that he was in the start, when Sgt Blackwood strikes Barry,'' he said.
Sgt Blackwood denied at the trial that he threw a punch, saying he was trying to pull Barry McLeod away from an altercation with a painter.
``He was thrashing his arms around. He was trying to push me away,'' Sgt Blackwood told the court.
A punch cannot be seen on the footage because another man is in the way, but Barry McLeod is seen reeling from an impact of some kind and his father runs towards him.
The released footage shows Sgt Blackwood hitting Barry with a baton while Constable Butcher holds his T-shirt over his head.
The female constable, who was nearby and appeared to be looking on, testified that she did not see a baton being used.".....
NO, it is certainly not cut and dried Pogria, your histrionics notwithstanding.
Read the full article here:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,25221416-948,00.html
I do have the feeling however, that your mind is already made up and nothing will change it..
Kathy
I think that the instruction to acquit because the jury may have thought that the police were not acting lawfully was incorrect.
Was the charge that McLeod assaulted Butcher causing his injuries?
I believe that McLeod did run at Butcher and did tackle him causing his serious and permanent injuries. I don't see how anyone can dispute this, and I can't see how McLeod was acquitted. There's something seriously wrong with the system which lets someone who commits an assault like this get off.
McLeod ran at the policeman and carried out a flying tackle.
McLeod: "I feel terrible", he said. "I didn't mean for him to fall and bang his head. I didn't mean to hurt the guy."
This is the very lame defence of a fool. If you didn't mean to hurt him why did you tackle him? The human body is not invincible, it's very easy to do permanent damage, or even kill with one blow. You can hurt someone with one punch ie one blow. If he didn't mean to hurt the man he shouldn't have tackled him. Plain and simple.
Like a bouncer punching a patron and killing them, "I didn't mean to hurt him, I didn't mean to kill him." My question is, if you didn't mean to hurt him, exactly what did you mean to do?
"This is the very lame defence of a fool. If you didn't mean to hurt him why did you tackle him? "
A fool is probably what Mcleod is Kae, however you need to quote in it's entirety what Mcleod said, otherwise a false impression may be gained.
``I feel terrible,'' he said.
``I didn't mean for him to fall and bang his head. I didn't mean to hurt the guy.
``I didn't know we collided heads. I wish it had never happened. All I wanted to do was save my dad's life.''
He told the jury that he instinctively lunged at Constable Butcher.
``I saw the police officer walking towards (my dad) with the Taser. That is when I ran as quickly as I could and threw myself at him. I just wanted him to stop hurting my dad Mcleod said "
"My question is, if you didn't mean to hurt him, exactly what did you mean to do?"
Mcleod answered your question in the above para.
He didn't lunge at the officer because he was a hoon who wanted to inflict injury, Kay! I certainly don't condone his foolish impulsive actions, but I can understand his intent.
He acted instinctively, thought his father was at risk of being tasered, which is what eventuated.. The older Mcleod's heart stopped beating as a result.
Remember too, that the Mcleod family were minding their own business at the pub when they were asked to intervene in a fight (started by another group) by the bar manager.
This has to be put into perspective.
Selectively quoting one line uttered by Mcleod(with respect)does not do this.
Here is a link that outlines the charges Kae.
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/son-acted-instinctively-to-protect-father-defence-20090305-8pd8.html?page=-1
There is no justification for what he did.
That linked article does not outline the charges.
I'm talking about the attack on Butcher.
It was a serious assault, and it did happen. It really doesn't matter what happened before, the video shows that McLeod ran towards Butcher and blindsided him with a flying tackle.
If he didn't realise that would hurt Butcher he is an idiot. At nearly 30 years of age he should be aware of the results of his actions.
"I didn't mean to hurt him" doesn't cut it. It doesn't excuse the assault. Barry feels bad.
Butcher feels much worse. What if Butcher had been killed? Do you really think that "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it" from a grown adult would be a salve?
They are the police, they are charged with upholding the law. If there's a brawl, doesn't matter who started it, the police are charged with stopping it and protecting life and property.
It is not mitigated by being "instinctive" to protect his father.
Okay, what do you think would be an appropriate punishment Kae?
"On 20 March 2009 Colleen Egan of the Sunday Times reported “Jury saw more than a video grab”.
She said call me old-fashioned, but I'm a West Australian who believes in the principle of innocent until proven guilty. And, what's more, I even believe in the theory that if you're found not guilty by a properly instructed jury, you deserve to be treated as not guilty. So when the McLeod family contacted me this week amid the Butcher verdict hysteria, they found a willing ear to listen to their side of the story.
A decade of working on the Andrew Mallard case, plus a stint in 2002-03 listening to rollover evidence at the police royal commission, have made me a tad sceptical. It's through that prism that I have examined the case involving the awful injuries to Constable Butcher, who continues to have my sympathy. No police officer – indeed no employee – should go to work and end up with such terrible consequences. Nothing he did, and nothing his fellow officers did, deserved the impact he will have to cope with for the rest of his life.
Having seen some of the transcripts of the six-week trial and having reviewed a complete version of the now-infamous video in frame-by-frame replay for several hours, I can understand why the McLeods were acquitted. While a jury could well have decided the other way, the verdicts were not incorrect, based on the judge's summing up.
Video of the "flying headbutt", as described by the prosecution, has elevated this case to infamy and, in my view, it's difficult to justify the level of Barry McLeod's response. It is sickening to watch. But the shocking image should not divert us from the principles of justice and consideration of all the facts. The McLeods see it as ironic that the same mobile-phone footage was, in fact, the proof they used to challenge the validity of police allegations.
When it is slowed down and put into context, the footage supports their claim that the first act of violence involving the McLeods came when a sergeant rushed into the fray, baton extended. Their lawyer submitted to the jury that they should be suspicious of police officers' evidence where they either failed to mention Sgt Gary Blackwood at all or failed to mention his use of a baton. Sgt Blackwood refuted claims he did anything wrong and it should be remembered that he was not the one on trial.
The McLeods are obviously a protective family and their eagerness to stick up for each other added to the heat and confusion of the situation. But the Old Bailey bar manager testified that she was grateful for the McLeods' help when a group of violent drunks were refusing to leave and took a swing at her. Having been acquitted in court, they have been convicted as thugs in the court of public opinion, which is being manipulated for political means. Our Attorney-General, Christian Porter, concedes that mandatory sentencing has nothing to do with this case and he has not provided other cases which justify the law.
This week, police union president Michael Dean stood on the steps of parliament and threatened our law-makers as they debated inside the House.
"Change the law and we will back you," he warned.
"Close your eyes and minds and ignore us and we will make your lives a nightmare."
Mr Dean says WA police deserve more "protection" in the form of mandatory sentencing laws, which remove the proper role of an independent judiciary. This is the same Mr Dean who publicly supports the two senior officers found by the CCC to have manipulated evidence and misled courts in the Mallard case, which saw a vulnerable young man imprisoned for a murder he did not commit. As that case showed, no matter how much we'd like to believe the police are all honest and straight, not everyone can be trusted to deal fairly with suspects.
There's no doubt that police work is unpredictable and dangerous. Like all West Australians, I am thankful that good men and women are willing to put their bodies in between the criminals and their intended victims. The police guard our loved ones and keep us safe so, of course, they deserve respect when they are doing their jobs. Maximum sentences for people found to have seriously assaulted public officers should be high and offenders punished severely. Practical measures, such as improving police communications and training, should be funded and employed. Good officers should be supported to the hilt.
But WA should not become a police state, as Mr Dean and Police Minister Rob Johnson want it to be. We should be striving for a better, healthier police service. Officers must be protected when they are acting within the law. In the McLeod case, a jury was not satisfied that they were. It might seem unjust, but there's a reason for things being this way. If we allow the police to get away with breaking the law, the whole system falls down."
It was Collen Egan's fair and balanced reporting that made me stop and think.
"They are the police, they are charged with upholding the law. If there's a brawl, doesn't matter who started it, the police are charged with stopping it and protecting life and property."
Ironic don't you think?
Barry Mcleod was an innocent person who became embroiled in something not of his own making. A good samaratin trying to help a fellow human being.
A jury who considered all the evidence, acquitted the accused.
It's way too late at the moment for me to talk here. I'll be back tomorrow.
Moral of the story folks: if you get involved in an affray and the police turn up, they're not going to politely ask participants to display their good Samaritan badges before deciding who to pull out of the pack.
Which means that if a police officer comes at you, and you retaliate, no matter the circumstances of the fracas, at the very least you're going to be done for assaulting a police officer.
This is how it should be, or how we expect it to be.
Not sure why this case in particular has caused such a hoo-ha. Unfortunately police are injured in the line of duty by members of the public with frequent monotony.
Six weeks of listening to evidence is very different to reading a jouro's summary of things. We can never know what contributed to a jury decision or a judges summation unless we were in the court room to hear all the evidence.
Another sad and ugly case where no comes out of it smelling sweet.
At the risk of being provocative: the dad was killed, in affect, by the police officer with the Taser.
It's no small miracle that he didn't suffer permanent brain damage himself.
Having been bought back to life, he can no longer work.
A case for suing the police, for lost livelihood?
What if resuscitation efforts had failed? Definitely would have been a strong case for unlawful killing and compensation to the family.
I do wonder if the father will now take initiate an action - he could take civil steps - to claim compensation from the police department or the state government. Medical costs, near loss of life, loss of future earnings.
The injured officer is covered financially, but the civilian has also suffered significant loss and permanent injury to his health.
In that circumstance, for our own family members, I think we'd be baying for compensation for the "thug".
There is no justification for what Barry McLeod did.
The linked article in your 4:36 comment does not outline the charges.
I'm talking about the attack on Butcher.
It was a serious assault, and it did happen. It really doesn't matter what happened before, the video shows that McLeod ran towards Butcher and blindsided him with a flying tackle.
If he didn't realise that would hurt Butcher he is an idiot. At nearly 30 years of age he should be aware of the results of his actions.
"I didn't mean to hurt him" doesn't cut it. It doesn't excuse the assault. Barry feels bad? He should have thought about that before he "acted instinctively".
Butcher feels much worse. What if Butcher had been killed? Do you really think that "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it" from a grown adult would be a salve?
They are the police, they are charged with upholding the law. If there's a brawl, doesn't matter who started it, the police are charged with ending it, protecting life and property, and getting to the bottom of what happened.
It is not mitigated by being "instinctive" to protect his father. If everyone acted in instinct we’d be living in a pretty awful, anarchic place.
Barry McLeod's attack on Butcher was not self defence, it was revenge.
This was not a trial of the police. If the police or a policeman did the wrong thing it is separate from this trial.
The trial was of Barry McLeod.
You keep making excuses and quoting articles which support McLeod and his family.
Did Barry McLeod crash tackle Const. Butcher and knock him to the ground causing serious injury?
Punishment? I'm not talking about punishment. I'm talking about a conviction for a crime he clearly committed.
Here's a bit of balance to your one-sided argument.
“In the moments leading up to Barry McLeod charging at Constable Butcher, Mr Stone said Sergeant Gary Blackwood was advanced upon by Barry McLeod, and contrary to what the defence lawyers suggested, "Blackwood's actions were defensive and not offensive".”
Just got Caz’s comment and remembered I hadn’t posted this comment.
I am sure that had the father died there would be no case for unlawful killing – unless it could be proved that the policeman acted unlawfully, if he was following all the procedures for use of the taser in an affray he couldn’t be charged with anything. And they’d have to also prove after that the taser did in fact cause the death.
I think the hoo-ha about this case was the severe injury to Butcher, the length of the trial, and the lack of a conviction. Butcher is not entitled to any criminal compensation as there was no criminal conviction. Butcher is only entitled to worker’s compensation and these days that isn’t much. Once they say you’re health and OK, that’s the end of that.
Given that the father has been found innocent of any wrong doing, he would have a case against the department or against the gov't. Anyone can make a claim against the gov't for material loss, even if the claim is for an ex gratia payment, ie, if no particular administrative directions can be found to have been breached.
If Butcher is going to recover and is able to go back to work, then yes, he is only entitled to workers comp while he is off work, just like anyone else! I thought his injuries must have been more significant by the way everyone was carrying on.
Crimes compensation does not, nor has it ever, depended on a guilty conviction, nor even identification of a perpetrator!
I got the impression from this thread that the police officer was permanently injured, and police are covered for that, for life.
Sorry, Caz, I can't be bothered creating the link properly.
Here's a couple of links.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,25187391-948,00.html
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115652 search the thread for Medically retired
"Also there was not ONE word from anyone whether politicians, police union or others about the continuing plight of those officers (apx 300) who have been medically retired due to serious injuries and illnesses through on duty incidents.
Once medically retired from the Western Australia Police, officers are given - nothing.
No ongoing medical or financial assistance or compensation or pension - absolutely nothing."
Keep reading.
Oh, and about workers' comp, I hit a kangaroo in August 2006. I'm still having problems with my neck and shoulders, but basically I was told I was fit and that was the end of the workers'comp support. I have to pay for ongoing physio etc.
As I have asthma I can't take anti-inflamatories, which do help a lot.
Here's another link, Caz
https://www.wapolun.org.au/getfile/478.pdf
Ah, well, I'm not intimately familiar with WA. It would seem that a pollie tried to get a bill up only a few years back - Police (Compensation for Injured Officers) Amendment Bill - don't understand how that would have failed to get support, but it must have.
Even if the appropriate bill existed in WA, keep in mind that no one is ever given medical expenses and payment for life for any work place injury, and the hurdle for being considered permanently incapacitated is extremely high (think in terms of all four limbs missing and brain damaged, anything less and the person is deemed to be only partly incapacitated - insurance works exactly the same way). That's true for every individual and in every circumstance.
Even for police, a broken arm or post traumatic stress, and much worse, of course, doesn't mean they ever would be permitted to live off the the tax payer teet for the next 50 years, any more than a teacher bashed to a pulp in a classroom would be handed such a gift. None of us would be.
Post a Comment