Thread: Should the security guard be prosecuted

This whole thing is fast becoming a circus. If the story goes to air then it may prejudice a trial in her favour. Does OJ Simpson ring a bell. To me, whether she is guilty or not, she is showing utter contempt for the legal system.

Have to agree with you there Dan. But why don't they just arrest her? Surely if you are going to charge someone with murder you have to take them into custody, or am I missing something?

The only reasons I can see are
If she is arrested then charged she would then be bailed to a date some days/weeks ahead and the court case could take some considerable time to commence.
If they get a Court Summons then she would have to appear before a magistrate and then the matter would become 'sub judice' which would/could prevent the interview from being aired tonight.

Some further thoughts to provoke discussion.

Do the Police want her arrested today because she did something wrong....or do they want her arrested today so that the television interview cannot be shown ?

Also, one would hope that any jury member who may be sitting in judgement 2 months down the track, would take notice of arguments presented to them at the trial, rather than base their decision on a 10 min television interview.

My point ???? I won't be watching the televison interview because I have to wash my hair or pick my teeth or something. But if I did......I am sure that it would not pre-determine my thinking, during a trial.

We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read.
Mark Twain

Originally Posted by DanP

This whole thing is fast becoming a circus. If the story goes to air then it may prejudice a trial in her favour. Does OJ Simpson ring a bell. To me, whether she is guilty or not, she is showing utter contempt for the legal system.

Is she the one showing contempt, or the grubs in the media who are manipulating her, the "story" etc etc? She is no doubt in shock, in fear of her future and probably taking advice from those signing the cheques (as well as a few who will receive the proceeds), all in all not thinking too straight I reckon.....

This time it's Channel 7, but not so long ago Channel 9 tried to take out an injunction to allow them to air stuff in the Falconio case that the JUDGE (what would he know?) thought would be best kept under wraps. Of course Channel 9 was acting in the PUBLIC interest apparently.

Until the media start REPORTING rather than surmising, manipulating and generally inventing stories, and until stories like this are not aired until AFTER the outcome of any case, this little piece of the public has no interest.

All we should know at the moment is "A security guard who shot and fatally wounded an attacker has been charged with murder. A full report will be published after the outcome of the trial has been decided."

We'd save lots of trees that way too.

Cheers,

p

Now that she's being paid to go on TV, the credibility factor has hit zero on the scale. I had sympathy but if she profits from it she loses me.

Let me preface this by saying that this is what I heard on the radio ( up to you to judge on it's merits ).

Her mother was talking on the radio and said that all actions the girl has taken has been under guidance from legal counsel. Her televison interview is to fund the lawyers ( the only real winners from this )...not to gain profit for herself.

Originally Posted by Midge

Until the media start REPORTING rather than surmising, manipulating and generally inventing stories

In a perfect world...

Unfortunately, the media is doing what any good business would do. They identify their market and then go for it. It's the same as the fast food argument. If people didn't buy the by the bucket load, there'd be no money in it.

You can't blame 'the media' for giving the public what they want. There may be a few principled individuals around who don't read it, and a hell of a lot more who read it but take it with a grain of salt; but the greatest number by far are the ones who read it, believe it, love it, and beg for more... They're the ones who buy the papers, watch the shows, and buy the junk food that they see advertised in the breaks.

If you want to cast blame, the government seems like a good place to start. They're the ones who can legislate to prevent this sort of thing. But then that would upset one of their biggest mates, wouldn't it?

If you want to cast blame, the government seems like a good place to start. They're the ones who can legislate to prevent this sort of thing. But then that would upset one of their biggest mates, wouldn't it?

Got that in one....so what about the opposition?



P

They don't want to upset him either...

Silent,

If you think our media are bad, just take a look at the American media, who endlessly speculate about murder cases before they come to trial, so that it is virtually inconceivable that an unprejudiced jury can be empanelled in a high-profile case. Also, in the US, there is no prohibition on jury members talking to the press about what went on in the jury room. So, in such cases, the media continually second-guess the verdict.

I lived in America for four years during the seond Clinton term, and the three topics that dominated the news for months or years in that period were Monica Lewinsky, Jon-Benet Ramsey, and O. J. Simpson. Australia would only be mentioned if someone had been eaten by a crocodile or shark. It is hardly surprising that Americans are so woefully ignorant of world affairs, since topics of real importance are rarely mentioned there by the media.

Rocker
.

Originally Posted by Honest Gaza

Yes....but it also raises a few dollars to pay for her legal defence.

Having been paid that obscene amount of money stops her being eligible for legal aid and if she is convicted of a crime ( whether it is murder or manslaughter ) she is guilty of profiting of her crime and will have to forfeit that money.

This could be a case of loose/loose. Stupid in my opinion.


Peter.

I’ve finally worked out what it was all about, and here (with the help of pictures) I've re-enacted the events:









And, after the event