Uni Lecturer Gets Off after Punching Jetstar Crew.
Thread Starter
Why you poor wilting little flowers! Someone dares to get angry at the disgusting level of service your company provides and throws a punch?
The Magistrate made her decision, and thats the end of it. What possible public purpose could justify a jail sentence or conviction? As it is, the offender will be lucky to keep her job.
Simsalabim has provided the facts of the case, but not the circumstances which have obviously influenced the Magistrate. For example, what frame of mind was the offender in when she went to board the aircraft? Was she rushing to the bedside of a dieing relative? Exactly how did the Jetstar employee tell her she couldn't board? As for radio shock jocks, **** em.
Oh! But its in an airport and the punchee was airline staff! that makes it different, special, and worthy of a full trial in front of the Supreme court.......................what do you want??? The judge donning the black hat and pronouncing the death penalty on the crying prisoner as she stands between two burly prison officers while her family weeps in silence?
Question for you little flowers...............what do you think happens daily to Nurses? Doctors? Ambulance officers? Fire Brigade staff? Hotel staff? Let alone police and other public transport staff? There are far more worthy targets for media outrage then mere airline staff, but of course your "special" aren't you?
Please explain why some slag throwing a punch at some mincing poof in a Jetstar uniform should be treated any differently from any other stoush???
Please explain?
P.S. On the ground of course, in the air its a different matter
The Magistrate made her decision, and thats the end of it. What possible public purpose could justify a jail sentence or conviction? As it is, the offender will be lucky to keep her job.
Simsalabim has provided the facts of the case, but not the circumstances which have obviously influenced the Magistrate. For example, what frame of mind was the offender in when she went to board the aircraft? Was she rushing to the bedside of a dieing relative? Exactly how did the Jetstar employee tell her she couldn't board? As for radio shock jocks, **** em.
Oh! But its in an airport and the punchee was airline staff! that makes it different, special, and worthy of a full trial in front of the Supreme court.......................what do you want??? The judge donning the black hat and pronouncing the death penalty on the crying prisoner as she stands between two burly prison officers while her family weeps in silence?
Question for you little flowers...............what do you think happens daily to Nurses? Doctors? Ambulance officers? Fire Brigade staff? Hotel staff? Let alone police and other public transport staff? There are far more worthy targets for media outrage then mere airline staff, but of course your "special" aren't you?
Please explain why some slag throwing a punch at some mincing poof in a Jetstar uniform should be treated any differently from any other stoush???
Please explain?
P.S. On the ground of course, in the air its a different matter
Last edited by Sunfish; 29th Nov 2007 at 19:21.
Evertonian
what do you think happens daily to Nurses? Doctors? Ambulance officers? Fire Brigade staff? Hotel staff? Let alone police and other public transport staff?
If we are living in an "enlightened" society, then behaviour such as this is not tolerated & the law is in place to deal with it.
Maybe the Sudanese Teddy Bear treatment would suffice...
The Magistrate made her decision, and thats the end of it
Please explain why some slag throwing a punch at some mincing poof in a Jetstar uniform should be treated any differently from any other stoush???
This one, the Uni Lecturer, had no conviction recorded.
To paraphrase your good self: "why .... should be treated any differently" ?
I suspect your derogatory comments about both the airline and their staff have finally unveiled your true sense of lornorder - it's only for the bottom feeders, not for we educated chappies!
Thread Starter
Good point Alan L. Why should the two examples be treated differently?
The answer is according to what I was taught (in a limited way, I'm not a lawyer) is that equal penalties do NOT mean equal justice - thats why the whole mandatory sentencing procedure, which is so popular with tabloid journalists and politicians is a crock.
A Judge needs to take into account the circumstances surrounding the offence, and the arguments from both defence and prosecution, in coming to a decision about the penalty - otherwise why have judges and trials???
Apart from the obvious invitation to corruption implicit in mandatory sentencing, do you honestly think that someone administering poison to his terminally ill wife should get the same penalty as an axe murderer?
We have the facts of the case. We don't know what the circumstances were.
On the one hand the offender could have been rushing to the bed of a dieing relative, and been denied boarding and abused by the Jetstar employee. She pleads guilty and throws herself on the mercy of the court.
On the other hand, she could have been late for a hairdressing appointment, and when politely told she couldn't board but offered a later flight, simply started swearing and screaming. Then she goes to court with an army of lawyers pleading innocence.
The facts of the case are not in doubt, what we don't know are the circumstances, and in the (hypothetical) example of what circumstances could be, you can see that entirely different sentences would have been called for.
The slut my Brother put away was bad mouthing the Court, not him, and that is a definite no-no, which is why she went in the slammer.
P.S. If you ever have to go to Court over a traffic offence, think long and hard about whether you want to be represented by a lawyer, you should perhaps consider getting coached by a lawyer and represent yourself because "Smart Alecs" with lawyers who take up a Courts time over trivial matters often get longer sentences if found guilty.
But it's fair to say that it's also the luck of the draw, and magistrates are only human, and the next person to deck a Jetstar employee may get a different sentence. In my only appearance in court over a traffic matter about 25 years ago, I was lucky enough to have a Magistrate who announced at the start of the day that tomorrow he was starting six months long service leave and simply couldn't wait, and who wanted to plead guilty and save him a lot of time? All of us criminals were discharged without conviction that day!
The answer is according to what I was taught (in a limited way, I'm not a lawyer) is that equal penalties do NOT mean equal justice - thats why the whole mandatory sentencing procedure, which is so popular with tabloid journalists and politicians is a crock.
A Judge needs to take into account the circumstances surrounding the offence, and the arguments from both defence and prosecution, in coming to a decision about the penalty - otherwise why have judges and trials???
Apart from the obvious invitation to corruption implicit in mandatory sentencing, do you honestly think that someone administering poison to his terminally ill wife should get the same penalty as an axe murderer?
We have the facts of the case. We don't know what the circumstances were.
On the one hand the offender could have been rushing to the bed of a dieing relative, and been denied boarding and abused by the Jetstar employee. She pleads guilty and throws herself on the mercy of the court.
On the other hand, she could have been late for a hairdressing appointment, and when politely told she couldn't board but offered a later flight, simply started swearing and screaming. Then she goes to court with an army of lawyers pleading innocence.
The facts of the case are not in doubt, what we don't know are the circumstances, and in the (hypothetical) example of what circumstances could be, you can see that entirely different sentences would have been called for.
The slut my Brother put away was bad mouthing the Court, not him, and that is a definite no-no, which is why she went in the slammer.
P.S. If you ever have to go to Court over a traffic offence, think long and hard about whether you want to be represented by a lawyer, you should perhaps consider getting coached by a lawyer and represent yourself because "Smart Alecs" with lawyers who take up a Courts time over trivial matters often get longer sentences if found guilty.
But it's fair to say that it's also the luck of the draw, and magistrates are only human, and the next person to deck a Jetstar employee may get a different sentence. In my only appearance in court over a traffic matter about 25 years ago, I was lucky enough to have a Magistrate who announced at the start of the day that tomorrow he was starting six months long service leave and simply couldn't wait, and who wanted to plead guilty and save him a lot of time? All of us criminals were discharged without conviction that day!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is what can happen when someone thinks its a good idea to punch another in the head:
70 dollars isn't a good enough deterrent when you look at the implications of the actions
A SYDNEY man has been jailed for at least three-and-a-half years for punching a pub customer who then fell, hit his head on the pavement, and died.
In the NSW Supreme Court today, Justice Stephen Rothman accepted Sesoni Bashford had not intended to kill Peter Dando.
Bashford, 24, of Matraville, pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Mr Dando, 46, who died in October last year after being punched outside Matraville's House of Pie, in Sydney's east.
Bashford and Mr Dando, who were strangers, had been drinking earlier at a nearby pub watching the Rugby League Grand Final.
In the NSW Supreme Court today, Justice Stephen Rothman accepted Sesoni Bashford had not intended to kill Peter Dando.
Bashford, 24, of Matraville, pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Mr Dando, 46, who died in October last year after being punched outside Matraville's House of Pie, in Sydney's east.
Bashford and Mr Dando, who were strangers, had been drinking earlier at a nearby pub watching the Rugby League Grand Final.
Evertonian
P.S. If you ever have to go to Court over a traffic offence, think long and hard about whether you want to be represented by a lawyer, you should perhaps consider getting coached by a lawyer and represent yourself because "Smart Alecs" with lawyers who take up a Courts time over trivial matters often get longer sentences if found guilty.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What do you think happens daily to Nurses? Doctors? Ambulance officers? Fire Brigade staff? Hotel staff? Let alone police and other public transport staff? There are far more worthy targets for media outrage then mere airline staff, but of course your (sic) "special" aren't you?"
I don't think those people should be exposed to physical violence in their workplace either.
This is an aviation forum, so of course the incident will receive more interest here than other assaults in the workplace.
Call me an idealist or a left wing w
nker, but I do not believe that it is acceptable for anyone (except soldiers and cops) to go to work and expect phyiscal assaults, particularly in a customer service environment.
I do not suggest for one minute that this person should be dragged off to a far western gulag for the term of her natural life, but going on the available facts, the penalty seems very light. FWIW my pet barrister (in another state) agreed with me, and predicted an appeal.
I don't think those people should be exposed to physical violence in their workplace either.
This is an aviation forum, so of course the incident will receive more interest here than other assaults in the workplace.
Call me an idealist or a left wing w
nker, but I do not believe that it is acceptable for anyone (except soldiers and cops) to go to work and expect phyiscal assaults, particularly in a customer service environment. I do not suggest for one minute that this person should be dragged off to a far western gulag for the term of her natural life, but going on the available facts, the penalty seems very light. FWIW my pet barrister (in another state) agreed with me, and predicted an appeal.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
OK
YOU "idealist or a left wing wnker"
But you are correct, unless you are a cop or ADF you should not expect it.
Maybe the Tax office or Casa might be exceptions
J
YOU "idealist or a left wing w
nker"But you are correct, unless you are a cop or ADF you should not expect it.
Maybe the Tax office or Casa might be exceptions
J
Thread Starter
Can we all relax now or does anyone else want a shot? Nobody would suggest anyone should get assaulted on duty, but the magistrates call is the Magistrates call.
I think this thread has run its course.
I think this thread has run its course.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What really ticks me off about this whole thing is that the poor lady had to pay her own court costs!
Surely her costs should have been paid by Jetstar?
I would appeal if I were her!
Surely her costs should have been paid by Jetstar?
I would appeal if I were her!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The slut my Brother put away was bad mouthing the Court, not him, and that is a definite no-no, which is why she went in the slammer.
Special justice for whomever offends the beak? Disgraceful. With lack of self-control such as that, he isn't fit to change the courthouse bog-rolls.
Is he a fish-man too, Fish?
Please continue your rantings and sloverings; they are highly amusing...!
PS: the results of this case merely confirm that in hindsight, the best possible outcome would've been for the punchee to have jobbed the slut (to use Fish's legalese) in the chops and removed her front teeth. Self-defence.
Take that, bitch!!
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the first time I agree with you Scotty...
I'm sure as both the Magistrate and the Uni lecturer are women they would believe in equality.......self defense would have been the best course.
Sunfish....
The thread is not finished just because you are unhappy with it's direction .....
I'm sure as both the Magistrate and the Uni lecturer are women they would believe in equality.......self defense would have been the best course.
Sunfish....
I think this thread has run its course.
Thread Starter
Scotty Doo, next time you go to court, try telling the judge to get ****ed and see what happens to you.
Youi'll be in the cells so fast you won't believe it.
From Wikipedia:
The woman concerned in my brothers case could have been prosecuted for the offence of Contempt separately to what she was being prosecuted for, and a finding that she was in contempt (of which there was no doubt) would have automatically meant that her three months suspended sentence would have become actual jail time. (suspended sentences require good behaviour).
So all my Bro did was apply the discretion he had been given by law and shorten the process, saving the state money and time....and the slut concerned now knows not to bad mouth judges when she inevitably appears next time.
Youi'll be in the cells so fast you won't believe it.
From Wikipedia:
Contempt of court is a court ruling which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, deems an individual as holding contempt for the court, its process, and its invested powers. Often stated simply as "in contempt", or a person "held in contempt", it is the highest remedy of a judge to impose sanctions on an individual for acts which excessively or in a wanton manner disrupt the normal process of a court hearing.
A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Typically judges in common law systems have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems.
A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Typically judges in common law systems have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems.
So all my Bro did was apply the discretion he had been given by law and shorten the process, saving the state money and time....and the slut concerned now knows not to bad mouth judges when she inevitably appears next time.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes we all know what is meant by contempt of court, Fish, you ain't the only one who watches LA Law.... 
BUT - by your own admission, your brother locked that bitch up out of his own contempt - for her!
Now if he'd given her some time for contempt as a separate issue, that'd be different, wouldn't it? But he didn't. My guess is he was too lazy to file the paperwork or whatever you have to do as a beak so he tacked it on as punishment for the main charge.... talk about kangaroo court. And that is (one of) the problem(s) with our system. This asshole and that mole in the J* case answer to themselves and their petty whims, NOT to the people whom they serve. Power goes to the heads of some, hmmm...???
Case closed.
BUT - by your own admission, your brother locked that bitch up out of his own contempt - for her!
Now if he'd given her some time for contempt as a separate issue, that'd be different, wouldn't it? But he didn't. My guess is he was too lazy to file the paperwork or whatever you have to do as a beak so he tacked it on as punishment for the main charge.... talk about kangaroo court. And that is (one of) the problem(s) with our system. This asshole and that mole in the J* case answer to themselves and their petty whims, NOT to the people whom they serve. Power goes to the heads of some, hmmm...???
Case closed.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Up North
Age: 53
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately cases like this are symptomatic of society today: "its everyone else's fault". Since when is it acceptable to punch anyone regardless of the circumstances? Since when do our ambos, firies, nurses and airline staff have to face this type of behaviour? There is a distinct lack of manners and respect in society today, and this is reflected in the behaviour people display "out" (gawd knows what their "home" behaviour would be like 
)
Sunfish, for all your defence of it, unfortunately the Court system is beginning to be seen as the "weakest link" in maintaining any sort of standard for society. Good on the shock jocks for applying some pressure where the court didn't!
Cheers
Prado
) Sunfish, for all your defence of it, unfortunately the Court system is beginning to be seen as the "weakest link" in maintaining any sort of standard for society. Good on the shock jocks for applying some pressure where the court didn't!
Cheers
Prado
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far from it, Prado. The court system, as we've seen in Europe and the UK as well as here, is not at all the weakest link. Rather they are a defining force in shaping not only our mores and expectations but providing their own interpretations of right and wrong both legally and morally despite a distinct lack of mandate.
Rather than upholding the law, the court system actively re-shapes our society (barely) within the bounds of legislature by setting precedent where, when and how they see fit, despite the outcries from the public whom they invariably label as redneck, extremist, racist, anti-social, anti-establishment, anti-Australian, you name it.
So now you have a madge who lets off her "sister" with $70 costs for walking into a public place of business after having failed to meet the contract she took out with the airline (as stipulated in the fine print) and physically assaulting the staff, not once but twice!
Road rage, trolley rage, pram rage, air rage, airport rage - all the same thing and this slut has just sent completely the wrong message to the great unwashed masses. She should be disbarred or whatever they do with the beaks. Then judged by her peers as an ordinary citizen.
Rather than upholding the law, the court system actively re-shapes our society (barely) within the bounds of legislature by setting precedent where, when and how they see fit, despite the outcries from the public whom they invariably label as redneck, extremist, racist, anti-social, anti-establishment, anti-Australian, you name it.
So now you have a madge who lets off her "sister" with $70 costs for walking into a public place of business after having failed to meet the contract she took out with the airline (as stipulated in the fine print) and physically assaulting the staff, not once but twice!
Road rage, trolley rage, pram rage, air rage, airport rage - all the same thing and this slut has just sent completely the wrong message to the great unwashed masses. She should be disbarred or whatever they do with the beaks. Then judged by her peers as an ordinary citizen.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, let's see if I've got this right Fish...
a female J* pax whacks a j* traffic officer ( which we would all like to do! )...
and walks free from the court system. And you agree with that.
Am I right so far?
Now, another female in another court, on some similar charge, tells your
brother, the judge, to go and get stuffed, ( which we would all like to do! )...
and gets 3 months! And you agree with that, and also refer to her as a sl*t!
Am I still right?
So, this is the logic of a Cessna pilot, is it?
a female J* pax whacks a j* traffic officer ( which we would all like to do! )...
and walks free from the court system. And you agree with that.
Am I right so far?
Now, another female in another court, on some similar charge, tells your
brother, the judge, to go and get stuffed, ( which we would all like to do! )...
and gets 3 months! And you agree with that, and also refer to her as a sl*t!
Am I still right?
So, this is the logic of a Cessna pilot, is it?
Last edited by amos2; 1st Dec 2007 at 10:11.
