Rainier
”snip he's having a hissy fit because he had to fix breaches of copyright here on OLO.”
With some edits my post in response to your rant still stands. The edits were done pursuant to an undertaking I made to the editor of OLO and not because I breached the copyright act, frankly you should read section 48 on” fair use for the purposes of criticism or review”, but I forget you only wish to respect the parts of the law that suit your agenda. Now I invite any one to compare my posts on this thread with yours and they can decide who it is who has had a “hissy fit”.
Have you instructed a solicitor yet?

”I've tracked down who IH is snip. Just another frustrated ex One Nationer looking for his fifteen minutes of glory..”
Tracked me down? You have read some of my blogs. Sadly for you they do not show that I am as you describe me in the sentence that I quote here. We are not obliged to declare how we vote in public but I will tell you that in my entire life I have NEVER cast a vote for one nation or any parties in it’s vicinity on the political spectrum .Now this must be about the third time that you have made this spurious claim and it suggests to me that it is YOU who is having a “hissy fit”.

” let alone trying to understand me and mine.”
I have a pretty good idea of how consequential my life is and I am rather content with it thank you very much .However I have no need or desire to understand yours Rainier, in fact the last time I checked YOU were not the topic of this thread .The phrase that sums up your rant is “hoisted on his own petard”. So how about you consider the actual points made by myself and others rather than just sprouting insults and invective. You dishonor both your people and the memory of Mulrunji with the way that you argue here.

Hamlet, are you squibbing it too?

Hamlet, you want a debate on your preferred terms, so what better way of getting what you want than distorting the agenda. First you oppose "suggestions that the cop should simply be found guilty without a trial coming through many posts".

Are you reading something different to me? Can you point out precisely which posts made that suggestion?

You then state that "the abandonment of the rule of law, by either side, has no place in the correction of that social injustice". Again I can't find advocacy for that in what I've read. Just the opposite, in fact. Many posters wanted the rule of law to be applied fairly and felt it hadn't in this case. Again can you point out which specific posts advocated the abandonment of the rule of law?

Finally you say, "I haven't seen the evidence, however burning down a police station and court house are no basis for a system of justice". Another nice try, Hamlet, but a bit unsubtle.

Now back to the real debate. Who killed Mulrunji Doomadge and when will his family and community experience some justice?
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 30 December 2006 10:24:11 AM

IH proclaimed, "You dishonour both your people and the memory of Mulrunji with the way that you argue here"

Such a revealing statement that.

What would you know about struggle and honour for Aboriginal people Iain?

What standards do you expect?

• Would theses standard include the passive "house nigger" thank you boss - thankfulness that you have taken time out from your busy middle class privileged life (repairing go-karts) to show concern for us poor black folk?

• Is it my ungratefulness for your questioning of the moral integrity of Palm Islanders or their non-Indigenous supporting posters here on OLO?

Or is it my rebuttal of your silly arguments about ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ -which were just excuses to exonerate Hurley and his mates of doing anything untoward? (despite the damning evidence of the Coroner)

But no, you declared that “there are NO reliable witnesses to the events in question”. Once I read this I knew who and what you were in an instant.

If you had read the Coroners report you would have been aware of policemen Kitching and Robinson, both mates of Hurley, who conducted the first two
interviews of note, WITH Hurley and Bramwell.

Kitching didn’t see any problem with this Robinson also participated in interviews with witnesses to the arrest.

But for you this shoddy investigation is all above board. After all its just a black death in custody, not a homicide, isn’t it Mr Hall.

You’re a wonderful example of how blind people are of their own benign racist thinking.

Best you stick to playing around with your go-karts and leave the real world to real people

About 15 years ago I was the victim of a kinghit in a pub. Despite having a number of witnesses, the investigating officer decided it was just a pub brawl and refused to prosecute.
At the urging of several members of the local community -I was far from being the first victim of this king hitter- I decided to prosecute the case myself in a civil court. Incidentally, for those who may be unaware, in a civil action guilt can be established on the 'balance of probability', rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
It was expensive, but I won the case and received compensation.
The point I trying to make is that the DPP is probably right. Although the circumstantial evidence appears overwhelming, securing a conviction (in a QLD court) would probably be difficult. The odds of getting justice in a civil court are probably better.
As to the expense, if the palm islanders decide to go this way, I'd be happy to kick the tin for $50.
I'm sure I'm not alone.

Grim, your 50 dollars would be greatly appreciated.:)

Pub fights are relevant to this case as well - the DPP and police prosecutors were quick to prosecture 3 bouncers back in May for a patron who died at the Royal Exchange Hotel.

http://abc.gov.au/news/items/200605/1644044.htm?queensland

The coroner said this:

"I reject Senior Sergeant Hurley’s account that he then simply got up from the heavy fall through the doorway and went to assist the man who had just punched him and caused him to fall over. I find that he did respond with physical force against Mulrunji while Murunji was still on the floor."

Apparently there is a recording of Mulrunji calling and pleading for help as he lay dying in the watch-house.

Hurley did not respond.

How callous is that?

Hurley should have to answer to numerous associated accounts as well as murder.

The police force does itself no favours in harboring the likes of Hurley - it creates the impression that his callousness

As for there being no reliable witnesses, besides the implied insult, there is one witness - Mulrunji.

Mulrunji's body is a silent but irrefutable witness.