2 minutes ago, Nasher said:

It's an extreme point, but the point is, when you're in the position of the victim and someone with power over you threatens you, you've got no way of knowing if they're serious or not and the feeling of intimidation doesn't change.

I grew up in a pretty rough area.  I lived really close to school, so sometimes I used to walk home on my own.  One day when I was about 9 or 10, an older kid started walking behind me.  I started speeding up a bit, he started speeding up a bit.  He followed me for two or three minutes, swinging a can on a chain, before he caught up to me.  He asked me if I'd ever been bashed before, I said no.  He said this was going to be my first time.  I just stood there, shaking my head, teeth chattering.  I begged him not to and started backing away slowly, but I was too terrified to run.  He started edging toward me and I thought I was gone.  I [censored] myself on the spot.  

He then laughed, and went "I'm just joking, kid" and walked off.

I ran home as fast as I could.  I didn't think his joke was funny.  I had never been so afraid in my life.  Did I go "hey, it's fine, he didn't actually bash me?" Did my parents take that view?  [censored] no.  I was terrified of walking on my own anywhere for months afterwards.  Months.  Would I have been that much worse off if he's *actually* bashed me?  Maybe, but in my mind not much.  The psychological damage was hard enough to recover from.  Furthermore, I felt like a real [censored] for pissing myself, and for being scared of some guy who actually didn't really have any intention of hurting me, but how the hell was I supposed to know that at the time? He sure looked like he meant it.

Threats of violence aren't akin to actually inflicting violence, but psychologically they have a similar effect.  

Must have been a tame neighbourhood. Where I grew up (Collingwood), getting bashed happened at least once a month in the 60's. Funny thing how one gets desensitised to casual violence. I don't even remember if I got scared. If I did, I forgotten it.  

4 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Generation unaccountable.

Ha! How old are you then?

I'm guessing you're of the generation of women not being allowed to vote, separate toilets for "coloured people", "White Australia"... What a grand old time.

5 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yeah sorry for trying to ruin your racist, sexist, violent country. Must be hard for you now that women are allowed to vote hey?

7 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yeah sorry for trying to ruin your racist, sexist, violent country. Must be hard for you now that women are allowed to vote hey?

 

Clown school.

The difference between swerving into a crowd of people and causing mass carnage and driving calmly down the road is huge.

It is a ridiculous assertion that a threat of violence should carry the same penalty as an act of actual violence.

The topic is now a farce.

Burn Dusty Martin at the stake.He's a witch.

Never happened at Ging Wah in my day!

Kill him,get him,yeah get him!

 

7 minutes ago, Nasher said:

IThreats of violence aren't akin to actually inflicting violence, but psychologically they [can] have a similar effect.  

i would agree with that, nasher

2 minutes ago, Biffen said:

It is a ridiculous assertion that a threat of violence should carry the same penalty as an act of actual violence.

I don't think that's been asserted by anyone.  I can only speak for myself of course, but all I have tried to do is highlight why a threat of violence isn't something that should just be shrugged off, trivialised or excused.

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

Ha! How old are you then?

I'm guessing you're of the generation of women not being allowed to vote, separate toilets for "coloured people", "White Australia"... What a grand old time.

Women in this country received the vote before women in any other nation, except perhaps NZ.

Sister.

 

4 minutes ago, america de cali said:

Must have been a tame neighbourhood. Where I grew up (Collingwood), getting bashed happened at least once a month in the 60's. Funny thing how one gets desensitised to casual violence. I don't even remember if I got scared. If I did, I forgotten it.  

That's very sad.  As a society, we should be very sensitive to casual violence.  That's more or less the essence of this whole topic, really.

2 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I don't think that's been asserted by anyone.  All I have tried to do is highlight why a threat of violence isn't something that should just be shrugged off.

that's unfair and a distortion of this thread

i haven't see suggestions that posters are saying it should just be "shrugged off"

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

that's unfair and a distortion of this thread

i haven't see suggestions that posters are saying it should just be "shrugged off"

The words weren't used explicitly, but if that wasn't the point of Curry, WYL et al then I apologise.  I certainly can't find any other meaningful point to their comments.

1 minute ago, Nasher said:

The words weren't used explicitly, but if that wasn't the point of Curry, WYL et al then I apologise.  I certainly can't find any other meaningful point to their comments.

the point was very obvious, mono was comparing martin's offense to medieval torture and ISIS terrorism. There is quite the difference between that and intimidating somebody, but you yourself have already acknowledged that so your argument baffles me TBH

5 minutes ago, Nasher said:

The words weren't used explicitly, but if that wasn't the point of Curry, WYL et al then I apologise.  I certainly can't find any other meaningful point to their comments.

I was never shrugging anything off. 

All i have said in the last hour is that it was pure luck the situation was not far worse ( as in the woman recieved serious eye damage. She didn't) But that had very little to do with Dustin. 

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i think you are being a bit harsh on curry

he was only pointing out a very important difference in law between threatening something and doing it,

it may have been luck he didn't do anything physical but that is just pure conjecture. the fact is that he didn't

people need to apply some perspective here and have some tolerance to others who have a different perspective even if only slightly different. it gets very hard here to have a calm, rational discussion with so much emotion and hyperbole flying around and poster abuse

martin is in big trouble no doubt and deservedly, but judging on what courts hand out for similar offences i think many here will be sorely disappointed

it is more likely his afl/richmond punishment will hurt him more and have more impact on his behaviour, but that does remain to be seen.

When it comes difference. Some people are offended more by the verbal abuse.

It usually is the physical weak that is subjected to physical abuse. Because the mongrel that attacks weak people is weak in mind. They can't put two words together to talk sense. So using their physical standing is all they rely on.

36 minutes ago, Nasher said:

It's an extreme point, but the point is, when you're in the position of the victim and someone with power over you threatens you, you've got no way of knowing if they're serious or not and the feeling of intimidation doesn't change.

I grew up in a pretty rough area.  I lived really close to school, so sometimes I used to walk home on my own.  One day when I was about 9 or 10, an older kid started walking behind me.  I started speeding up a bit, he started speeding up a bit.  He followed me for two or three minutes, swinging a can on a chain, before he caught up to me.  He asked me if I'd ever been bashed before, I said no.  He said this was going to be my first time.  I just stood there, shaking my head, teeth chattering.  I begged him not to and started backing away slowly, but I was too terrified to run.  He started edging toward me and I thought I was gone.  I [censored] myself on the spot.  

He then laughed, and went "I'm just joking, kid" and walked off.

I ran home as fast as I could.  I didn't think his joke was funny.  I had never been so afraid in my life.  Did I go "hey, it's fine, he didn't actually bash me?" Did my parents take that view?  [censored] no.  I was terrified of walking on my own anywhere for months afterwards.  Months.  Would I have been that much worse off if he'd *actually* bashed me?  Maybe, but in my mind not much.  The psychological damage was hard enough to recover from.  Furthermore, I felt like a real [censored] for pissing myself, and for being scared of some guy who actually didn't really have any intention of hurting me, but how the hell was I supposed to know that at the time? He sure looked like he meant it.

Threats of violence aren't akin to actually inflicting violence, but psychologically they can have a similar effect.  

Well said, Nasher

Nobody, not man, woman nor child ever deserves to be threatened like that.  

 

The woman involved in this incident will most likely be mentally scarred for a long time, maybe forever.  

 

But, hell, he didn't actually hit her so she should just go away and get over it!    That seems to be the attitude of far too many, our law enforcement and our judiciary included   

 

2 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Well said, Nasher

Nobody, not man, woman nor child ever deserves to be threatened like that.  

 

The woman involved in this incident will most likely be mentally scarred for a long time, maybe forever.  

 

But, hell, he didn't actually hit her so she should just go away and get over it!    That seems to be the attitude of far too many, our law enforcement and our judiciary included   

 

 

how many times does it need to be re-stated? NOBODY, not one person, has suggested the offence is 'nothing'. Have you been paying attention? The point is that it is not AS BAD as actually doing it. I think a 5 year old would understand the difference.

41 minutes ago, stuie said:

Ha! How old are you then?

I'm guessing you're of the generation of women not being allowed to vote, separate toilets for "coloured people", "White Australia"... What a grand old time.

I'm not that old Stu, I'm old enough to appreciate John Candy films.

May I just remark,in approbo of nothing,that I have done the old Walrus with the chopstix several times and it has never failed to raise at least a titter.

Must have been a very tough room.

Still ,Dustin  has time to work on his culturally insensitive gags at ethnic restaurants.

There are a myriad of different peoples to offend in Melbourne which contributes to the pleasure of eating out.

One only hopes he can find a more receptive audience in his next culinary expedition.

I have read through all the posts and I have come to the conclusion there are a lot of members who have had disappointing relationships with females.

Dont you think it is time to build a bridge and get over it.

6 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

 

how many times does it need to be re-stated? NOBODY, not one person, has suggested the offence is 'nothing'. Have you been paying attention? The point is that it is not AS BAD as actually doing it. I think a 5 year old would understand the difference.

Did you actually comprehend what Nasher wrote? Clearly not. The point he was making is that in some instances the mental anguish of a threat can have more lasting effects than an actual physical assault. It's an individual issue, and not up to the likes of yourself and others to determine what's worse. 

Sadly it's seems that many on this forum have a "harden up" mentality.

 

9 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

I'm not that old Stu, I'm old enough to appreciate John Candy films.

"Orange Whip...?"

3 hours ago, Nasher said:

This thread is already really long and I haven't had time to add my thoughts, but since stuie seems to be taking everyone on all on his own, I thought that I'd just say that I have agreed with every word of his that I've read so far.  

Short summary of my views which I'm too tired to really debate:

• Martin is out of control and anything less than a sacking is getting off lightly
• It is in absolutely no way, shape or form the woman's fault for provoking him or such
• You're contributing to our culture of excusing violence if you think it is in any way, shape or form her fault
• If you think she should have gone to the police and kept her mouth shut in public, you're woefully naive about how much interest the police would have in this kind of matter
• If you started a post with "he shouldn't have done it, but...", you've said all I needed to hear and I read no further
• All violence is bad and is a problem, but male (domestic) violence against women is issue #1 at present.  That isn't devaluing the issues others face or mean others don't need/deserve support, but this is the most prevalent issue and therefore the most urgent issue

Could not agree with all of the above points more Nasher. I haven't been able to summon up the mental energy to contribute to this post. You've saved me the trouble. I find some of the views, comments and values expresed too depressing, disturbing and frankly upsetting. 

If anyone doubts the veracity of the bit i've bolded they only need to read the report from the The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission discussed in this article:  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-09/high-rate-of-sexual-harrassment-in-victoria-police-report-says/7012288

Just now, binman said:

I find some of the views, comments and values expressed too depressing, disturbing and frankly upsetting.

 

Perfect case in point below. Hard to comprehend the insensitivity and stupidity here sometimes...

 

12 minutes ago, Biffen said:

May I just remark,in approbo of nothing,that I have done the old Walrus with the chopstix several times and it has never failed to raise at least a titter.

Must have been a very tough room.

Still ,Dustin  has time to work on his culturally insensitive gags at ethnic restaurants.

There are a myriad of different peoples to offend in Melbourne which contributes to the pleasure of eating out.

One only hopes he can find a more receptive audience in his next culinary expedition.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Nasher said:

Threats of violence aren't akin to actually inflicting violence, but psychologically they can have a similar effect.  

 

6 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Did you actually comprehend what Nasher wrote? Clearly not. The point he was making is that in some instances the mental anguish of a threat can have more lasting effects than an actual physical assault. It's an individual issue, and not up to the likes of yourself and others to determine what's worse.

It would seem you are the one who has not comprehended Nasher's post

I have an idea, run a poll and ask if it is the same or worse to hit somebody than to just threaten to do it. Love to see the result.

21 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

 

how many times does it need to be re-stated? NOBODY, not one person, has suggested the offence is 'nothing'. Have you been paying attention? The point is that it is not AS BAD as actually doing it. I think a 5 year old would understand the difference.

No, that's not the point. The point is that by focusing on what he didn't do you devalue what he did do.

Maybe you can get that 5 year old to explain it to you.