Just now, mauriesy said:

I agree, but it's not the issue in this case. The issue here is a drunken, violent, aggressive footballer, not the gender of the person who complained.

It's all connected mate. It's a reflection of the attitude and why it needs to change.

3 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Was that penalty imposed by the club or by the AFL?

It was imposed by the AFL under their Anti-gambling Code (six weeks were suspended).

I'm waiting for the police to charge Martin with a range of offences. We'll see what the AFL and RFC do then.

29 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

It's a pretty bad example.

"Poor people get bashed. Rich people get bashed too".

Does that diminish the plight of the poor? Or does it mean we should have less pity or regard for rich people who get bashed?

I repeat ... I am not diminishing the importance of violence against women. It's terrible and abhorrent. What makes it worse than other violence is the power imbalance.

But we have to be careful that through omission we don't accept a sort of 'boys will be boys' way of thinking and that male violence is therefore not worthy of attention. As a male I don't like being bashed either.

Sorry Mauriesy, your "Poor people get bashed. Rich people get bashed too", is the bad example.

The percentage of poor people bashed compared to rich people bashed is not regarded as disproportionate. But the payment of gst is.

All violence is bad. Violence against women is bad, adding violence against children to the argument although equally abhorrent actually weakens the cause of reducing the violence against women. None of us are arguing for violence against anyone (except maybe stuie) JOKE.

I think we agree on the core issues, and that Martin should be appropriately punished.  

 

If it hasn't already been mentioned in this thread, this is the bloke many here have continued to lament that we didn't draft ahead of Trenners.  Even taking into account how their on field careers have played out, I think we're still ahead on that one.

16 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

I agree, but it's not the issue in this case. The issue here is a drunken, violent, aggressive footballer, not the gender of the person who complained.

M., I know what you're trying to say. And violent behaviour is wrong no matter who is on the receiving end.

But the gender of the person on the receiving end is very much the issue in this particular situation, of equal or greater weight to the behaviour.

You'd do yourself a huge favour if you weren't giving us all the impression of trying so hard to minimize the gender issue. Maybe that's not what you're meaning to do, but the fact that you come back post after post really does create that impression.

1 hour ago, Unstable Dees fan said:

Let's be honest, if this were Jayden Hunt and not Dustin Martin he's already be cut from the list, Violence against a woman cannot be tolerated and i see a 12 month ban as the minimum punishment for this.

can't see that (and certainly not as a minimum)

if richmond were thinking something in this order then they may as well sack him.......which is a valid option in this case given previous indiscretions and warnings

but i don't think richmond will hit him anywhere near that hard. should find out by weekend anyway

There have been some good points raised in this thread, the thread title included.

Nonetheless, it does appear than some are more equal than others.

1 hour ago, stuie said:

You know what Song, let's move on. I generally have no problems with you and find you a reasonable bloke. This is just an issue that's very close to my heart for personal reasons so I probably took your poorly chosen words worse than most. The last thing either of us would want is to turn the attention towards us rather than this important topic.

I agree dude. Although you are often painted the villain round here, i have said on numerous occasions that i tend to agree with your posts in most instances. 

Sorry to hear this issue runs close to you personally, i didn't really word what i was trying to say properly so it came out wrong. I apologize. Let's hope Richmond do the right thing and give Dustin the punishment he finally deserves, and then we give him another one when we spank them (again) next year. 

As a female with daughters, I would not have accepted this idiots apology and taken it straight to the police. Stuff the AFL and the Tigers - they will do nothing.

This behaviour is not OK and an apology would not have cut it with me.

10 minutes ago, The Song Formerly Known As said:

I agree dude. Although you are often painted the villain round here, i have said on numerous occasions that i tend to agree with your posts in most instances. 

Sorry to hear this issue runs close to you personally, i didn't really word what i was trying to say properly so it came out wrong. I apologize. Let's hope Richmond do the right thing and give Dustin the punishment he finally deserves, and then we give him another one when we spank them (again) next year. 

No apology needed mate, I think we eventually understood where each other was coming from. Was a very "Demonland" exchange for us!

42 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

It was imposed by the AFL under their Anti-gambling Code (six weeks were suspended).

I'm waiting for the police to charge Martin with a range of offences. We'll see what the AFL and RFC do then.

If he is charged that will be the perfect excuse for the AFL / Richmond to do nothing.

they will sight "court case pending we will have to wait"

In a years time when he goes to court the heat will be out of it and he will get a low penality.

3 minutes ago, jane02 said:

As a female with daughters, I would not have accepted this idiots apology and taken it straight to the police. Stuff the AFL and the Tigers - they will do nothing.

This behaviour is not OK and an apology would not have cut it with me.

jane i'm surprised the police don't seem to be proactive in this case without waiting for a complaint

after all they are running a campaign against violence towards women and making a lot of public statements. now when they have an opportunity to change words to deeds they have gone all lead-footed

maybe i misjudge them and they are in fact doing something behind the scenes that will be soon revealed, but i'm not holding my breath

Dustin needs help (don't confuse that with being my sympathy).

The image he chooses to project doesn't help his cause: Forrest Gump-meets-Vin Diesel-meets-Davy Crockett. Whether you think it's right or wrong, people will judge you, consciously or sub-conciously, on how you choose to present yourself. 

At an organisational level, it's going to be interesting to see how Richmond and the AFL choose to present themselves in light of the incident.

35 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

jane i'm surprised the police don't seem to be proactive in this case without waiting for a complaint

after all they are running a campaign against violence towards women and making a lot of public statements. now when they have an opportunity to change words to deeds they have gone all lead-footed

maybe i misjudge them and they are in fact doing something behind the scenes that will be soon revealed, but i'm not holding my breath

That description of being lead-footed on this while, running a campaign is equally apt of the AFL.  Their silence (on condemnation of the act) is deafening.

Given what Caro wrote about the woman wanting to stay silent because of Martin's 'connections' and she 'feared for her safety', I suspect there are many people in all organisations relevant to this (incl law enforcement) who are also scared of his 'connections'. 

Lots of tip-toeing around egg shells on this one.  

5 minutes ago, TRIGON said:

Dustin needs help (don't confuse that with being my sympathy).

The image he chooses to project doesn't help his cause: Forrest Gump-meets-Vin Diesel-meets-Davy Crockett. Whether you think it's right or wrong, people will judge you, consciously or sub-conciously, on how you choose to present yourself. 

At an organisational level, it's going to be interesting to see how Richmond and the AFL choose to present themselves in light of the incident.

Agree when people at Richmond say he is "a day to day prposition"

he is not a well boy. 

Doesn't learn and maybe doesn't want to....

Topic title is apt.

I am so glad we did not pick him. 

1 hour ago, mauriesy said:

I agree, but it's not the issue in this case. The issue here is a drunken, violent, aggressive footballer, not the gender of the person who complained.

Actually I would counter that the issue here is a drunken,violent and aggressive footballer AND the gender of the person who complained.

Whilst I hope the attitude is well in the minority I will also not dismiss that there are males who will behave in a certain way towards women whilst not behaving the same way towards men. Whilst violence against anyone should be condemned this attitude needs to be recognised and eradicated.

37 minutes ago, old dee said:

If he is charged that will be the perfect excuse for the AFL / Richmond to do nothing.

they will sight "court case pending we will have to wait"

In a years time when he goes to court the heat will be out of it and he will get a low penality.

The recent Majak Daw court case is an excellent example of why Richmond and the AFL waiting for the legal process to conclude is not necessarily the wrong option. If he's found "not guilty" then the penalty should fit the crime for being boorish but not for making criminal threats; if he's found guilty, then a tougher penalty should be imposed.

Of course, unless Martin is claiming he didn't do anything wrong (and only if there's sufficient evidence to support that claim), Richmond could take an initial position of taking action against him for the poor behaviour and reserve the right for additional action should there be a legal finding against him. 

We encourage robust debate here and 98% (sorry Ox) is good robust debate. Regarding the 2% - a reminder to play the ball and not the man.

Some aspects I agree with so far: -

• Martin's punishment should be significant (although I probably don't lean towards the mentioned 12 month suspension - I see it as a little excessive).
• I agree with DA's assessment - he should get 6 months just for attending Stereosonic
• Anything the AFL recommend to the RFC in terms of significant punishment, the AFL should give Dusty and RFC "the don't agrue"
• The AFL and a couple of its teams in 2016 are recognising the general problem of violence against women - this issue is significant, and this recent incident that has blown up one way or another needs to be addressed appropriately in accordance with the AFL's existing stance.

 

1 hour ago, mauriesy said:

The original issue in this case was with a drunken footballer who was approached by someone in a pub and became violent when asked to 'tone it down'. This is not a case of domestic violence or workplace harrassment against a 'group'. If a male had gone up to complain, I'd suggest Dustin Martin's aggressive reaction would probably have been the same.

I'd therefore hope that a male would have received the same public support in this scenario, and that Martin's behaviour would receive the same condemnation. I somehow doubt it though, because we generally tend to believe that males are 'protectors' and 'boys will be boys'.

Seriously?

If a normal bloke had have gone up to Martin there may have been a confrontation, maybe even a scuffle.

If a big burly Islander bouncer had gone up to Martin and told him to pull his head in he probably would've.

On this occasion, a female took it upon herself to do it (just like the woman at Subiaco oval) and got threatened to be stabbed in the face with a chopstick.

Make sense?

1 hour ago, old dee said:

If he is charged that will be the perfect excuse for the AFL / Richmond to do nothing.

they will sight "court case pending we will have to wait"

In a years time when he goes to court the heat will be out of it and he will get a low penality.

Agree OD. I'm thinking that perhaps the reason why some of us are a bit jumpy about this is that we can just about see the wet lettuce leaf being brandished.

There may not be as much angst over this if it were possible to have faith in the integrity of.* The AFL and that he would receive a fitting penalty.

 

(* Have to use a full stop because the words "integrity" and "AFL" can't go in the same sentence)

1 hour ago, jane02 said:

As a female with daughters, I would not have accepted this idiots apology and taken it straight to the police. Stuff the AFL and the Tigers - they will do nothing.

This behaviour is not OK and an apology would not have cut it with me.

Why "as a female", why not "as an adult"?

5 minutes ago, Akum said:

Agree OD. I'm thinking that perhaps the reason why some of us are a bit jumpy about this is that we can just about see the wet lettuce leaf being brandished.

There may not be as much angst over this if it were possible to have faith in the integrity of.* The AFL and that he would receive a fitting penalty.

 

(* Have to use a full stop because the words "integrity" and "AFL" can't go in the same sentence)

Akum what about this sentence.                     The AFL lacks integrity.

5 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Why "as a female", why not "as an adult"?

 

Let it go Mumbai.

3 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Akum what about this sentence.                     The AFL lacks integrity.

Hmmm ... I'll try another one.

"The AFL makes a mockery of integrity".

Maybe the new software has derision-sensitive text!