Dustin Martin

[Bunk_Moreland]

What I wanna know is how he has got away with having - for so long - the rudest haircut in the history of Australian Rules Football.

This post wins the thread...........

It truly is terrible

[Dr Spaceman]

What I wanna know is how he has got away with having - for so long - the rudest haircut in the history of Australian Rules Football.

This post wins the thread...........

It truly is terrible

Maybe he could change it to something like this

[#gosaintas]

Is that Josh Bruce?

[markp]

John Silvester goes whack at police...

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/abo ... ll17x.html

About bloody time: Why did police take so long to launch Dustin Martin

I must have missed the announcement that the AFL had been elevated to the status of the FBI.

Stupidly, I thought it ran a game of footy and enforces the rules of that game. The fact is once Martin was accused of serious criminal offences it should have been a police investigation.

The woman says Martin raised chopsticks above her eye and threatened to stab her before he slammed his palm against a wall above her head.

"He reacted extremely angrily, very very agitated, began swearing at me, standing over me physically, it was extremely intimidating," the Sydney woman, identified as "Tracey", told Channel Seven.

This means he will, belatedly, be investigated for threats to kill, assault and assault with a weapon.

Under the law, it doesn't matter if someone intends to carry out a threat to kill, it is still an offence if the victim fears he or she will.

The penalty is up to 10 years jail.

The incident happened on Saturday night at a Japanese restaurant, was reported to Richmond on Sunday and was all over the media on Monday morning .

And the police did stuff all about it.

There were witnesses and video and ample evidence to begin an investigation.

And yet the police did not move.

The AFL took on the investigation rather than the detectives. And you wonder why women think crimes against them are not taken seriously.

If an AFL player was accused of robbing a bank or committing a fraud it would be a police matter and yet terrifying a woman is apparently not that serious.

If a reporter at The Age was accused of a crime it goes to the cops. And yet when a player - in the off-season and not at work - is accused of attacking a woman it is initially dealt with in house.

The AFL got burnt by involving themselves in the Essendon drug investigation rather than leaving it to an independent body but in this case it's the police's fault for not initiating an inquiry into an allegation of criminal violence against a woman.

Any sergeant from Prahran who saw the media reports should have thought "not on my patch" and launched an investigation immediately. After all the message on the police badge says Uphold The Right.

Any fool knows that the best evidence is current evidence. CCTV, witnesses and the victim are the keys and it has been already contaminated by a non-law enforcement investigation.

The victim has already been interviewed and the accused already warned.

There are protocols between the AFL and the police on matters such as match fixing and quite rightly so.

But this is different. A straightforward claim requiring a police response.

If a police officer was on the scene you would have expected Martin to have been arrested on the spot. But this is a relatively simple investigation with a simple outcome.

If there is sufficient evidence Martin will be charged, if not, he won't.

The AFL and police have tried to lead in the area of violence against women but they have stuffed this up.

One of the key priorities in such cases is the welfare of the victim.

While the police and the AFL were handing out press releases did anyone bother to tell this woman the case was now a criminal investigation. The answer is no.

She learned about it on Twitter and feels betrayed by the very people she needs to trust.

What a disgrace.

[dragit]

Put out your chopsticks.

[WinnersOnly]

Mr Silverster needs a quick lesson in Australian Criminal Law and how the Laws of Evidence apply. The Police can investigate but depending on the evidence available in these assault type matters, there still needs to be a (victim) prepared to make a complainant statement and ready to provide that evidence to the courts. Otherwise all Police would have available to them would be so called 'street offences' eg Affray or Disorderly Behaviour in a Public Place and and it appears they werent notified at the time so it would lesson the veracity of the report.

The Evidence Acts of each state are generally arcade pieces of legislation with law societies and civil rights agencies very strongly against any changes. This is still major hurdle in domestic violence matters although there has been some changes/excemptions in family violence matters the same rules need to apply to all acts of violence against the person. This was not a domestic violence situation hence the excemptions to hearsay evidence wont apply and until these laws are amended by governments / courts there is little Police can do.

Assaults on the person whether upon male or female occur in the thousands around Australia each weekend and I dont know the stats but I would suggest there would be less than 50% which incur Police involvement.

Again Mr Silvester Police need firstly a complaint to be made and then a victim/complainant prepared to go to court and provide there evidence before they can act. So you need to direct your feelings towards the Australian governments and courts systems before the Police.

[markp]

And yet it seems the police began an investigation without the woman even knowing.

[Sobraz]

Pretty sad reflection of society with all the yellow belly's in this thread.

Walk away and let someone else handle it goes a long way to explaining what is wrong in our world.

This lady has guts, and should be applauded. If more people did what she did we'd be living in a far better society, safer and stronger.

[magnifisaint]

This s*** is still going. The place is sick.

[miskycat]

AFL protects star, sells out victim

http://at.heraldsun.com.au/link/93ee2cf ... sun.com.au

Quite.

[st.byron]

Wow, that's great, you provided an unsubstantiated opinion piece, penned by a diversity lecturer........

OK - Some real fact - violent crime overall in Australia has been DECREASING for 5 years. In 2014, there were 421 homicides in Australia, and 61% of the victims were male - in other words males were killed at nearly twice the rate of females.

Males outnumbered as victims of homicide, robbery and assault. The one area females dominated as victims is sexual assault, no surprise there. Your writer is using that and some ambiguous terminology to create a misleading article. Men are 4 times more likely to commit violent crime and 4 times more likely to be a victim of it.

But a couple of cases (Jill Meagher and Luke Batty), tragic as they are, seem to be SPECIAL in the eyes of some. I wonder why the likes of Miskycat aren't up in arms over the 8 kids butchered by their mother in Cairns a year ago, or the 3 kids driven into a lake by their mother who watched them drown? Is that not indicative of an epidemic of infanticide - should we be running campaigns to stop violence by women towards their children ??

And my source is the ABS...... http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf ... enDocument

I did see those stats from the ABS before I posted that link. Don't agree with you that the article is misleading. Yes if you take the sexual assault figures out the equation, then men are more likely to be victims of violent crime. But why would you take the sexual assault figures out? In 2014, according to the ABS stats that you posted, 3500 men were victims of sexual assault and 17,000 women. How can you ignore that and claim men are more likely to be victims of violent crime? Is sexual assault not a violent crime? I'm also curious about the figures for plain assault. I could find figures for murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, robbery, sexual assault - but not for just assault.

I do agree with you though that it would be good for the male bashing in our culture to stop. It doesn't help. Men are abused and discriminated against as well, but it's rarely acknowledged.

[miskycat]

'Woman who alleges Dustin Martin threatened her says AFL ‘leaned’ on her to change evidence.' Jon Kaila and Lauren Wood Herald Sun

Gee, seems like everyone is trying to pick on poor Dusty in order to continue the widely spread culture of 'male bashing.'

[dragit]

Pretty sad reflection of society with all the yellow belly's in this thread.

Walk away and let someone else handle it goes a long way to explaining what is wrong in our world.

This lady has guts, and should be applauded. If more people did what she did we'd be living in a far better society, safer and stronger.

Yellow belly? John Wayne just winked down from heaven at you Sobraz.

Somehow I don't feel any safer because of what this woman did.

I reckon If 100 people took it up to heavily drug & alcohol affected people this weekend, we would be talking about more violence and unnecessary deaths, not a better society. People in Martin's state aren't able to be reasoned with, his insane response says it all, he completely lost his facilities.

If you cross paths with someone at the end of an ice bender, don't be a hero… keep out of their way if at all possible & call the cops.

[miskycat]

Great article from Titus OReily:

Some fun defences of Dustin Martin
Over the last few days we’ve heard some fun and creative defences of Dustin Martin threatening to kill a woman. Let’s look at these as like the incident, they’re hilarious!

“He’s unlucky, we wouldn’t even know about this if he wasn’t a footballer.’

Quite possibly true, although you could argue if he wasn’t a footballer and his work found out about this incident he’d be sacked.

I should mention that’s not me arguing that, I’ve spoken to employment lawyers and a head of HR for a major corporate and they all said that was the case.

He could also have been referred to police and been charged.

But it’s a fair point that if Dustin wasn’t a well known footballer this could have slipped away like so many violent episodes that go unreported. That really is just pointing out how prevalent and underreported violence against women is, it’s not a defence.

Really, all you’re pointing out is how spectacularly stupid he is.

“He wasn’t actually going to kill her.”

Considering he can’t remember what happened due to his consumption of alcohol not even he knows what he could have done so this is a pretty big assumption and therefore a poor defence.

“The guy was smashed and can’t even remember it happening”

Is that a defence all of a sudden? If it is then everyone would just say that, whether it was true or not.

If you are the type that drinks to the point you can’t remember anything and you threaten to kill people, you’re not arguing a defence, you’re arguing you’re a threat to society.

“We’ve all made mistakes. Don’t get on your high horse.”

We sure have all made mistakes. I bet very few of us have threatened a stranger in a restaurant with a chopstick, while telling them you’ll kill them and hitting the wall behind them though.

That’s not a ‘mistake’ it’s assault.

“She works for Channel Seven and wanted a story.”

Yeah, this woman went out that night just trying to bump into a crazed, alcohol-fuelled footballer and get them to threaten to kill her.

Women are so manipulative and they play such a long game! She then appeared on TV not showing her face and not revealing her name. What a publicity seeking trouble maker!

Let’s side with the person threatening to kill people though.

“People are overreacting.”

Yeah, that’s what people have been doing about violence against women for so long, overreacting.

I long for the day were our problem is overreacting to this scourge. We are so far from overreacting to violence against women you’d need NASA’s New Horizons probe to get there from where we are.

Even 12 months suspended is therefore not enough for me. You threaten to kill someone you’re out of the game, this isn’t some borderline case.

“Hodge only got two weeks, other players got this and that.”

Personally, I think you’re on really shaky ground if the AFL’s appallingly bad record on punishments are the centre plank of your defence.

What you’re actually pointing out is the whole problem. Footballers have never had the incentive to truly change their behaviour because deep down they know it’s not career ending.

The sad thing is they’re right.

Watch how quickly that all stops when one of them actually gets the punishment they would get in the real world.

“The public humiliation is punishment enough.”

It’s really not. In fact, the public condemnation has been weaker than American coffee.

Brendon Gale said he was a ‘goose’ and Richmond football manager Dan Richardson described the incident as “a bit of a hiccup”.

In fact, Dusty has received a fair bit of support from people, despite the fact he threatened to kill someone.

In conclusion, I’m resigned to Martin receiving some weak punishment like twelve weeks suspended (I’d loved to be proved wrong).

But Richmond and the AFL, let’s all remember the next time you ape support for ending violence against women that when actually tested to underpin those words with action you didn’t.

Sign up to Titus O’Reily’s Electronic Mail Newsletter.

[st.byron]

'Woman who alleges Dustin Martin threatened her says AFL ‘leaned’ on her to change evidence.' Jon Kaila and Lauren Wood Herald Sun

Gee, seems like everyone is trying to pick on poor Dusty in order to continue the widely spread culture of 'male bashing.'

There is a culture of belittling men.....it's part of the crap way that both genders are socialised in our culture.....

All those excuses for Martin's violent behaviour....oh dear....

[miskycat]

Oh, yes, let's acknowledge 'male bashing' as being part of the problem, by all means.

Ha!

I must remember to add it to the list of excuses and/or mitigating circumstances regarding this incident.

[dragit]

Completely indefensible, anyone trying is not worth listening to.

[markp]

AFL protects star, sells out victim

http://at.heraldsun.com.au/link/93ee2cf ... sun.com.au

Quite.

NO matter how strongly the AFL promotes itself as a standard bearer of decency and virtue, when it comes to the crunch the league invariably chooses brand protection over integrity.

The league has again demonstrated just how hopelessly out of step it is with community standards in its handling of the Dustin Martin saga.

The Richmond star’s threats of violence against a terrified woman have been well documented, what has not been reported until now is the lengths the Richmond Football Club and AFL House went to in order to manage the victim known as Tracey.
On Monday morning after Tracey first reported that she’d been threatened with being stabbed with a chopstick, it seems that Richmond’s primary concern was not the victim but damage control.

According to sources close to investigation, Richmond club was keen to contain the story, fearful that the allegation would leak to the media.

The club ordered Martin to phone the victim personally and apologise, one could hypothesise in the hopes that would shut her up.



According to one source a Richmond officer said to the victim “there must be a better way to deal with it than through the media”.

The club then briefed an accommodating journalist only too happy to reveal not only the name of Tracey’s employer but also her specific role within that organisation.

To identify a victim of violence in such a manner is beyond the pale. It not only needlessly traumatises them but is likely to dissuade other victims from coming forward.

One would have hoped we moved past the ugly old days when victims were intimidated into withdrawing complaints or blamed for the aggressor’s actions with a compliant media happy to spin a story to protect ‘the game’.

Once the case was in the public domain and it was clear that more significant action would be required the victim was visited on her own turf, by a seemingly empathetic integrity officer from the AFL along with a representative from Richmond.

But at that meeting, the victim was given the impression the offence was not viewed as a criminal one.

Then when they presented to the victim her statement from the meeting it is understood she was very unhappy about several “falsifications” that played down the extent of her terror and the seriousness of Martin’s actions.

One AFL officer has since been accused by those close to the victim of essentially monstering her; lambasting her for leaking and talking to the media and repeatedly questioning her evidence saying there were contrary views about how far away Martin stood while he threatened to stab her and what he said.

They insisted that she come to AFL House to give a statement.

At that meeting the AFL representatives were said to be rude.

Tracey was questioned about whether she was sure she wanted to proceed with her claim that Martin threatened to stab her with a chopstick, and warned that if she did they would have to refer it to police and it could potentially end his career.

She was also warned that he could be charged with offences carrying jail time of 10 years. They then reiterated the warnings, giving the victim the impression that they wanted her to water down her complaint.

At no point was the victim encouraged to bring someone with her for support or legal advice.

When the AFL eventually referred the matter to police they did not bother to advise Tracey that they had done so.

On social media an AFL staffer used his private twitter account to release the information instead of the AFL’ s official account which has more than 500,000 followers.


But the most shameful conduct, apart from Martin’s alleged explosion of violence, was to come on Thursday evening when the AFL actively briefed the media against the victim once the case was out of its hands.

One of the investigators who had been the most aggressive towards her told her “we’ve washed our hands of this’’.

How is it that these investigators, who are well credentialed former police officers on significant salaries, could be so ham-fisted in their handling of the case?

An integrity officer is charged with protecting the integrity of the investigation but their primary concern appears to have been to protect the image of the game.

At best the handling of this matter has been incompetent, at worst it has been malicious in intimidating a traumatised victim.

The investigators’ insistence that the offences were minor coupled with pressure exerted on the victim to water down her allegation, with claims that it could land Martin in jail, are utterly unscrupulous.

As soon as the allegations were made why wasn’t it determined that it was a criminal matter that should be immediately referred to police?

Why did the league and the club spend four days needlessly distressing the victim and potentially contaminating the case before they eventually referred it to police?

The police’s performance on this issue, has been almost as woeful.

Why could they not have put in a call to the AFL at the outset, when it was surely clear a potential criminal offence had been committed.

Why did it need the Herald Sun to yesterday point out in its newspaper editorial that police could open an investigation despite not receiving a formal complaint?

It was only after that editorial, and after the Herald Sun online revealed the victim had belatedly been advised that threatening to stab or kill is a criminal offence, that the police got involved.

Also, Richmond being allowed to investigate the matter alongside the AFL, who would later assess if the club acted appropriately, is reminiscent of the ASADA fiasco and shows the AFL has learnt little from that saga.

The AFL may pride itself on being a leading light in changing community attitudes towards women but though it talks a good game about respect and responsibility it fails to live up to even the lowest of expectations.

The culture of cover ups and intimidation has seen the league sell out a victim of violence in a vain attempt to protect the brand.

Yikes.

[Moods]

And yet it seems the police began an investigation without the woman even knowing.

I don't think so. They got in touch with her, and she was happy for them to mount an investigation. W.O. is spot on. John Sylvester's article is rubbish - and he normally writes quite good stuff, so not sure how he could get it so wrong.

How do you charge someone with making threats to kill when one of the points of proof is that the victim felt fear that the offence could or would be carried out? She has to agree to give evidence, and not a policeman in the state is going to compel her to go to court without a signed statement saying as much - otherwise the cops bear the costs of the case if they lose, which will happen.

She has obviously agreed to sign up to a statement as to what happened.

[st.byron]

Oh, yes, let's acknowledge 'male bashing' as being part of the problem, by all means.

Ha!

I must remember to add it to the list of excuses and/or mitigating circumstances regarding this incident.

You seem pretty angry about violence perpetrated by men against women. With good reason. It's endemic.
Martin's behaviour is inexcusable and he should pay whatever legal price there is.
That's what this thread is about.

Broader issues about gender stereotyping, discrimination and abuse are another topic which the thread has also touched on and those things cut both ways.

[markp]

And yet it seems the police began an investigation without the woman even knowing.

I don't think so. They got in touch with her, and she was happy for them to mount an investigation. W.O. is spot on. John Sylvester's article is rubbish - and he normally writes quite good stuff, so not sure how he could get it so wrong.

How do you charge someone with making threats to kill when one of the points of proof is that the victim felt fear that the offence could or would be carried out? She has to agree to give evidence, and not a policeman in the state is going to compel her to go to court without a signed statement saying as much - otherwise the cops bear the costs of the case if they lose, which will happen.

She has obviously agreed to sign up to a statement as to what happened.

I think you're confusing opening an investigation with laying charges.

Silvester has been a crime reporter in melbourne since the late 1970's. He states she first heard about it on twitter and felt betrayed by that... I'll go with he didn't just make that up.

Also, the hun article above says when the afl referred it to police they didn't bother to tell her. It also mentions an editorial from the previous day which apparently pointed out that the police don't need to receive a formal complaint to open an investigation.

[Jacks Back]

Oppo forum.

[skeptic]

When this whole thing started, I honestly thought Martin would just get a slap on the wrist and the incident would be swept under the carpet.

Looks like he's in serious trouble now and the Richmond FC have been challenged to make a big call...

Love that at least

[Bluthy]

When this whole thing started, I honestly thought Martin would just get a slap on the wrist and the incident would be swept under the carpet.

Looks like he's in serious trouble now and the Richmond FC have been challenged to make a big call...

Love that at least

I thought it would all come under the AFL umbrella as well. It's a hard case to prosecute because you need witnesses to corroborate exactly what was said and what was the intent. A good lawyer will play up "he was joking - he was doing a walrus..II'm stab you ha ha". But the heightened focus on violence towards women has made sure this hasn't just slid off into the normal AFL control freak "We'll handle it - you just chill out criminal justice system".

[miskycat]

Good to know that you're 'happy that know that at least the Richmond FC have been challenged to make a big call.'

Yes, let's have a few extra little quips like this. Because it's pretty funny, really, right?

Let's not admit the vile nature of the actual incident. Or the appalling nature of your earlier sentiments, such as:

'By threatening to call the club, she did in essence threaten him in a non-violent way. She is entitled to do this without risk of violence... But just because there shouldn't be a risk of violence doesn't mean there isn't. This isn't about blame but you can't argue that she isn't more vulnerable after confronting him then b4. It should have been the staff that dealt with this then the police. She still has the option of contacting the club the next morning regardless.

No, let's trivialise it and make some light-hearted banter. That's the way to go.