Dustin Martin

[IanRush]

I’m a bit suss on this case. The chick involved worked at Channel 7 and the media of late have been wanting to make ‘violence against women’ an issue. Rosie Batty (who I am NOT a fan of) had just been to Vic Parliament in the week leading up to this.

Unless Dustin is a complete farkwit, most sane people don’t yell/threaten another, unless forced to, or they lose their cool too easily.

I’m sceptical on this, the ‘build up’ to the actual incident would be good to know.

[Bunk_Moreland]

Rosie Batty (who I am NOT a fan of)

Either was her husband who murdered their son to get back at her.

How dare she be a victim and try to turn around situations like this.

Must be a total bitch hey?

[Dis Believer]

her husband who murdered their son.

she be a victim

Some of the clicktivists must explain this to me one day - how a male was murdered but a female is the victim.......


Mind you they have managed to make a poster girl for domestic violence from someone whose former partner should clearly have been the poster boy for the dismal failings of our mental health system, and managed to neatly sidestep the fact that this particular family unit is a long way from representative of the typical, average family unit.

[dragit]

Unless Dustin is a complete farkwit

I don't think is in dispute.

[markp]

Firstly, I wouldn't blame any woman or person for not wanting to pursue something like this in court. Time and again we hear that the court (and add media here) experience was comparable to being assaulted all over again. And I don't think many women who have pursued these sorts of things against afl players have not lived to regret it.

I wouldn't blame any person either, totally understand that reliving the story can refresh an incident. However as this person has retold the story in great detail on prime-time TV, to the AFL and various media outlets, I don't think she is afraid to revisit the incident.

Secondly, while the rfc and afl may want to brush this under the carpet, brand protection also dictates that they be seen to be taking this incident and this issue very seriously.

So she is concerned about brand protection?
I think the fact that they referred the incident onto police indicates that they take the allegations pretty seriously & I have no doubt there will be some punishment. If they'd tried to just dela with it in-house, people would be screaming cover-up.

Again what are the AFL going to press on with after the police have concluded that:
“After reviewing CCTV footage and speaking to all parties involved, including numerous independent witnesses at the restaurant on the night, investigators determined that no criminal offence took place.”

Thirdly, if he was an executive or employee at any high profile company and he'd done this and it got out he'd have very likely been sacked by now.

Actually, if it was an executive we probably would have never heard about it as it wouldn't be a channel 7 news piece and I doubt she would threaten to or actually ring the BHP HR department. Then if he was sacked and it was found that no offence took place, his company would be facing a massive unfair dismissal suit.

Fourthly, it could also just be that the woman doesn't think the incident warrants a criminal conviction, but that it does warrant serious consequences.

All the AFL can do is make this guy miss games of football and pay a fine - which probably has a cap due to contracts.

If she is claiming that she genuinely felt that her life was being threatened, then surely this punishment isn't enough?

First point, I meant the stress of going through a very public trial as a separate ordeal, not necessarily just the recounting and reliving of the initial incident, and as Moods points out she's no doubt already had a taste of what would await.

Second point, no I don't think she cares about brand protection, I think she probably cares about this being dealt with seriously and justly.

Third point, people lose their jobs for poorly judged tweets. And I said if the incident and his employer was made public (if it got out), which, y'know, happened here.

Fourth point, was obviously referring to IF she really felt her life was not in danger, but she felt some recognition and punishment was warranted. You'd have to ask her.

[dragit]

I think she probably cares about this being dealt with seriously and justly.

Don't call the police, call the Richmond Football Club.

[markp]

I think she probably cares about this being dealt with seriously and justly.

Don't call the police, call the Richmond Football Club.

And that proves what?

[ripplug66]

I’m a bit suss on this case. The chick involved worked at Channel 7 and the media of late have been wanting to make ‘violence against women’ an issue. Rosie Batty (who I am NOT a fan of) had just been to Vic Parliament in the week leading up to this.

Unless Dustin is a complete farkwit, most sane people don’t yell/threaten another, unless forced to, or they lose their cool too easily.

I’m sceptical on this, the ‘build up’ to the actual incident would be good to know.

Unbelievable crap. You need to stop looking for a conspiracy as the first point. Look at some facts first surely.

[dragit]

I think she probably cares about this being dealt with seriously and justly.

Don't call the police, call the Richmond Football Club.

And that proves what?

That she is going to the wrong people if she is searching for justice?

[markp]

I think she probably cares about this being dealt with seriously and justly.

Don't call the police, call the Richmond Football Club.

And that proves what?

That she is going to the wrong people if she is searching for justice?

Not if she thought the incident didn't warrant a criminal conviction or didn't want to put herself through that ordeal?

Maybe initially she didn't even know it was a criminal offence?

Maybe her idea of justice in this case would be a sincere apology, counselling for Martin, and a major sanction from the rfc/afl?

[To the top]

With these issues, and if you are going to address them, you look to cause, not outcomes (ie the act of violence).

In regards Batty and the reference to her in this thread, if you go to her website it is administered by a PR Consultant, and, per se, there is nothing amiss with that.

But, if you respond, quoting from a Family Report and asking an obvious question as to why this woman and her PR are exclusively about "Violence on Women" (gender and demographic specific) and asking if they could consider widening their agenda to address cause and to remove the gender and demographic specifics, you get no response.

It obviously does not suit their PR agenda.

So you are left to conclude that this woman and her PR (employees) are single issue and single issue only - therefore losing respect and relevance.

No doubt, in that case, the father had mental issues which had not been addressed - and what were his "contact arrangements" with his son and did being significantly dis-enfranchised in regards the raising of his son impact including over a period of time?

Batty had recourse to the Family Court of Australia (and were there Orders in regards contact, including supervised contact arrangements which can be successfully applied for?), noting that her allegation was that the child was abused by his father every day of his life.

If what she says, that the child was abused every day of his life by his father, is the fact then why unsupervised contact with that father?

Why not an application to the Family Court of Australia (supported by medical records of attendances on a medical practitioner with the son), which, you would assume, would have been successful.

So where was parental responsibility, and particularly as the child was abused by his father every day of his life?

This woman's protestations in regards the absolutely tragic outcome of a young child losing his life are simplistic and are accepted as simplistic without the questioning that should be applied - so we all learn and this ultimate absolutely tragic consequence is not repeated - ever.

Then we get to the making of false allegation - and penalty, which is totally absent.

I did say to the QC who represented me that, if "father" was substituted for "mother" in that Family Report (which included children being threatened not to tell their father of certain activities because it would see the end of the marriage), then I would accept that I had no right to be further involved in the lives of my children.

It is a complex issue, because, to quote from a TV program of many years ago. "It is a large city, everyone has a story and this has been one of them".

So data needs to be compiled so we can ALL learn - and that way ALL will enjoy their right to live in a safe and supportive environment - including particularly children, who (generally) have no voice.

[IanRush]

With these issues, and if you are going to address them, you look to cause, not outcomes (ie the act of violence).

In regards Batty and the reference to her in this thread, if you go to her website it is administered by a PR Consultant, and, per se, there is nothing amiss with that.

But, if you respond, quoting from a Family Report and asking an obvious question as to why this woman and her PR are exclusively about "Violence on Women" (gender and demographic specific) and asking if they could consider widening their agenda to address cause and to remove the gender and demographic specifics, you get no response.

It obviously does not suit their PR agenda.

So you are left to conclude that this woman and her PR (employees) are single issue and single issue only - therefore losing respect and relevance.

No doubt, in that case, the father had mental issues which had not been addressed - and what were his "contact arrangements" with his son and did being significantly dis-enfranchised in regards the raising of his son impact including over a period of time?

Batty had recourse to the Family Court of Australia (and were there Orders in regards contact, including supervised contact arrangements which can be successfully applied for?), noting that her allegation was that the child was abused by his father every day of his life.

If what she says, that the child was abused every day of his life by his father, is the fact then why unsupervised contact with that father?

Why not an application to the Family Court of Australia (supported by medical records of attendances on a medical practitioner with the son), which, you would assume, would have been successful.

So where was parental responsibility, and particularly as the child was abused by his father every day of his life?

This woman's protestations in regards the absolutely tragic outcome of a young child losing his life are simplistic and are accepted as simplistic without the questioning that should be applied - so we all learn and this ultimate absolutely tragic consequence is not repeated - ever.

Then we get to the making of false allegation - and penalty, which is totally absent.

I did say to the QC who represented me that, if "father" was substituted for "mother" in that Family Report (which included children being threatened not to tell their father of certain activities because it would see the end of the marriage), then I would accept that I had no right to be further involved in the lives of my children.

It is a complex issue, because, to quote from a TV program of many years ago. "It is a large city, everyone has a story and this has been one of them".

So data needs to be compiled so we can ALL learn - and that way ALL will enjoy their right to live in a safe and supportive environment - including particularly children, who (generally) have no voice.

Good post, I am not a fan of Rosie, as there is clear evidence that a Magistrate at Frankston Court, told her prior to Luke’s death to “protect Luke at all costs”.

I think she is more “anti-men” then “pro domestic violence reform”.

I don’t get the feeling her motives are legit and genuine.

[dragit]

I think she probably cares about this being dealt with seriously and justly.

Don't call the police, call the Richmond Football Club.

And that proves what?

That she is going to the wrong people if she is searching for justice?

Not if she thought the incident didn't warrant a criminal conviction or didn't want to put herself through that ordeal?

Maybe initially she didn't even know it was a criminal offence?

Maybe her idea of justice in this case would be a sincere apology, counselling for Martin, and a major sanction from the rfc/afl?

But she did accept his apology, but then changed her mind after she didn't like the way the Richmond presser was worded.

It wasn't a criminal offence as per the police statement following their investigation.

Maybe it is a platform for violence against women awareness.

Maybe she didn't want the claims tested as the other diners aren't corroborating her story.

Maybe counselling and a suspension are still to come.

So many possibilities.

[Freebird]

I’m a bit suss on this case. The chick involved worked at Channel 7 and the media of late have been wanting to make ‘violence against women’ an issue. Rosie Batty (who I am NOT a fan of) had just been to Vic Parliament in the week leading up to this.

Unless Dustin is a complete farkwit, most sane people don’t yell/threaten another, unless forced to, or they lose their cool too easily.

I’m sceptical on this, the ‘build up’ to the actual incident would be good to know.

Unbelievable crap. You need to stop looking for a conspiracy as the first point. Look at some facts first surely.

I think your haste to belittle someone was again unwarranted...What facts do you have to label IR a liar?

[markp]

I think she probably cares about this being dealt with seriously and justly.

Don't call the police, call the Richmond Football Club.

And that proves what?

That she is going to the wrong people if she is searching for justice?

Not if she thought the incident didn't warrant a criminal conviction or didn't want to put herself through that ordeal?

Maybe initially she didn't even know it was a criminal offence?

Maybe her idea of justice in this case would be a sincere apology, counselling for Martin, and a major sanction from the rfc/afl?

But she did accept his apology, but then changed her mind after she didn't like the way the Richmond presser was worded.

It wasn't a criminal offence as per the police statement following their investigation.

Maybe it is a platform for violence against women awareness.

Maybe she didn't want the claims tested as the other diners aren't corroborating her story.

Maybe counselling and a suspension are still to come.

So many possibilities.

I've not heard anyone say he didn't threaten to stab and kill her.

And like I said, no criminal offence because she's not giving a formal statement, all she'd have to say was she believed his threat and he'd be screwed.

Yes maybe suspension and counselling are to come, and that could be why she said the afl and rfc should now press ahead with their enquiry which she has co-operated with.

[ripplug66]

I’m a bit suss on this case. The chick involved worked at Channel 7 and the media of late have been wanting to make ‘violence against women’ an issue. Rosie Batty (who I am NOT a fan of) had just been to Vic Parliament in the week leading up to this.

Unless Dustin is a complete farkwit, most sane people don’t yell/threaten another, unless forced to, or they lose their cool too easily.

I’m sceptical on this, the ‘build up’ to the actual incident would be good to know.

Unbelievable crap. You need to stop looking for a conspiracy as the first point. Look at some facts first surely.

I think your haste to belittle someone was again unwarranted...What facts do you have to label IR a liar?

Do you ever post anything about footy? And just to humour you I didn't call anyone a liar. If you agree with him It says more about you than I thought possible. Have a great xmas. You seem to have a positive outlook on life.

[Freebird]

Your pathetic excuses are akin to a 2 year old...you're funny, positive outlook on life ha ha ha

What time did you start disparaging this morning and when do you think you will be logging out tonight?

It would be nice to log on without your presence and read something about what this site is meant to be for but unfortunately you would have already left your ugly print.

Since when does crap not mean bullsht child

[ripplug66]

Your pathetic excuses are akin to a 2 year old...you're funny, positive outlook on life ha ha ha

What time did you start disparaging this morning and when do you think you will be logging out tonight?

It would be nice to log on without your presence and read something about what this site is meant to be for but unfortunately you would have already left your ugly print.

Since when does crap not mean bullsht child

I respect you far to much to get into a slanging match with you. Have a great xmas. By the way it isn't hard to put people on ignore. You should try it. It will make your xmas even better and I'm sorry I believe the lady that Martin threatened. Sue me for that opinion.

[dragit]

I've not heard anyone say he didn't threaten to stab and kill her.

And like I said, no criminal offence because she's not giving a formal statement, all she'd have to say was she believed his threat and he'd be screwed.

Yes maybe suspension and counselling are to come, and that could be why she said the afl and rfc should now press ahead with their enquiry which she has co-operated with.

That's not what the police statement said, they said that after interviewing everyone (including the victim) involved and viewing CTV footage they concluded that no criminal offence occurred.

Surely if other diners said he was "menacing, violent, dangerous and thought he was going to kill this poor girl" then he would be charged regardless of her making a statement or not?

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that he would be screwed if she had of made an official statement… for starters, other diners aren't corroborating the fearful situation… his defence council would have field day on her approach to reporting this… chances of conviction would be minimal, but if somehow he was, I'm guessing the punishment would be a fine.

[Freebird]

I had you on ignore under p66 but you always wrecked the threads and come up in all the quotes.

Have yourself a great xmas too..I'm going down the pub, would like to stay and chat. I'll have a cold one for you

[markp]

I've not heard anyone say he didn't threaten to stab and kill her.

And like I said, no criminal offence because she's not giving a formal statement, all she'd have to say was she believed his threat and he'd be screwed.

Yes maybe suspension and counselling are to come, and that could be why she said the afl and rfc should now press ahead with their enquiry which she has co-operated with.

That's not what the police statement said, they said that after interviewing everyone (including the victim) involved and viewing CTV footage they concluded that no criminal offence occurred.

Surely if other diners said he was "menacing, violent, dangerous and thought he was going to kill this poor girl" then he would be charged regardless of her making a statement or not?

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that he would be screwed if she had of made an official statement… for starters, other diners aren't corroborating the fearful situation… his defence council would have field day on her approach to reporting this… chances of conviction would be minimal, but if somehow he was, I'm guessing the punishment would be a fine.

You have no idea what other diners are or are not carroborating, or how relevant that is or would be.

No statement no chance of conviction no charge is most likely the main equation here.

He could've written the threat neatly on scented paper and given it to her with a rose and a smile and he'd still be up shyte creek if she believed he was serious and then made a statement saying as much.

[dragit]

Okay, how many years do you think he's facing in the big house for mumbling "I'll farkn keel yu wif dis chopsticks" ?

Brodie Holland was fined 2.5k for punching a woman with enough force that her eyes were rolling around in her head.

[dragit]

Oh and I reckon other diners recollections would be extremely relevant.

[markp]

Okay, how many years do you think he's facing in the big house for mumbling "I'll farkn keel yu wif dis chopsticks" ?

Brodie Holland was fined 2.5k for punching a woman with enough force that her eyes were rolling around in her head.

He's not facing any because she's not pressing charges.

[markp]

Oh and I reckon other diners recollections would be extremely relevant.

It would depend on what they were, how far away they were, how much they noticed.

We don't know any of that.

What we do know is she's not pressing charges.

Funny though, one minute he's frothing at the mouth and she was seriously unwise and provocative in asking him to calm down, next minute he's only mumbled something vague and harmless and she's overreacting.