Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

"the man " protects his own

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by Takamii, Mar 3, 2010.

  1. Check it out -- had it been a "civillian" they would have named him in a blink

    Police won't name colleague accused of ****, want to 'protect victim'

    * From: AdelaideNow
    * March 03, 2010 12:11PM

    A POLICE officer in South Australia has been arrested and charged with **** but senior police have refused to provide details, saying they want to protect the alleged victim.

    AdelaideNow reports the serving officer, 24, was arrested by Sexual Crime Investigation Branch detectives yesterday.

    Police said they will not release any more details of the police officer or the circumstance of the alleged ****, as it may tend to identify the victim.

    Neither will they release the location or time where the alleged offence occurred, as is normal practice.

    The officer has been suspended from duty pending the outcome of the court case.

    He will appear in the Holden Hill Magistrates Court in April.
  2. they do look after their own, but I'm guessing they wouldn't look after a rockspider.
    legislation prohibits naming sexual predators who are related to the victim, in order for the victim to remain un-named. I'm guessing that would be the case here, with the officer related to the victim.

    A victim who's just been rayped/whatever would be struggling to return to normal life and want to remain anonymous, without everyone reading about what happened to them in the papers. And if an article said Joe Adelaide touched up his niece, the niece herself is pretty much identified. This legislation pisses me off that someone could do such a f**ked up thing and not face the shame and wrath of society, but justice is as much about the victim as the offender, I guess
  3. spot on Loki, these sorts of supresions are usual when the victim can be identified through relationship to the offender, if his/her identity is disclosed
  4. Yeah but cop or not I dont think alleged criminals should be named and shamed until crimes have been proven, especially in emotionally charged cases.
  5. yeah exactly.... alleged criminals haven't been proven one way or the other and if they get cleared of the charges many people will still assume guilt
  6. I agree - until proven guilty no names should be released at al
  7. Agreed. Plenty of people get their lives ruined by overeager cops and media jackals even when they're found not guilty