world

Australian man who filmed 4 dead and dying police sent to prison

58 Comments
By ROD McGUIRK

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


58 Comments
Login to comment

The defense have given up. Case closed m’lud. Clear the chamber.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And THAT is the charge that some of us find wrong and dangerous. Not the other ones. Nobody is defending his speeding, his drugs, or claiming he is a great human being.

Do you really want to live in a world where WORDS are punished? And we are not talking about the old "fire" in a movie theater. That does not apply here.

He wasn’t punished for words, he was punished for his actions. He walked around filming and mocking four police officers as they lay dying on the street and telling others to refrain from rendering assistance. Its just beyond idiotic to be framing this as a free speech issue solely because part of what he did happened to consist of words dribbling out of his stupid mouth.

If all I have to do is say something while I commit a crime and then have that be a complete defence to the crime because “FREE SPEECH!” then our legal system is going to be truly screwed.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Pusey was punished for being a dirt-bag. I rest my case m'lud.

Its worth pointing out, m’lud, that he wasn’t convicted under the offense you broke the elements of down for me, but rather the crime of outraging public decency.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Do you really want to live in a world where WORDS are punished? And we are not talking about the old "fire" in a movie theater. That does not apply here.

You have lived in that world all your life. I’ll direct you to the previous posts here and the fact that this law in NOT NEW. There is no slippery slope. Words are punished everyday, don’t be so naive.

Again, tell a police officer to eff off. See what happens.

However, you are still barking up the wrong tree. The charge was public outrage, caused by his decision to narrate a video of dead and dying police officers. If he had filmed the same video with NO WORDS and instead used gestures or whipped out his privates it would have been THE SAME CHARGE.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Bob Fossey

One of the charges was his commentary, yes his words.

And THAT is the charge that some of us find wrong and dangerous. Not the other ones. Nobody is defending his speeding, his drugs, or claiming he is a great human being.

Do you really want to live in a world where WORDS are punished? And we are not talking about the old "fire" in a movie theater. That does not apply here.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Pusey was punished for being a dirt-bag. I rest my case m'lud.

Strike that comment from the public record m’lud.

The counsel has clearly not read the article. I put forth the clearly document charges of speeding, possession of illegal narcotics, driving under the influence and reckless endangerment.

Case closed.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@rainyday

Never mind the OED, look at the constituent parts of the offence. "Involved in" is defined by two components:

a) Be driving an automobile;

b) In an accident resulting in injury or death;

Neither of which apply to Pusey who was watering the bushes at the time of the accident.

In addition to being involved in an accident, to commit an offence one must fail to meet these three conditions:

c) Immediately stop the vehicle;

d) At or near the accident scene;

e) Remain until he has fulfilled his statutory duty...

Since "c" and "d" are impossible to have been triggered because his vehicle was already parked at the scene of the accident, the only strike against him is "e".

Pusey was punished for being a dirt-bag. I rest my case m'lud.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy used by binary thinkers, who are only able to think of things in terms of A or B. "We can't do anything that leans away from A, as that's a slippery slope that results in B". Notice how there are only two options in that argument? Real life is rarely binary.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Define “involved”.

Look up the dictionary definition.

If two drivers are in an accident, clearly both of them are “involved” in it, not just the one that was at fault.

If you park your car legally overnight and someone negligently ploughs into it, are you still liable for the consequences?

This is irrelevant. The rule doesn’t say you are liable for the consequences of an accident you did not cause. Also, the rule applies to “motorists” who are involved in accidents, not the owners of parked cars who are not involved in the accident themselves.

What it requires, if you actually read it, is simply that the motorists involved in accidents stay at the scene, notify police and render assistance if necessary. It says nothing about liability for the accident, which lies with the driver at fault under tort law.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It clearly isn’t. it says “involved in”, not “caused”. It definitely does not apply solely to hit and runs.

Define “involved”.

If you park your car legally overnight and someone negligently ploughs into it, are you still liable for the consequences?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

A good point, I might say, but this law is clearly targeted at hit-and-runs.

It clearly isn’t. it says “involved in”, not “caused”. It definitely does not apply solely to hit and runs.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Whenever a motorist is involved in an automobile accident resulting in injury or death, the motorist must immediately stop his vehicle at or near the accident scene and remain there until he has fulfilled the statutory duty to give information, notify police, and render aid.

A good point, I might say, but this law is clearly targeted at hit-and-runs.

Since Pusey was not driving (his car was parked by the side of the road), we can question to what extent he was “involved” in the accident, if at all. Singh is the intended target of this law, not Pusey.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Do we really want to live in a society where offensive language is a crime? 

Nobody else sees the slippery slope here?

A law that was introduced centuries ago and last enforced in 1963?

How long is this slippery slope?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Did you read the article? It says "a rarely-prosecuted charge of outraging public decency over his commentary".

Commentary. Not actions, but "commentary".

No. “Outraging public decency.” Is the charge. Not “being an a-hole”. It’s a crime dontcha know. And not a new liberal attempt at eroding rights, it’s an old law. Says it right there in the article.

Flipping the bird at a judge will not be excused if you say “eff off” at the same time. Upskirt filming isn’t ok if you narrate a director’s commentary while you do it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

what law obliges someone to render aid? 

Side note: In cases of elderly and child abuse, the law requires citizens to aid by reporting suspected cases and failure to report results in fines and punishable by imprisonment

Whenever a motorist is involved in an automobile accident resulting in injury or death, the motorist must immediately stop his vehicle at or near the accident scene and remain there until he has fulfilled the statutory duty to give information, notify police, and render aid. Failure to do so is a felony if the victim suffers “serious” bodily injury or dies, punishable by one to five years in prison. The statutory duty to stop, notify police, and give information equally applies to accidents involving only damage to an attended vehicle or property. A motorist who fails to comply with these requirements faces criminal misdemeanor charges, imprisonment of up to twelve months, and a substantial fine.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Slippery slope to what exactly? He could have helped but instead he chose to whip ou his camera and film dying people while insulting them. This man is pure scum. Doesn't Australia have some form of duty to rescue law?

Is there a law in Australia that obliges a bystander to an accident to render aid? Yes he could have helped if he chose to but what law obliges someone to render aid? What law exactly did he break by not helping the cops? In my own life I have learned the hard way that helping police gets you nowhere, not even a thanks, just a lot of days off to go to court so the hearing can be cancelled and moved to another day. Now I don't even bother. Make a fool of me once, shame on you. Make a fool of me twice, shame on me. No third time. Is that against the law in Australia?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Australians only have the right to free political speech. There’s no constitutional or statutory right. We like to think we have the right but when it boils down to it we really don’t. We generally get away with saying what we like until we say something slanderous or defamatory. Even politicians who want to say something that they might otherwise be sued for do it under the protection of the Parliament where they are protected from laws surrounding slander and defamation. This guy is not protected by any right to free speech

It is that lack of a written, formal, bill of rights along with having a British monarch as head of state that ultimately convinced me not to immigrate to Australia. When it comes right down to it the only rights one has there are whatever rights Parliament deigns to grant at that particular juncture in history. There are no guaranteed rights protected by law.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Is there no Australian law about being required to contact authorities at the scene of an accident? Just curious.

Mr. Pusey was already pulled over by the police for speeding. He was out of his car apparently watering the roadside bushes (surprised the police let him do that btw, in the US that would get you written for indecent exposure and lifetime as a sex offender). It was a different vehicle, a truck, that hit the police. Mr. Pusey was at this point a bystander so I'm not sure a vehicle code requirement to report an accident applied to him. The driver of the truck that hit the police would be required to report the accident.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

He had been drug-effected

Drug-Affected.

Quite the journalism.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This reminds me of the Seinfeld finale.

The guy is despicable. But I don't think that should be grounds for imprisoning someone. Just cancel him - make him a social pariah. It's crazy that this is a legal issue.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Bob Fosse

Where does it say he was charged with being an a-hole? Where?

Read the article, or scroll up in the comments. It has been pointed out (in bold, even).

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Australians only have the right to free political speech. There’s no constitutional or statutory right. We like to think we have the right but when it boils down to it we really don’t. We generally get away with saying what we like until we say something slanderous or defamatory. Even politicians who want to say something that they might otherwise be sued for do it under the protection of the Parliament where they are protected from laws surrounding slander and defamation. This guy is not protected by any right to free speech.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Sicko.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What a human garbage..

3 ( +4 / -1 )

It’s the kind of story that defines a society. Try that stunt here and he would’ve been slotted for at least 8 years. Plenty of time to dwell upon things in an environment encouraging him to reflect upon the error of his ways.

It was his choice to ingest the illegal substances that undoubtedly contributed to a chain of events that resulted in four lives ended prematurely and if justice is about making people accountable for the consequences of their choices, the judgement rendered in this case is hopelessly deficient. The headline too is problematic. With time already served, unless other charges are pursued, he’s just about due to be released into the community.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

...and that is the one some of us take issue with. Being a proverbial a-hole is not a criminal offense and should not be made into one. As others have said, if that is the case, we need a lot more prisons.

Where does it say he was charged with being an a-hole? Where?

It doesn’t.

You often ‘take issue’ with things that are not real.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Bob Fosse

Some people need to improve their reading comprehension. ONE of the charges was his commentary, yes his words,

....and that is the one some of us take issue with. Being a proverbial a-hole is not a criminal offense and should not be made into one. As others have said, if that is the case, we need a lot more prisons.

The other MULTIPLE charges were speeding, drugs and reckless conduct.

....and nobody has a problem with him being punished for those. Your point?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

He's a callous a**hole, but that isn't a crime

I agree but fortunately there were several other crimes he was found guilty of, some the same as the truck driver actually. I’d say they both appear to be criminal offenders. In fact, he is a criminal offender it’s not even an opinion at this stage.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

He was being cited for speeding. Stoned on weed & an amphetamine aka ecstasy. A drugged-up trucker crashed into two police cars, the Porsche and killed four police officers. The truck driver appears to be the criminal offender. Pusey's behavior seems similar to police officers in the 'states'. He's a callous a**hole, but that isn't a crime

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The guy was only a bystander, albeit a despicable one. If we are going to jail folks for being an R. Sole, then they better start building a lot more prisons

EXACTLY

EXACTLY wrong. He wasn’t only a bystander. He was being detained by the police who died.

Again, reading is better than parroting something someone else said was true.

There’s no point getting all worked up about media bubbles if you can be misled and take the hook so easily.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

This article refers to punishing speech.

No it isn’t. Just because he committed a crime which partially consisted of words coming out of his dumb mouth does not make this a free speech issue.

TONS of crimes involve that. Tell someone to go kill a guy for money? Ask someone to sell you heroin? Make a plan to rob a bank? All of these and many more are crimes that involve opening your mouth and words coming out of them. It would be idiotic to argue these things should all be perfectly legal based on free speech concerns.

Free speech protects ideas and their expression which are key to a democratic society. It isn’t a stupid license to commit egregious acts that happen to involve your lips moving.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Some people need to improve their reading comprehension. ONE of the charges was his commentary, yes his words,. The other MULTIPLE charges were speeding, drugs and reckless conduct.

If you thing speech isn’t a prosecutable offense try walking up to a police officer and telling them to eff off or screaming fire in a crowded building. You’ll soon learn how wrong you are.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Pathetic loser. Hopefully he won't be able to do business with anyone in the future.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

He had better make sure his rear lights are in perfect working order as I suspect he may be getting some not so random traffic stops in the future. Let's hope his face is now well known and he isn't welcomed in any bars, shops or restaurants. "Sorry mate, we don't serve your sort".

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@wakarimasen - that’s quite an insensitive remark.

There is a charge for leaving the scene of an accident but in this case he remained at the scene, fortunately for him he survived, his conduct thereafter was callous and as such the most appropriate charge was proffered.

Our nation was (rightly) outraged.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Jsapc

The most serious charge was "reckless conduct". Absolutely nothing to do with "free speech".

Did you read the article? It says "a rarely-prosecuted charge of outraging public decency over his commentary".

Commentary. Not actions, but "commentary".

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Bungle

The guy was only a bystander, albeit a despicable one. If we are going to jail folks for being an R. Sole, then they better start building a lot more prisons

EXACTLY

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

The guy was only a bystander, albeit a despicable one. If we are going to jail folks for being an R. Sole, then they better start building a lot more prisons.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Absolute vile piece of scum.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

The article is about him being sentenced for speech

Did you actually read the article?

The most serious charge he admitted was reckless conduct endangering persons, which carries a potential maximum of five years in prison.

The most serious charge was "reckless conduct". Absolutely nothing to do with "free speech".

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Wasn't sure what to think at first, but the more I read about this worthless person, the more I feel that the wife of one of the officers was correct -- 10 months is not NEARLY enough. And 22 years isn't enough for the truck driver, either,

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

brian smith

he did actually do something to cause this tragedy,,, caught driving at excess speed drugs in system and police

Different issue again. His speeding and drug use is a separate offence and separately dealt with.

This article refers to punishing speech.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Jsapc

Slippery slope to what exactly?

Slippery slope to the end of free speech? In this case we all agree he is a jerk. But where do end when you start to criminalize speech. You say the wrong words, you go to jail --- does Communist China or Nazi Germany ring a bell?

He could have helped

Different issue. The article is about him being sentenced for speech, not for actions. Of course I agree that a refusal to render assistance is a different issue.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

he did actually do something to cause this tragedy,,, caught driving at excess speed drugs in system and police pulled him over... it was while he was pulled over the truck driver also on drugs runs into the police car and puseys car.... subsequent to this horrific accident Pusey has some more drugs abuse and domestic disturbances. He is not a nice guy and deserves more time.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Nobody else sees the slippery slope here?

Slippery slope to what exactly? He could have helped but instead he chose to whip ou his camera and film dying people while insulting them. This man is pure scum. Doesn't Australia have some form of duty to rescue law?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

42years old. Unbelievable

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Lenient sentence. Unfortunately in Australia and even more so in New Zealand, judges are far too lenient in their sentencing.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Quite a fitting name if you ask me.

And I totally agree. Is being a jerk a crime nowadays? If that's the case then most famous people and politicians should be locked up!

8 ( +12 / -4 )

“Your conduct ... was heartless, cruel and disgraceful,” the judge said.

I totally agree with that. But is being a despicable character punishable by prison? He did not actually DO anything to cause their death.

Do we really want to live in a society where offensive language is a crime?

Nobody else sees the slippery slope here?

-3 ( +14 / -17 )

what a pusey!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The lucky country?

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Is there no Australian law about being required to contact authorities at the scene of an accident? Just curious.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Guy is clearly a callous, heartless SOB, but I don't see a crime here, just criminally indefensible behaviour. And if he's been sentenced to time served, he'll be out soon, anyway. Does Australia not have habeus corpus or the right to a speedy trial, or was he maybe being held for his own protection?

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

i think theym ust change the law about camera because it's personal items and use what they use for the new movies online and you can't find it and you have to buying it because they delete it automatically no need for 1 day in jail just fine 10$ its more useful and less money and less drama in crouh and helpful to have mobile with afraid about 1 mistake and you will sleep at jail

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

Pusey, who avoided injury because he had been urinating behind roadside bushes at the time

Are you allowed to do that while pulled over? IMO, He shouldn't be driving for rest of his life, 2 years is too short.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Pusey will encounter Karma before long.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

sometime camera kill you , sometimes heal you

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

What a tragedy all around.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites