[Confirmed] Russell Packer -->Not the Broncos

[Cult]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

So port you know for a fact that packer wanted to kill him?

This here is my point. Port, you have no idea what he was trying to achieve. The cheek bones could very well have been broken by the punches and the stomp/kick could have been a push with the bottom of the foot, for all we know?

 

[Sproj]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

I haven't read the while thread but do agree with those saying if he does some kind of Carney rehabilitation and turns his life around and shows he wants to work hard for an opportunity rather than just get handed a contract upon release, I am ok with him getting a second chance in the future but not next year and certainly not with us.

 

[Splinter]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

You didn't address all of my post! :thefinger:

You're again ignoring the victim in all of this. Why should he/she be subject to his/her attacker parading on TV, playing professional sports and earning a big wage (which he would still do on a minimal contract) and living a privileged life?

You're arguing about the possibility of killing someone, versus a deliberate attempt to do so, which are two completely different things.
It doesn't matter who the victim is, but when the actions are similar, then doing it to a pregnant woman is much worse than doing it to a bloke of course.
As far as I know, Lui's actions never put his wife's life in danger. It's not remotely close to what Packer did!

Regardless, I feel the same way about Lui being in the NRL... it's disgusting.


Yeah I know you didn't. I was giving an example of what constitutes attenuating factors and what doesn't...

I'm not going to speculate about what he tried to use as a defense, especially when it was conveniently out of camera range. I'll stick only to the facts reported in court, and the decisions made based on those...

What makes you think that someone capable of what he did, is not at risk of re-offending the next time he has too many drinks, especially in an environment such as the NRL?

Not one part of me thinks that he will not reoffend at some stage. He has anger management issues

 

[Splinter]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

This here is my point. Port, you have no idea what he was trying to achieve. The cheek bones could very well have been broken by the punches and the stomp/kick could have been a push with the bottom of the foot, for all we know?

He most probably wasn't thinking much in his drunken stupor

 

[Cult]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

Yes, when he stomped on his head, that's exactly what he tried to do. The fact he "only had" two fractured cheekbones has absolutely nothing to do with it. Had the blow come at a different angle or on a different spot, we would be talking far worse that a couple of broken cheekbones, which btw, is not that easy to achieve either!

If he did attempt to murder this person then why was he not locked up for attempted murder?

 

[Foordy]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

If he did attempt to murder this person then why was he not locked up for attempted murder?

there are many reason why the didn't go with attempted Murder...

maybe they thought it was just better to get him off the streets ... even if it was for only a year.

i'm no expert by any means, but maybe thety were concerned about the alcohol factor, minimising intent.

there could be many factors that go into deciding what to charge a person with.

but IMO, stomping on an unconcious persons head says (to me at least) that, he wanted to kill him. what other reason could there be for stomping on an unconcious persons head

 

[Porthoz]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

So port you know for a fact that packer wanted to kill him?

Yeah mate, I was there at the time, and I can read minds! :rolleyes:

The action in itself tells me that was the intent. What else are you trying to do when you stomp on someone's head under those circumstances (him standing with the victim laying down).
What would you associate that action with?
[MENTION=8468]Cult3[/MENTION], please read the thread for your answer.
[MENTION=8219]Splinter[/MENTION], it surprises me even more that even suspecting he will probably lose control again, you're still okay for him to be allowed back in the NRL.

 

[Splinter]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

Yeah mate, I was there at the time, and I can read minds! :rolleyes:

The action in itself tells me that was the intent. What else are you trying to do when you stomp on someone's head under those circumstances (him standing with the victim laying down).
What would you associate that action with?
@Cult3, please read the thread for your answer.
@Splinter, it surprises me even more that even suspecting he will probably lose control again, you're still okay for him to be allowed back in the NRL.

Worded it wrong what I meant is that I have no idea but there is that risk as there is with any other violent person

 

[Porthoz]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

Worded it wrong what I meant is that I have no idea but there is that risk as there is with any other violent person

Doesn't change the outcome, or my question! :wink:

 

[Splinter]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

FTR I am certain if Hook was still our coach next year we would not even be on this topic but with WB taking over I am unsure as to whether he would consider it.
I am not sure about the board either as they went to great lengths to get WB here, would they veto his first request if he did put it forward.

 

[Splinter]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

Doesn't change the outcome, or my question! :wink:

If you go back to my early posts I clearly stated I was torn over Packer because of his past. Simply because I believe we need a big aggressive prop forward.
Ideally for me it would be someone else but there are not too many on the market that fit this mould.
I do believe it is time for Hannant to go and we find a replacement who worries other forward packs but that may take at least another 12 months.
If you want a definitive answer on the spot I would say no to Packer but still believe people need a second chance once they have served their sentence

 

[broncos4life]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

Yeah mate, I was there at the time, and I can read minds! :rolleyes:

Well mate I am just trying to understand what you are saying.

Your saying that you know packer intended to kill him because that act has the potential to kill someone.

Yet, for example, you are saying you know lui DIDN'T intend to kill his girlfriend even though his act also had the potential to kill.

Unless he confessed that he wanted to kill him no one knows. The fact that he had the guy in a position that he could have very easily killed him but the guy is alive suggests maybe he didn't intend to kill him

 

[1910]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

So port you know for a fact that packer wanted to kill him?

Does it matter? Point is he carried out an action where death was a very real possibility. If I speed past a school at 160 drunk at 3pm my intention might not be to kill people but you've taken that option on by your actions.

 

[Bucking Beads]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

Well mate I am just trying to understand what you are saying.

Your saying that you know packer intended to kill him because that act has the potential to kill someone.

Yet, for example, you are saying you know lui DIDN'T intend to kill his girlfriend even though his act also had the potential to kill.

Unless he confessed that he wanted to kill him no one knows. The fact that he had the guy in a position that he could have very easily killed him but the guy is alive suggests maybe he didn't intend to kill him

Why are you trying so hard to defend a piece of shit like Packer??

 

[broncos4life]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

Does it matter? Point is he carried out an action where death was a very real possibility. If I speed past a school at 160 drunk at 3pm my intention might not be to kill people but you've taken that option on by your actions.

Read the thread before you come in and pick off one post out of context

 

[1910]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

This here is my point. Port, you have no idea what he was trying to achieve. The cheek bones could very well have been broken by the punches and the stomp/kick could have been a push with the bottom of the foot, for all we know?

Except we've seen the footage and know he didn't rest his foot on his head and you don't think trauma doctors know what injury came from what blow.

Footage and evidence have played a part in this verdict!

 

[1910]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

Read the thread before you come in and pick off one post out of context

Not out of context at all, you said it. If you aren't standing by your statement then say that. My reply is exactly the same as what someone else has made a few comments up.

 

[1910]

re: [Confirmed] Russell Packer --> Panthers

Yeah mate, I was there at the time, and I can read minds! :rolleyes:

The action in itself tells me that was the intent. What else are you trying to do when you stomp on someone's head under those circumstances (him standing with the victim laying down).
What would you associate that action with?
@Cult3 , please read the thread for your answer.
@Splinter , it surprises me even more that even suspecting he will probably lose control again, you're still okay for him to be allowed back in the NRL.

Your reply is out of context apparently.