Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Knuckleheads knuckled - slight tiff at the Pines.

Winston Smith

4-May-2009
3:04:38 PM

On 3/05/2009 Bam Bam wrote:
>all this shit about CJ and whether or not he has a mental illness is irrelevant.
>the real issue is that 2 climbers from NSW, after having had a verbal altercation
>with said team tassie and co, returned with mallets and proceeded without
>warning to hit two people in the head. one was hit square from behind,
>while the other received a blow not far above his eye. regardless of the
>appropriateness of their noise (which I personally have no issue with)
>grug and john a lucky they weren't killed. both required visits to horsham
>hospital after the scuffle that ensued. Why are you not bitching and moaning
>about these C@%TS who have maliciously attacked two defenseless (one had
>a guitar so i guess he had a chance right?) people, furthermore fellow
>climbers? Get real, get over your whinging about people playing guitar
>or getting drunk, and contemplate the fact that these guys were attacked
>and lucky to not have more serious injuries.
>
>Note. - I was not there. However have spoken with several people who were
>involved and independent witnesses. The police report no doubt has the
>same info, including the rego plate of the fleeing skum.

A typical Chockstone expert: has an opinion about everything yet knows nothing specific about the matter at hand.

The true story: knuckleheads got knuckled.

End of story.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

4-May-2009
3:41:38 PM

On 4/05/2009 orwell wrote:
>A typical Chockstone expert: has an opinion about everything yet knows
>nothing specific about the matter at hand.
>

Though they know (and are quick to share), more and more about less and less until they end up knowing nothing about everything and everything about nothing.
Heh, heh, uhuh?

grangrump

4-May-2009
3:52:51 PM

So should this go on The Australian Accident Register?
http://www.accidentregister.info/


..::- Chris -::..

4-May-2009
4:16:56 PM

On 4/05/2009 nmonteith wrote:
>On 4/05/2009 JimboV10 wrote:
>>All this is another reason why the Grampians is better than Araps....
>
>Agreed!

Starting to look that way, I was at Araps on the weekend and i'm starting to notice everything getting messier... Bottle of water left at the bottem of one cliff, musli bar wrappers at another and the mens toilets looking worse than the toilets at Bridey O'reiley's at 1am on grandfinal night ; )
A bit sad.... sigh...

The cliffs still climb well though ; )

C. : )

Wendy

4-May-2009
4:28:39 PM

So Crazy John is (as he describes himself) a bit crazy, indulges in excessive drinking, has a warped sense of humour, is terribly badly behaved when it comes to women and generally irreverent all of which I could see easily lead to heated confrontations, not so social behaviour and often not to everyone's taste. But in my experience he has also always been very friendly, happy to see you, generally has a big grin on his face and is as excited to hear about what you have been doing as he is to tell you about what he's been doing.

I'm perplexed out how this diverted into a slagging at him for being excited about sending Serpentine! Really, don't we all get excited when we get a project, and who cares how many people might have done it before us?? It's a famous and spectacular climb and hardly an easy one, let him have his jollies about it.

So John and friends were having a rowdy late night singalong. Maybe not the most prosocial behaviour in the world. Maybe he didn't respond well to being asked to quieten down (I believe the asshole song was part of the reponse). But none of this is criminal behaviour. Assaulting people and property with a mallet is criminal behaviour and I'm wondering how they went about asking John to quieten down when their plan B is to pull out a hammer and if they also fed the confrontation in that initial interaction. There are acceptable ways and means of dealing with things you are unhappy about and they don't involve beating people up. The antisocial behaviour seems to be well spread in this incident.

Ps, yes John's vas deferens are on display for all to see on Youtube. Quite why, I don't know, but I guess it's a sure way of convincing a girl you have had it done.

simey

4-May-2009
4:51:47 PM

On 4/05/2009 orwell wrote:
>The true story: knuckleheads got knuckled.
>
>End of story.

Sounds like you know the people who initiated the assualt.

Personally I don't have a problem with a bit of biffo, but I reckon that king-hitting someone from behind with a mallet is pretty ordinary.

I think your mates should watch themselves in the future.

Winston Smith

4-May-2009
5:17:09 PM

On 4/05/2009 simey wrote:
>Sounds like you know the people who initiated the assualt.
>
>Personally I don't have a problem with a bit of biffo, but I reckon that
>king-hitting someone from behind with a mallet is pretty ordinary.
>
>I think your mates should watch themselves in the future.

I repeat: A typical Chockstone expert: has an opinion about everything yet knows nothing specific about the matter at hand.
>
>

simey

4-May-2009
5:29:15 PM

Actually I have a pretty good understanding of the matter at hand.

psd

4-May-2009
5:34:03 PM

I didn't see it but I heard every word and Bam Bam's description is not the way the incident was described by the guys that got beaten up as they chatted to their mates 5 minutes after it happened or how they described it to the cops - sounds like the story has grown in the telling. I reckon Orwell is about spot on.

Winston Smith

4-May-2009
5:42:49 PM

On 4/05/2009 simey wrote:
>Actually I have a pretty good understanding of the matter at hand.

It's a pity that the self-opinionated members of Chockstone are happy to open fire on people without any FIRST-HAND knowledge of what went on.

With a police investigation underway it really is hard to understand why people feel that they can take such liberties with regard to asserting what happened.

I can remember a number of matters in the recent past where Chockstoners were asked to respect the legal aspects of alleged incidents and this was duly obeyed.

The same should apply here.


hangdog

4-May-2009
7:12:17 PM

>With a police investigation underway it really is hard to understand why
>people feel that they can take such liberties with regard to asserting
>what happened.
>
You have been watching too many cop shows. People are allowed to assert whatever they want. Thats why its called Liberty

grego

4-May-2009
7:36:50 PM

I was in a tent about 10 metres or so from these guys. It was impossible to sleep. I was appreciative at
the time that someone put an end to it.

Sorry all of you who sympathise with CJ and his mates, but in my opinion they completely asked for it.

And they all got out climbing the next day. So i think the main thing that got hurt was their egos.


nmonteith

4-May-2009
9:41:58 PM

On 4/05/2009 grego wrote:
>And they all got out climbing the next day. So i think the main thing
>that got hurt was their egos.

so why did anyone call the Police?

Winston Smith

4-May-2009
9:45:39 PM

On 4/05/2009 hangdog wrote:

>>
>>You have been watching too many cop shows. People are allowed to assert
>whatever they want. Thats why its called Liberty.

Great point hangdog.

Absolute insight and a clarity of vision that leaves me gasping for air.

Aside from libel and slander laws which prevent people from writing or saying what they want about people you're absolutely correct that people can say whatever they want about people - except if they're one of the people allegedly involved in an incident that is the subject of a police investigation...

My point is that the views and opinions being spouted by people who have no idea what happened (you) can't be rebutted by those of us who actually know what happened (me) because whatever we say may legal ramifications if the matter comes to court.

Obviously some of those involved have had a say but once again it may or may not have an impact on the investigation.

By all means those who have no idea what happened can continue to rant and rave and claim insight into the whole episode.

That's free speech, liberty, call it what you will.

If I didn't believe in it I wouldn't be a member of this forum.


Zebedee

4-May-2009
10:37:30 PM

When you indulge in antisocial behaviour it is only a matter of time till you find some one willing to indulge in even more antisocial behaviour. Like dogs descending on uncovered meat so your mallet wielders fall upon late night revellers. Not that I condone any behaviour or action involved in this incidence. Like the Egyptians killing all their pigs as a response to the H1N1 2009 flu, it's horrible but you kinda gotta laugh.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

4-May-2009
10:51:45 PM

On 4/05/2009 orwell wrote:
>people can say whatever they want about people - except if they're one of the people allegedly involved in an incident that is the subject of a police investigation...

>My point is that the views and opinions being spouted by people who have
>no idea what happened (you) can't be rebutted by those of us who actually
>know what happened (me) because whatever we say may legal ramifications
>if the matter comes to court.

Hmm. Interesting point of view.

I would have thought that the scene would go more like this ...

Alleged incident takes place and police are informed of the matter.
Police attend and interview as many victims/witnesses as they can find, and also the offender/s if they have not de-camped.
Police make a judgment on whether or not an offence has taken place.
If 'yes' to last, then statements are obtained from all parties available.
The matter is further investigated, ie statements required/obtained from alleged offenders once tracked down.
Offender/s charged or subpoena/summons to appear at court to have the matter dealt with. This possibly also applies to witnesses if they are considered 'hostile'/unreliable re turning up at court.

~> but here is the rub; The witness/es are not issued a subpoena to attend court unless the prosecution determines that they are required, and all other conversation (like on Chockstone), is regarded as hearsay evidence and is not allowable as evidence at court; ~ (libel and slander issues notwithstanding), due this being a civil action that may take place post any criminal proceedings.

In my opinion you can go ahead and 'rebutt' all you like, once you have given your statement to police ...


muki

4-May-2009
11:04:50 PM

On 4/05/2009 orwell wrote:

>Aside from libel and slander laws which prevent people from writing or
>saying what they want about people you're absolutely correct that people
>can say whatever they want about people - except if they're one of the
>people allegedly involved in an incident that is the subject of a police
>investigation...

No police investigation is underway at the moment because all charges for the assault have been
dropped by John and Grug, pretty big of them considering that they were well within their rights to
charge these criminals.
Yes criminals who violently attacked them with hammers, considered lethal weapons in a court of law.

>My point is that the views and opinions being spouted by people who have
>no idea what happened (you) can't be rebutted by those of us who actually
>know what happened (me) because whatever we say may legal ramifications
>if the matter comes to court.

were you a friend of the attackers ? a simple yes or no will do, I noticed you didn't answer that
question when asked earlier in the thread, if yes then your bias is clearly evident.

>Obviously some of those involved have had a say but once again it may
>or may not have an impact on the investigation.
>
>By all means those who have no idea what happened can continue to rant
>and rave and claim insight into the whole episode.

from an independent witness: not one of the party guests, but sitting out at the next camp site.

"CJ, Grug and crew were partying after having sent their proj and they were all a bit drunk, but it's OK.
When these pommy guys turn up and demand that they shut the F%#@ UP or else.
So being drunk and not liking the attitude given to them they play it up and start singing louder and
playing the arss hole song.
Then these guys come back with a few extra crew from the Blueys and just start swinging with
hammers, one was a metal lump hammer and the other was a plastic double ended job like they use in
wood carving, they just bashed Grug from behind where he sat playing, and then John jumped up and
he copped one to the head, but got up and it all ended up on the ground rolling around while I just
watched Horrified and unbelieving ! It spun the whole campground out for a few days.
Mind you the pricks who did the bashing f#@ked off pretty quick cos the cops had the name of one of
them that went to hospital afterwards, they packed up first light and scarpered."

>That's free speech, liberty, call it what you will.

I feel that the violent and brutal attack on a fellow climber... no matter how drunk or annoying he is, is
illegal, stupid, and reckless, if they had actually done any permanent harm to either CJ or Grug then
we would definitely be looking at a criminal investigation leading to charges laid in court and then jail.
As it turns out CJ is not pressing charges because there has never been a crime that lead to charges
being laid at the pines in relation to climbers, if this occurred it would trickle down the line leading no
doubt to extra enforcement, more regulation, (look at camp 4 in the ditch) and a change in the vibe.

I saw CJ's head wound a few days later, it saddened and disgusted me to think that a fellow climber
had done such a heinous act, whatever your relationship with these climbers is orwell, you can't say
that people must obey the law and not talk about it on one hand.... and ignore the assault with
grievous bodily harm that occurred on the other.

>If I didn't believe in it I wouldn't be a member of this forum.

rolsen1

4-May-2009
11:17:17 PM

I agree with.......Muki

There is no way you can justify any act of violence.


Zebedee

4-May-2009
11:22:15 PM

I know you have me blocked 'bummer probe' but seriously if people keep pushing their selfish behaviour then eventually they will meet someone willing to push back.Two cŭnts don’t make a right but they do make a fight. Sort of inevitable but not desirable.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

4-May-2009
11:23:42 PM

bomber pro wrote;
>No police investigation is underway at the moment because all charges for the assault have been dropped by John a Grug, pretty big of them considering that they were well within their rights to charge these criminals.

Hmm.
If this is a 'reality' then it is different to NSW law, as the way I understand it, NSW police are obliged to act if they determine that an offence has been committed, irrespective of the wishes of a complainant/victim to not proceed or otherwise.
From the sounds of it, if this had occurred in NSW then John/Grug would have had no choice in the matter.

There are 194 messages in this topic.