0
I must say I found the tone of many of the comments in this thread disturbingly puritanical and slavish to the idea that the 'authorities' are always in the right, and that 'rule' of law must be be followed in any circumstances.
Let's look at the facts as we can deduce them:
1. James O'Connor was out on the Gold Coast and was apparently (according to him) involved in an attack by someone else to which he did not retaliate.
2. As is always the case when there is a fight in a club, the bouncers threw all parties out regardless of blame (ostensibly beacue they don't want any problems and are usually incapable of conducting any kind of investigation because 1. they can't concentrate because of the speed and steroids in their system and 2. they usually have an IQ of around 80.
3. He was told by the police to leave the area.
4. He could not get a taxi.
5. If I read rightly he then entered another club, and was kicked out? of there and arrested by the police for not following their earlier directive.
A couple of points to consider:
1. He had every right to feel outraged at being kicked out of the first club in the first place considering he had done nothing worng, indeed had acted admirably in not retaliating to the attack.
2. What right do the police have to force a private citizen to leave a public area when they have committed no crime? This is the arbitrary application of power by police probably not much older than James himself, and he could quite rightly feel it grossly unfair (BTW- In my experience the IQ comment above proably apply to the police involved as well if they are anything like WA). Nevertheless, by all accounts he DID actually try to leave, but could not get a taxi.
3. OK- what does he do now. If I were in that position, I would say- Well, I feel I have been treated unfairly. I can't get out of the area. If I just go into another club and stay out of trouble I'll be fine and can enjoy my evening like planned and as I feel I should be able. From this point we don't know what happened (whether the police followed him in or what, but we should not prejudge that he committed some further 'offence' necessarily.
The assertions by some in this thread that they have been drunk out in public and never got into any trouble with the police and therefore anybody who does is automatically guilty is ludicrous and the kind of attitude not out of place in McCarthy's crusade or the courts of Salem.
As a victim of just that kind of arbitrary police and bouncer treatment in my younger days (and I promise I am not anything like a trouble-maker), I can assure you that it occurs very regularly. Indeed in my case, I was targeted by police because (indicated by their actual comments) I was from a private school. In James OC's case it is EXTREMELY likely that at least one if not all of the cops/bouncers recognised who he was (he was just after all made the youngest Wallaby in modern history). If so they might unfairly target him either just because he was famous or perhaps even because he is a Queenslander now playing in Perth. Perhaps not, but who knows?!
The point is that as long as someone in a uniform or with a bouncers tag around their neck says somone's been naughty, some seem to automatically presume them guilty until proven otherwise rather than the other way around. I think this is a disturbing trend that has developed in Australian society and seemingly within some of the members of this site.
One last point:
TOCC- your logic seems to be that James O'Connor, who was attacked and then did NOT retaliate, somehow acted in a way that was less desirable and honourable than someone who leapt into a fight he was not involved in and managed to escape.... Bizarre logic, not in keeping with your otherwise puritanical comments and for mine discredits anything you have to say on this topic.