With all the hoo-hah about footballers giving the code a bad name, why is Rex Hunt still on the air? Surely an ex-cop would know how to handle this situation properly.

...Media personality Rex Hunt has claimed he acted in self-defence in a confrontation with a cyclist last July.

Rex Hunt found guilty of cyclist attack charge

http://www.theage.com.au/national/rex-hunt-found-guilty-of-cyclist-attack-charge-20090508-axd5.html

Media personality and football commentator Rex Hunt has been found guilty of recklessly causing injury after a road-rage confrontation with a cyclist in Melbourne.

Cyclist tells court of Rex Hunt attack

http://www.theage.com.au/national/cyclist-tells-court-of-rex-hunt-attack-20090507-awqx.html

Veteran 3AW football commentator Rex Hunt has been accused of pinning a cyclist against a parked car with his four-wheel-drive, grabbing him in a bear hug and breaking his finger in a "scary" confrontation on a bayside road.

"The first thought that came into my mind was that I was going to be cut in half," Rodney Andonopoulos told the Melbourne Magistrates Court yesterday about the alleged attack on July 26 last year in Elwood.

The media personality and former policeman was driving in Ormond Esplanade when he allegedly cut off Mr Andonopoulos and pinned him to a car parked on the side of the road.

The court heard that Hunt, 60, later stopped, got out of his car and tried to stop Mr Andonopoulos riding past by grabbing him in a bear hug.

In the police interview played to the court, Hunt said a group of cyclists egged on Mr Andonopoulos during the scuffle.

Under cross-examination, he denied he had invented the group, after prosecutor Senior Constable Mark van Suylen said no witnesses had told of the group.

Rex Hunt is a buffoon who kisses fish..what can you expect  ?..If he french kissed a fish or somehow inappropriately fondled it ?..

to make anyone care, thats what it would take...

Pure conjecture on my part, but the subject of social misconduct on the part of celebrities in general seems like it might be a social issue in the making.

I am inclined to take a rather more serious view of the assault conviction against Rex Hunt than I am over the furore surrounding Mathew Johns.

Johns was not convicted of any crime.

Hunt has been.

Yet Johns has been abandoned and hung out to dry by his employers and even many of his so-called 'mates."

As Freediver has observed, Rex Hunt is a former Police Officer, so I think that the public have a reasonable right to expect that he would know how to conduct himself with greater restraint and display greater and respect for the law.

Quote:

As Freediver has observed, Rex Hunt is a former Police Officer, so I think that the public have a reasonable right to expect that he would know how to conduct himself with greater restraint and display greater and respect for the law.

Since when do people join th police force so that they may better follow the law?
They join it to be the law.

Rex Hunt used to be a Police officer..most likely enjoys being a civilian . Just because one used to do a job of work doesnt mean they have to up hold the code forever, nor would they want too.

Many who leave jobs that dont suit them do so forever because they couldnt stomach it for whatever reason.

Im thinking Police are the law yes..unfortunately some go into the job to be even bigger more powerful arseholes.

Cops do a job I wouldnt touch tho..we had a crash here 2 days ago..a car full of young men [15-24] slammed into a tree estimated going at about 180 ks...4 killed instantly and one in a crtitical condition in Adelaide as I type...alcohol and drugs of course. The cops are always the first on the scene at most accidents ... I couldnt do it.

Amadd.

You write:

Quote.

"Since when do people join th police force so that they may better follow the law?
They join it to be the law."

End Quote.

A good point Amadd.

There are, as in all professions, righteous coppers who do an honest job and corrupt bastards whose excesses put the public off side.

However, there is just "something about" policing just as there is about any other job which promises maximum authority over others with minimum indepedant scrutiny which attracts an inordinate number of bullies.

Ocean.

Unless Rex Hunt served in the Armed Forces he was ALWAYS a civilian!

If you are not a serving member of your country's military, then Police Officer or no, you ARE a bloody civilian!

Yes I know.

There are MANY civilian Public Servants who occassionally need to be be reminded of this inconvenient little detail.

However, it has long been a source of some concern to me as to how many serving and even retired cops whom I have met who behave as if they were above the law.

Quote:

Rex Hunt used to be a Police officer..most likely enjoys being a civilian . Just because one used to do a job of work doesnt mean they have to up hold the code forever, nor would they want too.

It does mean that he can't plead ignorance. It means that he can't be taken seriously when claiming (as he did) that he acted in self defence. It means that as a public figure, he should be held to a higher standard on this issue than other public figures. I am not suggesting that the courts of law apply a different standard too him than a civilian. But at the very least, the media could apply the same standard to him that they do to footballers. There is something seriously wrong with our society when we start expecting higher standards of ex-footballers than ex-cops. An ex-footballer got the sack from his media job over an incident in which charges were not even laid. An ex-cop keeps his media job despite an actual conviction for a violent offence. Do you think this is right? Is it merely because we are so uptight over sexual misconduct, but don't blink an eye in the face of violent thugs?


Quote:

Many who leave jobs that dont suit them do so forever because they couldnt stomach it for whatever reason.

I would expect Rex left because he got too slow. So you are right that he couldn't 'stomach' it.

He is human, albeit one overly impressed with his own importance, but that said, the lycra clad loon on the bike deserved more than a brokem finger, he would have got a kick in the knackers too if he behaved to me, in the way he did to rex hunt.

These clowns ride four and five abreast, or just in the middle of the road by themselves, relishing their right to block motorists, and all the wankers probably drive cars too, they just go into feral cyclist mode when the lycra constricts flow to their nads.

Texhnically he broke the law, but the provocation from the cyclist would have been hard to handle, by any reasonable person, and as one who has met hunt privately, he is pretty much an average joe, when he is not in TV personality mode.

Provacation is only one of the "general defences" under criminal law.

Self-defence is another such general defence.

Rex Hunt pleaded self-defence..... and lost.

Yes. - I have met and been damnably aggravated by lycra clad and frequently foul mouthed cyclist types.

However, I have yet to use a 4-WD to restrain one against another vehicle and thence inflict what sounds suspiciously like "a spot of the old summary punishment."

With regard to Rex Hunt, Freediver wrote:

Quote.

"I am not suggesting that the courts of law apply a different standard too him than a civilian. But at the very least, the media could apply the same standard to him that they do to footballers."

End Quote.

Seems only fair to me.

Freediver also writes:

Quote.

"There is something seriously wrong with our society when we start expecting higher standards of ex-footballers than ex-cops."

End Quote.

Yes there is.

However what about the standards that apply to SERVING cops!

Freediver adds:

Quote.

"An ex-footballer got the sack from his media job over an incident in which charges were not even laid. An ex-cop keeps his media job despite an actual conviction for a violent offence. Do you think this is right?"

End Quote.

No it isn't right.

Johns, as I stated earlier, commited NO crime!!

Rex Hunt has been PROVEN guilty of a violent criminal offence!!

YET.

Johns becomes the scapegoat for the NFL and loses his job admidst much public gloating, while people are saying that instead of breaking an obnoxious cyclists finger, Rex hunt should have rearanged his victims courting tackle!

Gee! - Pity Rexy doesn't carry a gun and a badge anymore. :'(

If he was still a cop maybe he could have murdered the guy. ::)

(Awwww....C'mon! ;D ... The dick must have deserved it! - He "PROVOKED" an ex-cop)!!! >:(

Freediver concludes:

Quote.

"Is it merely because we are so uptight over sexual misconduct, but don't blink an eye in the face of violent thugs?"

End Quote.

An interesting question Freediver.

I wish I had an equally interesting answer.

But yes.

I think that as a society we are far more tolerant of overt thuggery than we are of sexual misconduct.

Even when the latter manifests in itself in relatively minor forms.

Great comments Warrigal.
You can also insert quotes by typing [ q u o t e ]    [ / q u o t e ] - but without the spaces.

Yes I think the police need to be reminded that they are in fact civilians. But it won't be the government authorities who do the reminding when it doesn't concern themselves. And it probably won't be the general public either without the help of the media.


Quote:

If he (Hunt) was still a cop maybe he could have murdered the guy.

...and all with public's (media's) blessing.
Doesn't anybody get taught the "sticks and stones" saying anymore?

The Warrigal wrote on May 23^rd, 2009 at 7:58pm:

... However, there is just "something about" policing just as there is about any other job which promises maximum authority over others with minimum indepedant scrutiny which attracts an inordinate number of bullies.

I'd say some join force to abuse it.

Quote:

These clowns ride four and five abreast, or just in the middle of the road by themselves, relishing their right to block motorists, and all the wankers probably drive cars too, they just go into feral cyclist mode when the lycra constricts flow to their nads.

I ride in the middle of the lane Mozz. Contrary to what some motorists think, a lane is not big enough for both a car and a bike. I have been clipped by ignorant drivers before. When there is enough space on the side of the road, I pull over. When it is not, I make sure motorists realise this too. This is actually recommended in cycling literature from public institutions. I certainly do not relish the fact that I am holding people up. I am just trying to get to work in one piece. And yes I also drive a car. Why is that such a big deal? And no, I don't wear lycra. Cyclists have every right to be angry with the way some motorists put their lives at risk to save a second or two. I have given a few motorists the finger. I would have given a few words to some also, but mostly they end up driving off without realising they nearly killed someone.

But whatever disagreements you have with other road users, assaulting them and breaking bones is absurdly over-the-top. To suggest that Rex was 'provoked' into the assault misrepresents the values and standards of modern Australian society. That's why even Rex's lawyer could not bring himself to use the provocation defence - and this is the same guy who tried to argue it was self defence.

freediver wrote on May 24^th, 2009 at 9:22pm:

... motorists ... mostly they end up driving off without realising they nearly killed someone.

This is scary bit, and hard to imagine any workable solution with so many arogant inconsiderate road users on both sides of the argument.

I think cyclists should not use the same roadspace as motorists..roads were built for cars etc..not bike riders..use roads at your own risk as a cyclist..

I was parked one day waiting to turn left and a cyclist with lenses coke bottle thick slammed straight into the side of my car, he ended up sprawled on my bonnet , practically eye to eye with me .. he was not fit to be on the road and most likely had caused accidents before. He had on his helmet, riding gear the lot, but was as blind as a  bat.. dickhead. If I had killed him/or he hurt himself when he hit my car... it would have been my fault.. >:(

You have to pass stringents tests to drive car..a cyclist only as to choose which bike he likes from the sportstore and he can terrorise any amount of motorist he so chooses..

Unless there are specific bike lanes stay off the roads..
The road is not a safe place for a cyclist..so stay off.  ::)

Rex Hunt should be given a medal for keeping that scambag cyclist off the road at least for few days. However it would be better if Rex had broken the scambag's leg because it surely would keep the cyclist off the road for longer.

If cyclists want the same rights on road as motorists they should pass knowledge test and pay for license and rego like everyone else.

Quote:

I was parked one day waiting to turn left and a cyclist with lenses coke bottle thick slammed straight into the side of my car, he ended up sprawled on my bonnet , practically eye to eye with me ..

That was Sprint!!  ;)

But the point is, there are also laws for cyclists on the road. There was no need for Hunt (or anybody else) to take the law into his own hands.

Amadd wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 10:11am:

Quote: I was parked one day waiting to turn left and a cyclist with lenses coke bottle thick slammed straight into the side of my car, he ended up sprawled on my bonnet , practically eye to eye with me .. That was Sprint!!  ;) But the point is, there are also laws for cyclists on the road. There was no need for Hunt (or anybody else) to take the law into his own hands.

I thought he looked familiar..

But as for Hunt..he is human and we all lose our composure from time to time.

He was just plain aggressive - an essential characteristic of a hunter or fisherman.

He was assaultive, legally and morally in the wrong Mantra.

Cute of you to say that such behaviour is a result of his being a fishing enthusiast.

And even cuter when you are on record elsewhere n this Forum as saying that you endorse torture.

Do you also approve of violence and property destruction for people who disagree with you?

I was only making a little joke Warrigal. I'm sure not all fisherman and hunters are aggressive - but Hunt's actions do not surprise me.

As far as endorsing torture - I believe in karma, but it would give me and I'm sure many others a little satisfaction to see these people get a taste of the suffering they inflicted on their child.  Hopefully the prison system will ensure this happens eventually.


Quote:

Do you also approve of violence and property destruction for people who disagree with you?

The silliness and irrelevance of that question doesn't warrant an answer.  ::)

As you are what seems to be the resident expert all things silly and irrelevant Manta, I must conceed to your greater experience in these matters.

The Warrigal wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 7:16pm:

As you are what seems to be the resident expert all things silly and irrelevant Manta, I must conceed to your greater experience in these matters.

Do you feel better now that you've spat that out Warrigal? You asked a ridiculous question.  You dragged a comment of mine on one distressing incident to another thread indicating it was a doctrine of mine and then by inference questioned whether I was a vandal.

Was I supposed to take your comments seriously?

Troll, troll, troll your boat Mantra. ;D

You leave no doubt as to who the troll here is Warrigal and you started off so politely. Pity.

Once again I genuflect to your greater experience. ;)

Seriously however, I am prepared to start over as if nothing had happened.

And I am capable of it.

Are you equally so?

And being sincere about it?

If so, PM me and I shall be glad to compare notes on matters in concerning our differing "demoinations" of environmentalism which by rights should not derail other threads.

Regards,

Warrigal

Warrigal - I don't hold grudges and I am always sincere. You are forgiven - just don't tread on my toes again.  :)

Thank you Mantra.

Please respect my toes also! :)

Hunt was clearly in the wrong, you do not get to hurt someone just because they annoy you.

As for cyclists, if they have a legal right to use the road,  you have to obey the road rules and so do they.

Full agreement with the above Kytro.

A motor vehicle when used with intent to intimidate, - (as Hunt used his 4-WD), - or to injure, as some more serious "road rage" offenders have done, is a deadly weapon by ANY legal standard.

And what you say is true.

Love or hate cyclists, they have as much right to use our public roadways as motor vehicle drivers do.

PS.

For the record I am not a cyclist, nor at present, do I own any private transport.

Quote:

I think cyclists should not use the same roadspace as motorists..roads were built for cars etc..not bike riders..use roads at your own risk as a cyclist..

What do you suggest they do instead mantra?


Quote:

You have to pass stringents tests to drive car..a cyclist only as to choose which bike he likes from the sportstore and he can terrorise any amount of motorist he so chooses.

Did you really feel terrorised mantra?

No - I don't feel terrorised by cyclists, although I'm very cautious when I see one. Generally they seem careful enough and I see no reason why they shouldn't share the road if they follow the road rules.

Personally I think they're very brave - or stupid. They leave themselves vulnerable and exposed.

And FD - I didn't make the above statements. You've got me mixed up with someone else.

he's always doing that mantra..he calls me mantra all the time..

And I [ myself being oceanz/AG]suggest they use bike access roads..  if theyre isnt one..use the road at your own risk...some motorists cant see-hear/dont care/and are simply careless..take your own safety in your own hands when using a road..a helmet isnt going to give you any protection if a car swipes you...and be aware many motorists are stressed and if your just one more annoyance at the end of a long shi tty day..you may get yelled at.     :'(  

vigorously!!

Why shouldn't anyone use a cyclist's bicycle though the did not pay for it?

OK then Oceans, did you really feel terrorised?


Quote:

And I [ myself being oceanz/AG]suggest they use bike access roads..  if theyre isnt one..use the road at your own risk...

Are you suggesting that motorists bear no responsibility for the safety of other road users? That they should be so free to rule the roads that the government must build a completely separate network for cyclists before they can get around safely?


Quote:

you may get yelled at.     Cry   vigorously!!

Are you aware the Rex broke the guy's finger?

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2009 at 9:31pm:

OK then Oceans, did you really feel terrorised? Quote: And I [ myself being oceanz/AG]suggest they use bike access roads..  if theyre isnt one..use the road at your own risk... Are you suggesting that motorists bear no responsibility for the safety of other road users? That they should be so free to rule the roads that the government must build a completely separate network for cyclists before they can get around safely? [quote]you may get yelled at.     Cry   vigorously!!

Are you aware the Rex broke the guy's finger?[/quote]

aaww diddums FD..my son broke his finger last week in a school yard scrap [fifth metascarpel ]..he has a cast on right now...such is life!!!  Maybe he will learn not to piss off Rexy boy next time.

Tell us about how you felt terrorised by the cyclist oceans.

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2009 at 8:13pm:

Tell us about how you felt terrorised by the cyclist oceans.

They wobble around on the road, dont keep a safe distance form cars..are sometimes unaware of the cause and effect they create..and instead of concentrating on my driving Im worrying about them because they unpredictable and vulnerable..that makes me feel stressed/terrorised because they should use cycle tracks and not make others responsible because they are vulnerable and chose to put themself in harms way..for their safety and mine and other motorists they should stay off the road...

You have my answer now..Im not going to keep going in circles with this .. you need to stop terrorising motorists FD... :P

I should not have to worry about some fool who wants to put himself at risk on the road..he should walk or take a bus..

If you don't know how to drive and can't control your emotional response, maybe you shouldn't be behind the wheel. You can't expect to have the streets cleared for you so you can drive around without thinking about what you are doing. Interacting with other road users in a safe manner is not something that you have to do instead of concentrating on driving - it is part of what concentrating on your driving is all about. You have to be able to do more than just steer down the middle of a lane to be a competent driver.

Young bike riders in my area take a lot of risks but I've got used to them. They rarely wear helmets and dart in and out of traffic with their surfboards, but they are fast and confident and in a couple of decades I've never seen an accident.

Kids are riding on the road from the age of about 7 or 8 - that's far too young, but they seem to develop skills quickly and the roads are wide.

It's more the professional riders in city areas that you have to worry about. They seem so intent on speed and where they're going - that it's up to the car driver to be watchful and show caution when passing.

We have to watch for everything else, change of speed signs, lights, school zones, stray animals, pedestrians - a cyclist is just part of the general traffic chaos.

oceanz wrote on May 31^st, 2009 at 1:13pm:

aaww diddums FD..my son broke his finger last week in a school yard scrap [fifth metascarpel ]..he has a cast on right now...such is life!!!  Maybe he will learn not to piss off Rexy boy next time.

Thankfully the justice system thinks differently.  You can't use violence just because you are upset, you can only do so when it is reasonable to prevent injury.

Q: How many rugby league players does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: 13, but 12 are only watching.

gotta put my2cents in...

what I find annoying bout the ballet cyclist is the inability to follow one simple law. no overtaking on the left hand side of the road between  a car and the gutter. it happens quite often that a stream of traffic builds up behind a cyclist beause the cyclist illegally creeps up on the left hand side of cars when a traffic light is red. when the light is about to turn green the cyclist invariabley starts before motorists so to get in front of the motor vehicles and thereby creates a traffic jam. I honestly believe that cyclists shouldn't be allowed on roads in peak hour periods, or on dual lane roads. further, where there is a designated bike lane on a road, the cyclist MUST remain in that lane or face a fine equal to a "fail to give way to oncoming traffic" fine. Further, all pushbikes used on the road should carry  sideview mirrors no smaller than those used on motorcycles.

As well, all cyclists in lycra should have to wear tutu's - cause whats with wearing leotards without a tutu?  :o

Quote:

beause the cyclist illegally creeps up on the left hand side of cars when a traffic light is red. when the light is about to turn green the cyclist invariabley starts before motorists so to get in front of the motor vehicles and thereby creates a traffic jam

This sounds more like a strategy to reduce traffic jams. Compared to remaining stationary until the car in front starts moving, or overtaking the cars while they are stationary then stopping and starting from a standstill, this would increase traffic speed. It allows the cyclist to accelerate early and not lose the speed. Because the cyclist starts accelerating earlier, he will be travelling at a faster speed at any time after that, until he has to slow down again.


Quote:

Further, all pushbikes used on the road should carry  sideview mirrors no smaller than those used on motorcycles.

Why?

in response to your first remark. i'd believe that would be a viewpoint you could only make if you're the person on the bike. i assure you, you wouldn't think that if your the person sitting behind the cyclist who has just (illegally) positioned themselves in front of you (in the car waiting at the traffic lights waiting to turn green) and is now taking up the lane in front of you making it impossible to go any faster than the 5-10 kmh cyclists travel at.
secondly - for the same reason motorcyclists and any other road user has legally employ them on their vehicles. to make sure they can observe traffic behind them and to the side of them. it would also function as a reminder to cyclists that they are not the only road user.
for the same reason cyclists aren't allowed on freeways, cyclists shouldn't be allowed on any road rated at 60 kmh during peak hour periods. they only cause further congestion in my and many others opinion.....
the only reason one might proffer as a reason to allow cyclists on 60kmh roads is too reduce traffic flow - hoqwever i contend that the increased congestion they cause due to the speed they travel at excacerbates the situation by increasing the time spent on roads by the remaining roadusers from the increased congestion they cause by using up traffic lanes and slowing down the traffic.....

Both types of transport are quite incompatible even with older cars that take much longer to reach allowed speed limit.

Best solution would be to make independent bicycle road network, but as we all know there isn’t enough money even to fund current activities, so we will have to put up with this set-up.

As pushbike rider I always think of myself as one that should be mindful of motorised road users and I wish more riders would behave the same way instead of executing their State given rights.

Happy:


Quote:

Both types of transport are quite incompatible even with older cars that take much longer to reach allowed speed limit.

Can you explain this please?

Dooley:


Quote:

making it impossible to go any faster than the 5-10 kmh cyclists travel at

I think your imagination is getting the better of you.


Quote:

secondly - for the same reason motorcyclists and any other road user has legally employ them on their vehicles

But those reasons do not apply to a bicycle. Cyclists are not required to wear the same standard of helmet as a motorcyclist, so they do not have the same vision problems and the same difficulty turning their head to check the traffic behind them. Furthermore cyclists do not travel at 110km/h. Nor does the structure of a bike handlebar support the sort of mirrors used on motorcycles. A mirror would be an inferior option to actually looking around.


Quote:

to make sure they can observe traffic behind them and to the side of them. it would also function as a reminder to cyclists that they are not the only road user.

Do you really think cyclists are unaware of other road users?


Quote:

for the same reason cyclists aren't allowed on freeways, cyclists shouldn't be allowed on any road rated at 60 kmh during peak hour periods. they only cause further congestion in my and many others opinion..... the only reason one might proffer as a reason to allow cyclists on 60kmh roads is too reduce traffic flow - hoqwever i contend that the increased congestion they cause due to the speed they travel at excacerbates the situation by increasing the time spent on roads by the remaining roadusers from the increased congestion they cause by using up traffic lanes and slowing down the traffic.....

Cyclists reduce congestion. I use a bike path beside a major road on ym way to work. I am almost always travelling faster than the cars at rush hour. Furthermore, it is the bottlenecks that dictate the congestion, and cyclists reduce the load on the bottlenecks, like with the example you gave earlier. Finally, if you ban cyclists, they will just end up in a car instead, which definitely will make congestion worse. Cyclists are highly visible and slow you down when you would be at your fastest, but getting to the queue at the next traffic light a few seconds earlier won't make any difference if you just have to wait longer.

Bottom line is, we all need to be more patient and careful with other road users. We need to reject the mentality that one group of yusers owns the road and other should be kicked off it for their benefit. Both cyclists and motorists would prefer dedicated bike lanes, but until that happens, we need to apply a bit of common sense.