Zebroski

[Dave]

In todays H/E ,it has been annouced that zebs is charged with assault on a soldier in the bay,not the best news for the club,altough it is important to remember that he is innocent untill proven guilty.

So what happens if he is found guilty?,the club has to been seen to act in a responsible way,but does the club have enough in terms of quailty/experienced players,or the finacial muscle to take the morale high ground,and move Zebroski out of the club,either by transfer or termination of employment?

Zebs will get his chance to defend himself in court,and i think no matter the verdict,the club must do what it can to hang on to zebroski.

[HRG]

Without the facts it is hard to judge. I don't see why we need to know that the accuser is a soldier, straight away it puts him in a positive light and Zebs in a negative one. Combine that with some Premiership footballers behaving very badly recently and some people's judgement will become clouded.

I suppose it will depend on the severity of the injuries and what punishment there will be if found guilty, but getting into a fight is not uncommon and we can't afford to be letting players go for every indiscretion. However this event does bring the club into disrepute and they need to be shown to do something, so perhaps a fine will suffice and some sort of club imposed community service such as helping to train kids.

But it really does depend on the details.

[PlainmoorRoar]

does it say, whether it was on a night out?

i've seen Torquay players out a few times and some of their behavour has left been abit unruley to say the least

[HRG]

It happened outside a pub, according to the report, so I'd guess so PR.
There's not much the club can do until the legalities are sorted out but lets hope it's sorted out as swiftly as it can be. Whatever the outcome, uncertainty isn't good for anyone.

[yellow]

What very disappointing news for player, club and fans.

I am afraid that Zebs has previous in this regard, and that does nothing to help his cause. Neither, of course, does it prove anything in relation to this particular case.

Regardless, the law must be seen to be done.

The fact that he plays for TUFC has no bearing on that.

I prefer not to reflect on what if he is found guilty? as that is pure speculation about the fate of a man who has not yet been given the chance to prove his innocence.

[Plymouth Gull]

Seems another case of a footballer (possibly) thinking they can get away with things like this.

However, I'm not really going to say anything else until the facts are out. For all we know, the 'soldier' could easily have done something to provoke it - I can't see Zebs just assaulting someone for fun.

[westbaygull]

Without the facts it is hard to judge. I don't see why we need to know that the accuser is a soldier, straight away it puts him in a positive light and Zebs in a negative one.

Same reason that we needed to know previously that it was reported to be a 'female', prior to that a team mate? To be honest, I am also very disappointed with this - I was hoping that Zebs had sorted himself out and certainly have been impressed with his season so far. It may be that he was provoked, acted in self defence or quite simply, didn't do it, however this is the sort of news that the Club could do without.

If, and it is a big if at the moment, he is found guilty, then it does place the Club in a tricky situation - as F'rever says, we have hardly got the funds and/or personnel to replace him. However, if it came to it, I would feel quite uncomfortable if he stayed. Lose/lose situation, I believe.

[Fletch]

Without the facts it is hard to judge. I don't see why we need to know that the accuser is a soldier, straight away it puts him in a positive light and Zebs in a negative one.

Spend any time around the likes of Colchester or Aldershot and you would probably take the opposite viewpoint!! Some military bods behave responsibly when out on the pop, others dont (spent over half my life in the military so I speak from experience)

[HRG]

I live in the land of the SAS but I wouldn't know if they were behaving badly or not cos they're supposed to be all secret
But I agree, I've known some excellent army folk and some bloody awful ones. Just like us civilians really.

I see what you're saying Westy but certain descriptions, perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not, create a bias. I don't know much about his previous, though I am aware what happened with a team mate.
We shall have to wait and see.

[Trojan 67]

The club as his employers and us as club supporters must hope that this incident does not affect his playing form too much which thus far this season has been excellent.

And we sure did miss him against Barnet.

[Plymouth Gull]

To be fair, if this happened in August (which I've seen it did) then he's done bloody well with that at the back of his mind!

[GirlOnATerrace]

Buckle obviously isn't worried about the situation for the time being because if this happened back in August, we've all been none the wiser since then.
However, if he goes get sentenced on thursday then we're in a situation. Do we keep him playing for us and just put the past behind us and carry on or will the board want to get rid of him.
My only concern with him going is that what with Benyon in the spotlight aswell as being a key player clubs are after, can we really afford to lose two main important players. Plus we all know from last saturdays performance how much we missed him. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Until then though like what is said up there ^ he is just as innocent atm until he is found guilty.
We dont know the true facts until it comes on. It seems like it was a nightout, it could well of been racial comments for all we know which provked Zebroski to act in the manner that he did.

Time shall soon tell.

[Trojan 67]

To be fair, if this happened in August (which I've seen it did) then he's done bloody well with that at the back of his mind!

I should have read the article first before posting comments. :Oops:

Let's hope his form doesn't dip now his situation is in the public domain.

[ferrarilover]

Right,

Charged with ABH, which, of the five non fatal offences against the person, is the one in the middle. It comes above battery and below a s20 GBH.
To be found guilty, as with virtually all criminal cases, there are two basic elements of a crime which must be proven.

Actus Reus (the guilty act)

The AR for ABH is the same as that for battery. Battery: The application of unlawful force on another. Any unlawful contact can amount to a battery. There is no need to prove pain or injury.

So, judging from the report that an ambulance was called and the victim sustained a head injury, I foresee two possibilities. CZ did inflict a battery upon the victim and caused him the head injury directly (by punching the victim in the head and causing the injury) or indirectly (by causing to fall the victim, such that he sustained the injury). Or, CZ was an innocent bystander as the victim was either caused his injuries by another, or all on his lonesome.

Assuming there is some proof (judging from the location, my guess is that it will have been covered by at least 100,000 CCTV cameras) that CZ did inflict the injuries, the CPS must prove...

Mens Rea (the guilty mind)

The MR for ABH is the same as that for battery. Intention or recklessness as to the application of unlawful force. So, did CZ punch/push the victim deliberately, or was he reckless in his own behaviour such as to cause the injuries suffered by the victim?

Now, two young men, both in drink, tired and both engaged in professions which appeal to egotistical aggressive types (I've been a soldier and I've played football, I can say this with confidence) I have absolutely no doubt that the Magistrates will deal with 20 cases of this sort every week. Two young lads, drunk, one looks at the others girlfriend for a second too long and it all kicks off. One has a big mouth, the other has a swing, the first bloke goes down and cuts his head.

The sentencing guidelines for the Magistrates suggest that the starting point for sentence is a higher level community order (a couple of hundred hours community service). Since he is pleading not guilty, it is unlikely that he will be awarded a lesser sentence than this (unless extreme provocation is proven). The range of sentencing for this level of ABH is mid-level community order to 26 weeks custody. < This is at the Magistrates Court. Having pleaded not guilty, the case will be passed to the Crown Court for trial by Jury.

The rules of full disclosure (so far as I understand them, not covered this in class yet) are such that any camera footage identifying the incident will have had to be made available to CZs barrister. Since it is the barrister who will be advising CZ as to his plea, we can only imagine that his brief must believe he can argue successfully that CZ is innocent.

As for the club, if he is found guilty, unless there is something written specifically into his contract regarding arrest/conviction, I would like to think that he would be severely reprimanded and cautioned as to his future conduct. This is not going to cover anyone in glory, but, so long as CZ is not imprisoned and obviously unable to play, there is no need for him to lose his job for the sake of something so minor.

Well, that's what I think anyway.

Matt.

[Fletch]

Matt, casting my mind back to life in a blue suit, is there anything from your current legal studies that mean the defence in this case would have access to an individuals service record, WRT to diciplinary action under QR's or whatever the army use nowadays?