I saw the footage and clearly Anning retaliated once apparently instinctively and then decided to go in much harder than was necessary to control the situation. Along with his mates.
The footage was taken by the media and took in almost all of the proceeding.
Your defence of Fraser Anning is lame.
Soldiers are bound by rules of engagement and discipline is essential in the armed forces. Further, that's what investigations, then court martials (if the evidence is considered strong enough to support one) are for. Footage such as that taken of Anning would, if this were an issue involving breach of discipline, be considered evidence.
You're bringing in a comparison that doesn't even support your argument. Am I really just an "armchair expert", or are you a pretender?
