Ah, so you agree that you were in fact wrong then?
Bike Forum
[closed]
Cyclist jailed
-
Posted 11 months ago #
-
I'd juct leave the thread quietly now (like our little friend wood)
You talkin' to me?
Posted 11 months ago # -
cynic-al - Member
pastcaring you've conveniently ignored "retreat" - have you been taking BATTLE lessons from Fred? Anyway no one's backing you up so I'd juct leave the thread quietly now (like our little friend wood)Juries do not get rid of greyness - I'd wager judges are better and more impartial deciders of facts.
FWIW, I'd convict anyone for chinning a racist.
and you've conveniently ignored "i would prefer to walk away"
the jury decide guilt, not the judge! that's 12 peoples opinions based on the facts not just one.
why? because 12 people are better 'impartial deciders of facts' than one!Posted 11 months ago # -
judges are less likely to be swung by irrelevant nonsense and get the the nub of an issue.
In Scotland, many crimes are decided by Sheriffs without juries, is this another area where your justice system is weaker?
You prefer to "walk away" - ah I get it - you now accept that Fred was guily of assualt by not doing so?
Posted 11 months ago # -
no cynic-al i've already proved i'm right "in the eyes of the law"
if you want to argue around in circles, just keep reading the thread over and over and over....
Posted 11 months ago # -
You have proved NOTHING.
Posted 11 months ago # -
One single punch, following an event where the cyclist may have felt their safety/life may have bin in danger, reacted in anger in the heat of the moment,
I don't understand why you'd react that way to someone opening a door on you unless you were a bit unhinged. How odd.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Posted 11 months ago # -
no cynic-al i've already proved i'm right "in the eyes of the law"
You have not you have shown how you can selectively read a quote and contradict yourself
i wont be a victim.
We know your preemptive strike without fleeing ensures the other person is the victimI am not saying your approach is wrong [ it depends I suppose] it is just not legal
Posted 11 months ago # -
bigyinn
yes, i should know better...
Posted 11 months ago # -
better as in know you are the wrong one
I agree at last
Posted 11 months ago # -
Me too. Thank goodness he's seen sense at last.
/THREAD CLOSED
unless Fred has something to say? I doubt it.
Posted 11 months ago # -
At the end of the day a person reacted to a situation in their own way. WE weren't there, so we cannot judge on their actions.
Posted 11 months ago # -
At the end of the day
a person reacted to a situation in their own wayFred admitted hitting a couple of folk before realising that what he was saying amounted to assault with no valid legal self-defence . WE weren't there,so we cannot judge on their actionsbut what he has said is pretty clearly assualt in the eyes of the law, and the only points he has made have been to deflect from these arguments rather than anything substantive to clear his name.FTFY
Posted 11 months ago # -
Junkyard - Member
no cynic-al i've already proved i'm right "in the eyes of the law"You have not you have shown how you can selectively read a quote and contradict yourself
me and al both
i wont be a victim.
We know your preemptive strike without fleeing ensures the other person is the victim
I am not saying your approach is wrong [ it depends I suppose] it is just not legal"To gain an acquittal, the defendant must fulfil a number of conditions. The defendant must believe, rightly or wrongly, that the attack is imminent."
it might be difficult to prove but i'd leave that to the jury.
as we're constantly on cctv, id hope that it would prove i wasn't the aggressor.Posted 11 months ago # -
as an impartial witness to this debate.. If I were a jury member I'd throw the book at you pastcaring..
for being an agressive psycopath with poor literacy skills
Posted 11 months ago # -
i'm far from "an agressive psycopath" but i'll give you the "poor literacy skills"
Posted 11 months ago # -
I'd convict him for failure to use the "quote" button
Posted 11 months ago # -
you selectivey quoted the bit about not having to wait to be hit again and ignored this bit again
If there is an opportunity to retreat or to obtain protection from the police, the defendant should do so, thereby demonstrating an intention to avoid being involved in the use of violence
Can we add poor reading to literacy skillsPosted 11 months ago # -
INRATS, but:
You weren't there, you can't comment. End of.
Posted 11 months ago # -
I can and I will damn you..!
Posted 11 months ago # -
molgrips - Member
You weren't there, you can't comment. End of.It's fair to comment on what he said here though.
Pwning Fred's too easy sometimes, I wouldn't do it were it not for the fact he always runs away.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Junkyard - Member
you selectivey quoted the bit about not having to wait to be hit again and ignored this bit again
If there is an opportunity to retreat or to obtain protection from the police, the defendant should do so, thereby demonstrating an intention to avoid being involved in the use of violenceEnglish law
In English law the focus of the test is whether the defendant is acting reasonably in the particular situation. There is no specific requirement that a person must retreat in anticipation of an attack. Although some withdrawal would be useful evidence to prove that the defendant did not want to fight, not every defendant is able to escape. In R v Bird (1985) 1 WLR 816 the defendant was physically attacked, and reacted instinctively and immediately without having the opportunity to retreat. Had there been a delay in the response, the reaction might have appeared more revenge than self-defence. It might be different if the defendant sees an enemy approaching and decides to stand his ground. The answer may depend on where the threat is recognised. In a public place, where there are many other people present, a judgment must be made on whether an attack is imminent. As a matter of policy, no-one should be forced out of the streets because of fear, but prudence might dictate a different answer at night when the streets are empty.
yunki, why would you damn me?
Posted 11 months ago # -
for someone called 'pastcaring' you seem to care quite a lot?
Posted 11 months ago # -
wwaswas - Member
for someone called 'pastcaring' you seem to care quite a lot?just defending myself and my veiws
i see the law one way others see it a different way...
Posted 11 months ago # -
In R v Bird (1985) 1 WLR 816 the defendant was physically attacked, and reacted instinctively and immediately without having the opportunity to retreat
Hmmm...completely different situation, hence IRRELEVANT.
NEXT!
Posted 11 months ago # -
In the case you quote they were actually attacked so yes someone attacked can hit back without retreat. We are discussing a scenario where no violence has occured
On self defnece
A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."
The issue is whether a pre emptive strike is firstly self defence and secondly reasonable. Now please explain why it would have been reasonable to approach a car then hit the seated driver whilst they were still in the car on grounds of self defence. I am not sure why you think that case will help or why you keep citing it tbh.
2 Duty to retreat!
There is no rule of law that an individual attacked is bound to run away if they can. If the defendant shows that he did not want to fight, this is no doubt, the best evidence that he was acting reasonably and in good faith in self-defence; but it is no more than that. A person may in some circumstances act without temporising, disengaging or withdrawing; and he should have a good defence (Smith and Hogan, Criminal Law, 1996, p264). This statement was approved in:
• R v Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816 - The defendant had been hit and pushed by a man. She then hit the man forgetting she was holding a glass. The trial judge directed the jury that self-defence was only available as a defence if the defendant had first shown an unwillingness to fight. The Court of Appeal quashed the defendant's conviction saying that it was unnecessary to show an unwillingness to fight and there were circumstances where a defendant might reasonably react immediately and without first retreating. It was up to a jury to decide on the facts of the case.
Therefore it is a matter for the jury to decide as to whether the defendant acted reasonably in standing his ground to defend himself, or whether the reasonable man (The Man on the London Omnibus) would have taken the opportunity to run away.
Posted 11 months ago # -
In English law the focus of the test is whether the defendant is acting reasonably in the particular situation. There is no specific requirement that a person must retreat in anticipation of an attack. Although some withdrawal would be useful evidence to prove that the defendant did not want to fight
Now please explain why it would have been reasonable to approach a car then hit the seated driver whilst they were still in the car on grounds of self defence.
i don't think i did?
Posted 11 months ago # -
I don't think anyone did.
Posted 11 months ago # -
al pay attention
al claiming this was assault
deliberately drove into the back of me, screaming 'get out of the ****ing way you ****ing Paki!'. Not a very nice man. Jumped off the bike, then he's gone to get out of the car, so I just reacted instinctively and smacked him one.
past caring denying this
@cynic-al
not assault, self defense
I claiim a double pwning but derve a kicking for being so sad that I recalled all this I won but I am a loser
Posted 11 months ago # -
I'm lost....PC's last post is about hitting a seated driver?
Posted 11 months ago # -
The defendant had been hit and pushed by a man. She then hit the man forgetting she was holding a glass.
See, all that he needed to do was wait to be pushed and then own him with his Bombers, obviously having forgotten that he was still holding the handlebars and that the Bombers were attached to the bike. Sorted
Posted 11 months ago # -
sorry junkyard, i read elfs post wrong. i thought he said he got out of the car (maybe for a preemptive
strike ?)
also i've never condoned giving someone a good kicking, just self defense.
i see the law one way others see it a different way. i can only go on what i have read.
thankfully if i ever get arrested for defending myself i will judged by a jury 12 honest men/women.
hopefully you, al and yunki wont be on jury. (edit i'm not calling any of you dishonest)sorry to quote the same ish stuff again, but i read this as i don't have to run away and i don't have to wait to be struck.
from the cps web page, the last line is interesting.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/Preemptive strikes
There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves: R v Deana, 2 Cr.App.R. 75.Retreating
Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive evidence that a person was not acting in self defence. . It is simply a factor to be taken into account. It is not necessary that the defendant demonstrates by walking away that he does not want to engage in physical violence: R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110.Posted 11 months ago # -
I actually agree with your general view on all of this it is merley that the law does not agree with our view.
I think elf was right [ or justified is a better term] in what he did as racist abuses makes people livid.
You dont havt to run away or wait to be hit to claim self defence. There are examples of people hitting people FIRST in self defence - S Gerrard for example -
3. Imminent threat of attack
It is not necessary that the defendant be attacked first. In Beckford v R [1988] AC 130: Lord Griffith said "A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."
This factor has been used to great extent in many domestic violence cases, where quite often there is not always the imminent threat of attack.4. Mistake as to Self Defence
It is possible that an individual might mistakenly believe himself to be threatened or might mistakenly believe that an offence is being committed by another person. On the basis of R v Williams (Gladstone) (1984) 78 Cr App R 276 and Beckford v R [1988] AC 130, it would appear that such a defendant would be entitled to be judged on the facts as he honestly believed them to be, and hence would be permitted to use a degree of force that was reasonable in the context of what he perceived to be happening:
• In R v Williams (Gladstone) (1984), A man grabbed a youth who was robbing a lady and fell on top of him. A passer by believed he was attacking the youth and while trying to help a struggle began. This case had to look at whether or not there was a mistake in his actions The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and held that the defendant's mistaken but honest belief that he was using reasonable force to prevent the commission of an offence, was sufficient to afford him a defence.
I enjoyed the fun of the debate tbh and I have learnt a lot today.
I am only a lawyer on the InternetPosted 11 months ago # -
Pastcaring.
The Jurors of STW find thee guilty of bullshitting and hereby sentence thee to be locked in an internet forum with PaddedFred for the rest of thine days
Posted 11 months ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
