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

i’m far from “an agressive psycopath” but i’ll give you the “poor literacy skills” 😀

I’d convict him for failure to use the “quote” button 😉

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[/u]

Can we add poor reading to literacy skills

I struggle with long sentences, but:

You weren’t there, you can’t comment. End of.

I can and I will damn you..!

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.

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 violence

English 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?

for someone called ‘pastcaring’ you seem to care quite a lot?

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…

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!

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.

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?

I don’t think anyone did.

al pay attention
al claiming this was assault

deliberately drove into the back of me, screaming ‘get out of the ****ing way you ****ing ****!’. 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 😳

I’m lost….PC’s last post is about hitting a seated driver?

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

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.

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 Internet

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 😛

i enjoyed the fun of the debate tbh and I have learnt a lot today.
I am only lawyer on the Internet

me two! i evan agree with al that it is a very grey area. (but don’t tell him 😀 )

now i just need to learn how to quote and change my spell check to english, not american english?

oh and do some work today…

cynic-al – Member
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

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

[ quote] text [/ quote]
remove the gaps in the brackets

Junkyard – Member
[ quote] text [/ quote]
remove the gaps in the brackets

cheers

Oh Al Al Al, you really are a Silly Billy, aren’t you? You really jolly well have not a clue, have you?

Carry on though, cos I find it amusing. 😀