[Closed] Cyclist jailed

cynic-al - Member
I still say Fred's guilty.

ANyway I was incorrectly assuming your law was as good as ours, but it's crap.

cynic-al - Member
Yup, that's "pwned" right there.

you don't like loosing an argument do you...
😆 😆 😆

At least I can admit when I am wrong.

I'll look into this at work tomorrow tho, I'm not yet convinced.

In fred's case the fact he walked towards the vehicle when he had an obvious escape route shows intent had the guy got out the car and walked towards him your cited case law may apply but he could have just ridden off.
As I said I think he had some justification in hitting him but I am less sure it is defendable in law. Do the circumstances justify it???I assume walking towards the person and hitting them whilst they are seated in a car negates this defence.

I still say Fred's guilty

Junkyard
I assume walking towards the person and hitting them whilst they are seated in a car negates this defence.

yes junkyard you are correct. but i thought i read that the fella was getting out of the car... i maybe wrong?

i wasn't trying to defend elf, only the right to defend myself or others to defend their selves

and to prove cynic-al wrong 😀 which i enjoyed 😈

Even if the guy is getting out of the car I don't think you are necessarily right.

of coarse you don't 🙄

cynic-al - Member
At least I can admit when I am wrong.

no you can't!

It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from imminent attack and may not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the [u]objective standard of a reasonable person[/u] by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what they believed about the circumstances

The time factor is important. [u]If there is an opportunity to retreat[/u] 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

Seems it's grey at best.

of coarse it's a grey area, most laws are! thats why we have jury's. but if you read my two examples above, there's would be little opportunity to "retreat or to obtain protection from the police"

protection from the police? that's funny, not in my experience!

also in the same post "i would prefer to walk away"

face it you are wrong! whether you choose to except it or not, is up to you...

edit

i really couldn't give a toss if i was nicked for assault, if i thought what i did was morally correct!

If there is an opportunity to retreat [b]or[/b] to obtain protection from the police, the defendant should do so,

If i'm arguing with a car driver and he gets out of the car, i presume he's gonna hit me.
if i'm arguing with someone on the street and they step towards me, i presume he;s gonna hit me.

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.

a bit more background/comment on this case.

The bloke who hit Tony just happened to be passing and saw another cyclist nearly get hit by a car door - his reaction was to punch the driver - he was never in any personal danger.

Anyone who knew Tony Magdi would say that the chances of him getting agressive if a cyclist started shouting at him were nil - he'd probably just offer them some free fruit as a gesture of goodwill and an apology. He really was the nicest shopkeeper I've ever come across - it was almost embarassing the amount of free stuff he'd hand over when you were buying your fruit and veg. There was never anythign to this than an agressive person trying to 'teach someone a lesson' by hitting them.

There was another thread on here that was pulled fairly early on in whcih a poster on here said they knew the bloke who killed Tony and that he had a history of violence including assaults against women.

In the end a man is dead, a community miss him and have raised several thousand pounds for a memorial tree to be planted in the local park and money donated to a charity ([url= http://tonymagdiupdate.wordpress.com/ ]http://tonymagdiupdate.wordpress.com/[/url]).

and some lowlife shit is going to spend just a few months in jail for killing him.

regardless of a wider debate on when it's ok to punch someone else, in Tonys case it's all academic.

Agreed.

A great shame our justice system does not focus more on rehabilitation.

junkyard

Your threshold may be set a little low but it would seem that ONLY if you cannot retreat would you be justified in apremptive blow. As you are in the open you could so would /could be charged

you may be correct about my threshhold being on the low setting. but i wont be a victim.

i don't want to sound like a thug. i like to think i always do the right thing. if this means having to defend myself and i'm convicted, so be it. as i said above i'd rather walk away, but thats not always an option.

Ah, so you agree that you were in fact wrong then?

I'd juct leave the thread quietly now (like our little friend wood)

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!

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?

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....

You have proved NOTHING.

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.

[img] [/img]

no cynic-al i've already proved i'm right "in the eyes of the law"

i wont be a victim.

I am not saying your approach is wrong [ it depends I suppose] it is just not legal

bigyinn

yes, i should know better...

better as in know you are the wrong one
I agree at last 😀

Me too. Thank goodness he's seen sense at last.

/THREAD CLOSED

unless Fred has something to say? I doubt it.

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.

At the end of the day [s]a person reacted to a situation in their own way[/s] [u]Fred admitted hitting a couple of folk before realising that what he was saying amounted to assault with no valid legal self-defence [/u]. WE weren't there, [s]so we cannot judge on their actions[/s] [u]but 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[/u].

FTFY 😎

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.

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

[b][u]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[/b][/u]

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."

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