Cyclist jailed

Can’t quite see what the problem with Elf is here. Someone called him a **** and then got out the car in a potentially threatening manner. Elf decked him. What is the problem? Really, what is the problem?

Yup, that’s “pwned” right there.

Not quite sure what you mean there?

You don’t know if they’ll pull a tool on you or owt

ah yes reasone 238 for not living in London

I think many of us may accept a natural justice in Elf hitting a racist very hard however the law may not view this as self defence.
The man may or may not have been about to attack him. With the person sitting in the car it would be hard to prove that having dropped your bike walked towards them that it was impossible to avoid any assault that may or may not have been about to occur. Run away foot on door to stop it opening etc.
That said I would have hit them and then the car or have got out the road calling him names much more likely if i am not playing at Internet hardman.
The axe story if true is do to with it being your property and having nowhere to escape to etc. you may use a weapon I assume if 6 people are stood outside breaking in to your property to get you for example.
Were you to do it to some rowdy youths sitting on your wall or attacking your shed you will be charged.
Your view of self defence/justice and the laws are not the same..it pains to me to say it but the spoon bender has a point 😉
EDIT the wink is to show I am just joking with al i meant what I said re the rest.

Coyote I was referring to Fred.

Little fella hasn’t come us with one single substantive point to change what his hard man stories mean in criminal law. You know when Junkyard agrees with me you are on thin ice Fred.

I wouldn’t go on like this if ihe weren’t so morally superior and self righteous, but fails to mention his attempts to incite racism etc in the past.

the axe story is true! the kids weren’t trying to brake into the house, they were just making the fellas life shit cos they thought they could get away wit it. like i said earlier the old bill new about it and did nothing to protect the fella or his family…

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.

both examples i would get the first hit in. self defense in my book!

i’m pretty reserved, i don’t look for trouble, and i would prefer to walk away, but will defend friends, family and myself.

In your book, whatever, we are talking about the law.

cynic-al – Member
In your book, whatever, we are talking about the law.

the law states i can defend myself

The modern law on belief is stated in R v Owino (1996) 2 Cr. App. R. 128 at 134:
A person may use such force as is [objectively] reasonable in the circumstances as he [subjectively] believes them to be.
To gain an acquittal, the defendant must fulfil a number of conditions. The defendant must believe, rightly or wrongly, that the attack is imminent. Lord Griffith said in Beckford v R:
“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.”

i will ad that i don’t have much respect for the law. it appear that the more money you have, the less laws apply!

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
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

Fred is always guilty, that’s the rule. Or have I misunderstood that one?

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 objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what they believed about the circumstances

The time factor is important. 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

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 or to obtain protection from the police, the defendant should do so,

Assailant/victim is in a car and you are on a bike I see plenty of chance of retreating.
This even ignores the fact that Elifn went to the door to create the face to face confrontation.
To be clear again fred chinned a racist i would not convict him even if he chased him down the street to do it but the law probably would.

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.

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

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 (http://tonymagdiupdate.wordpress.com/%5B/url%5D).

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)

You talkin’ to me? 😉

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.

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 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 a person reacted to a situation in their own way Fred 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 actions 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.

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.