With what's been said on this video, it appears or sounds like the 'victim' on the floor had been threatening him prior to him been knocked to the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by frogmiller
Printable View
With what's been said on this video, it appears or sounds like the 'victim' on the floor had been threatening him prior to him been knocked to the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by frogmiller
Just coming back to this one. I clearly recall Big John rightly thumping the bloke that hit him in the face with an egg. So would I irrespective of my standing as an MP. Would you have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stansmate
In the evening of 16 May 2001, John Prescott, the British deputy prime minister, was hit in the face by an egg while walking to a Labour Party election rally at the Little Theatre in Rhyl, North Wales, in the run-up to the 2001 United Kingdom general election. Prescott hit the protester who had thrown the egg, agricultural worker Craig Evans who now works as an enforcement officer for Natural Resources Wales, with a left-handed jab. A brief scuffle ensued, during which Prescott was pushed into a wall before police and Labour Party supporters moved Evans away.
Looks and sounds like he'd had a few to me - not that thats a crime buy we've all been there.
Regardless of intimidation he's an MP for christs sake and knows hes gone too far.
No we dont know all the facts but really would you like him to be your representative ????
Some people do deserve a smack in the gob now and then but best to walk away these days of knife crime , muggings etc
The only vid I have seen is of the victim standing still with his arms by his side before he is punched to the ground where the attacker continues his assault. Maybe the victim was saying hurty words and I do realise you can be jailed for that now .
No you just need to be a bare faced liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brin
Yep walk about with a white flag.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stansmate
Ive intervened many times in my life but this guy may have insulted the MP or threatened him but had he walked off he wouldnt be in the 💩 he is now
Its all about the threat and how you judge it all in a split second
When words like "reasonable" are used in legal definitions there are bound to be problems or differences of opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrAvon
What one person considers to be "reasonable force" may be totally different to that of someone else.
At the end of the day a word like "reasonable" is not measurable so any decision is nothing more or less than a matter of someone's opinion which is not a particularly satisfactory situation.
How do you measure self-defence?
When self-defence is relied upon it is for the court to make a factual finding of what actually happened and then make an assessment of whether the defendant's actions were reasonable. That will be a jury of 12 in more serious cases and a District Judge or two or more lay magistrates in the Magistrates Court. The idea is that they apply the views of society of what is reasonable.
But yes, every time a court reaches a verdict it is an expression of opinion. I don't see any viable alternative, but that's why I don't and never will support the death penalty.
Whilst what you say is correct, it's very clear from the CCTV that Amesbury had the choice to walk away, both before he threw the punch, and afterwards when the guy was on the ground. If there is any question that he posed a threat whilst on his feet, there is no question once he was on the floor. I think either a judge, or a jury, will form the opinion that he was motivated by anger and the desire to inflict punishment, rather than genuine fear. If he was fearful, he wouldn't have returned to taunt the guy. Anyway, time will tell.