O/T MP Mike Amesbury Video

[Brin]

It looks like he was threatened when you look at this video

https://x.com/guidofawkes/status/185...lcvxGrPcIOixGQ

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.

[Brin]

Brin

Chilled is me middle name - the MP said he felt threatened - ok
But he threw the first punch then went in like Mike Tyson

Hes an MP ( at the moment ) wots he doin out on the psss at 3 in the mornin ??

Then again he aint the first labour mp to wallop sumbdy in public

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?

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.

[Stansmate]

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

[Stovicmiller]

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 .

[Yak]

Thanks for replying. It's just one thing that crossed my mind and I too wasn't sure if you had to have a non convictional record to stand as an MP.

No you just need to be a bare faced liar.

[crashbang]

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

Yep walk about with a white flag.

[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

[mellowmiller]

In simple terms, a person is entitled to use reasonable force in all the circumstances in self-defence.

A quick hypothetical for you in light of your comments: - a bloke approaches you in the street who appears to have a beef with you. He's aggressive and says, 'I'm going to stab you up you c*nt' and reaches into his pocket.

On the basis of your post, would you think: 'Well, he's being very aggressive said he'd stab me, but he's put his hand in his pocket, so there's no problem'?

I don't think that you would.

And suppose you decided to hit him on the basis that you feared he was reaching for a knife, would you then think 'well he might be tooled up, but he's on the floor now, so all is well with the world'.

I don't think that you would.

What happened before the incident may be extremely relevant if it had a bearing upon the level of threat that the MP perceived.

Are you seriously saying that it would have no bearing upon the situation if the bloke had been following him for 200 yards whilst threatening to kill him?

I do this sh1t for a living and never accept a view based upon very limited information.

When words like "reasonable" are used in legal definitions there are bound to be problems or differences of opinion.
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.

[KerrAvon]

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.

[Lasterman]

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.