spooky3 Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Also I believe, that as soon as someone has threatened you, you have a right to pro-actively defend yourself. Though maybe not advisable! I haven't found evidence to show you yet though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Not a legal citation yet... http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=23328056&postcount=7 If you genuinely believe you are about to be attacked, you are well within your rights to strike preemptively (i.e. first,) using reasonable force to eliminate the threat. Reasonable force is judged by you at the time, but you would have to be able to demonstrate afterward to police/jury that it was justified and not excessive. E.g if someone was coming at you with a sword and shouted "I'm going to cut your head off," and you managed to pick up a brick that just happened to be on the road, swung it at their head once, knocking them out, before fleeing, then even if they happened to die as a result of the injury, that could be deemed reasonable force and you'd face no legal repercussions. If the same thing happened, but after knocking the guy out, you then proceeded to smash his head to pieces with repeated strikes of the brick, that is clearly excessive and not necessary force to eliminate a threat to yourself, so you could easily end up in jail. Main points: If possible, avoid trouble at all costs. If you do genuinely feel you are going to be attacked, react first, hit hard, fast and aggressively till the threat is subdued, then flee. (Action is quicker than reaction, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 More often than not, it is what you say to the police AFTER an incident that lands you in bother. Don't give a statement without speaking to a lawyer if you're uncertain. You're well within your rights to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 The resorces of the courts are finite. There are far more serious matters to take care of. People with real problems, who really fear for their lives and have really been attacked. Who hasn't been threatened by someone mouthing off? The only reason this is getting any attention at all is because the bloke is a barrister. All it proves is that certain types of people seem to think the world revolves around them. There's all kinds of horrific domestic violence, mugging terorising and bullying going on out their which the system is unable to make a serious dent in, yet this fop thinks the full weight of the courts should come down on some driver who made a threat which he found so terrifying that he deliberately goaded him to repeat it so that he could get it on film. Pathetic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 The resorces of the courts are finite. There are far more serious matters to take care of. People with real problems, who really fear for their lives and have really been attacked. Who hasn't been threatened by someone mouthing off? The only reason this is getting any attention at all is because the bloke is a barrister. All it proves is that certain types of people seem to think the world revolves around them. There's all kinds of horrific domestic violence, mugging terorising and bullying going on out their which the system is unable to make a serious dent in, yet this fop thinks the full weight of the courts should come down on some driver who made a threat which he found so terrifying that he deliberately goaded him to repeat it so that he could get it on film. Pathetic? So, in the vein of we are all equal, but some are more equal, a crime is a crime, but some are not? Are you really saying that all 'petty' crimes should be dropped from the law books? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Are you really saying that all 'petty' crimes should be dropped from the law books? Certainly looks that way, although it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 The resorces of the courts are finite. There are far more serious matters to take care of. People with real problems, who really fear for their lives and have really been attacked. Who hasn't been threatened by someone mouthing off? The only reason this is getting any attention at all is because the bloke is a barrister. All it proves is that certain types of people seem to think the world revolves around them. There's all kinds of horrific domestic violence, mugging terorising and bullying going on out their which the system is unable to make a serious dent in, yet this fop thinks the full weight of the courts should come down on some driver who made a threat which he found so terrifying that he deliberately goaded him to repeat it so that he could get it on film. Pathetic? It'd be different if it was an old granny being shouted at by someone who looked like a typical thug! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoddyHolder Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 So, in the vein of we are all equal, but some are more equal, a crime is a crime, but some are not? Are you really saying that all 'petty' crimes should be dropped from the law books? The coffers are not bottomless which would you sooner see prosecuted a cert guilty plea or this which as I said earlier would be a no brainer ,the prosecution would be torn apart in court,in fact with the cyclist peddling after the motorist and accosting him there would be a slight case against him for threatening behaviour or at least action liable to cause a breach of the peace, in the context of what has gone off and I know that is also a no brainer but it still could constitute an offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 The coffers are not bottomless which would you sooner see prosecuted a cert guilty plea or this which as I said earlier would be a no brainer ,the prosecution would be torn apart in court,in fact with the cyclist peddling after the motorist and accosting him there would be a slight case against him for threatening behaviour or at least action liable to cause a breach of the peace, in the context of what has gone off and I know that is also a no brainer but it still could constitute an offence. Not even questioned was the bit I liked... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 No, as the link makes clear the driver made the threat, then repeated it. Sounded like how many of you are muggers to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 So, in the vein of we are all equal, but some are more equal, a crime is a crime, but some are not? Are you really saying that all 'petty' crimes should be dropped from the law books? On the face of it, it may not be seen as a threat. Elsewhere the same person has written about attacks on cyclists, things thrown from cars, vehicles used as weapons. In the light of such aggression and threatening behaviour that cyclists are subjected to, at the very least the cops should ask the driver for his version. People do get arrested on much slighter evidence than that clip. With such damning evidence refused for consideration, what is the justification for the continued and expensive (and poorer quality and silent) CCTV cameras whose footage presumably provide equally inadmissible evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.