cressida Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I remember attending a case at the High Court in London, where a woman jailed for road rage was appealing against her conviction. Apparently, she had got out of a car and punched another woman repeatedly in the face. Her appeal against the sentence hinged on how many blows she had struck. One blow meant that there may not have been intent to harm - several blows put her in a different category. Anyway, the judges took the view that she had landed several blows, so rejected her appeal. good, I hope she got at least five years, JoeP's quote about aggressive stupidity seems very apt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoeshine Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 So, why hasn't "Our Gordon" enobled Cyclone and Halibut to the House of Lords....they obviously qualify.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 So, why hasn't "Our Gordon" enobled Cyclone and Halibut to the House of Lords....they obviously qualify.... anything useful to contribute, or just poor humour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katkin Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 is chopping the hands off looters reasonable, or the nuts off a convicted paeodophile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 is chopping the hands off looters reasonable, or the nuts off a convicted paeodophile? Go start your own thread, this one is about reasonable force, not mutilation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I'm trying to work out my stand on this. If someone were to attack me then I would be right to defend myself, so we are all agreed on that. Right? If I were to be successful and my assailant had either run off or was laid on the floor, then I would have exercised my rights. Right? If then I were to continue, then would not the rolls be reversed and I had become the assailant, and if he were incapacitated how could I justify my actions? Also just philosophising about it, suppose my assailant were unconscious and I was to continue assaulting him, would that not be worse than assaulting a frail old lady who although weak would be better placed to defend herself, perhaps with a walking stick, than an unconscious Mike Tyson who was out stone cold and unable to defend himself. Think about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I'm trying to work out my stand on this. If someone were to attack me then I would be right to defend myself, so we are all agreed on that. Right? Right. If I were to be successful and my assailant had either run off or was laid on the floor, then I would have exercised my rights. Right? Right again If then I were to continue, then would not the rolls be reversed and I had become the assailant, and if he were incapacitated how could I justify my actions? You couldn't. You would as you say, have become the assailant. Also just philosophising about it, suppose my assailant were unconscious and I was to continue assaulting him, would that not be worse than assaulting a frail old lady who although weak would be better placed to defend herself, perhaps with a walking stick, than an unconscious Mike Tyson who was out stone cold. Think about it? Indeed, Graham - assaulting a person in no position to defend themselves is indeed an appalling thing to do and utterly unjustifiable. Spot on on all three counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Right. Right again You couldn't. You would as you say, have become the assailant. Indeed, Graham - assaulting a person in no position to defend themselves is indeed an appalling thing to do and utterly unjustifiable. Spot on on all three counts. Hey up, its not often anyone agrees with me. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I learnt on a course about managing violence and agression that if you are in bed and an intruder comes into your home, you shouldn't even go downstairs to confront them, as it is deemed that they have not approached or threatened you, and you had no need to defend yourself. Anyone who does confront someone in this way should tell the police that they heard a noise and thought it was the cat scratching to go out and was surprised to find an intruder in their home. That way you are not admitting to going to confront the intruder and reduce your risk of being chrged with assault if a scuffle breaks out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Hey up, its not often anyone agrees with me. Thank you. This is twice then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.