Jump to content

self defence or assault?


davemclaren

Recommended Posts

Looks like he took it a wee bit far Dave.

 

Reads like he actively pursued the guy onto the pavement and smashed him. Now i think the idiot deserved what he got but i can't describe what the motorist did as self defence.

 

I feel bad for the guy getting 3 years but he went to far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like he took it a wee bit far Dave.

 

Reads like he actively pursued the guy onto the pavement and smashed him. Now i think the idiot deserved what he got but i can't describe what the motorist did as self defence.

 

I feel bad for the guy getting 3 years but he went to far.

 

Pretty much how I see it. Tempting but rash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like he gave him a really good whack.

 

It was probably just as easy to reverse, so he probably should have done that instead.

 

I would only defend him if running over the guy was the only way to avoid trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read that, and couldn't help but think the sentence received by the group involved in the death of someone I knew.

 

However, from what I read, as well as what I read between the lines (perhaps wrongly), this was far more than simply a case of self defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't say how long the knife attacker got in prison or even if he was imprisoned. Hope he got a similarly long sentence.

 

It doesn't even say if he was charged with anything. Perhaps the restrictions on his identity indicate a case is pending, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly whilst it was rash I dont think he should have been jailed or prosecuted

 

The guy had a knife, as far as im concerned once someone goes out armed they are putting lifes at risk and you should have a right to protect your own upto the extent of killing the other party if necessary

 

The actions were all brought about by the other guy and its criminal an innocent party will spend time in jail for being in fear of their life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

you should have a right to protect your own upto the extent of killing the other party if necessary

 

 

Should is the important part of this sentence. The fact is that you don't.

 

I bet you thought Tony Martin was innocent as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly whilst it was rash I dont think he should have been jailed or prosecuted

 

The guy had a knife, as far as im concerned once someone goes out armed they are putting lifes at risk and you should have a right to protect your own upto the extent of killing the other party if necessary

 

The actions were all brought about by the other guy and its criminal an innocent party will spend time in jail for being in fear of their life

 

Ah, but was he in fear of his life? He accepted a deal which involved him admitting assault , and the argument of self defence does not appear to have been raised at any point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a fairly general rule that you are allowed to use as much force as is necessary for your own or anothers safety. The ultimate level would be deadly force.

 

The example I would suggest is that you catch someone who is armed breaking into your house. You swing your ever available baseball bat and break his arm causing the weapon to be thrown to another part of the room, the perp is disabled, the follow up two smacks to the back of the head would probably be considered excessive.

 

Of course as I would suggest to the judge that the perp when he fell started to convulse and violently struck my bat extremely hard with his head causing his injuries despite my futile attempts to avoid his convulsive attacks on my bat.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheriff Fatman
Of course as I would suggest to the judge that the perp when he fell started to convulse and violently struck my bat extremely hard with his head causing his injuries despite my futile attempts to avoid his convulsive attacks on my bat.;)

 

That sounds like the reason I gave for a guy having a sore head after I threw him out of the pub, 'The guy obligingly offered to open the door for me, and as I was holding him at waist level by an arm and a leg he had to use his head at quite a pace to open it all the way'.

 

Luckily that wasn't an excuse given to a police officer, as I doubt that it would have been believed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like the reason I gave for a guy having a sore head after I threw him out of the pub, 'The guy obligingly offered to open the door for me, and as I was holding him at waist level by an arm and a leg he had to use his head at quite a pace to open it all the way'.

 

Luckily that wasn't an excuse given to a police officer, as I doubt that it would have been believed.

 

Sounds more like the excuse that would be given by a Police Officer.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly whilst it was rash I dont think he should have been jailed or prosecuted

 

The guy had a knife, as far as im concerned once someone goes out armed they are putting lifes at risk and you should have a right to protect your own upto the extent of killing the other party if necessary

 

The actions were all brought about by the other guy and its criminal an innocent party will spend time in jail for being in fear of their life

 

The law states you may use reasonable force necessary to defend yourself.

 

The question here is was the force he used within reason. He drove down the street and up a pavement to knock the thug down. He could easily have driven away, which he chose not to.

 

Also by hiding the identity of the knife thug, I think his trial is still to come up. Watch carefully for his sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Deek has this one nailed.

 

It isn;t self defence as he has gone on the attack by driving up onto the pavement to knock him down.

 

I kind of sympathise with him and perhaps a three year suspended sentence would have been better i.e. he gets his punishment but really no need to send him to prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Deek has this one nailed.

 

It isn;t self defence as he has gone on the attack by driving up onto the pavement to knock him down.

 

I kind of sympathise with him and perhaps a three year suspended sentence would have been better i.e. he gets his punishment but really no need to send him to prison.

 

I agree with Deek as well. If he couldn't get away from the assailants and had to knock one down to escape that's different. But, to effectively chase one on to the pavement is too far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Deek as well. If he couldn't get away from the assailants and had to knock one down to escape that's different. But, to effectively chase one on to the pavement is too far.

 

I kinda agree - but at the same time, I think that the focus has to be on who initiated the whole thing.

 

I.e would the guy have run the bloke over if he hadnt had cause to do so.....

 

Theres no question who the real criminal is here, and I think its important not to forget that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...