Discussion
just read this
www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2232653.html?menu=
i hit her as hard as i could
dosn't sound like resonable force
having been accused of assault and claimed self defence and having hit the person twice till they left me alone
i was informed self defence is hitting someone once twice is assult
this looks real iffy to me
www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2232653.html?menu=
i hit her as hard as i could
dosn't sound like resonable force
having been accused of assault and claimed self defence and having hit the person twice till they left me alone
i was informed self defence is hitting someone once twice is assult
this looks real iffy to me
splatspeed said:
splatspeed said:
Edited by blueyes on Thursday 8th March 11:30
Without seeing the incident from start to finish I think it is difficult to make a call on this, the reporting does seem rather biased though.
I rather think if plod had used Mace it would have been racist too. A sad state of affairs when people play the race/victim card unnecessarily, it detracts from the true offences.
I rather think if plod had used Mace it would have been racist too. A sad state of affairs when people play the race/victim card unnecessarily, it detracts from the true offences.
splatspeed said:
just read this
www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2232653.html?menu=
i hit her as hard as i could
dosn't sound like resonable force
having been accused of assault and claimed self defence and having hit the person twice till they left me alone
i was informed self defence is hitting someone once twice is assult
this looks real iffy to me
www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2232653.html?menu=
i hit her as hard as i could
dosn't sound like resonable force
having been accused of assault and claimed self defence and having hit the person twice till they left me alone
i was informed self defence is hitting someone once twice is assult
this looks real iffy to me
You were misinformed.!
All depends what is reasonable in all the circumstances.
In some situations you are entitled to kill another person, for an extreme example.
chrispy porker said:
splatspeed said:
just read this
www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2232653.html?menu=
i hit her as hard as i could
dosn't sound like resonable force
having been accused of assault and claimed self defence and having hit the person twice till they left me alone
i was informed self defence is hitting someone once twice is assult
this looks real iffy to me
www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2232653.html?menu=
i hit her as hard as i could
dosn't sound like resonable force
having been accused of assault and claimed self defence and having hit the person twice till they left me alone
i was informed self defence is hitting someone once twice is assult
this looks real iffy to me
You were misinformed.!
All depends what is reasonable in all the circumstances.
In some situations you are entitled to kill another person, for an extreme example.
CP is right, what you also have to remember as a member of the public in a fight or confrontation your expected to do just enough to walk away. NOT expected to subdue or contain an attacker. The expectation upon the police is to arrest and detain someone. For example. Your in the street and matey walks up to you asking for a fight. You are expected in law to walk off/ run away not expected to have a fight. Matey walks up to a police officer, the police officer has an expectation placed upon them that they are to deatin said chap and make sure he feels the full weight of the justice system upon them. Thats why the police are protected (as are the public to an extent) by statute and common law regards the ammount of force that can be used.
mph999 said:
splatspeed said:
...i was informed self defence is hitting someone once twice is assult
hmm, not if the first one doesn't stop them it's not ...
Best bet, drag them behind a bush, finish job ...
... never seen them before officer ...
M
Best bet is to bury them very deep... or make sure they always 'had' a knife... KIDDING OBVIOUSLY
For the benefit of anyone reading above that was a comment in jest and not advice about self defence.
AS the officers have quite rightly said, what is "reasonable force" is determined by the Jury, based on the facts. I say by the Jury as it is always wise in such a case to elect trial by Jury, because guess what, they think beating seven shades out of someone is in the main self defence in circumstances like that. As long as you don't use a weapon if they don't have one, you are pretty much ok. If they have a weapon, you are able to be even more aggressive to "defend" yourself or another person.
It is only in the case where self defence is clearly unsuitable, such as you knife them in the back as they are trying to escape from you, that you will have a problem.
It is only in the case where self defence is clearly unsuitable, such as you knife them in the back as they are trying to escape from you, that you will have a problem.
So, Toni Comer, a loutette from Sheffield, was arrested while wantonly vandalising cars. She became - as loutettes do these days - violent, and one Pc punched her on the arm repeatedly to subdue her.
She was drunk (to put it charitably) at the time. She now wishes to sue the police for allegedly mistreating her during her arrest, and appears to be the sort for whom a wad of compensation would come in very useful. Like many who have heard the details of this case, I feel two things especially keenly. The first is that, if you choose to go out vandalising cars, you have to accept that there might just be some unpleasant consequences.
The second - although I abhor violence against women - is that the policeman clearly didn't hit her hard enough.
She was drunk (to put it charitably) at the time. She now wishes to sue the police for allegedly mistreating her during her arrest, and appears to be the sort for whom a wad of compensation would come in very useful. Like many who have heard the details of this case, I feel two things especially keenly. The first is that, if you choose to go out vandalising cars, you have to accept that there might just be some unpleasant consequences.
The second - although I abhor violence against women - is that the policeman clearly didn't hit her hard enough.
jasandjules said:
It is only in the case where self defence is clearly unsuitable, such as you knife them in the back as they are trying to escape from you, that you will have a problem.
How about stabbed in the back while braking into your property with screwdriver or other weapon/tool in their hand ?
toni896 said:
How about stabbed in the back while braking into your property with screwdriver or other weapon/tool in their hand ?
To be fair, I see where you are coming from, BUT if you sneak up behind someone and stab them in the back if they have a screwdriver, you will be in trouble. The law is a bit silly with this, but stabbing someone in the back would only really be allowed IMHO if they were carrying a gun.
What you could however do is hit them with say a table lamp in the back of the head to incapacitate them if they are armed, as you are not using an equivalent weapon against them.
She says she ist epileptic.... und may have been in an episode as "she cannot rightly remember."
I think perhaps more drink than she could cope with .. interacting with her medication.. was real reason "she could not rightly remember the evening in question".
She has history of "unladylike behaviour" (Perhaps after an invite to the next series of "From Ladette to Lady"
)
I do not think force to restrain was unreasonable given the situation und what I saw on the footage as shown. Had he not used any force .she may have hurt him. Und she would have faced far worse charges then.
If anything .. this footage show just how nastily violent und threatening these vulgar types are to our BiB, The types who think getting drunk, volent und nasty ist only way to have a "good night out" .. when far more enjoyable to socialise und eat und drink in moderation.. with a night to remember for its good food, drink und real friends sharing it.
I think perhaps more drink than she could cope with .. interacting with her medication.. was real reason "she could not rightly remember the evening in question".
She has history of "unladylike behaviour" (Perhaps after an invite to the next series of "From Ladette to Lady"
) I do not think force to restrain was unreasonable given the situation und what I saw on the footage as shown. Had he not used any force .she may have hurt him. Und she would have faced far worse charges then.
If anything .. this footage show just how nastily violent und threatening these vulgar types are to our BiB, The types who think getting drunk, volent und nasty ist only way to have a "good night out" .. when far more enjoyable to socialise und eat und drink in moderation.. with a night to remember for its good food, drink und real friends sharing it.
me2 said:
I am sure I heard it said somewhere that she was holding his nuts and trying to kick them at the same time?????????????
If someone had been holding your nuts for two minutes then you'd realise how much they swell up... thus.. No I think it was hold nuts, kick to head, kick nuts, spit and then repeat. Kind of like a workout video.
why did she get thrown out of the club??????? why was she vandalising a car?????
why was she fighting the police???? media like this only makes enforcement of law in this land impossible... I mean what were they supposed to do, I'm sure if some one like this behaved the way she did on your doorstep you'd want it taking care of immidiately, also how many expensive nights out are ruined by violent idiots who can't take their booze !
It was blatently obvious the pc was hitting her arm to be able to put the restraints on.. I suppose he just could have snapped it instead (it wouldn't have looked so voilent then)
My friends and I have never had any bad dealings with the police mostly because we're not scumbag criminals END OF !!!!!!! IMHO get even tougher on the scrotebags...!!!!
why was she fighting the police???? media like this only makes enforcement of law in this land impossible... I mean what were they supposed to do, I'm sure if some one like this behaved the way she did on your doorstep you'd want it taking care of immidiately, also how many expensive nights out are ruined by violent idiots who can't take their booze !
It was blatently obvious the pc was hitting her arm to be able to put the restraints on.. I suppose he just could have snapped it instead (it wouldn't have looked so voilent then)
My friends and I have never had any bad dealings with the police mostly because we're not scumbag criminals END OF !!!!!!! IMHO get even tougher on the scrotebags...!!!!
There appears to be a lot of unanswered and ambiguous questions surrounding the case. However, reasonable force is a matter of interpretation as of all statutory legislation.
The judiciary decide on law by three main forms of its interpretation;
1. The Golden rule;
Wording in a statute if strictly applied, can lead to an absurdity.
Therefore, the "Golden Rule" is that the Judiciary are entitled to
Assume that the legislator did not intend an absurdity, and will endeavour
to apply the word or wording within the Act to give it the meaning for
Which Parliament intended.
An example of this rule becomes clear in the Offences against the Person Act 1861, where the wording used was "Whosoever being married shall marry another person during the life of the former husband or wife”.
Taken literally the person would be guilty of bigamy therefore, the Act would be absurd on two counts:
i). "Shall marry another person" is meaningless as bigamy suggests that a
married person cannot marry whilst a previous marriage exists.
ii). The wording of " Former" husband or wife would suggest that there is
no longer a marriage in existence therefore, bigamy is invalid.
The Judiciary uses the "Golden Rule" to interpret the draughtsman to say "That a person that marries again whilst still married would be guilty of bigamy".
2. The Literal Rule;
The literal rule would indicate that the wording contained within the statute should be taken as read no matter how absurd as this would be the word that the draughtsman choose to use
An explanation of the rule cannot be bettered than that given by Lord Denning:
The judges do not go by the literal meaning of the words or by the grammatical structure of the sentence. They go by the design or purpose which lies behind it. When they come upon a situation which is to their minds within the spirit--but not the letter--of the legislation, they solve the problem by looking at the design and purpose of the legislature--at the effect which it was sought to achieve. They then interpret the legislation so as to produce the desired effect. This means that they fill in gaps, quite unashamedly, without hesitation. They ask simply: what is the sensible way of dealing with this situation so as to give effect to the presumed purpose of the legislation? They lay down the law accordingly. If you study the decisions of the European Court, you will see that they do it every day. To our eyes--short-sighted by tradition--it is legislation, pure and simple. But, to their eyes, it is fulfilling the true role of the courts.
3. The Mischief Rule;
When it is not clear whether an Act falls within what is prohibited by a particular piece of legislation, the judges can apply the mischief rule. This means that the courts can take into account the reasons why the legislation was passed; what ‘mischief’ the legislation was designed to cure, and whether the act in question fell within the ‘mischief’. For example, the Street Offences Act 1959 made it an offence for a prostitute to solicit men ‘in a street or public place’. In Smith v. Hughes the question was whether a woman who had tapped on a balcony and hissed at men passing by was guilty of an offence under the Act. Parker, L.C.J., found her guilty: ‘I approach the matter by considering what the mischief is aimed at by this Act. Everybody (sic) knows that this was an Act intended to clean up the streets, to enable people to walk along the streets without being molested or solicited by common prostitutes. Viewed in that way, it can matter little whether the prostitute is soliciting while in the street or standing in a doorway or on a balcony’.
Therefore, reasonable force can be determined from both the defendants & prosecutions testomy's in each and every individual case.
Again no doubt we all have an interpretation of reasonable force.
The judiciary decide on law by three main forms of its interpretation;
1. The Golden rule;
Wording in a statute if strictly applied, can lead to an absurdity.
Therefore, the "Golden Rule" is that the Judiciary are entitled to
Assume that the legislator did not intend an absurdity, and will endeavour
to apply the word or wording within the Act to give it the meaning for
Which Parliament intended.
An example of this rule becomes clear in the Offences against the Person Act 1861, where the wording used was "Whosoever being married shall marry another person during the life of the former husband or wife”.
Taken literally the person would be guilty of bigamy therefore, the Act would be absurd on two counts:
i). "Shall marry another person" is meaningless as bigamy suggests that a
married person cannot marry whilst a previous marriage exists.
ii). The wording of " Former" husband or wife would suggest that there is
no longer a marriage in existence therefore, bigamy is invalid.
The Judiciary uses the "Golden Rule" to interpret the draughtsman to say "That a person that marries again whilst still married would be guilty of bigamy".
2. The Literal Rule;
The literal rule would indicate that the wording contained within the statute should be taken as read no matter how absurd as this would be the word that the draughtsman choose to use
An explanation of the rule cannot be bettered than that given by Lord Denning:
The judges do not go by the literal meaning of the words or by the grammatical structure of the sentence. They go by the design or purpose which lies behind it. When they come upon a situation which is to their minds within the spirit--but not the letter--of the legislation, they solve the problem by looking at the design and purpose of the legislature--at the effect which it was sought to achieve. They then interpret the legislation so as to produce the desired effect. This means that they fill in gaps, quite unashamedly, without hesitation. They ask simply: what is the sensible way of dealing with this situation so as to give effect to the presumed purpose of the legislation? They lay down the law accordingly. If you study the decisions of the European Court, you will see that they do it every day. To our eyes--short-sighted by tradition--it is legislation, pure and simple. But, to their eyes, it is fulfilling the true role of the courts.
3. The Mischief Rule;
When it is not clear whether an Act falls within what is prohibited by a particular piece of legislation, the judges can apply the mischief rule. This means that the courts can take into account the reasons why the legislation was passed; what ‘mischief’ the legislation was designed to cure, and whether the act in question fell within the ‘mischief’. For example, the Street Offences Act 1959 made it an offence for a prostitute to solicit men ‘in a street or public place’. In Smith v. Hughes the question was whether a woman who had tapped on a balcony and hissed at men passing by was guilty of an offence under the Act. Parker, L.C.J., found her guilty: ‘I approach the matter by considering what the mischief is aimed at by this Act. Everybody (sic) knows that this was an Act intended to clean up the streets, to enable people to walk along the streets without being molested or solicited by common prostitutes. Viewed in that way, it can matter little whether the prostitute is soliciting while in the street or standing in a doorway or on a balcony’.
Therefore, reasonable force can be determined from both the defendants & prosecutions testomy's in each and every individual case.
Again no doubt we all have an interpretation of reasonable force.
Really should take this to the main thread here:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=141&t=364827&p=21
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=141&t=364827&p=21
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff