wow I didnt know so many badasses inhabited the polotics section of an internet gaming fourm
Printable View
wow I didnt know so many badasses inhabited the polotics section of an internet gaming fourm
its not badass , violence is sometimes needed , when it is needed make it quick and effective .Quote:
wow I didnt know so many badasses inhabited the polotics section of an internet gaming fourm
The problems arise when people start seeing red , thats when mistakes happen .
Nope legally you were right .Quote:
Agreed, I was wrong. I can defend myself and justify my action but legally I was wrong, morally and ethically? I'll stand pat.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
I alwamost laugh when hearing "child defenders" telling that punishing children is bad. Notice that when there were harsh punishments for children, there were no young criminals.
Krook if they hung children for being criminals or deported them to Australia for commiting crimes would they be considered harsh punishments ?
If harsh punishments meant there were no young criminals then how come so many children were executed or transported ?
Were they wrongful convictions or something ?
The example was verbal harassment. I would include littering closer to verbal harassment than physical harassment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
In the UK, self defence is protecting oneself or one's family. To attack someone who is attacking a third party is already on dodgy ground, but to attack someone with excessive force (as pinning someone to the ground is) who was only offering verbal abuse is utterly illegal.
~:smoking:
Was it ?Quote:
The example was verbal harassment.
I read pushed as in actually pushed not verbaly pushed , perhaps I am incorrect , but if it was the former then that constitutes assault so self defense stands without question .
Third party dodgy ground ? Not really , it depends on the situation , though it can eventually come down to whether the judge is having a bad day or your brief is rubbish .Quote:
In the UK, self defence is protecting oneself or one's family. To attack someone who is attacking a third party is already on dodgy ground, but to attack someone with excessive force (as pinning someone to the ground is) who was only offering verbal abuse is utterly illegal.
Excessive force is very difficult to quantify , but legally the nature of the verbal abuse can allow for the use of force in reaction to it .
"When reviewing cases involving assertions of self-defence or action in the prevention of crime/preservation of property, prosecutors should be aware of the balance to be struck:
* the public interest in promoting a responsible contribution on the part of citizens in preserving law and order; and
* in discouraging vigilantism and the use of violence generally."
Link
There. Seems nice and clear. How a brief could explain to a judge how physical abuse is a proportioned response to verbal abuse is interesting.
A cursory glance at the article will show how unlawful pinning someone to the floor is.
~:smoking:
A cursory glance or a longer glance ? neither will show the unlawfulness , that has to be initially determined by the police on a case by case basis , when they get stuck they ask the CPS , if they can agree that it might be able to be shown as unlawful then it goes to either the magistrates or a judge and jury , then they decide if it was lawful or can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was unlawful(if you are unsure always go for the second option , or did Blair abolish the choice over there now , if you lose the punishment is more severe but you have a much better chance with a judge and jury than with the magistrates ).Quote:
A cursory glance at the article will show how unlawful pinning someone to the floor is.
Two things you should never skimp on , an accountant or a brief , it is your briefs job to show that to the judge , a decent brief can turn the whole case on its head when it isn't clear cut or even when you are in the wrong .Quote:
How a brief could explain to a judge how physical abuse is a proportioned response to verbal abuse is interesting.
Odin and Tribsey are right on the following account:
If another person assaults you; they physically touch you, you have the right to defend yourself.
When someone pushes you: they plant both hands on you chest and shoves, they are trying to hurt you.
If they just stand there and verbally abuses you, there is no need for violence. People should be able to keep their calm and listen to the ranting of the stupid.
Remember, swearing is the weak mind’s attempt to express itself forcibly.
A great King had as a rule to do nothing when his anger clouded his judgement. He waited until his heart had calmed and his mind was yet again clear to pass judgment to the situation.
But if your physical wellbeing is in imminent danger, you need to act.
I have no problems with and I don’t think the law has problems with you intervening with someone assaulting another. There are too many bystanders to youth violence these days.
The other day a 17 year old was beaten to a coma in my city. Eyewitnesses told that the youth gang that assaulted this kid jumped on his head repeatedly.
Eyewitnesses!!! They should have intervened way before someone jumped on this kid’s head.
The kid is now floating between life and death.
Not quite , it all depends on the nature of the verbal abuse ,some threats of violence can be treated as an act of violence and you can plead self defense that way , though since you mention remaining calm in the face of ranting then a handy little trick is to say something very quietly to them that will make them swing . Its very good for convincing any witnessess present that you did nothing at all until actually attacked .Quote:
If they just stand there and verbally abuses you, there is no need for violence. People should be able to keep their calm and listen to the ranting of the stupid.
Let me be perfectly clear. I was pushed, my family was threatened with harm (perhaps bluster) during a physcial basketball game.
That kid is god dam lucky I restrained myself, at anytime I could have snapped his neck, you can choose to believe that or not. You bet your ass I see red when my children are threatened with death, and if that occassion arises again I would swiftly remove the threat physcially just like that time.
However, the point of my post wasnt to thump my chest and proclaim "bad ass" status, it was merely to point out that at times, a violent reaction is meritted and effective.
Unchecked would that situation have esculated? Would the threats have been fulfilled? Well they werent, and in life if your someone who chooses to turn your cheek when pushed and are able to draw upon some ethical morality in the heat of the moment, your a better person then I am.
Is there a smiley here with a middle finger? :thumbsdown:
The problems arise when people start seeing red , thats when mistakes happen .Quote:
You bet your ass I see red when my children are threatened with death
I see with a slight hint of pink, but I'm also hungover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman