Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

Pissartist

It was assault as far as I'm concerned

Sleeper12

runawaybishop wrote:

Assault has a specific legal definition, stop abusing it

Assault is a physical act. He committed this act several times.

The legal assault can only be determined by a court of law.

runawaybishop

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Assault is a physical act. He committed this act several times.

The legal assault can only be determined by a court of law.

Nope, it's not assault if acting in self defense or the defense of others. By either definition.

Plumbthedepths

Sleeper12 wrote:

Assault is a physical act. He committed this act several times.

I'm beginning to think you are absolutely clueless and spouting crap.

Sleeper12

runawaybishop wrote:

No one else needed to stop her after he removed her. The fact that he acted first doesn't make him wrong

You side stepped my question.

Several protesters entered the room. Some quite vocal. All the protesters were removed from the room but he was the only one who assaulted someone. You don't find this strange?

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote:

If I shoot you dead but police don't arrest me while they investigate. Does that mean you were not shot dead?

Haha. What?

Sleeper12 wrote:

He assaulted her that's a fact. Only a court of law can decide if he is guilty of assault or not. It is nothing more than opinion that he did or did not assault her

Contradicting yourself within three sentences is impressive.

Sleeper12 wrote:

If throwing liquid on someone is assault then slamming someone against a wall, hitting them & grabbing them by the neck is definitely assault. I'd love her to post photos of her neck. I'm betting she's black and blue today

Bull****. Stop comparing the two as if they happened under the same circumstances. They didn't and that's disingenuous.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote:

You don't find it odd that there was a room full of people & he was the only one who assaulted someone? The main group were escorted out of the room peacefully without being assaulted.

She was the only one to break away from the group and get as far as she did. Security were dealing with the rest of the idiots.

runawaybishop

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You side stepped my question.

Several protesters entered the room. Some quite vocal. All the protesters were removed from the room but he was the only one who assaulted someone. You don't find this strange?

He didn't assault anyone.

I already answered it, him being the first to act doesn't make him wrong.

TCM

Sleeper12 wrote:

Several protesters entered the room. Some quite vocal. All the protesters were removed from the room but he was the only one who assaulted someone. You don't find this strange?

Assaulted no one, but did his country a service.

Sleeper12

runawaybishop wrote:

Nope, it's not assault if acting in self defense or the defense of others. By either definition.

I'm sorry but hitting someone is assaulting them. I was assaulted by my teachers when I was in school. It was legal at the time but they still assaulted me.

Self defense or not it is called assault. You are confusing the legal definition. Only a court of law can determine if he is guilty of assault.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You don't find it odd that there was a room full of people & he was the only one who assaulted someone?

Why would that ever be odd? You're basically arguing that no on can do anything as long as everyone is ok with what's happening at that moment. Why would anyone do anything if everything else feels fine. Regular people outnumber security. Why would they do anything. Everyone feels fine.

ILoveYourVibes

runawaybishop wrote: »

Nope, it's not assault if acting in self defense or the defense of others. By either definition.

He wasn't acting in self defense.

What you could argue is that he thought he was. But you couldn't argue it was actual self defense.

You could only argue he was mistaken and that the burden of blame for the mistake lies with her.

runawaybishop

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm sorry but hitting someone is assaulting them. I was assaulted by my teachers when I was in school. It was legal at the time but they still assaulted me.

Self defense or not it is called assault. You are confusing the legal definition. Only a court of law can determine if he is guilty of assault.

I am not confused in the slightest. It is not assault to defend yourself. You are also mis-using the legal definition to suit yourself.

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would that ever be odd? You're basically arguing that no on can do anything as long as everyone is ok with what's happening at that moment. Why would anyone do anything if everything else feels fine.

I am struggling to understand what you mean. Can you repost to clarify?

Attempted murder it was terrible it was.

ILoveYourVibes

runawaybishop wrote: »

I am not confused in the slightest. It is not assault to defend yourself. You are also mis-using the legal definition to suit yourself.

But he wasn't defending himself. We know that now.


You can only argue that he wasn't to know that at the time. And you would have to prove that SHE has the burden of blame for his mistake.

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You don't find it odd that there was a room full of people & he was the only one who assaulted someone? The main group were escorted out of the room peacefully without being assaulted.

The main group weren’t striding towards the governor of the BoE. She however had separated herself from that group was was doing just that. Had she stayed in the main group she would have been fine, it was her decision to go on a solo stunt that would have made her stand out as up to something else.

Danzy

She isn't going to press charges because she knows she hasn't a leg to stand on and if they charged her it would be a clear conviction.

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

Attempted murder it was terrible it was.

He was very lucky she wasn't seriously injured Tbh.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote:

I'm sorry but hitting someone is assaulting them. I was assaulted by my teachers when I was in school. It was legal at the time but they still assaulted me.

Sorry to hear that.

Sleeper12 wrote:

Self defense or not it is called assault. You are confusing the legal definition. Only a court of law can determine if he is guilty of assault.

Nope. You are confusing your personal definition with the actual definition.

Self defence or the defense of others is not assault. Understandably, your perception may be skewed by childhood trauma

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

Contradicting yourself within three sentences is impressive.

Another poster that refuses to see the difference between the physical act of assaulting someone & the legal definition. I did not contradict myself at all. Listen closely now, he assaulted her. This is a fact. Hitting someone for any reason is assault. I then went on to say that no one, including you, has a right to say if he is guilty or not of assault. Only a court of law can determine this.

He did commit the physical act of assault. He hit her.

ILoveYourVibes

Danzy wrote: »

She isn't going to press charges because she knows she hasn't a leg to stand on and if they charged her it would be a clear conviction.

I would think it's because she has more stoicism than the likes of our Maria Bailey :rolleyes:

Danzy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Assault is a physical act. He committed this act several times.

The legal assault can only be determined by a court of law.

Bird law definition.

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry to hear that.



Nope. You are confusing your personal definition with the actual definition.

Self defence or the defense of others is not assault. Understandably, your perception may be skewed by childhood trauma

He wasn't defending anyone.

runawaybishop

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

But he wasn't defending himself. We know that now.


You can only argue that he wasn't to know that at the time. And you would have to prove that SHE has the burden of blame for his mistake.

We don't have to argue anything, it's already been stated.

He called the presence of the Greenpeace activists a “major security breach,” adding: “In the confusion many guests understandably felt threatened and when one protester rushed past me towards the top table I instinctively reacted. I was for a split-second genuinely worried she might have been armed.

He thought she was going to assault someone, he had lawful reason to use force to stop her.

runawaybishop

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Another poster that refuses to see the difference between the physical act of assaulting someone & the legal definition. I did not contradict myself at all. Listen closely now, he assaulted her. This is a fact. Hitting someone for any reason is assault. I then went on to say that no one, including you, has a right to say if he is guilty or not of assault. Only a court of law can determine this.

He did commit the physical act of assault. He hit her.

Wrong. There are many instances were hitting someone is not assault. Boxers do it all the time. People defending themselves are not committing assault

ILoveYourVibes

runawaybishop wrote: »

Wrong. There are many instances were hitting someone is not assault. Boxers do it all the time. People defending themselves are not committing assault

That's consent.

And yes sometimes in Ireland even on your own home if you defend your home you are committing assault. Sad and crazy but true.

runawaybishop

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Then you don't need to post here anymore

You don't get to tell me where to post, thanks.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He wasn't defending anyone.

Incorrect. He believed he was defending people.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I am struggling to understand what you mean. Can you repost to clarify?

The poster's argument was that everyone else thought things were fine... So why do anything.

Every situation that turns out not to be fine has that one person who first realises it isn't. It's odd to expect that person to not act because other people haven't also acted.

The poster was arguing some weird paradoxical and impossible argument that everyone must instantly know at the same time that something is wrong.

runawaybishop

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

That's consent.

And yes sometimes in Ireland even on your own home if you defend your home you are committing assault. Sad and crazy but true.

Wrong. Self defense is not assault. Go find a legal definition that shows otherwise

ILoveYourVibes

runawaybishop wrote: »

You don't get to tell me where to post, thanks.



Incorrect. He believed he was defending people.

That hasn't been established as fact. It's just self reported. He has self vested interests.

And even if he did. Was it REASONABLE for him to believe that?

It's not clear cut I will give you that.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

Why would that ever be odd? You're basically arguing that no on can do anything as long as everyone is ok with what's happening at that moment. Why would anyone do anything if everything else feels fine. Regular people outnumber security. Why would they do anything. Everyone feels fine.

No. I'm saying that all the other protesters were removed without being assaulted. You keep side stepping the issue. He is the only person who felt that slamming against the wall, hitting & grabbing by the neck was warranted. The only one who hit anyone was this fool. The more vocal protesters were removed peacefully.

It says a lot about him. Poor judgment & quick to use his hands. Not someone I'd want running the country. Politicians are supposed to use words not their fists.

ILoveYourVibes

runawaybishop wrote: »

Wrong. Self defense is not assault. Go find a legal definition that shows otherwise

Actually self defense is the MOST common defense for assault and battery case convictions.


To prove self defense you have to prove for example that you couldn't run away.

runawaybishop

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

That hasn't been established as fact. It's just self reported. He has self vested interests.

And even if he did. Was it REASONABLE for him to believe that?

It's not clear cut I will give you that.

All the law is concerned about is what he believed at the time. If events become more clear after the fact that doesn't change the initial situation he reacted to.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

No. I'm saying that all the other protesters were removed without being assaulted. You keep side stepping the issue. He is the only person who felt that slamming against the wall, hitting & grabbing by the neck was warranted. The only one who hit anyone was this fool. The more vocal protesters were removed peacefully.

It says a lot about him. Poor judgment & quick to use his hands. Not someone I'd want running the country. Politicians are supposed to use words not their fists.

If everyone else was removed peacefully, then the lone person striding towards the most important people in room is surely the riskiest. Peaceful protesters stick together peacefully protesting.

I really need to clarify something here with yourself and a few others.
Do you think she should be allowed approach like that?
Was the man stopping her appropriate?
Was the way he stopped her too harsh?

runawaybishop

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Actually self defense is the MOST common defense for assault and battery case convictions.


To prove self defense you have to prove for example that you couldn't run away.

In this instance he does not have to prove he couldn't run away. He is entirely within the law to use force to prevent an assault on others.

ILoveYourVibes

runawaybishop wrote: »

All the law is concerned about is what he believed at the time. If events become more clear after the fact that doesn't change the initial situation he reacted to.

The doctrine of self-defense has a number of limitations just because you act in self defense does not mean all bets are off.

You have to do everything else you can possibly do first. It's a last resort.

He could have run away.

You can also be found guilty of assault if acting in self defense you took on a person that was no match for you ...like a child for instance.

ILoveYourVibes

runawaybishop wrote: »

In this instance he does not have to prove he couldn't run away. He is entirely within the law to use force to prevent an assault on others.

Proving she proved a threat to others would be impossible. Especially since no one else reacted.

No one asked him to defend them. No one seemed scared.

You would have to question everyone else there and ask them if they felt threatened.

You also have to prove reasonable grounds etc.

I don't think if the others were asked you could rely on them to say they thought she was going to assault people.

Sleeper12

runawaybishop wrote:

I am not confused in the slightest. It is not assault to defend yourself. You are also mis-using the legal definition to suit yourself.

This is where you are confused. I have stated several times that I am not talking about the legal definition. I am talking about the physical act of assault.

Let's make it very simple for you. He slammed her against the wall. He pushed her. He hit her. He grabbed her by the neck. None of this was self defence. She never laid a finger on him. She never made a threatening gesture. Not a cross word. Nothing. All of the other protesters, who seemed much more threatening, were removed without the use of violence. He was the only violent person in the room full of people. It speaks volumes about his character

RobbingBandit

Situation is why pepper spray was invented pow right in the kisser.

Sleeper12

ILoveYourVibes wrote:

Proving she proved a threat to others would be impossible. Especially since no one else reacted.

Another way to put that is no one else overreacted.

runawaybishop

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This is where you are confused. I have stated several times that I am not talking about the legal definition. I am talking about the physical act of assault.

Let's make it very simple for you. He slammed her against the wall. He pushed her. He hit her. He grabbed her by the neck. None of this was self defence. She never laid a finger on him. She never made a threatening gesture. Not a cross word. Nothing. All of the other protesters, who seemed much more threatening, were removed without the use of violence. He was the only violent person in the room full of people. It speaks volumes about his character

He was defending himself and others. That is not assault.

All the others protesters left by the way, she didn't.

ILoveYourVibes

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Situation is why pepper spray was invented pow right in the kisser.

Pepper spray is illegal in the UK and Ireland.

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This is where you are confused. I have stated several times that I am not talking about the legal definition. I am talking about the physical act of assault.

Let's make it very simple for you. He slammed her against the wall. He pushed her. He hit her. He grabbed her by the neck. None of this was self defence. She never laid a finger on him. She never made a threatening gesture. Not a cross word. Nothing. All of the other protesters, who seemed much more threatening, were removed without the use of violence. He was the only violent person in the room full of people. It speaks volumes about his character

completely wrong.
an mp was murdered in england not so long ago, more have seriously assaulted like george calloway, and just lately politicians have has items thrown at them and the comedian jo brand encourages throwing battery acid at people.
add to this that he is not a trained security professional and there it would be impossible to prosecute him for assault.

So let his constituency decide whether he keeps his job not the social media mob.

runawaybishop

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Pepper spray is illegal in the UK and Ireland.

Police in the UK use pepper spray.

ILoveYourVibes

runawaybishop wrote: »

He was defending himself and others.

He wasn't. This is very very important.

He at best BELIEVED he was. He was actually mistaken.

At best he made a mistake. At worst he assaulted her.

She is not as strong as him.

If she had been INTENDING to attack him when he grabbed her neck that would have been the PERFECT moment to do so because she could have claimed self defense. She chose not to do so. She never touched him.

Thus illustrating that she had no intention of attacking him or anyone else.

So even IF he BELIEVED he was in danger. He was actually mistaken.

So now we come to 'Was it a reasonable belief?'.


Since no one else seems to have believed it why did he? He had a very different reaction to this woman.

And perhaps he was influenced by many of the stories of mps being attacked. He might be mentally DISTURBED by such stories. Suffering an anxiety disorder maybe even. Who knows?

Maybe he has PTSD?

I am being serious. To jump up like that etc it can be part of a stress condition or a nervous condition.

It might not actually be his fault.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote:

Listen closely now, he assaulted her. This is a fact. Hitting someone for any reason is assault. I then went on to say that no one, including you, has a right to say if he is guilty or not of assault. Only a court of law can determine this.

So he assaulted her and that is a fact but you can't say that he is guilty of assaulting her.

Yeah... That's bull****.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

The doctrine of self-defense has a number of limitations just because you act in self defense does not mean all bets are off.

You have to do everything else you can possibly do first. It's a last resort.

He could have run away.

You can also be found guilty of assault if acting in self defense you took on a person that was no match for you ...like a child for instance.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Proving she proved a threat to others would be impossible. Especially since no one else reacted.

No one asked him to defend them. No one seemed scared.

You would have to question everyone else there and ask them if they felt threatened.

You also have to prove reasonable grounds etc.

I don't think if the others were asked you could rely on them to say they thought she was going to assault people.

...

Can you actually imagine hearing this in a court of law if she actually had a weapon. Some self-anointed solicitor of the free people of the world blathering on about this and that nonsense defending that person's right to go at someone.

Meanwhile, while ye're all masturbating to a video, that guy took less that a second to act in defense of someone else and did so in a restrained way so that 10 seconds later, no one was hurt. And that person lost his career because of imbeciles.


You'd swear this guy was some abusive wanker, and he chose his time to act in front of the cameras. Braindead the lot of ye. Braindead, or biased beyond reasoning.

ILoveYourVibes

runawaybishop wrote: »

Police in the UK use pepper spray.

They also use guns. Its not permitted by the public.

Timberrrrrrrr

_blaaz wrote: »

Could also be because woman involved didnt want to make a complaint?

Doesnt matter in the UK, if the police believe a crime has been commited they can arrest/charge.