Gordon R Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 No I won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 Use of force is unfortunately quite a complex subject, The main powers relating to the use of force in england and wales come under • Common Law • Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 • Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 For anyone intersted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 5 minutes ago, Gordon R said: No I won't. If you'd like to correct me and point me to the relevant legislation that shows my posts are wrong, I'm very open and not too arrogant to learn, until then I stand by my posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 (edited) With your knowledge of the law, merely citing acts or even Common Law won't hack it. Other than absolute offences such as "Possession of a firearm", where the onus is on the individual to prove innocence, a person is presumed innocent until they are found guilty. Stephen Gerrard was guilty of assault, before the jury issued their not guilty verdict. Not sure how that works. Edited November 29, 2017 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 4 minutes ago, Gordon R said: With your knowledge of the law, merely citing acts or even Common Law won't hack it. Other than absolute offences such as "Possession of a firearm", where the onus is on the individual to prove innocence, a person is presumed innocent until they are found guilty. Stephen Gerrard was guilty of assault, before the jury issued their not guilty verdict. Not sure how that works. Yes but in the specifics of this case we are specificaly talking of a premtive strike which is in effect an assault, until you can prove it was in self defence, very different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 (edited) If a lone person was in a car, surrounded by masked gunmen and they drove through the gunmen to escape - he / she would be committing an offence. Get real. Quote Yes but in the specifics of this case we are specificaly talking of a premtive strike which is in effect an assault, until you can prove it was in self defence, very different. I read the above quote and wondered just what you mean. Still not clear. Stepehen Gerrard hit someone because he believed they were about to hit him. The person in this car drove past a menacing mob to escape. Very different????? You are joking. You brought the various Acts in to this. Just point me to the exact section which says guilty until proven innocent - conveniently ignoring the Magna Carta. PS perhaps you can point to the Common Law case precedents dealing with self defence. Edited November 29, 2017 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 It's simple, if I assault someone and admit that I have, then by default I'm guilty of assault, I would then need to prove that I assaulted someone (A premtive strike) to prevent an imminent threat to myself or others (along with a few other defences to my offence of assault which I won' go into as it appears they're irrelevant in this case) if I can't do that, I've already admitted I'm guilty of assault and will be prosecuted as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 You really haven't got a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumfelter Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 If a group of masked men in paramilitary clothing tried to stop my car in a narrow country lane I don't think I will be stopping.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 According to 12gauge82 - you would be guilty. I presume he means guilty under Quote Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 As this deals with the conduct of the Police and gathering evidence, I'm unclear as to just how that works, but I'm sure he is right. I believe the car driver went out of his way to cause as little harm as possible. He could have been far heavier with his right foot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootingEgg Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 Although you are theoretically trying to get away, I think that using your car to drive through someone is not seen as reasonable force. I think you would have to explain your actions to the police. No need to start trying to score points against each other though. Have an opinion but keep it friendly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumfelter Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 I have seen police officers use their cars as a means of escape, what do you think they were charged with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 8 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said: Although you are theoretically trying to get away, I think that using your car to drive through someone is not seen as reasonable force. I think you would have to explain your actions to the police. No need to start trying to score points against each other though. Have an opinion but keep it friendly Scary stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 ShootingEgg - it is always friendly. A bit of fun. The driver might have to explain his actions, but I believe he can. Just as those blocking the road could be called to account. Reasonable / proportionate - there is the crux. The sabs might believe it to be over the top, but the driver could legitimately say he was terrified. As someone on this thread has commented - ammonia was thrown in the face of someone who stopped to talk. Sabs intend to cause fear and the driver had no idea what they intended. I'm sure they didn't just want to say hello. It will be interesting to see if any Police action is taken against the driver or the rider on another thread. My view is that neither would warrant a prosecution, nor would one succeed. I don't think the sabs would be interested in appearing in court either. They merely provoke a situation, video it and then say "Oo - look what the bad hunting people did to innocent people". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 2 minutes ago, oowee said: Scary stuff. He could have reversed and called the Police for assistance. He could have stop and waiting in his car - if they started to attempt to smash the window or something then MAYBE they could claim it was reasonable. The whole point of REASONABLE force is that it’s the MINIMAL amount of force needed. Driving backwards away from the ‘threat’ when the road is clear is much more minimal that driving towards them and attempting to knock them over. Let’s wait and see what the Police and Court decide ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumfelter Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 6 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: The whole point of REASONABLE force is that it’s the MINIMAL amount of force needed. Can't believe that is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmytree Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 I think the driver did right, he didn't use excessive force. If I was confronted with masked men I would have done the same but with a bit more right foot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ips Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 I am firmly in the camp of.....if masked men surrounded my car with god knows what intent I would not be stopping to find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmytree Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 1 minute ago, Lloyd90 said: He could have reversed and called the Police for assistance. He could have stop and waiting in his car - if they started to attempt to smash the window or something then MAYBE they could claim it was reasonable. The whole point of REASONABLE force is that it’s the MINIMAL amount of force needed. Driving backwards away from the ‘threat’ when the road is clear is much more minimal that driving towards them and attempting to knock them over. Let’s wait and see what the Police and Court decide ... He was in a narrow country lane with a trailer on wasn't he? Horses and riders as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 Quote Driving backwards away from the ‘threat’ when the road is clear is much more minimal that driving towards them and attempting to knock them over. When the road is clear - fair enough. However, he was towing a trailer and there were people in the road, behind the trailer. Reversing, in this instance, could have been far more serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 12 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: He could have reversed and called the Police for assistance. He could have stop and waiting in his car - if they started to attempt to smash the window or something then MAYBE they could claim it was reasonable. The whole point of REASONABLE force is that it’s the MINIMAL amount of force needed. Driving backwards away from the ‘threat’ when the road is clear is much more minimal that driving towards them and attempting to knock them over. Let’s wait and see what the Police and Court decide ... Quite simply, no, he couldn't on many counts. There was no mobile signal. The nearest landline was a mile back down the narrow lane. Reversing a trailer a mile, with a bunch of masked terrorists prepared to surround him would have made doing so impossible. Stoppinging and waiting would have only ended in further abuse, intimidation, vandalism and possibly injury. How long was he supposed to wait. The nearest police station is an hour away, which is the time it took for the police to originally attend. He did what any sensible and reasonable person would have done, keep moving and get the hell out of it. Which is exactly what the daft 70 odd year old fool that I am did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westley Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 37 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: He could have reversed and called the Police for assistance. He could have stop and waiting in his car - if they started to attempt to smash the window or something then MAYBE they could claim it was reasonable. The whole point of REASONABLE force is that it’s the MINIMAL amount of force needed. Driving backwards away from the ‘threat’ when the road is clear is much more minimal that driving towards them and attempting to knock them over. Let’s wait and see what the Police and Court decide ... I believe that he/she was towing a trailer at the time, this would make it almost impossible to SAFELY reverse at any speed ? Perhaps they were also concerned that the trailer could have been opened and it's contents released or harmed. We are well aware of how Sabs treat animals with 'loving care' ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 20 minutes ago, CharlieT said: Quite simply, no, he couldn't on many counts. There was no mobile signal. The nearest landline was a mile back down the narrow lane. Reversing a trailer a mile, with a bunch of masked terrorists prepared to surround him would have made doing so impossible. Stoppinging and waiting would have only ended in further abuse, intimidation, vandalism and possibly injury. How long was he supposed to wait. The nearest police station is an hour away, which is the time it took for the police to originally attend. He did what any sensible and reasonable person would have done, keep moving and get the hell out of it. Which is exactly what the daft 70 odd year old fool that I am did. Those are all fair and reasonable reasons for the action shown in the video. Was it you in the video? Wondering as you said "what's what I did." If so good luck. I would expect you will have to justify your actions if so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 Whenever you defend yourself in any way, it's likely that arrest will follow to allow police to investigate and take the action they decide on at a later date? If you have a licence it's probably gone in the short term at best? If you are a thug it's likely anything once posesed has been removed already? Which one wins as usual? Body and vehicle cams are fairly cheap and must be used to preserve the peace and law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
das Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 8 hours ago, Gordon R said: Just what else was the driver supposed to do? Stop and ask them if they minded moving. If they did not want to stop the car, why block the road? Their intent is shown by the fact that they were videoing the incident. Have these cretins no idea of the terror that they cause? They will be quite smug in the knowledge that they do intimidate, but whinge at the consequence of their actions. A bunch of cowards. Agree with you 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.