| Labour MPs on 20:35 - Oct 28 with 336 views | union_jack |
| Labour MPs on 20:08 - Oct 28 by raynor94 |
That's exactly what he did, the bloke was waiting for a taxi, and had a go at the mp over the fuel allowance and the closure of a local bridge.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me"
Not satisfied with knocking him down, punches him 5 times on the floor.
Say it again, he deserves time and kicked out of the Labour party |
The MP will say that threats were made against him because that’s what he said at the time. What that threat amounted to we’ll have to wait and see. |  |
|  |
| Labour MPs on 13:30 - Oct 31 with 161 views | howenjack |
| Labour MPs on 09:30 - Oct 28 by lifelong |
As somebody has already said, hitting him once in self defence he would probably have a case, it’s the repeated hitting when he was down is the problem. |
In law you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you in order to claim self defence . The victim here had his hands in his pockets therefore no threat being posed. By lashing out the M.P can't claim self defence because there was no force being used against him. He has exacerbated his actions by repeatedly thumping him while on the ground. If hurty words were being shouted at him what he should have done is ignored it and walked away. |  | | |
| Labour MPs on 18:35 - Oct 31 with 135 views | majorraglan |
| Labour MPs on 13:30 - Oct 31 by howenjack |
In law you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you in order to claim self defence . The victim here had his hands in his pockets therefore no threat being posed. By lashing out the M.P can't claim self defence because there was no force being used against him. He has exacerbated his actions by repeatedly thumping him while on the ground. If hurty words were being shouted at him what he should have done is ignored it and walked away. |
Some of what you’ve written above is wrong and miss informed.
Nowhere in law does it say “you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you” - the law says a person must have honestly believed it was necessary to use the level of force to defend themselves, the force must have been reasonable in the circumstances and that the force must not have been excessive.In this case, there is nothing to stop the MP claiming his acts were committed in self defence.
A person can claim self defence if he felt threatened to such extent that he needed to use a preemptive strike to protect himself. Striking an offender who was on the ground doesn’t look good and could be seen as being completely OTT and disproportionate to you and I, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn't be reasonable act of self defence to someone else. In this case we don’t have the full facts and until they are known it’s impossible to say if self defence was used or not.
If for example the MP thought he was going to be subject to a violent assault, he would be entitled to use a preemptive strike to protect himself and the extent of the preemptive strikes and other subsequent blows would depend on the MP’s perceptions about the level of violence he faced.
Whether the acts constituted self defence will ultimately be down to the police/CPS and Magistrates /jury to determine, but before it gets that far the MP will be interviewed and have a chance to put his views across. He has to provide sufficient reasoning to explain his acts and demonstrate that his actions to were lawful, reasonable and proportionate.
Hurty words, as you say are not reasonable force. Being told by someone that they’ve got a knife or a syringe in their pocket and they’re going to stab you would be a completely different set of dynamics.
I’ve got my views on this incident, contrary to what some may believe it’s certainly not the clear cut case a lot of people are suggesting it could be. [Post edited 31 Oct 19:05]
| | | |
| Labour MPs on 18:57 - Oct 31 with 105 views | union_jack |
| Labour MPs on 18:35 - Oct 31 by majorraglan |
Some of what you’ve written above is wrong and miss informed.
Nowhere in law does it say “you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you” - the law says a person must have honestly believed it was necessary to use the level of force to defend themselves, the force must have been reasonable in the circumstances and that the force must not have been excessive.In this case, there is nothing to stop the MP claiming his acts were committed in self defence.
A person can claim self defence if he felt threatened to such extent that he needed to use a preemptive strike to protect himself. Striking an offender who was on the ground doesn’t look good and could be seen as being completely OTT and disproportionate to you and I, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn't be reasonable act of self defence to someone else. In this case we don’t have the full facts and until they are known it’s impossible to say if self defence was used or not.
If for example the MP thought he was going to be subject to a violent assault, he would be entitled to use a preemptive strike to protect himself and the extent of the preemptive strikes and other subsequent blows would depend on the MP’s perceptions about the level of violence he faced.
Whether the acts constituted self defence will ultimately be down to the police/CPS and Magistrates /jury to determine, but before it gets that far the MP will be interviewed and have a chance to put his views across. He has to provide sufficient reasoning to explain his acts and demonstrate that his actions to were lawful, reasonable and proportionate.
Hurty words, as you say are not reasonable force. Being told by someone that they’ve got a knife or a syringe in their pocket and they’re going to stab you would be a completely different set of dynamics.
I’ve got my views on this incident, contrary to what some may believe it’s certainly not the clear cut case a lot of people are suggesting it could be. [Post edited 31 Oct 19:05]
|
It will probably come down to the MPs word against the victim’s. Witnesses may be key in it all especially if they heard the conversation. | |
| |
| Labour MPs on 21:52 - Oct 31 with 58 views | howenjack |
| Labour MPs on 18:35 - Oct 31 by majorraglan |
Some of what you’ve written above is wrong and miss informed.
Nowhere in law does it say “you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you” - the law says a person must have honestly believed it was necessary to use the level of force to defend themselves, the force must have been reasonable in the circumstances and that the force must not have been excessive.In this case, there is nothing to stop the MP claiming his acts were committed in self defence.
A person can claim self defence if he felt threatened to such extent that he needed to use a preemptive strike to protect himself. Striking an offender who was on the ground doesn’t look good and could be seen as being completely OTT and disproportionate to you and I, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn't be reasonable act of self defence to someone else. In this case we don’t have the full facts and until they are known it’s impossible to say if self defence was used or not.
If for example the MP thought he was going to be subject to a violent assault, he would be entitled to use a preemptive strike to protect himself and the extent of the preemptive strikes and other subsequent blows would depend on the MP’s perceptions about the level of violence he faced.
Whether the acts constituted self defence will ultimately be down to the police/CPS and Magistrates /jury to determine, but before it gets that far the MP will be interviewed and have a chance to put his views across. He has to provide sufficient reasoning to explain his acts and demonstrate that his actions to were lawful, reasonable and proportionate.
Hurty words, as you say are not reasonable force. Being told by someone that they’ve got a knife or a syringe in their pocket and they’re going to stab you would be a completely different set of dynamics.
I’ve got my views on this incident, contrary to what some may believe it’s certainly not the clear cut case a lot of people are suggesting it could be. [Post edited 31 Oct 19:05]
|
“you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you”
that is a rule of thumb or yardstick by which someone will be judged by IE Was the force used proportional and not excessive. It is to stop someone going above and beyond what is necessary in the circumstances.
You are right we don't know all the background to this case . However the man in front of him had his hands in his pockets and at the time was presenting no threat as such so it doesn't look good .
you say he may have had a concealed knife or syringe in his pocket - He may well have had a gun who knows ? In those cases he would be within his rights to lash out and also make a citizen's arrest. The fact that he didn't make a citizen's arrest would probably mean that he hadn't been threatened with a concealed weapon . | | | |
| Labour MPs on 01:02 - Nov 1 with 31 views | majorraglan |
| Labour MPs on 21:52 - Oct 31 by howenjack |
“you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you”
that is a rule of thumb or yardstick by which someone will be judged by IE Was the force used proportional and not excessive. It is to stop someone going above and beyond what is necessary in the circumstances.
You are right we don't know all the background to this case . However the man in front of him had his hands in his pockets and at the time was presenting no threat as such so it doesn't look good .
you say he may have had a concealed knife or syringe in his pocket - He may well have had a gun who knows ? In those cases he would be within his rights to lash out and also make a citizen's arrest. The fact that he didn't make a citizen's arrest would probably mean that he hadn't been threatened with a concealed weapon . |
There is no reference to force one level above in the law, the law says the level of force has to be reasonable and the belief honestly held - that’s it.
The level of force used to satisfy the self defence requirement will vary from person to person as will the belief.
I | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
