(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
It wasn't self-defence as such, but the failure of the ability of CCTV to have a clear picture which got him off the hook. That's the thing with CCTV. They will be happy to flag you for speeding but if you become a victim of a robbery, theft, or assault, don't expect help from CCTV.
Or, in my case, the arbitary nature of CCTV (and poor quality of it) might even work against the victim
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
If I was threatened by a chav I don't think I'd qualify for self-defence if I battered him (or her) black and blue. If if he is armed then fine but name calling won't justify me becoming a vigilante, even though I might be dubbed a hero in the media for 'cleaning up the streets'.
Depends if you feel in genuine fear of being physically assaulted and harmed yourself. If you do then the assault has taken place and you have grounds to act on self defence (whacking them then running off). Standing your ground and kicking the crap out of them, however....
(Original post by Hubert Poo)
What if it was a friend you had always been attracted to WHW?
she'd have to be pretty bloody special, Hubert. Pulse, check. Bang
I'd probably have to take some illegal substances to somehow block out the nagging visual and auditory hallucinations.
What am I saying?! Beggars can't be choosers! And I'm a beggar ffs.
But I do stand by my previous comment. It would feel a bit weird and would probably gross me out. Not morally, but physically-psychologically. But a hole is a goal, bro and human beings are goal-scorers.
I agree that myself and WHW should run the criminal justice system. We will show what "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" really means to us. 100 lashes to Gerrard and a month to spend in Somalia. Joey Barton will be beheaded, Luke McKormick will be subject to a firing squad, Ben Thatcher will be impaled, and Mario Celaire will be subject to being hung, drawn and quartered.
People are forgetting, if that was you in Gerrard's shoes, and there was a criminal trial under the same circumstances, I doubt your chances of being found not guilty so easily. The rich get richer, the poor get prison.
(Original post by Jev)
That last bit could be fired back at you, you know.
Basically, I don't believe...
How? I have not tried at any point to disagree with the court's findings. In fact, this discussion, my original one at least, has nothing to do whether he actually beat the system or was, shockingly, not guilty.
Last few words in the quote show the point I'm making: Capello, who was nowhere near what happened, judging on his own guesswork whether Gerrard was guilty or not over a practise of gathering all evidence possible and making a judgement based on multiple people's analysis is wrong, unprofessional, illogical, egotistical and pointless.
If that was to be acceptable, you would be saying it would be acceptable for Capello to ban Rooney because he looks chavvy, chavs are up to no good y'see, and calling up Joey Barton and eventually making him captain because he reckons he's a good lad really and it was all a misundrstanding.
Of course, Fabio wasn't in England at all while Joey was assaulting people and burning a kid's eye with a lighter, but that apparently doesn't make his guesswork invalid.