This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

"Man Who Threw Shoe At George Bush Is Jailed"

It does seem kinda harsh but he did throw it at the president! At least he can be happy he wasn't immediately shot there and then by the CIA or FBI or whatever.

Reply 61

L i b

19

weflycars

It's ********.. think about it this way, if you threw a shoe at someone in the street and it missed, you'd get off no problem, not get sent down for two years..

In Britain, you'd likely get charged with common assault. However that was not in Britain, nor was it someone in the street, it was a visiting dignitary.

AwesomePetal

It's not assault. There has to be contact for ABH (with exceptions with the like of threatening phonecalls etc). It's attempt. It's very relevant a) the type of conduct b) what, if any, injury is sustained.

Er, for one I doubt Iraq has ABH laws, but quite what they have to do with assault is beyond me. Even from my understanding of the laws of your jurisdiction, there does not have to be physical contact for assault to have taken place.

Thud

He was charged with "aggression against a foreign head of state" not treason, my treason parallel was to see if tsr posters complaining are being consistent. I just explained that. :confused:

Indeed so, I can certainly see the parallel. By attacking an ally's head of state when in your country, it is as bad as attacking your own head of state, as such it does become a question of loyalty and the interests of your country.

Reply 62

bubba.ok

15

Thud

I guess the treason law is a bit stupid in your eyes too?

don't know much about it tbh, i just don't think this man should serve any more time in jail for throwing a shoe at bush than throwing it at any other bloke.

Reply 63

weflycars

8

L i b

In Britain, you'd likely get charged with common assault. However that was not in Britain, nor was it someone in the street, it was a visiting dignitary.

So it is double standards then..

And you might be charged but you wouldn't be jailed for two years, there aren't enough spaces..

Reply 64

Malsy

18

******* hell. 3 years. very harsh.

Reply 65

AwesomePetal

L i b

In Britain, you'd likely get charged with common assault. However that was not in Britain, nor was it someone in the street, it was a visiting dignitary.

Er, for one I doubt Iraq has ABH laws, but quite what they have to do with assault is beyond me. Even from my understanding of the laws of your jurisdiction, there does not have to be physical contact for assault to have taken place.

Indeed so, I can certainly see the parallel. By attacking an ally's head of state when in your country, it is as bad as attacking your own head of state, as such it does become a question of loyalty and the interests of your country.

No offence mate, but I don't think you really know what you're talking about. You seem to be a little confused on assault/ABH.

A good overall definition could be from Faulkner v Talbot (1981) where Lord Lane held that 'an assault is an intentional touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse'. It's a lot more complicated than this with cases like Ireland holding that particular mental distress arising from silent and aggressive telephone calls can constitute assault. Also removing a 'crowning glory' can constitute assault, i.e. a lock of hair from the facts of DPP v Smith. 'Bodily harm' whether actual or grevious is assault - see s18, 20 and 47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861.

In Britain, you would not be charged with assault. Basically you can have a guilty mind but you need the guilty act.

Reply 66

L i b

19

AwesomePetal

No offence mate, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. You don't understand assault or ABH.

You seem to have missed the point that:

1. This crime did not happen in England.

2. I do not come from, or live, in England.

3. Neither where this crime happened, or where I live, has a law against ABH.

A good overall definition could be from Faulkner v Talbot (1981) where Lord Lane held that 'an assault is an intentional touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse'. It's a lot more complicated than this with cases like Ireland holding that particular mental distress arising from silent and aggressive telephone calls can constitute assault.

From my knowledge of English law, the actus reus of assault is putting someone in fear of physical violence; no physical force need be attached thereto. As authority for this, I'll refer you to Fagin v. the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis (1969). In many jurisdictions, technical assault and battery are not distinct offences, but in England they are despite 'assault' being used commonly to describe both.

It would seem in the Faulkner case you quote that the charge was one of indecent assault, and moreover the point being made is that it is still an assault even without hostile intent rather than an attempt at defining assault.

Reply 67

AwesomePetal

L i b

You seem to have missed the point that:

1. This crime did not happen in England.

2. I do not come from, or live, in England.

3. Neither where this crime happened, or where I live, has a law against ABH.

From my knowledge of English law, the actus reus of assault is putting someone in fear of physical violence; no physical force need be attached thereto.

1. You said in Britain you would be charged with assault. This is wrong.

2. I don't care.

3. ABH is assault. It's actual bodily harm. It's a lesser grade than grevious bodily harm. It's just a way of saying it an English legal context - ABH IS assault anywhere just not under that name. Iraq has laws against assault - believe it or not. I don't know the Iraq law and neither do you.

Reply 68

L i b

19

AwesomePetal

1. You said in Britain you would be charged with assault. This is wrong.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that would seem to be incorrect. I have given proper, cited authority for that - which interestingly enough took me two minutes of research and a bit of nous. Assault by English definition was committed.

3. ABH is assault. It's actual bodily harm. It's a lesser grade than grevious bodily harm. It's just a way of saying it an English legal context - ABH IS assault anywhere just not under that name. Iraq has laws against assault - believe it or not. I don't know the Iraq law and neither do you.

I do know a bit about Iraqi law actually, but we'll lay that on the side for now. You raised the issue of ABH, I did not; however ABH is separate from assault: it is assault which leads to it (hence the term 'assault occasioning actual bodily harm') however.

Reply 69

maths-enthusiast

9

Was the man who threw shoes at Hu Jintao also failed for three years?More? Or less?

Reply 70

AwesomePetal

L i b

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that would seem to be incorrect. I have given proper, cited authority for that - which interestingly enough took me two minutes of research and a bit of nous. Assault by English definition was committed.

In all fairness, you edited the post with Fagan after I had posted. As I have said words and gestures can constitute assault in special circumstances like harassment and they don't apply here. I think you've misunderstood Fagan - he drove his mini-car over a constable's foot and intentionally left it there and the court held it was a continuing act and not a mere omission. It's about X applying inadvertent force and then refusing to withdraw it constituting battery. It doesn't relate to what we're talking about. It's not even about assault.

I do know a bit about Iraqi law actually, but we'll lay that on the side for now. You raised the issue of ABH, I did not; however ABH is separate from assault: it is assault which leads to it (hence the term 'assault occasioning actual bodily harm') however

.

If X threw a shoe at Y, he would likely be charged with ABH. ABH is not separate from assault - it IS assault. I really suggest you read the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 s18,20,47.

Reply 71

L i b

19

AwesomePetal

As I have said words and gestures can constitute assault in special circumstances like harassment and they don't apply here.

Anything that puts someone in apprehension of physical violence would seem to be assault - indeed, the only proper definition of assault.

How about Logdon v DPP (1976; pointing a replica gun at someone), Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983; staring through a window at night). It's all well and good to say there are exceptions to the usual rule, but how would you justify these exceptions? I doubt a judge simply said 'ah, hell, we'll just call this assault even though it isn't and be on the golf course for 3'.

They are different from the ABH case I think you mentioned before, R. v. Ireland, where actual bodily harm was made by a telephone call - that is, psychiatric harm.

I think you've misunderstood Fagan - he drove his mini-car over a constable's foot and intentionally left it there and the court held it was a continuing act and not a mere omission. It's about X applying inadvertent force and then refusing to withdraw it constituting assault. It doesn't relate to what we're talking about.

I'm not really referring to the situation in question, but rather the very clear statement from James J in orbiter that "an assault is any act which intentionally – or possibly recklessly – causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.".

If X threw a shoe at Y, he would likely be charged with ABH. ABH is not separate from assault - it IS assault.

I really suggest you read the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 s18,20,47.

I think that rather makes my point for me: section 47 speaks of "assault occasioning actual bodily harm". If assault meant the same as ABH, then the other four words quoted there would be redundant. The offence it speaks of is assault which leads to ('occasions') actual bodily harm, which is a physical act of violence.

Reply 72

L i b

19

weflycars

So it is double standards then..

No, it's a justifiably different standard.

Reply 73

weflycars

8

L i b

No, it's a justifiably different standard.

No, double standard: an ethical or moral code that applies more strictly to one group than to another.. seems pretty fitting of the whole scenario..

Reply 74

L i b

19

weflycars

No, double standard: an ethical or moral code that applies more strictly to one group than to another.. seems pretty fitting of the whole scenario..

A double standard is, by definition, unjustified.

This is not unjustified, there is perfectly decent logic behind it. Just as there is perfectly decent logic behind the President of the United States - and not any other person - being able to give Presidential Assent to laws. That's not a double standard, that's just a difference.

Reply 75

weflycars

8

I don't see it that way.. guess it's a difference of perception..

Reply 76

Mango24

14

If anyone went to throw not one, but BOTH of their shoes at me I would be glad for them to get that sentence

Reply 77

Hikari

1

He blatantly deserves it. He threw a shoe at the president of the USA ffs. It's irrelevant if you dislike him, you can't do that sort of thing, and if you do your ass is bound to end up in a cell.

Reply 78

geetar

16

In all fairness, he did break the law, and therefore should suffer the consequences. There is (or at least, should be) one law for everyone. You can't change laws just because you like the perpetrator and don't like the victim. I'm not a huge fan of Bernie Madoff, but if I went up to him in the street and stabbed him to death, I should be punished. A crime is a crime.