|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:51:27 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 11:51:27 GMT
They're not its a nonsense created by football and pundits. So you don't use your hands? Violence is violence no matter what part of the body is used to commit it, football seems to have this hang up about he raised his hands. Believe me an aggressor can do a whole lot of damage with his hand at his side. |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:52:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by PotteringThrough on Oct 29, 2017 11:52:32 GMT
So you don't use your hands? Violence is violence no matter what part of the body is used to commit it, football seems to have this hang up about he raised his hands. Believe me an aggressor can do a whole lot of damage with his hand at his side. Can you drive? |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:54:01 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 11:54:01 GMT
Violence is violence no matter what part of the body is used to commit it, football seems to have this hang up about he raised his hands. Believe me an aggressor can do a whole lot of damage with his hand at his side. Can you drive? Yes strange question though. |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:55:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by PotteringThrough on Oct 29, 2017 11:55:26 GMT
Yes strange question though. As an example - Hands are quite important when driving. They are quite important in a lot of other situations. |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:56:14 GMT
Post by crownmeking on Oct 29, 2017 11:56:14 GMT
No, again, to offer justification in self-defense, you must only respond with reasonable force. The test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what he had believed about the circumstances, even if they were mistaken. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force. If someone got in your face and shouted at you, and you responded by hitting them as hard as you could, causing them to fall and hit their head on the pavement, resulting in death or serious injury, you would have to convince a jury, that your actions were reasonable. I could cite some case law for you, if you want. So could I Regina vs Beckford for starters. You see you have no evidence that the person approaching you aggressively to within centimeters only intends to shout in your face. There is no requirement to calibrate the force however many blows, shots, strikes are necessary to remove the threat. If you knock him to the ground and go down after him and beat him to a pulp/death you are crossing the line but a single blow no matter how hard can't be deemed unproportionate. You are missing the point. Yes you can offer self-defense as a justification for striking first, however you must convince a jury that you only used reasonable force. A single blow, can be deemed unreasonable by a jury, depending on the facts of the incident of course. |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:59:24 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 11:59:24 GMT
So could I Regina vs Beckford for starters. You see you have no evidence that the person approaching you aggressively to within centimeters only intends to shout in your face. There is no requirement to calibrate the force however many blows, shots, strikes are necessary to remove the threat. If you knock him to the ground and go down after him and beat him to a pulp/death you are crossing the line but a single blow no matter how hard can't be deemed unproportionate. You are missing the point. Yes you can offer self-defense as a justification for striking first, however you must convince a jury that you only used reasonable force. A single blow, can be deemed unreasonable by a jury, depending on the facts of the incident of course. No sorry it can't. If the perceived need to defend yourself is established one single blow will never be deemed unreasonable. If you are going to hit someone you should only ever do it at full throttle doing anything else only puts you in greater danger. |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 12:02:49 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 12:02:49 GMT
So could I Regina vs Beckford for starters. You see you have no evidence that the person approaching you aggressively to within centimeters only intends to shout in your face. There is no requirement to calibrate the force however many blows, shots, strikes are necessary to remove the threat. If you knock him to the ground and go down after him and beat him to a pulp/death you are crossing the line but a single blow no matter how hard can't be deemed unproportionate. You are missing the point. Yes you can offer self-defense as a justification for striking first, however you must convince a jury that you only used reasonable force. A single blow, can be deemed unreasonable by a jury, depending on the facts of the incident of course. Take the incident away from football and put it on cctv in a club, bar, shopping centre, street. A single blow in response to a very aggressive approach within centimeters would never see a jury it would not be prosecuted. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 12:03:27 GMT
Can't believe any of our fans are actually defending the cunt Deeney...Beggars belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 29, 2017 12:05:21 GMT
Can't believe any of our fans are actually defending the cunt Deeney...Beggars belief. It is only alster - so it is only one fan really.  |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 12:08:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 12:08:32 GMT
You are missing the point. Yes you can offer self-defense as a justification for striking first, however you must convince a jury that you only used reasonable force. A single blow, can be deemed unreasonable by a jury, depending on the facts of the incident of course.  No sorry it can't. If the perceived need to defend yourself is established one single blow will never be deemed unreasonable. If you are going to hit someone you should only ever do it at full throttle doing anything else only puts you in greater danger. You're a bit loose with the word "never" there, there are documented cases where this is not the case. So what's your specific expertise in this field? Lawyer, barrister, employee of the CPS? |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 12:10:21 GMT
Post by crownmeking on Oct 29, 2017 12:10:21 GMT
You are missing the point. Yes you can offer self-defense as a justification for striking first, however you must convince a jury that you only used reasonable force. A single blow, can be deemed unreasonable by a jury, depending on the facts of the incident of course. No sorry it can't. If the perceived need to defend yourself is established one single blow will never be deemed unreasonable. If you are going to hit someone you should only ever do it at full throttle doing anything else only puts you in greater danger. It can. For instance, if a girl got in your face, shouting at you, and you hit her full force, I am 100% sure you would not be able to claim self-defense, because your reaction would have been unreasonable, even if it were just a single blow. I do take your point, but it is not as cut and dry as you would have us believe. |
|
|
|
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 12:11:06 GMT
No sorry it can't. If the perceived need to defend yourself is established one single blow will never be deemed unreasonable. If you are going to hit someone you should only ever do it at full throttle doing anything else only puts you in greater danger. You're a bit loose with the word "never" there, there are documented cases where this is not the case. So what's your specific expertise in this field? Lawyer, barrister, employee of the CPS? I suggest you name one. Where the persons need to defend themselves was established and a prosecution was proceeded for a single blow in self defence. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 12:11:13 GMT
You are missing the point. Yes you can offer self-defense as a justification for striking first, however you must convince a jury that you only used reasonable force. A single blow, can be deemed unreasonable by a jury, depending on the facts of the incident of course.  Take the incident away from football and put it on cctv in a club, bar, shopping centre, street. A single blow in response to a very aggressive approach within centimeters would never see a jury it would not be prosecuted. Why would you take the incident away from a football match in front of 20,000 witnesses (plus millions watching on the telly) and replace with a scenario where there might be some grainy CCTV footage down a side street somewhere? Makes absolutely no sense..... |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 12:14:21 GMT
Post by crownmeking on Oct 29, 2017 12:14:21 GMT
You are missing the point. Yes you can offer self-defense as a justification for striking first, however you must convince a jury that you only used reasonable force. A single blow, can be deemed unreasonable by a jury, depending on the facts of the incident of course. Take the incident away from football and put it on cctv in a club, bar, shopping centre, street. A single blow in response to a very aggressive approach within centimeters would never see a jury it would not be prosecuted. If there was only CCTV and no audio, I think it would be put before a jury, because there would be know way of knowing what was being said. "Hey mate! be careful, you just spilled my drink" - Single blow reasonable? No. The jury would have to listen to all the evidence and make their minds up. |
|
|
|
Post by luciani on Oct 29, 2017 12:18:19 GMT
Just popped on here to see if Alster is still talking absolute nonsense and it seems he is. Is there an alert or an alarm or something I can set that lets me know when he's stopped?
|
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 12:24:40 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 12:24:40 GMT
Take the incident away from football and put it on cctv in a club, bar, shopping centre, street. A single blow in response to a very aggressive approach within centimeters would never see a jury it would not be prosecuted. If there was only CCTV and no audio, I think it would be put before a jury, because there would be know way of knowing what was being said. "Hey mate! be careful, you just spilled my drink" - Single blow reasonable? No. The jury would have to listen to all the evidence and make their minds up. I'm very sure you're wrong I've seen it in many forms from someone being verbally provocative whilst using pacifying body language to personally damaging a person who clearly and admittedly made an aggressive approach and many other scenarios. Always no charges for the person dealing with someone who is clearly an aggressor(even when audio might have mitigated the aggression somewhat). |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 12:27:21 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 12:27:21 GMT
Take the incident away from football and put it on cctv in a club, bar, shopping centre, street. A single blow in response to a very aggressive approach within centimeters would never see a jury it would not be prosecuted. Why would you take the incident away from a football match in front of 20,000 witnesses (plus millions watching on the telly) and replace with a scenario where there might be some grainy CCTV footage down a side street somewhere? Makes absolutely no sense..... Because for some reason football has a history of punishing the reactor and letting the instigator off scott free. |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 12:31:07 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 12:31:07 GMT
Take the incident away from football and put it on cctv in a club, bar, shopping centre, street. A single blow in response to a very aggressive approach within centimeters would never see a jury it would not be prosecuted. If there was only CCTV and no audio, I think it would be put before a jury, because there would be know way of knowing what was being said. "Hey mate! be careful, you just spilled my drink" - Single blow reasonable? No. The jury would have to listen to all the evidence and make their minds up. By the way you don't approach someone in the manner that Joe did Deeney to say "hey mate be careful you just spilled my drink" it's fantasy island stuff. |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 13:40:03 GMT
Post by ratters on Oct 29, 2017 13:40:03 GMT
Deeney was the instigator for not giving us the ball back after we had put it out!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Oct 29, 2017 14:00:00 GMT
I actually quite like Deeney. But he absolutely should've got a red. I like Deeney too but yes he absolutely should have got red. It was a strange incident. Hard to see what Allo did to generate such angry violence. Being half his size might have had something to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 29, 2017 14:36:03 GMT
Just popped on here to see if Alster is still talking absolute nonsense and it seems he is. Is there an alert or an alarm or something I can set that lets me know when he's stopped? Best to assume he never stops!  |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 14:36:04 GMT
Post by riccyfuller93 on Oct 29, 2017 14:36:04 GMT
He didn't do any damage to Joe and I don't think he meant to either. Looks like he was just having a bit of fun winding Joe up.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Oct 29, 2017 14:58:24 GMT
I've had to skip to the end after reading way too much shit on this thread, so apologies if it's already been covered.
Why is someone trying to compare the Allen/Deeney incident to two pissed up blokes up Hanley on a Fridee nate? Punching someone in the face up town in self-defence wont get you into hot water, punching someone in the face on a football field, or grabbing hold of their face like Deeney did, or giving the most gentle of 'slaps' or finger pokes, or whatever the hell it was Afellay did the other season, gets you sent off.
|
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Oct 29, 2017 15:29:06 GMT
He didn't do any damage to Joe and I don't think he meant to either. Looks like he was just having a bit of fun winding Joe up. Do you hate Stoke ? You defend and praise every fucker else but run down the players and club every opening you see |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 15:41:08 GMT
Ryan did nowt, and Deeney wants banning. End of. Thuggery of the highest order. Imagine a young lad, or girl for that matter, seeing that picture. A disgraceful episode IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 16:22:47 GMT
Post by riccyfuller93 on Oct 29, 2017 16:22:47 GMT
He didn't do any damage to Joe and I don't think he meant to either. Looks like he was just having a bit of fun winding Joe up. Do you hate Stoke ? You defend and praise every fucker else but run down the players and club every opening you see I praise Joe as well for sticking up for himself. I thought it was great personally. When did I run down the club or players in my initial post? Hmmm don't think I did. |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 16:24:53 GMT
Post by riccyfuller93 on Oct 29, 2017 16:24:53 GMT
Ryan did nowt, and Deeney wants banning. End of. Thuggery of the highest order. Imagine a young lad, or girl for that matter, seeing that picture. A disgraceful episode IMHO. I wonder what your opinion is on Taggart vs Wise. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 16:28:15 GMT
He didn't do any damage to Joe and I don't think he meant to either. Looks like he was just having a bit of fun winding Joe up. Do you hate Stoke ? You defend and praise every fucker else but run down the players and club every opening you see He's becoming one of our prize twats. |
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 16:31:44 GMT
Post by greyman on Oct 29, 2017 16:31:44 GMT
Always fascinating watching somebody in a hole keep digging. You have to be a monumental fuckwit to not see that the only player who should be facing any sanction now is Deeney. Allen may have deserved a booking but Deeney's was a clear red. We keep on being told that a player raising their hands is a sending off offence. Clear as day now, although may have been on the ref's blind side on the day.
|
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 16:45:04 GMT
Post by uknorse on Oct 29, 2017 16:45:04 GMT
doesnt matter if you care or not mate, the yellow card states it was dealt with at the time by the match officials, so cant be looked at or given retrospect, thats the laws according to the wise owls at the f.a That rule changed this season mate. It can be changed for violent conduct. ah ok, then he should be charged then |
|
