So are you saying that there was no evidence in the gerrard case and he covered his tracks.? Why can't you get it into your tiny little mind (there's my answer) that what gerrard did was not an illegal act.
How the hell he managed to get off with it in the end was a mystery to me anyway (shows the value of a high price legal team I suppose), if anyone had grounds to be shouting self defense it was the DJ, McGee, considering it was Gerrard who went up to him to start the altercation and Gerrard's mate who landed the first blow.
But he assaulted another human being. There is video evidence. That is an illegal act, no matter what the Scouse jury may have decided.
I think that you had better go and check the law again my friend. The protection of Double Jeapordy has been removed. Even if you had been found not guilty of murder it is no longer protection against future prosecution for the same murder.
I have, but there was no evidence of self defence. There were Gerrard and his mates striking one DJ, who hadn't raised a finger towards any of them. There was never any claim that the DJ had lifted a finger. How can the assault then be deemed self defence?
Only if new evidence were to be found to re-open the case. And if the case were to be re-opened, would that not only serve to strengthen my argument that you can be found not guilty, having commited an unlawful act, anyway?
Steve, I don't agree. He was not found gulity, and thus however way you look at it/believe, he is innocent until proven guilty.
I don't argue with that. But the point I was making is that you can be found not guilty even if you committed the crime. It happens. There seemed to be a suggestion that if someone is found not guilty, they can't have committed a crime.
The point you seemed to be making is that you don't understand the law, because in this case no crime was committed.
Well surely that is the whole basis of self defence. How can you be defending yourself when the person you strike has not attempted to strike you? If that was the case, you'd have carte blanche to pummel anyone who looked at you funny.
But you're not guilty if the judge says so. You can't be both. Either gulity or not in common law. He is not gulity for that reason.
I'm well aware that he was found not guilty and that therefore officially he is not guilty. What I'm saying is that doesn't mean he didn't commit an illegal act. The human element of the justice system means mistakes can and are made.
