An eye for an eye has nothing to do with religion... So on the principle that Barton had it coming, I presume you also think the person who attacked him now also has it coming, and the person who attacks him will also...etc etc
Have I missed the bit where he's supposed to have attacked these particular guys before? Or perhaps the rules of vendetta allow anyone to feel aggrieved at actions unrelated to them and can decide to join in anyway? To believe in a culture of vendetta, you need to be totally bulletproof yourself. Some vendettas are taken purely because of words. Purely hypothetical, I wonder how you'd feel if someone argued a sense of injustice over comments you'd made on here. By your rules they'd be perfectly entitled to assault you or others could do it on their behalf. I suspect religion would be more liable to advise people to turn the other cheek and walk away, ironically as Barton seems to have done according to press reports.
Hes a twat end of, glad he got smacked, lets not read too much into it. He lived to tell the tale anyway.
To say you can be charged with affray for defending yourself isn't just ill informed, it's a load of bollocks. Utter nonsense.
Barton for England! Should play him vs France and if we're 3-0 down bring him on to get sent off and ask him to "take as many of them with him" as he can on the way to the tunnel.. jobs a good 'un.. disclaimer: tigercity does in no way condone thuggery.
Maybe I should add for those lacking in common sense that you have to use reasonable force whilst defending yourself. If someone clips you around the lug you can't stab them in the throat as an act of self defence. I appreciate that to most to most that's pretty obvious but I'm not sure one or two on here would get that.
Public Order Act 1986 section 3 says: "A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct was such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their personal safety." It also says: "Where two or more persons use or threaten unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purpose." Additonally it says: " For the purpose of this section a threat cannot be made by the use of words alone." I think (in my humble opinion, and I have been retired now 14 years from the service) that the key here is "unlawful". It is a basic principle, as a previous contributor has rightly said, that anyone can use reasonable force with which to defend themselves. That means using sufficient force to stop the attack or turn the attacker away, no more than that. If a man was punching me, or attempting to punch me and I successfully punched him out, that would be reasonable. If I swung at him and then he stopped punching and ran away, and I chased and caught him and then punched him out then I would be guilty of an assault, because I didn't need to use that force to stop his attack. In your case you should stick to the defence that you were attempting to prevent or stop an attack on you or on your companion(s), therefore your violence was lawful. If alcohol was a factor, it is likely that the charge will be reduced to one of drunk and disorderly and if you were indeed a bit affected then a guilty plea and lots of remorse would be the order of the day.
and yet it happens. I know of a couple of cases and a quick google will find you plenty more. I don't say things for the hell of it. Here's a random one off google. Can anyone offer any advice on the following, I was recently in the local park with my family , 2 young babies & my dog , muzzled & on its lead , when we were attacked by 3 dogs , then the owner appears , & attacks me & threatens to attack my babies in the pram, I respond in self defence , using very reasonable force , he sustains minor cuts / bruising, I get arrested as he has the more visible injuries, and offered either a caution , which I refuse as I am a former licensee & hope to be again with a perfect record or as now has happened been charged with affray under S.3 public order act. What advice can anyone offer , would this have been a CPS decision?
That's his account, it's very naive to believe one side of the story. If this incident occurred in a park there may have been numerous independent witnesses who tell a completely different story. Those facts just don't add up to me.
I guessed your answer would be one of denial, that's why I didn't bother putting ones I've personal knowledge of. There's plenty of others that show you can be charged with affray when you've been defending yourself. I'll stand corrected but I think if there's two people involved and they want to charge the aggressor with affray, they have to charge both parties.
On the same slant you can't( shouldn't) get get charged with murder if you're miles away when it happened and have had **** all to do with the offence but it happens. I'm not arguing that miscarriages of justice happen because of course they do. I may have read it wrong but the way it came across was that it was common practice to charge persons with affray whom have defended themselves. It's not the norm at all.
It's nothing to do with miscarriages of justice. I simply said that people can be and in deed are charged with affray when they've been defending themselves from attack. I'm glad you agree and I'll forgive your earlier outburst.
To be fair in Hull not so long ago a man was getting beat up then punched one of the attackers he fell back banged his head on the concrete and got done for man slaughter...... Basically on this thread some of you have said anyone who is a thug can get punched? So you basically want one huge boxing ring for all the thugs to go into? Why can't it be possible that Barton has anger management issues from when he was a child, or from how he was brought up. Anyone who belives Barton deserves it, they themselves probably have some sort of anager management issues. Anyone who believe in any violence of any kind probably does, violence has no place in modern society.
