Gerrard...

Frame352 · 24 Jul 2009 at 13:44

Edit: Actually, why bother.

Von Smallhausen · 24 Jul 2009 at 13:48

dirtydog said:
Eh? Trolling? I'm pointing out to people that you aren't a lawyer; your posts implied you were and I wanted to disabuse people of that idea. Perhaps you intended people to infer it to give your views more weight, I don't know.

Do you think he acted in self defence, do you buy that?

The victim was elbowed and leaned back. He then leaned forward and his arms were seen coming forward towards where Gerrard was, however a blonde female seemed to block what was happening. Perhaps that was a gap in the prosecution case that was exploited by the defence ?

Gerrard argued he was going to be attacked and hit out in self-defence and I see that as a valid argument for a defence team to pursue.

Do I think he acted in self-defence ? Only Steven Gerrad knows that.

Do I think the not guilty verdict was the correct one for the charge of Affray ? Taking the facts of the case and CCTV ( Not the be all and end all as Rich L rightly points out ) into consideration - Yes I do.

Greenlizard0 · 24 Jul 2009 at 13:48

Why is anybody actually surprised about this? Hahah, oh well. Move on, the new season's gonna start soon.

Scratchy · 24 Jul 2009 at 13:49

drunkenmaster said:
As for saying the jury could have been Everton fans, what do you think an Everton fan would think, the City knows what you look like, you bump into a Liverpool fan in a dark alley, you'd be worried it was a nutter fan. Now put a Everton shirt on the guy in the same alley with the nutter liverpool fan, I'd be more worried about being attack as an Everton fan than an average non football supporter.

LOL

dirtydog · 24 Jul 2009 at 13:55

Von Smallhausen said:
The victim was elbowed and leaned back. He then leaned forward and his arms were seen coming forward towards where Gerrard was, however a blonde female seemed to block what was happening. Perhaps that was a gap in the prosecution case that was exploited by the defence ?

Gerrard argued he was going to be attacked and hit out in self-defence and I see that as a valid argument for a defence team to pursue.

Do I think he acted in self-defence ? Only Steven Gerrad knows that.

Do I think the not guilty verdict was the correct one for the charge of Affray ? Taking the facts of the case and CCTV ( Not the be all and end all as Rich L rightly points out ) into consideration - Yes I do.

Do you think a prosecution might have succeeded if he had been charged with something else? IIRC he was originally charged with assault but presumably the CPS thought they'd stand a better chance of conviction for affray?

Yas786 · 24 Jul 2009 at 13:55

Not surprised in the slightest at the verdict...makes a mockery of the justice system where someone can say they were acting in self defence...hell im gonna go out and beat up on someone..get arrested and say sorry your honour i was acting in self defence...would be interesting to see if i get off or not.

Disgusting verdict imho but as people have said time to move on.

antijoke · 24 Jul 2009 at 13:56

dirtydog said:
And there are people in Liverpool who don't follow football too. But any of them would be fearful of finding Gerrard guilty and suffering repercussions.

That's quiet a sweeping statement. He's a football player not some mafia don.

Anyway. Can we move on now, it's done and no amount of 'wrong verdict' from the keyboard warriors will change it.

semi-pro waster · 24 Jul 2009 at 13:57

Spawn said:
Not surprised in the slightest at the verdict...makes a mockery of the justice system where someone can say they were acting in self defence...hell im gonna go out and beat up on someone..get arrested and say sorry your honour i was acting in self defence...would be interesting to see if i get off or not.

Disgusting verdict imho but as people have said time to move on.

Since you've admitted to a premeditated intention of causing violence to another (i.e. you've expressed explicit mens rea) then I don't fancy your chances of being acquitted.

This doesn't mean that you couldn't act in self defence under other circumstances but that isn't what you are suggesting.

CliffyBiro · 24 Jul 2009 at 14:00

Visionary · 24 Jul 2009 at 14:05

semi-pro waster said:
Since you've admitted to a premeditated intention of causing violence to another (i.e. you've expressed explicit mens rea) then I don't fancy your chances of being acquitted.

This doesn't mean that you couldn't act in self defence under other circumstances but that isn't what you are suggesting.

Mens rea and actus reus wouldn't be co-incidental though, depends how long it was before the hypothetical act took place.

atpbx · 24 Jul 2009 at 14:17

Von Smallhausen said:
Gerrard argued he was going to be attacked and hit out in self-defence and I see that as a valid argument for a defence team to pursue.

Do I think he acted in self-defence ? Only Steven Gerrad knows that.

Do I think the not guilty verdict was the correct one for the charge of Affray ? Taking the facts of the case and CCTV ( Not the be all and end all as Rich L rightly points out ) into consideration - Yes I do.

You cannot make a preemptive strike in self defence, you know that, and I know that.
If you walk up to me in the street looking all mean, and I lamp you because "I thought I was going to be attacked" I go to prison.

For a charge of affray to stick it has to:

Be in a public place.
Has to cause fear in the members of the public present.
It has to involve two or more people.

Gerrard stating he "acted in self defence" isnt sufficient, he made no effort to remove himself after the initial punches were thrown by his mates, instead, he steamed into the guy as well.

We can all see that its there on the film, and in the statements given by everybody.
So why is there insufficient evidence to convict him of this crime?
Oh yes, Liverpool captain, on trail in liverpool and of course, lots of money.

eggyoke · 24 Jul 2009 at 14:18

drunkenmaster said:
As for saying the jury could have been Everton fans, what do you think an Everton fan would think, the City knows what you look like, you bump into a Liverpool fan in a dark alley, you'd be worried it was a nutter fan. Now put a Everton shirt on the guy in the same alley with the nutter liverpool fan, I'd be more worried about being attack as an Everton fan than an average non football supporter.

dirtydog said:
And there are people in Liverpool who don't follow football too. But any of them would be fearful of finding Gerrard guilty and suffering repercussions. That is why it should have been held in a different part of the country where the risks of that being a factor would be slim to none.

WTF is wrong with you people? This is Steven Gerrard, not the head of the Merseyside mafia.

I dont even know why I bothered coming in here in the first place...

Von Smallhausen · 24 Jul 2009 at 14:21

atpbx said:
You cannot make a preemptive strike in self defence.

Yes you can.

Visionary · 24 Jul 2009 at 14:22

atpbx said:
You cannot make a preemptive strike in self defence, you know that, and I know that.
If you walk up to me in the street looking all mean, and I lamp you because "I thought I was going to be attacked" I go to prison.

You can make preemptive strikes but as you said there are problems with it and its difficult to prove.

Kriist · 24 Jul 2009 at 14:24

I don't think you can justify self defence. TO ME the guy is backed up against the bar surrounded by gerrard and his mate. The guy takes an elbow to the face and so decides to try and get out of there. You're telling me you would stand cornered and take it? I highly doubt it. UK justice system needs to be clarified. Why didn't Gerrard just move away if he thought he was gonna be hit? Instead he kicked the **** out the guy? hmmm

Just my two cents, I'm not saying anyone else is wrong, thats just my feelings.

ANYWAY

*ambles towards the sandwhich bar*...

Von Smallhausen · 24 Jul 2009 at 14:24

dirtydog said:
Do you think a prosecution might have succeeded if he had been charged with something else? IIRC he was originally charged with assault but presumably the CPS thought they'd stand a better chance of conviction for affray?

Who knows dd ? He was initially charged with ABH and Affray but the Sec 47 was later dropped and the Affray ran with.

I think the CPS's reasoning was that a better chance of conviction was possible if the Affray was based on the actions of all involved.

That's my guess anyway.

Yas786 · 24 Jul 2009 at 14:24

semi-pro waster said:
Since you've admitted to a premeditated intention of causing violence to another (i.e. you've expressed explicit mens rea) then I don't fancy your chances of being acquitted.

This doesn't mean that you couldn't act in self defence under other circumstances but that isn't what you are suggesting.

Well obviously i wouldnt say or express that im going out to start on someone...my point being is that if i was in the same situation as Gerry boy was in and i had self defence as my plea...would i get off??..like hell i would...id be locked up, or given community service and a fine probably.

Visionary · 24 Jul 2009 at 14:25

Kriist said:
Why didn't Gerrard just move away if he thought he was gonna be hit? Instead he kicked the **** out the guy? hmmm

Exactly, the self defence stuff is a rubbish 'defence' as it happens.

aztechnology · 24 Jul 2009 at 14:26

Von Smallhausen said:
Yes you can.

Can you pull a jumper over someone's head then uppercut them 3 times?

In the eyes of the law it now appears you can.

Self defence in that situation to me would be walking away.

For me in the situation presented to us by the media, it looks like he got off from a sure thing, and if it was me throwing those punches I would have expected a conviction (like 5 of Gerrard's mates did, so pleaded guilty)

Kriist · 24 Jul 2009 at 14:28

aztechnology said:
Can you pull a jumper over someone's head then uppercut them 3 times?

In the eyes of the law it now appears you can.

Self defence in that situation to me would be walking away.

Gonna try it next time someone looks at me wrong

see you in 6-12months xD