Murdoch shaving foam attack guy gets 6 weeks in jail

Robbo said:
And even if people do dislike the victim (which is fair enough), he's still a frail old man. The guy that attacked him is a bottom of the barrel tool.
Click to expand...

Seriously, get a grip. He foamed an old man.

He didn't butcher him, steal from him or rape him. He didn't cause injury, he caused embarresment and potentially instilled fear.

If that's the bottom of the barrel I'd hate to see you come up against some real scum.
 
PermaBanned said:
My guess is that the people sitting next to him did, they just didn't want to stop him since it would liven up a day of sitting in a room listening to some depraved ********* lie straight to your face.
Click to expand...

My point was that if it was seen as so heinous because of the situation/setting and the persons involved, why was there not more security?
 
Tefal said:
is the second in self defence from someone attacking you with or your family with god knows what?
Click to expand...

Killer shaving foam, yeah? ;) Indeed it could have been something untoward, but that is irrelevent for the question - nor is the second assault self defence. As far as I know you can defend yourself, and your property and others on your property. When elsewhere, you cannot 'self defend' for other people in a legal sense. This would be a retaliation, which is not legal. I agree she had concern, and the response was of reasonable enough force in all probability - but it was not self defence. It was assault with her hand.

What is, in your opinion, a more severe case of assault? Forcing foam onto a person or hitting them with it, or assaulting a person with a fist or hand?
 
Biohazard said:
Congratulations on such a generalisation. I genuinely thought better of you.

I don't care about Murdoch, but I care about the apparent disparancy in sentencing in this country.
Click to expand...

Show me a comparable case to this where things were sentenced differently, and we'll discuss the issue.

The sentence is within the guidelines for the offence committed. Whether or not you think that compares well with other sentences issued in line with the guidelines for other crimes is not really relevant.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Show me a comparable case to this where things were sentenced differently, and we'll discuss the issue.
Click to expand...

That isn't the contention here... it's a wider issue that you refute below..



Vonhelmet said:
The sentence is within the guidelines for the offence committed. Whether or not you think that compares well with other sentences issued in line with the guidelines for other crimes is not really relevant.
Click to expand...

Says who, and relevent to what exactly? :confused:

People aren't allowed to deviate, or encompass the larger picture?
 
Biohazard said:
Seriously, get a grip. He foamed an old man.

He didn't butcher him, steal from him or rape him. He didn't cause injury, he caused embarresment and potentially instilled fear.

If that's the bottom of the barrel I'd hate to see you come up against some real scum.
Click to expand...

Instilling fear in a defenceless old man and his family even for a short period of time is a crime. I have a perfectly fine 'grip', thanks.

The guy was a total moron, as is anyone that defends him. I hope he has a horrible time in prison :)
 
Biohazard said:
Says who, and relevent to what exactly? :confused:

People aren't allowed to deviate, or encompass the larger picture?
Click to expand...

So what is your problem? That the sentences for assault are too severe, or that the sentences for other crimes are too lenient? Because the first position is fairly untenable, and the second position makes sense, but that doesn't appear to be what people are arguing here. Everyone seems cross that this guy was given a fair sentence, with the "lenient" sentences for other crimes coming across as a secondary concern.
 
Robbo said:
Instilling fear in a defenceless old man and his family even for a short period of time is a crime. I have a perfectly fine 'grip', thanks.

The guy was a total moron, as is anyone that defends him. I hope he has a horrible time in prison :)
Click to expand...

If you view that as bottom of the barrel, I don't think you do. Sorry.

I agree the man was an idiot, but I think your a bit quick to blast off the cannon with anyone who 'defends' him also being an idiot; for starters if I'm thick you're barely breathing ;) :p
 
Biohazard said:
Killer shaving foam, yeah? ;) Indeed it could have been something untoward, but that is irrelevent for the question - nor is the second assault self defence. As far as I know you can defend yourself, and your property and others on your property. When elsewhere, you cannot 'self defend' for other people in a legal sense.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. You are not only allowed to defend yourself or others on your property.

CPS Guidance: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#Reasonable_Force

CPS said:
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:
self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:
was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? And;
was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?

The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr. App R 276), (R v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367) and (Archbold 19-49).
Click to expand...

So Wendi Murdoch striking the attacker as he attacked Rupert Murdoch could quite easily fall under the above.
 
You have to love the kind of ideology and morality where the judgement of the action should rely on whether the message of the victim is on the approved list or not...
 
Biohazard said:
If you view that as bottom of the barrel, I don't think you do. Sorry.

I agree the man was an idiot, but I think your a bit quick to blast off the cannon with anyone who 'defends' him also being an idiot; for starters if I'm thick you're barely breathing ;) :p
Click to expand...

I meant bottom of the respective barrel, obviously the guy isn't as bad as 'true' criminals but he's still a moronic scumbag.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at with the latter part of your post, want to clarify it a bit? Especially as you haven't even defended the guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom