Murdoch shaving foam attack guy gets 6 weeks in jail

Vonhelmet · 3 Aug 2011 at 22:13

Biohazard said:
As for 1 and 2, well I've never regarded foam as a weapon but I suppose it would depend on your definition. Unless you mean damage to his suit, then I suppose so but this isn't the Armani court is it? I've never heard of foam harming someone before.

I would guess that the definition of weapon is extremely broad, and probably constitutes any tool you employ in the assault beyond your own body.

Robbo · 3 Aug 2011 at 22:13

Von Smallhausen said:
Could you Bh, in a split second, make the call that the pie was a one off and the assailant posed no further threat and stand back and do nothing ?

No, you could not say that.

If you're looking for reasons to defend the guy, you can easily say (with the benefit of hindsight) that you could have easily known he was no further threat but in reality you couldn't know that.

Biohazard · 3 Aug 2011 at 22:17

Vonhelmet said:
I would guess that the definition of weapon is extremely broad, and probably constitutes any tool you employ in the assault beyond your own body.

Yes, but a weapon inflicts bodily harm or physical damage and I'm not sure you can actually do that with foam, not unless it's a silk shirt or something that wouldn't wash out.

I know why people get charged for it obviously, we can't have people running about egging people willy nilly or whatever, but I disagree with "foam" being a weapon other than asphyxiation perhaps.

Biohazard · 3 Aug 2011 at 22:20

Vonhelmet said:
I don't see how. Her husband was under threat. She went to protect him. Kapow.

Yes indeed. I disagree, funnily enough. Her husband was under no real threat, and even if I believe the inane toxic sludge in the face malarky what is she going to achieve then by smacking him?

Bit late, no? Shouldn't you be looking to see if your husbands eyes aren't popping out his skull instead of practically jumping over people to land blows?

Tefal · 3 Aug 2011 at 22:20

9. Victim is particularly vulnerable or providing a service to the public
10. Additional degradation of the victim

mmj_uk · 3 Aug 2011 at 22:34

Vonhelmet said:
I don't see how. Her husband was under threat. She went to protect him. Kapow.

He had already been subdued by the woman wearing gray and funnily enough she didn't need to hit him to achieve it.

The rule of law makes me laugh, a guy with absolutely no intention to do any physical harm is given 6 weeks jail for assault whilst a woman who hit out 'pre-emptively' purely because she perceived someone was a threat is branded a hero.

Biohazard · 3 Aug 2011 at 22:34

Tefal said:
10. Additional degradation of the victim

The assault was degrading, that was the whole premediated concept and effect. There was no injury inflicted, so I'm not sure but I would guess that would be applicable in other cases where particular degradation is a component of the assault, not the assault itself?

'Additional' is the problem there.

Shikarilol · 3 Aug 2011 at 22:40

Sucks to be him.

Dolph · 3 Aug 2011 at 22:42

Biohazard said:
He was reffering to contempt of court or similar I believe, so I'm saying if that's an increasing problem in Parliament a similar complaint and charge should be considered.

As for 1 and 2, well I've never regarded foam as a weapon but I suppose it would depend on your definition. Unless you mean damage to his suit, then I suppose so but this isn't the Armani court is it? I've never heard of foam harming someone before.

Frighten or harm

It would be very easy to make a 'foam pie' that contained something unpleasant after all.... (I must only use my powers for good).

Biohazard · 3 Aug 2011 at 22:49

Dolph said:
Frighten or harm It would be very easy to make a 'foam pie' that contained something unpleasant after all.... (I must only use my powers for good).

It would, but how realistic is that going to be? And again, how is her assaulting him in retaliation going to help the situation that has just hypothetically occured, be it spores or sperm?

Crazy self defence if you are hitting someone to prevent something that has just happened, if you even know what it is for that matter...

Dolph · 3 Aug 2011 at 22:53

Biohazard said:
It would, but how realistic is that going to be? And again, how is her assaulting him in retaliation going to help the situation that has just hypothetically occured, be it spores or sperm?

Crazy self defence if you are hitting someone to prevent something that has just happened, if you even know what it is for that matter...

Can we start discussing the law as it actually works, rather than the way you think it should work? It would make this whole discussion much easier.

Biohazard · 3 Aug 2011 at 23:00

Dolph said:
Can we start discussing the law as it actually works, rather than the way you think it should work? It would make this whole discussion much easier.

I'm still waiting... or is it just quip time?

Hint: I think it fell apart at foam being a weapon?

Dolph · 3 Aug 2011 at 23:13

Biohazard said:
I'm still waiting... or is it just quip time?

Hint: I think it fell apart at foam being a weapon?

It's all been explained to you several times, the fact that you are failing to evaluate based on the law of the land, and instead are arguing based on the law in Biohazard's mind, makes it somewhat difficult.

A weapon used to frighten or harm is a specific set of legal terms, a plate full of a substance shoved into someone's face qualifies.

Self defence is a specific legal term, and reaction to drive off an attacker again qualifies.

You appear to be ignoring both of these aspects because in your mind they shouldn't count. What you think is irrelevant when discussing the law, what matters is the legal definitions and terms.

Biohazard · 3 Aug 2011 at 23:18

Dolph said:
It's all been explained to you several times, the fact that you are failing to evaluate based on the law of the land, and instead are arguing based on the law in Biohazard's mind, makes it somewhat difficult.

No, it hasn't been actually. Vh made an attempt, that was it.

So as for the hyperbole and straw men, stuff them. You haven't argued completely at all, so resort to redicule. How hollow of you.

Dolph said:
A weapon used to frighten or harm is a specific set of legal terms, a plate full of a substance shoved into someone's face qualifies.

Of that I have no doubt, I'm just not convinced shaving foam is a weapon by either or which definition in this circumstance.

Dolph said:
Self defence is a specific legal term, and reaction to drive off an attacker again qualifies.

You appear to be ignoring both of these aspects because in your mind they shouldn't count. What you think is irrelevant when discussing the law, what matters is the legal definitions and terms.

My arse. You're just chatting faux accusations because you've run out of road. Grow up. If you can't understand my points, don't debate them and certainly don't resort to hyperbolic ill thought ridicule.

Hatter The Mad · 3 Aug 2011 at 23:22

Biohazard; have you ever wondered why you always seem to be on the back foot in discussions like this?

PS: Have you found my anti-Scottish rant yet?

Biohazard · 3 Aug 2011 at 23:26

Hatter The Mad said:
Biohazard; have you ever wondered why you always seem to be on the back foot in discussions like this?

PS: Have you found my anti-Scottish rant yet?

Hi Mr Bully.

Have you found the evidence for your initial childish outburst yet? I think you forget the burden of proof, and you're first in line.

Nor is anyone on the backfoot, it's a discussion. Grow up.

Hatter The Mad · 3 Aug 2011 at 23:28

Biohazard said:
Have you found the evidence for your initial childish outburst yet? No, I haven't found your anti-Scottish rant because I lied about it.

Of course - I pointed you to the exact post with that thread (I quoted it), and some others agreed with me - so there must have been something there. Thought so

Biohazard · 3 Aug 2011 at 23:33

Hatter The Mad said:
Of course - I pointed you to the exact post in that thread, and some others agreed. Thought so

No they didn't, and you took that out of context or didn't understand it after offloading your generalisations.

Using the word Etonian in politics and press does not mean someone is riddled with a politics of envy and jealousy, you have failed to evidence it and repeatedly drew back to a tongue in cheek comment.

I've clearly hit a never but get over it this pulling it up in every thread you see me in is rather pathetic and actually a bit concerning..

Hatter The Mad · 3 Aug 2011 at 23:56

Biohazard said:
I've clearly hit a never

Of course you hit a nerve - you made a bunch of outrageous claims about my personality that you couldn't back up at all. Whenever I see you backing yourself into a corner or making a farce of yourself, like now, I cannot help but be reminded about it.

Besides, if you knew anything about my family or heritage you'd be extraordinarily red-faced

Biohazard · 3 Aug 2011 at 23:58

Hatter The Mad said:
Of course you hit a nerve - you made a bunch of outrageous claims about my personality that you couldn't back up at all.

An eye for an eye would come to mind.

Although well done for refraining from jumping on that typo I just noticed

Hatter The Mad said:
Besides, if you knew anything about my family or heritage you'd be extraordinarily red-faced

Likewise.