Gerrard...

Status
Not open for further replies.
aztechnology said:
I don't have time at the moment to read all the thread, but, quickly, do you think that the fact that he is famous has nothing to do with the lack of a conviction, and that anyone of us could expect the same judgement?

A yes/no will do.
Click to expand...

No I don't and I would have expected that decision for anyone.

Did it stop Tony Adams going to prison for drink driving or that goalkeeper for death by dangerous driving ?

Did it apply to Jonathan Woodgate ?

If Steven Gerrard smashed a bottle over the bloke's head and stamped on him, would he have been found not guilty ? I doubt it but that is a differeny burden of proof and probably a bad example.
 
atpbx said:
Strictly speaking, the law says you cant.
Its quite clear, it only becomes murky when you start getting into the semantics of what you understand by the term "attempting to assault you".
Click to expand...

Believe me, you can.

An example being. Someone in a bar is riled that you accidentally bump them and pulls out a knife. Do you have to be stabbed to warrant self-defence ? I would suggest anything goes in that situation but clearly it differs massively from the Gerrard case.

I agree entirely with your murky description though and the law is arguably not clear on what you can and can't do
 
Absolutely, even behaviour that is 'threatening' could warrant 'self-defence'.

There is no statute about 'assault' or what constitutes reasonable self-defence, it is common law. The question which is asked of the jury is

"Was the force used by the individual reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believed them to be?"

Note the last phrase - as a crude analogy if someone swung at you with a hammer but it was made of foam, you'd probably be justified in knocking them out :p If a person believes there is a threat of imminent violence to themselves, their immediate family or even a total stranger, they can act in 'self-defence'

Even if a person kills someone, wrongly, if the jury decides they genuinely believed that they were in imminent danger they will be acquitted (if they act proportionately of course)

Also, whilst the option to retreat can be taken into account, it is not mandatory nor does the lack of doing so in itself sink a self-defence defence, if the person is believed to have acted instinctively.

(I am not a lawyer)
 
Last edited:
atpbx said:
That falls into the definition I've already given.
Thats not what happened to Gerrard.
Click to expand...

I know, hence my comment on it differing. My example was cut and dried which is rarely the case.

You do not have to be struck to warrant a pre-emptive strike and threatening behaviour or mannerism is sometimes enough.

It is for a jury to decide and in Gerrard's care they have.
 
notguilty.jpg
 
Von Smallhausen said:
I know, hence my comment on it differing. My example was cut and dried which is rarely the case.

You do not have to be struck to warrant a pre-emptive strike and threatening behaviour or mannerism is sometimes enough.

It is for a jury to decide and in Gerrard's care they have.
Click to expand...

The jury was only out for an hour as well. I find it incredible that not one person on the jury thought he was guilty and didn't need any convincing from the other jurors! When practically everyone who isn't a rabid Liverpool fan sees it as cut and dried guilty.
 
Rich_L said:
Anton Ferdinand got acquitted because the guy looked at his watch :p
Click to expand...

That is do different from what has happened here as well, I'm not arguing that one footballer getting off is any more justified than another, I'm arguing that the same rules and justifications that are applied to us for OUR actions are applied to them.
 
An hour is quite a long time to be thinking about a (relatively) petty charge like this, it's not exactly complex fraud :p

They may well have had certain reservations or opinions - but the criteria isn't "what do you reckon", it's convicting on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt.

Who knows, there might even be a civil claim to follow where on the balance of probabilities Gerrard is liable for damages - it still wouldn't mean he was guilty of the criminal offence though.
 
atpbx said:
His argument for self defence falls flat on its face,
Click to expand...

As he has walked from court with a not guilty verdict it seems to have worked quite well.

Also, a key point for Affray is anyone of reasonable firmness present to fear for their personal safety. Perhaps that is where the jury drew the line ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom