Just had to punch a bloke in B&Q

dirtydog said:
He'd have brought it on himself... albeit the law wouldn't probably see it that way.

As for insurance - do you have a car? A lot of people either have 3rd party insurance, OR would have to pay a high excess and lose some of their no claims bonus. So it would cost more to claim than it would to pay out of your own pocket most of the time.
Click to expand...

The guy that keyed the car commited criminal damage. If the law did its job he would be liable for the damage. Dublove commited ABH or GBh depending - the law would really frown upon this.

I do hace car insurance with 0 excess and protected no-claims but I see your point.
 
Piggymon said:
Because the FIRST ones says he PUNCHED him UNTIL he fell to the floor and the SECOND one says he only punched him twice and the dude fell because he TRIPPED over his own feet

How the fudge can you say they are the same thing ? :confused:
Click to expand...
He punched him until the guy fell over, when he stopped, not that he punched him until he caused him to fall over. He didn't specifiy
 
Piggymon said:
Because the FIRST ones says he PUNCHED him UNTIL he fell to the floor and the SECOND one says he only punched him twice and the dude fell because he TRIPPED over his own feet

How the fudge can you say they are the same thing ? :confused:
Click to expand...

Easily, and I'm surprised you are confused by it :p The fact that he tripped does not contradict that he punched him until he fell to the floor. You've assumed and inferred things from the first post that aren't there.
 
Piggymon said:
If someone had said the 2 statements to me I would say they were seperate incidents because of the different way they are described .. that's what I'm trying to get at :)
Click to expand...

Ok, let's look at it this way:

'I continued to eat the doughnut until it was all gone.'

'I eat two mouthfuls of doughnut but the dog came and eat the rest of it. It was then all gone. :('
 
Piggymon said:
If someone had said the 2 statements to me I would say they were seperate incidents because of the different way they are described .. that's what I'm trying to get at :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, they sound like two different events. But that mostly because of tone of the posts and the first one sounds really angry.

But the actual actions described in the two posts don't contradict each other and they tie in, just the second post has a bit more detail about the violence.
 
Quantic said:
Have you not heard the phrase that pedestrians have the right of way?
Click to expand...

yup, they do have right of way, but they HAVE TO STOP AND MAKE SURE CARS KNOW THEY ARE WAITING TO CROSS. at which point the cars will stop and allow them to cross.
 
I summise that you were travelling at excessive speed, whilst not paying enough attention to surrounding obstacles (including pedestrians), and when the pedestrians walking across the zebra crossing caught your eye, you had to slam your brakes on, and at this point sounded the horn.
The pedestrian, some what perplexed at this, decided to run after you, and went into the back of your car as you slammed the brakes back on, but just happened to have his keys in his hand, which could (or could not) quite easily have added to the many lines at the back of your vehicle.
You immediately got out, and without really checking the back of the vehicle, started swinging. The guy, in his effort to avoid the haymaker, fell over his own feet, and on getting up, you had made a hasty retreat to your car to avoid being struck...

/me gets coat.... :p
 
Quantic said:
'I continued to eat the doughnut until it was all gone.'

'I eat two mouthfuls of doughnut but the dog came and eat the rest of it. It was then all gone. :('
Click to expand...
Can this thread BE anymore random :p
 
chopchop said:
yup, they do have right of way, but they HAVE TO STOP AND MAKE SURE CARS KNOW THEY ARE WAITING TO CROSS. at which point the cars will stop and allow them to cross.
Click to expand...

Well....from what we have now learned. Either the pedestrians were ALREADY ON THE CROSSING when the OP reached it OR, HE HAD ENOUGH TIME TO CONTINUE ACROSS WITH NO DANGER.
 
My head hurts :(

Basically the dude who walked infront of the car is clearly a clumsy twonk because he fell over his own feet after Mr Dublove smacked him twice and yes he probably deserved a quick jab but I still think Mr D over reacted a touch

I'm off to watch Ice Age 2 at the pics shortly and I want to think happy thoughts !
 
dirtydog said:
Regardless of who stepped out first, where the car was blah blah blah.. it boils down to this: the bloke keyed the car so he deserved a smack.
Click to expand...

The bloke deserved to be dealt with in the bounds of the law... this is making me laugh sat here at work, all the people giving it "I would've smacked him", most of you couldn't punch your way out of a paper bag!
 
Mohinder said:
I had a fight in B&Q once. One of the staff came up to me and asked if I wanted decking, so I got the first punch in and legged it.
Click to expand...
Very good :D.

As for the OP I think you were in the right, cause and effect innit.
 
Last edited:
jimbobaggies said:
The bloke deserved to be dealt with in the bounds of the law... this is making me laugh sat here at work, all the people giving it "I would've smacked him", most of you couldn't punch your way out of a paper bag!
Click to expand...


And you cant read the rules on sig size :rolleyes:
 
jimbobaggies said:
The bloke deserved to be dealt with in the bounds of the law... this is making me laugh sat here at work, all the people giving it "I would've smacked him", most of you couldn't punch your way out of a paper bag!
Click to expand...

I assume you've met everybody in person who said they'd smack him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom