[ToiletFusion]

Originally Posted by nacho libre

It's not skewed logic in the eyes of the law, though.
Throwing the first punch, while he had a bottle in your hand, is unlikely to convince a jury he was merely acting in self defense. Coupled with the fact he also threw a tripod at someone while they were being held, then it is very unlikely a plead of self defense would be successful.

Yes but like the image I posted, it was Chisora who raised his fist to him first...

[RiseToTheTop]

[nacho libre]

Originally Posted by ToiletFusion

Yes but like the image I posted, it was Chisora who raised his fist to him first...

The image would likely be viewed as irrelevant, as speculating on what Chisora might have done won't work.
Haye threw the first punch, therefore in the eyes of the law he is deemed the aggressor. So as I said a self- defense verdict is unlikely to prove successful in court.

[walshb]

Originally Posted by nacho libre

The image would likely be viewed as irrelevant, as speculating on what Chisora might have done won't work.
Haye threw the first punch, therefore in the eyes of the law he is deemed the aggressor. So as I said a self- defense verdict is unlikely to prove successful in court.

May or may not be successful in court, as the law is an ass at times, but really, I don't blame Haye for striking first when one takes into account all that went on, and who it was that was approaching him.

[nacho libre]

Originally Posted by walshb

May or may not be successful in court, as the law is an ass at times, but really, I don't blame Haye for striking first when one takes into account all that went on, and who it was that was approaching him.

Well he could have tried to flee.... yes, it maybe seen as wussy behaviour by some, but he's have been widely praised by many for taking that course of action and in the process avoiding bad headlines for boxing. If there is no other option, then I could well understand striking first given Chisora's past actions. However, in a court case he would be seen as the aggressor given what transpired and the fact he made no attempt to flee. Although the court maybe more lenient given Chisora's previous history.

[ToiletFusion]

In our ****ty legal system a raised fist against your face would definitely get you off I'd say.

If it went to court, the video coverage, Chisora getting up out of his chair to come down to him, the taunts and threats, Chisora's actions that weekend regarding Wlad and Vitali and his history of violence and trouble with the police before...would surely be brought up, paints a fairly bad character reference.

Not a hope Haye would get done for it. Well not a hope may be too fool hardy but I'd be very surprised if Haye received any punishment. Chisora would have to bring forth the charges and imagine he'd have had enough on his plate.

[Discodog]

All the fuss & yet Chisora returned to Germany & was at the fight on Saturday - no one seemed concerned.

http://www.supersport.com/boxing/int...ack_in_Germany

[kryogen]

Can't believe there is any argument here, if it went to court the evidence shows Haye striking first, thats it, end of story, you are allowed to go toward someone. The video doesn't show Chisora threatening Haye when face to face, the video can not be used to exonerate David. The previous incidents with the Klitschko's would have no bearing on it.

They are both muppets, but to suggest anything other then Haye being (from a legal standpoint) the one who initiated the conflict is foolish.

The law is clear on this. You can confront someone verbally, no issue, once you raise your hands you are getting into assault territory, to do it with a bottle in your hand, is even more ridiculous as you run the risk of battery added to it or worse.

Chisora legally did nothing to warrant getting punched. It was an attack from Haye, for him to prove he felt like he was in danger would be difficult from the video evidence. It is inconclusive at best. Chisora does not hit him. He does not make a motion to hit him, he goes down with the mic in his hand, this is not the actions of a guy going to hit someone, it is the actions of someone who wants to get some publicity.

He is well in his rights to stand in front of Haye and speak to him, Haye is not well within his rights to hit him, unless he can prove that his life/person was in immediate danger.

[Ash.J.Williams]

Two muppets is right, at the very least they should be banned from fighting eachother, just to save us from the sky "grudge match" bullsh1t that would inevitably follow...Cringefest. Seriously .... the future is bleak for heavyweights, pure showbiz....

[cowzerp]

Originally Posted by Ash.J.Williams

the future is bleak for heavyweights, pure showbiz....

Probably the 1st time in years anyone has called the Heavyweight division showbiz!

In reality this is 2 lads who are British level Heavyweights and used their mouths to get publicity-has little bearing on the Heavyweight division unless Haye gets a shot at Vitali-I for 1 would not be pushed to see it at all, would rather see Vitali v Povetkin, Dimitrenko, Helenius, Boytsov or else Areola or Adamek in that order of availability if there was lads not available

[ToiletFusion]

Originally Posted by kryogen

Can't believe there is any argument here, if it went to court the evidence shows Haye striking first, thats it, end of story, you are allowed to go toward someone. The video doesn't show Chisora threatening Haye when face to face, the video can not be used to exonerate David. The previous incidents with the Klitschko's would have no bearing on it.

They are both muppets, but to suggest anything other then Haye being (from a legal standpoint) the one who initiated the conflict is foolish.

The law is clear on this. You can confront someone verbally, no issue, once you raise your hands you are getting into assault territory, to do it with a bottle in your hand, is even more ridiculous as you run the risk of battery added to it or worse.

Chisora legally did nothing to warrant getting punched. It was an attack from Haye, for him to prove he felt like he was in danger would be difficult from the video evidence. It is inconclusive at best. Chisora does not hit him. He does not make a motion to hit him, he goes down with the mic in his hand, this is not the actions of a guy going to hit someone, it is the actions of someone who wants to get some publicity.

He is well in his rights to stand in front of Haye and speak to him, Haye is not well within his rights to hit him, unless he can prove that his life/person was in immediate danger.

http://www.boxingscene.com/uploads/4...rawl%20(4).jpg

Assault is defined by (in UK) "an assault is committed where the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence."

Chisora putting his fist to his neck is more than enough to assume immediate violence. I don't believe that it's an indicative of violence but in court it could definitely be used as a solid defence.

Self defence: "The use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. "

Considering all the elements of the weekend, Chisora's character, antics with Wlad, history, being threatened, Chisora taking off his jacket to "talk to him", bringing his trainer along with him.... all of which would be mentioned in court, it would not be difficult to paint a picture where Haye was in fear of danger.

Haye would get done for battery more so than assault if he did get done for something. I doubt he would though.

I don't see how anyone could think this cut and dry, because it's not.

[kryogen]

Why did you bother giving the UK definition though? I was under the impression it happened outside the UK

[RiseToTheTop]

How come Tyson never got a sentence for biting off a piece off Holyfield's ear so?

I know it was during the fight, unlike Haye-Chisora, but that was outrageous and well outside the realms of boxing. The same when he tried to break Botha's arm.

[kryogen]

Originally Posted by RiseToTheTop

How come Tyson never got a sentence for biting off a piece off Holyfield's ear so?

I know it was during the fight, unlike Haye-Chisora, but that was outrageous and well outside the realms of boxing. The same when he tried to break Botha's arm.

You would have to work that out for yourself, probably something along the same lines as why there will be no "sentence" for Haye or Chisora here.

[walshb]

Originally Posted by kryogen

Can't believe there is any argument here, if it went to court the evidence shows Haye striking first, thats it, end of story, you are allowed to go toward someone. The video doesn't show Chisora threatening Haye when face to face, the video can not be used to exonerate David. The previous incidents with the Klitschko's would have no bearing on it.

They are both muppets, but to suggest anything other then Haye being (from a legal standpoint) the one who initiated the conflict is foolish.

The law is clear on this. You can confront someone verbally, no issue, once you raise your hands you are getting into assault territory, to do it with a bottle in your hand, is even more ridiculous as you run the risk of battery added to it or worse.

Chisora legally did nothing to warrant getting punched. It was an attack from Haye, for him to prove he felt like he was in danger would be difficult from the video evidence. It is inconclusive at best. Chisora does not hit him. He does not make a motion to hit him, he goes down with the mic in his hand, this is not the actions of a guy going to hit someone, it is the actions of someone who wants to get some publicity.

He is well in his rights to stand in front of Haye and speak to him, Haye is not well within his rights to hit him, unless he can prove that his life/person was in immediate danger.

I'm glad you have such faith in the law and believe it to be so black and white. Didn't Chisora threaten to walk down and hit Haye two slaps? No? Are you seriously saying Haye would have no chance at all to get a self defence claim approved by a jury based on the whole event?

If someone makes a physical threat aginst you in a verbal manner and then aprroaches you directly after making this verbal threat, is it not at all reasonable for you to claim that the person was approaching you to carry out this threat? That not at all a possibility in this "black and white" law we have?