Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Who assaulted who?

  • 08-02-2013 6:59pm
    #1
    goz83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,035 ✭✭✭


    Picture this:

    A man standing inside the entrance of a shared office building with a sign with various comments written on it. The owner of the commented business asks the protester to move outside of the doorway. The Protester refuses. The business owner grabs the sign and attempts to move the protester outside of the doorway (bad idea imho). The protestor swings a few punches and catches the business owners bicep and cheek. There is no retaliation. The business owner is also the bigger guy.

    Who do you think assaulted who?

    By the way, i am neither person in this scenario.


Comments

  • #2
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Depending on all of the circumstances, the business owner's actions may amount to a justifiable use of force.

    Depending on all circumstances, the actions of the protester sound likely to amount to assault.


  • #3
    goz83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,035 ✭✭✭goz83


    Thanks for that. From my understanding of the circumstances, the business owner was not the person committing assault, as his action was to clear access to the building. The only counter argument I can see is that the sign was the property of the protester.


  • #4
    The Big Red Button
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,390 ✭✭✭The Big Red Button


    Hays Recruitment, by any chance?


  • #5
    goz83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,035 ✭✭✭goz83


    No. It's a healthcare thing.


  • #6
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    goz83 wrote: »
    Thanks for that. From my understanding of the circumstances, the business owner was not the person committing assault, as his action was to clear access to the building. The only counter argument I can see is that the sign was the property of the protester.

    In your OP, you said that the business owner grabbed the sign. The indirect application of force may have amounted to a technical assault. However, this may be academic for a couple of reasons, one of which being the justifiable use of force and the other being that one would have to doubt if the Gardai would prosecute the business owner in the first place, in the given circumstances.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Hootanany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,477 ✭✭✭Hootanany


    chatterpillar wrote: »
    Hays Recruitment, by any chance?

    Could you PM Me about them I have used them from time to time.

    Many thanks in advance


  • #8
    goz83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,035 ✭✭✭goz83


    The Mustard wrote: »
    In your OP, you said that the business owner grabbed the sign. The indirect application of force may have amounted to a technical assault. However, this may be academic for a couple of reasons, one of which being the justifiable use of force and the other being that one would have to doubt if the Gardai would prosecute the business owner in the first place, in the given circumstances.

    That's my understanding of the situation. The business owner should not have engaged with the protester (imo). The assault was a definite over reaction by the protester, because there was (allegedly) no violence used, rather it was an attempt to move the protester, using the sign as a holding point, so as not to make physical contact with the protester.


  • #9
    Zambia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    The man asked the protester to allow him to leave then used proportionate force to move him. The protester used excessive force IMO in his reaction.


  • #10
    solas111
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 399 ✭✭solas111


    Don’t know anything about the law but would buy that business owner a drink.
    The guy was asked to move and he refused so in my non legal opinion he was trespassing. I would have kicked his ass out the doorway.


  • #11
    Kristopherus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,907 ✭✭✭✭Kristopherus


    This is a follow-on thread from the one here:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056876316, where you were told by several posters to mind your own business. By starting another thread, you are only proving that you have a vendetta against this man.:eek:
    What is the purpose of all this? The Gardai have been notified. You are not happy with that. You allege that because of an alleged incident that allegedly happened 14 yrs ago, this man should not be in the employment that he is in at present.

    Have a good look at youself first before throwing dirt at someone else.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    goz83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,035 ✭✭✭goz83


    The other thread is related, but focusing on a different thing. No further action is to be taken regarding the assault. I was curious about where the blame would have legally lay if each party had charged the other. It's no vendetta. About the other thread, you might consider your own thoughts if you were in such a position. The other thread was taken off topic from the op.


Advertisement