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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

1…2930323435…41

Comments

  • #932
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,239 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    You don't get to tell me where to post, thanks.



    Incorrect. He believed he was defending people.


    That hasn't been established as fact. It's just self reported. He has self vested interests.

    And even if he did. Was it REASONABLE for him to believe that?

    It's not clear cut I will give you that.


  • #933
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,260 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Deleted User wrote:
    Why would that ever be odd? You're basically arguing that no on can do anything as long as everyone is ok with what's happening at that moment. Why would anyone do anything if everything else feels fine. Regular people outnumber security. Why would they do anything. Everyone feels fine.


    No. I'm saying that all the other protesters were removed without being assaulted. You keep side stepping the issue. He is the only person who felt that slamming against the wall, hitting & grabbing by the neck was warranted. The only one who hit anyone was this fool. The more vocal protesters were removed peacefully.

    It says a lot about him. Poor judgment & quick to use his hands. Not someone I'd want running the country. Politicians are supposed to use words not their fists.


  • #934
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,239 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Wrong. Self defense is not assault. Go find a legal definition that shows otherwise


    Actually self defense is the MOST common defense for assault and battery case convictions.


    To prove self defense you have to prove for example that you couldn't run away.


  • #935
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,522 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    That hasn't been established as fact. It's just self reported. He has self vested interests.

    And even if he did. Was it REASONABLE for him to believe that?

    It's not clear cut I will give you that.

    All the law is concerned about is what he believed at the time. If events become more clear after the fact that doesn't change the initial situation he reacted to.


  • #936
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    No. I'm saying that all the other protesters were removed without being assaulted. You keep side stepping the issue. He is the only person who felt that slamming against the wall, hitting & grabbing by the neck was warranted. The only one who hit anyone was this fool. The more vocal protesters were removed peacefully.

    It says a lot about him. Poor judgment & quick to use his hands. Not someone I'd want running the country. Politicians are supposed to use words not their fists.

    If everyone else was removed peacefully, then the lone person striding towards the most important people in room is surely the riskiest. Peaceful protesters stick together peacefully protesting.

    I really need to clarify something here with yourself and a few others.
    Do you think she should be allowed approach like that?
    Was the man stopping her appropriate?
    Was the way he stopped her too harsh?


  • Advertisement
  • #937
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,522 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Actually self defense is the MOST common defense for assault and battery case convictions.


    To prove self defense you have to prove for example that you couldn't run away.

    In this instance he does not have to prove he couldn't run away. He is entirely within the law to use force to prevent an assault on others.


  • #938
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,239 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    All the law is concerned about is what he believed at the time. If events become more clear after the fact that doesn't change the initial situation he reacted to.


    The doctrine of self-defense has a number of limitations just because you act in self defense does not mean all bets are off.

    You have to do everything else you can possibly do first. It's a last resort.

    He could have run away.

    You can also be found guilty of assault if acting in self defense you took on a person that was no match for you ...like a child for instance.


  • #939
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,239 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    In this instance he does not have to prove he couldn't run away. He is entirely within the law to use force to prevent an assault on others.


    Proving she proved a threat to others would be impossible. Especially since no one else reacted.

    No one asked him to defend them. No one seemed scared.

    You would have to question everyone else there and ask them if they felt threatened.

    You also have to prove reasonable grounds etc.

    I don't think if the others were asked you could rely on them to say they thought she was going to assault people.


  • #940
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,260 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    runawaybishop wrote:
    I am not confused in the slightest. It is not assault to defend yourself. You are also mis-using the legal definition to suit yourself.

    This is where you are confused. I have stated several times that I am not talking about the legal definition. I am talking about the physical act of assault.

    Let's make it very simple for you. He slammed her against the wall. He pushed her. He hit her. He grabbed her by the neck. None of this was self defence. She never laid a finger on him. She never made a threatening gesture. Not a cross word. Nothing. All of the other protesters, who seemed much more threatening, were removed without the use of violence. He was the only violent person in the room full of people. It speaks volumes about his character


  • #941
    RobbingBandit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,479 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit


    Situation is why pepper spray was invented pow right in the kisser.


  • Advertisement
  • #942
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,260 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    ILoveYourVibes wrote:
    Proving she proved a threat to others would be impossible. Especially since no one else reacted.


    Another way to put that is no one else overreacted.


  • #943
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,522 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    This is where you are confused. I have stated several times that I am not talking about the legal definition. I am talking about the physical act of assault.

    Let's make it very simple for you. He slammed her against the wall. He pushed her. He hit her. He grabbed her by the neck. None of this was self defence. She never laid a finger on him. She never made a threatening gesture. Not a cross word. Nothing. All of the other protesters, who seemed much more threatening, were removed without the use of violence. He was the only violent person in the room full of people. It speaks volumes about his character

    He was defending himself and others. That is not assault.

    All the others protesters left by the way, she didn't.


  • #944
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,239 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    RobbingBandit wrote: »
    Situation is why pepper spray was invented pow right in the kisser.


    Pepper spray is illegal in the UK and Ireland.


  • #945
    nw5iytvs0lf1uz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭nw5iytvs0lf1uz


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    This is where you are confused. I have stated several times that I am not talking about the legal definition. I am talking about the physical act of assault.

    Let's make it very simple for you. He slammed her against the wall. He pushed her. He hit her. He grabbed her by the neck. None of this was self defence. She never laid a finger on him. She never made a threatening gesture. Not a cross word. Nothing. All of the other protesters, who seemed much more threatening, were removed without the use of violence. He was the only violent person in the room full of people. It speaks volumes about his character

    completely wrong.
    an mp was murdered in england not so long ago, more have seriously assaulted like george calloway, and just lately politicians have has items thrown at them and the comedian jo brand encourages throwing battery acid at people.
    add to this that he is not a trained security professional and there it would be impossible to prosecute him for assault.

    So let his constituency decide whether he keeps his job not the social media mob.


  • #946
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,522 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Pepper spray is illegal in the UK and Ireland.

    Police in the UK use pepper spray.


  • #947
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,239 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    He was defending himself and others.


    He wasn't. This is very very important.

    He at best BELIEVED he was. He was actually mistaken.

    At best he made a mistake. At worst he assaulted her.

    She is not as strong as him.

    If she had been INTENDING to attack him when he grabbed her neck that would have been the PERFECT moment to do so because she could have claimed self defense. She chose not to do so. She never touched him.

    Thus illustrating that she had no intention of attacking him or anyone else.

    So even IF he BELIEVED he was in danger. He was actually mistaken.

    So now we come to 'Was it a reasonable belief?'.


    Since no one else seems to have believed it why did he? He had a very different reaction to this woman.

    And perhaps he was influenced by many of the stories of mps being attacked. He might be mentally DISTURBED by such stories. Suffering an anxiety disorder maybe even. Who knows?

    Maybe he has PTSD?

    I am being serious. To jump up like that etc it can be part of a stress condition or a nervous condition.

    It might not actually be his fault.


  • #948
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sleeper12 wrote:
    Listen closely now, he assaulted her. This is a fact. Hitting someone for any reason is assault. I then went on to say that no one, including you, has a right to say if he is guilty or not of assault. Only a court of law can determine this.

    So he assaulted her and that is a fact but you can't say that he is guilty of assaulting her.

    Yeah... That's bull****.


  • #949
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    The doctrine of self-defense has a number of limitations just because you act in self defense does not mean all bets are off.

    You have to do everything else you can possibly do first. It's a last resort.

    He could have run away.

    You can also be found guilty of assault if acting in self defense you took on a person that was no match for you ...like a child for instance.
    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Proving she proved a threat to others would be impossible. Especially since no one else reacted.

    No one asked him to defend them. No one seemed scared.

    You would have to question everyone else there and ask them if they felt threatened.

    You also have to prove reasonable grounds etc.

    I don't think if the others were asked you could rely on them to say they thought she was going to assault people.

    ...

    Can you actually imagine hearing this in a court of law if she actually had a weapon. Some self-anointed solicitor of the free people of the world blathering on about this and that nonsense defending that person's right to go at someone.

    Meanwhile, while ye're all masturbating to a video, that guy took less that a second to act in defense of someone else and did so in a restrained way so that 10 seconds later, no one was hurt. And that person lost his career because of imbeciles.


    You'd swear this guy was some abusive wanker, and he chose his time to act in front of the cameras. Braindead the lot of ye. Braindead, or biased beyond reasoning.


  • #950
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,239 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Police in the UK use pepper spray.


    They also use guns. Its not permitted by the public.


  • #951
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,961 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    _blaaz wrote: »
    Could also be because woman involved didnt want to make a complaint?

    Doesnt matter in the UK, if the police believe a crime has been commited they can arrest/charge.


  • Advertisement
  • #952
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ILoveYourVibes wrote:
    She is not as strong as him.

    Oh ok. So we should only be allowed to try and apprehend people who are stronger than us?

    Get a grip.


  • #953
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,239 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Deleted User wrote: »
    ...

    Can you actually imagine hearing this in a court of law if she actually had a weapon.


    No. I can't.

    Because it wouldn't be said if she had a weapon.


    She passed through metal detectors and didn't have a weapon. We have established this.

    And yes he might have been influenced by HEARING terrible stories of attacks on politicians into believing she posed a threat.

    It might have been on his nerves a lot.

    I think he is unbalanced. And overeactive.

    He is definitely not well. It's possible why he has been given time off.


  • #954
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,961 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    He hit her several times. Are watching the correct video?

    He didn't hit her ffs
    If throwing liquid on someone is assault then slamming someone against a wall, hitting them & grabbing them by the neck is definitely assault. I'd love her to post photos of her neck. I'm betting she's black and blue today

    You can guarantee if there was a single mark it would be all over the fromt pages. Also i don't see a milkshake being thrown as "assault" either.


  • #955
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,239 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Oh ok. So we should only be allowed to try and apprehend people who are stronger than us?

    Get a grip.


    If a child of 8 attacked you and you defended yourself and the child's parents charged you with assault the fact that a child is less strong than you would come into it.


  • #956
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,522 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    He wasn't. This is very very important.

    He at best BELIEVED he was.

    That's all that matters, as far as the law is concerned.


  • #957
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ironically, this reminds me of living in Vietnam.

    You never stop at a crash. You never stop anywhere to help someone. It's likely that you will be ruined by having the finger pointed at you.

    Help someone in a crash? You caused it. Stop someone who looks like they may be attacking a prominent politician? Assault.


    Ye fukers sow the world ye reap. Why should anyone do anything to help if some loud children scream that you were wrong, when you didn't even hurt anyone.


  • #958
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,260 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Deleted User wrote:
    So he assaulted her and that is a fact but you can't say that he is guilty of assaulting her.


    Ah go away. You are playing the fool here. It's been examined several times here. The physical act of assault & a legal definition or conviction for assault are two totally different things. He hit her. Pushed her & grabbed her by the neck. All versions of the physical atc of assault. That's not to say that he is guilty or innocent of the crime of assault. Again only a court of law can determine that


  • #959
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,239 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    He didn't hit her ffs



    You can guarantee if there was a single mark it would be all over the fromt pages. Also i don't see a milkshake being thrown as "assault" either.


    I do see a milkshake being thrown as assault and so did the court.


  • #960
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,239 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    That's all that matters, as far as the law is concerned.


    Apologies but that is incorrect. The belief has to be reasonable.

    You could if you were mentally ill believe people walking down the street were going to murder you and your family.


    I actually think Mark Field is not well.

    Maybe not mentally fit for his job. I hope he gets better.


  • Advertisement
  • #961
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,522 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Apologies but that is incorrect. The belief has to be reasonable.

    You could if you were mentally ill believe people walking down the street were going to murder you and your family.


    I actually think Mark Field is not well.

    Maybe not mentally fit for his job. I hope he gets better.

    It is eminently reasonable to believe she was going to commit an assault. She was already trespassing and on route to the senior MPs after being told to leave


Advertisement