Page 12 of 18
Posted:
Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:36 pmby redbeergoggles
lakes10 wrote:woof woof ! wrote:NANNY RED wrote:Igor Zidane wrote:Listen there's things in the story that won't make the public domain . Lets just say that i'm pretty confident that the horrible tw@t deserved all he got .
Spot on .
Gerrard got his "retaliation" in first.
Seems to me some in here have a problem with Stevie not waiting for some p'iss head to have a free swing at him .
F'ucking clueless.
mate the law says you can not do that.
He,s threw a few digs ,it was hardly a straightener fella ,in some cities the rules or law don't apply its simply dog eat dog ,it all could be jealousy ,I just cant see Gerrard playing the big I am he simply doesn't come across as that type .
Posted:
Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:58 pmby bigmick
Agreed on that RBG, he's not that sort of lad. Sometimes in his career, there have been moments when I think he would have benefitted from being a bit more like that to be honest.
Posted:
Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:07 pmby JC_81
We'll never know exactly what went down that night, but I don't think Gerrard covers himself in glory. The CCTV isn't all that clear, but it certainly looks like Gerrard hits the guy a few digs. Provoked or not it was fu.cking stupid and disgraceful behaviour from an LFC captain and International footballer.
People are understandably quick to defend him on here, but clearly he has a short fuse. The stamp on Naismith V Everton some years back is one example, and there are other times he has lost control (admittedly mostly earlier in his career). He has that in his character and who's to say it didn't resurface after a few drinks and a bit of verbals from some @rse.hole?
It's alright saying 'nice one Stevie that Manc got what he deserved'. That may be true of you or I had we slapped that guy, but for someone of his stature being paid over 100k per week, and at the age of 29 (he's not a boy anymore) he should never have been in the situation in the first place. Let's be fu.cking honest about it.
Posted:
Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:26 pmby lakes10
bigmick wrote:Agreed on that RBG, he's not that sort of lad. Sometimes in his career, there have been moments when I think he would have benefitted from being a bit more like that to be honest.
it dont matter mate, can not go around and hit others just Because you think they might be going to hit you. that is the way the law is and he did not stick to that law and thats why he is in court, if he had been hit first then he would not even been in court.
what ever happens he will get told off for hiting someone, yes we know it happens every night in pubs over the uk.... but they dont happen to be A Liverpool,Engalnd player and one of the best players in the world and yes thats also why the police turned up so fast and yes he could be hit hard by the courts for it to show that he was in the wrong.
no matter if it was self defence he hit the guy first, for all he knew they guy might have just been about to give him a hug ( this is why a guy is on my course right now, he punched someone who he was sure was about to hit him, the guy was in fact an old friend who the guy on my courses forgot, he beat the guy to the ground before he was pulled off , he did not even know he knew the guy till the police told him).
Posted:
Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:37 pmby Greavesie
Lakes thats not the way the law is, the law permits self-defence in situations where you can attack somebody in the honest belief you are about to be attacked. You DO NOT have to wait to be attacked before you can strike back. I can post a list of cases to give examples of this if you wish. The force used must be honest and reasonable and no more required to diffuse the perceived 'threat'.
Posted:
Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:58 pmby bigmick
Greavesie wrote:Lakes thats not the way the law is, the law permits self-defence in situations where you can attack somebody in the honest belief you are about to be attacked. You DO NOT have to wait to be attacked before you can strike back. I can post a list of cases to give examples of this if you wish. The force used must be honest and reasonable and no more required to diffuse the perceived 'threat'.
That's true. If a bloke walks up to you with a baseball bat in his hands and says "right you Scarse cant" you are legally fully entitled to kick him in the b0ll0cks. I think it actually used to be compulsary as long as he had a sheep with him and it was on a Wednesday, but a lot of these ancient bylaws have been changed now so you can never be sure.
You don't though have to wait until he tw@ts you round the head with it, no sir.
Can't believe tw@ts is banned, but there you go.
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:05 amby Greavesie
you see Mick, I know loads of people who have seen the CCTV and said Stevie hits him first how can he claim self-defence. While that statement in itself is fair enough, whereas when you think of the opposite scenario, having to wait to be 'tw@tted' before you can strike back. The original statement appears absurd. The thing with scenarios such as this is that an open mind is absolutely essential when forming jugdement on the situation at hand. Hopefully those good 12 men and women are doing that when they're listening to whats gone on.
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:34 amby redbeergoggles
bigmick wrote:Agreed on that RBG, he's not that sort of lad. Sometimes in his career, there have been moments when I think he would have benefitted from being a bit more like that to be honest.
Agree Mick I mean in some cases its justified to call the offender a Thug like in terms of someone like Joey Barton ,but Stevie no I dont for one minute think he justifies the tag
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:36 amby bigmick
Greavesie wrote:you see Mick, I know loads of people who have seen the CCTV and said Stevie hits him first how can he claim self-defence. While that statement in itself is fair enough, whereas when you think of the opposite scenario, having to wait to be 'tw@tted' before you can strike back. The original statement appears absurd. The thing with scenarios such as this is that an open mind is absolutely essential when forming jugdement on the situation at hand. Hopefully those good 12 men and women are doing that when they're listening to whats gone on.
You'll go far Greavsie mate. You've already mastered the art of making the most simple of statements completely fecking confusing 
All you've got to do now, is master the art of saying "that'll be 439 quid please plus VAT" for six minutes work and you're sorted.
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:03 amby account deleted by request
My only real "problem" with what has happened is the 6 or 7 onto one part. If Stevie had just walked over and tw@tted him, that would be fair enough. For a load of his mates to jump in as well seems a little unfair.
Having said that, I doubt if Stevie asked them to jump in, so in that sense its hardly his fault.
I think if the roles were reversed and it was 6 or 7 mancs jumping on our Captain, we would be seeing things a little different mind you.
I honestly thought you had to allow them to take a swing (not necessarily hit you)or threaten you before you could act in self defence........ you learn something new every day.
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:11 amby Greavesie
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:41 amby lakes10
bigmick wrote:Greavesie wrote:Lakes thats not the way the law is, the law permits self-defence in situations where you can attack somebody in the honest belief you are about to be attacked. You DO NOT have to wait to be attacked before you can strike back. I can post a list of cases to give examples of this if you wish. The force used must be honest and reasonable and no more required to diffuse the perceived 'threat'.
That's true. If a bloke walks up to you with a baseball bat in his hands and says "right you Scarse cant" you are legally fully entitled to kick him in the b0ll0cks. I think it actually used to be compulsary as long as he had a sheep with him and it was on a Wednesday, but a lot of these ancient bylaws have been changed now so you can never be sure.
You don't though have to wait until he tw@ts you round the head with it, no sir.
Can't believe tw@ts is banned, but there you go.
in that yes you could hit out, he has made a verbal threat.
this DJ did not, it was 5 v 1 (or something like that) the guy had already been hit and did not look like he was going to hit out, there is no way this could be seen as self defence in the law and that is why the case has gone to court.
the CPS looked at the case and have said he has done something wrong under the law.
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:44 amby lakes10
"A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force. "
he hit him 3 times after he had already been hit and that is why it will not come under the Self Defence law.
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:41 amby Bammo
There's a couple of points we don't know for certain though Lakes.
How do we know the DJ didn't use threatening language? He claims "I was asking him how he would react if somebody came up to him and wanted to take something off him in a manner I found to be rude," Does anyone believe that was the wording he used on the night? I'd imagine there were a few more explicit words in there. For all we know he said "f off or i'll break you legs".
He didn't hit him 3 times though Lakes, he swung 3 times and only connected once so it may still count as self defence under reasonable force.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I think Gerrard and the DJ were mouthing off to each other. Gerrard's mate wades in with an elbow and it kicks off. Neither Gerrard or the DJ knew about the elbow in their initial statements. I think the DJ reckons Gerrard's hit him so starts getting up ready to fight. Gerrard reckons the DJ is about to hit him so gets first strike in.
Just out of interest, for those of you saying he deserved it 'cause he's a Manc do bitters deserve it too?
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:45 amby wrighty (not mark!)
Steven Gerrard has been given a hefty £50,000 fine and 80 hours community service helping local disadvantaged footballers. He starts at Everton next week