Page 7 of 18
Posted:
Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:22 pmby Bammo
I'm disappointed in you Mick. Normally you cover everything but you missed the fave of lame fighters. Get your mate to goad an opponent while you sneak around behind him. If your mate gets knocked back, come in with the sucker punch. You and your mate can then claim you beat the 
out of a big mouth, the victim gets some pride as he was only beaten by a sucker punch.
This has been perfectly utilised by the rather talent limited "punk" band:
Towers of London
Posted:
Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:01 pmby Greavesie
haha gets him good though, they get so much stick I'm surprised he even bother at times to be honest mate 
Posted:
Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:21 pmby JoeTerp
bavlondon wrote:One, John Doran, who has admitted affray, pushed McGee away but "could not resist following through with his right elbow into Mr McGee's face", said Mr Turner.
how big of a big man.t cuntface do you have to be to have people struggle to resist elbowing you in the face?
Posted:
Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:02 amby LFC2007
bigmick wrote:I don't think the CCTV is admissable to be honest. I've seen CCTV and been in quite a few incidents very similar to this in my previous occupation, and unless the CCTV is really clear it isn't worth anything. This isn't even slightly clear so it's irrelevent. For all we know someone could have pushed Gerrard from behind causing him to think he was being attacked, the guy could have told him in conversation that he had a knife and would use it if he had to, the guy could have kicked Gerrard in the b0ll0cks out of view of the camera, the guy could have spat at Gerrard, the guy could have told Gerrard he was black belt in Karate and Gerrard could have been concerned he was about to attack him etc etc etc etc.
The CCTV doesn't even show clearly that the bloke wasn't aiming punches at Gerrard and his mates.
The CCTV footage was aired in court and was thus an admissible piece of evidence (determined at pre-trial hearing). You seem to be referring to the weight of that piece of evidence, which is a matter of judgment for the jury and to be considered among other admissions. Lakes seemed to allude to some other CCTV evidence and that I haven't heard about.
The rest I agree with, happens every single day of the week in every city in the country.
Posted:
Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:56 amby Reg
The prosecution always put on a good show, the defence lawyer who I´m sure is teh best in the land will rip him apart.
When the jury get their scarves out we'll know he's in the clear.
Posted:
Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:42 amby lakes10
Number 9 wrote:LFC2007 wrote:Greavesie wrote:the current law of self defence can include anticipating an attack, it is not necessary for your attacker to throw the first punch, the force used must be no more than necessary to destablise the perceived 'threat'. Even if the perception of an attack is mistaken, provided it is an honest mistake the defence of self defence is not affected. there is no duty to retreat the situation.
That's where the CCTV evidence may fall down - he will explain his actions in the context of fearing the threat of violence, but the images don't show the DJ just before he's allegedly hit, or while he's allegedly being hit. In other words, it's much harder to gauge how necessary Stevie's actions were. It appears to me as if Stevie's giving it some (if it is Stevie), that he used a degree of force that exceeds what could be considered reasonable for the purposes of arguing self-defence.
Well, that's a bit more dam.ning, isn't it? What's this about the CCTV evidence being inadmissable though?
Not sure, mate. You'll have to ask Lakes on that one.
Yeah ask lakes and he'll tell us something bigs going down tomorrow!
no, there was two more clips off CCTV that could not be used, one shows he falinging over by the bar and the other is a shot from the door way as they leave, both could not be used due to poor light and it was hard to identify who hads were doing what.
BBC done a good bit on this last night and they said that him saying self defence will not go down well as the guy hands were by his side, myself i find it hard to work out the CCTV, the first time i saw it it looked like Gerrard made the first hit and if it is him doing that then there could be a problem, its a good hard punch.
theres more clips of it on the bbc site and the report is worh a read.
Posted:
Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:22 amby NANNY RED
Has he gone on his toes yet 
Posted:
Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:48 amby stmichael
Sky were doing my head in with their over the top coverage last night. Making Stevie out to be Mohammed Ali or something. It was ridiculous.
Bottom line is, it's been blown out of all proportion because it's a famous person involved. If "normal" people were involved it wouldn't have gone further than that night, end of story.
Posted:
Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:11 pmby lakes10
stmichael wrote:Sky were doing my head in with their over the top coverage last night. Making Stevie out to be Mohammed Ali or something. It was ridiculous.
Bottom line is, it's been blown out of all proportion because it's a famous person involved. If "normal" people were involved it wouldn't have gone further than that night, end of story.
I think he would have got away with it he he had nott said Self Defence, its going to be hard for the court to take that one in, 5 v 1 is not self defence and even more so when the guys already been hit.
Posted:
Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:11 pmby NANNY RED
Bas tard now hes saying he dosnt know who hit him, THROW THIS THING OUT OF COURT FARCE
The man allegedly attacked by England midfielder Steven Gerrard in a Merseyside bar has told a jury he faced a "barrage" of punches.
Marcus McGee, 34, told Liverpool Crown Court he was attacked after he refused to give Mr Gerrard control of a CD player in the Lounge Inn, Southport.
Mr McGee, who was initially struck by Mr Gerrard's friend John Doran, said he thought the footballer hit him first.
Mr Gerrard, of Formby, Merseyside denies affray.
Mr McGee lost a crown on a front tooth in the attack in the early hours of 29 December last year, the court heard.
Mr Gerrard, who was in the club with friends to celebrate Liverpool's 5-1 win over Newcastle Utd, is shown on CCTV walking away before he returns several minutes later.
Stereo control
He said: "I remember a barrage of punches coming in at my face but I didn't know who has done what.
"Having watched the CCTV it was obvious Steven Gerrard hits me a couple of times, maybe three times, but I couldn't honestly say on the night.
"I didn't know who did what."
Mr McGee said he was asked by the manager to be in charge of the music.
Watching the CCTV footage along with the jury, Mr McGee said he had thrown no punches and was in a "nondescript" mood.
Mr Gerrard was celebrating Liverpool's 5-1 win over Newcastle
Being led through his evidence by prosecuting barrister David Turner QC, Mr McGee said Mr Gerrard had tried to grab a card from his hand which controlled the stereo.
He said: "Mr Gerrard came to me from my left hand side and requested he wanted control of the music.
"It was something to the effect of 'Here you are, lad, give me that'."
He said he recognised Mr Gerrard, but did not give the card to him.
"It wasn't my permission to be giving it out to somebody else, it was my job so I didn't hand it over.
"He made a move to try to grab the card to take it away and I remember it slipped on the floor at one stage.
"He then walked away, that was the end of it."
Doran, 29, of Woodlands Road, Ian Gerrard Smith, 19, of Hilary Avenue and Paul McGrattan, 31, of Linden Drive, all Huyton, admit affray.
Accrington Stanley footballers Robert Grant, 19, of Enstone Avenue, Litherland, and Ian Dunbavin, 28, of Guildford Road, Southport, have also admitted affray.
John McGrattan, 34, of Rimmer Avenue, Huyton, has admitted threatening behaviour after denying affray.
Posted:
Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:17 pmby bigmick
Posted:
Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:46 pmby Bad Bob
But, to be fair to the "lad", he WAS in a "nondescript mood" at the time. Whatever the feck that means!
Posted:
Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:49 pmby Bammo
it means he was telling gerrard to f off and insulting his family but doesn't want to admit it as it would justify his actions*
*allegedly
Posted:
Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:50 pmby heimdall
Posted:
Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:53 pmby Bad Bob
It's certainly possible Gerrard was giving it the old Big Time Charlie routine but that's "the lad's" story. For all we know, Gerrard asked politely to put on a tune or two and the guy acted like a t.wat. Since we've only really gotten "the lad's" version of events so far from the hearing, I think I'll reserve judgment.
