Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

When is Violence Justified?


Recommended Posts

Whenever I am unsure on morality or politics, I just think whatever AoT says is probably the best way. On this issue, I might slightly disagree about milkshaking though as I don't think it's the best way to go about protesting whilst simultaneously completely contradicting myself and thinking fuck those right wing picks it's hilarious that they've been publicly humiliated. 

 

I'm off to go and post about cheese instead... 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the correct answer to the OP is no. Are there instances where it can be rationalized and at times is it the best option - probably. But not justified.

 

It does seem strange that an act that is clearly aggressive, and a personal violation that is meant to demean at the very least, has so many people who probably feel they are against violence willing to twist it into being ok. It is obviously not.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Remmie said:

Whenever I am unsure on morality or politics, I just think whatever AoT says is probably the best way. On this issue, I might slightly disagree about milkshaking though as I don't think it's the best way to go about protesting whilst simultaneously completely contradicting myself and thinking fuck those right wing picks it's hilarious that they've been publicly humiliated. 

 

I'm off to go and post about cheese instead... 

Another luvvie!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I think the correct answer to the OP is no. Are there instances where it can be rationalized and at times is it the best option - probably. But not justified.

 

It does seem strange that an act that is clearly aggressive, and a personal violation that is meant to demean at the very least, has so many people who probably feel they are against violence willing to twist it into being ok. It is obviously not.

I think its more that historically some of modern history's most notorious leaders spouted similar views to Farage and turned the world upside down with violence,unsurprisingly. A milkshake requiring a dry cleaning bill for a tax dodging multi millionaire is just a small comeuppance and humiliation for such a cunt and is a better way than training to be an air traffic controller just so you are on duty when old Nige decides to go for a pleasant flight.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, A Red said:

Ahh, now im with you! You know its against the law, you just disagree with it because its not included in a dictionary definition. What type of fucking dictionary, when defining violence, would include chucking drinks or ramming a feather duster up someones arse against their will for that matter?

 

So, do you want the law changed to include these things? You quoted gandhi, luther king etc earlier, is it a comparable cause to theirs?  How far are you prepared to go to get it changed? 

You're really struggling here, aren't you.  There are a few strands of discussion going on which you are getting tangled up.  I'll separate them for you.

 

Common assault is against the law, even when it doesn't cause (or risk) any injury.  Slopping a cold drink on someone is common assault.

 

Violence - as the word is understood by, y'know, everybody - involves causing (or risking) injury.  Slopping a cold drink on someone isn't, in itself, a violent act.

 

Whether I agree with any specific act of violence depends on the context; see the original post for details.

 

Whether or not I agree with milkshaking would also depend on the context (on roughly the same lines of thinking).

 

Ramming a feather duster up someone's arse would count as rape.  That's both illegal and violent.  (And, for the hat-trick, it's something I wouldn't agree with.)

 

I have not once - at least, not on this thread - said I want any laws changed.  (There are some laws I'd like to change, but I'd rather do that through the ballot box.)

 

You said that you don't approve of protests that go outside the law.  I pointed out that there is a long, long history of positive results being achieved by protests going outside the law.  (I never drew comparison between Ghandi, etc, and any current protests in the UK.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you may be the one parsing the word violence to exclude what is obviously not civil, nor should it be accepted as such. Do unto others means people you dont like as well. Otherwise you are part of the problem.

Freedom of speech applies to everyone even if you dont agree with what they are saying.

There is no such thing as freedom of throwing stuff in public at people you dont like. 

If this was in any way an effective means of communicating disapproval for Farage, seems to be about 20 years too late.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

You're really struggling here, aren't you.  There are a few strands of discussion going on which you are getting tangled up.  I'll separate them for you.

 

Common assault is against the law, even when it doesn't cause (or risk) any injury.  Slopping a cold drink on someone is common assault.

 

Violence - as the word is understood by, y'know, everybody - involves causing (or risking) injury.  Slopping a cold drink on someone isn't, in itself, a violent act.

 

Whether I agree with any specific act of violence depends on the context; see the original post for details.

 

Whether or not I agree with milkshaking would also depend on the context (on roughly the same lines of thinking).

 

Ramming a feather duster up someone's arse would count as rape.  That's both illegal and violent.  (And, for the hat-trick, it's something I wouldn't agree with.)

 

I have not once - at least, not on this thread - said I want any laws changed.  (There are some laws I'd like to change, but I'd rather do that through the ballot box.)

 

You said that you don't approve of protests that go outside the law.  I pointed out that there is a long, long history of positive results being achieved by protests going outside the law.  (I never drew comparison between Ghandi, etc, and any current protests in the UK.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/blog/post/assault-offences-explained/

 

Common assault (section 39, Criminal Justice Act 1988)

A person is guilty of common assault if they either inflict violence on another person – however slight this might be – or make that person think they are about to be attacked.

 

 

 

Note, the word violence. This would include chucking a milkshake as im sure you would agree.

I know you have attended protests against the far right, have you ever chucked anything at them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I think you may be the one parsing the word violence to exclude what is obviously not civil, nor should it be accepted as such. Do unto others means people you dont like as well. Otherwise you are part of the problem.

Freedom of speech applies to everyone even if you dont agree with what they are saying.

There is no such thing as freedom of throwing stuff in public at people you dont like. 

If this was in any way an effective means of communicating disapproval for Farage, seems to be about 20 years too late.

The word "violence" excludes things that are not, y'know, violent.  Lots of things can be completely awful and unacceptable, but don't cause (or risk) any physical or mental harm and are therefore not violence. 

 

Saying something is or isn't violence has no bearing on whether or not you approve of it or think it's justified. Leaving dogshit in the park is non-violent and (in my view) unjustifiable; the D-Day landings were extremely violent and totally justifiable. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conversation is not just about one incident. When Corbyn got egged, was that violent? Seemed to me it was.

The fella hit Milliband on the shoulder with one, by the look on his face for a split second he thought he was going to be killed - certainly a natural reaction could of been to retaliate as in that moment it is probably more natural to perceive a threat - which the arl fella in Australia did, and twatted the kid. The other fella in Australia it bounced off his shiny head. Certainly the milkshakes at Robinson are not under great control as they are launched but my guess is no one is aiming for the legs.

Pardon the footy on the GF but if you hurl a water bottle at a fella's head taking a corner - is that violent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, A Red said:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/blog/post/assault-offences-explained/

 

Common assault (section 39, Criminal Justice Act 1988)

A person is guilty of common assault if they either inflict violence on another person – however slight this might be – or make that person think they are about to be attacked.

 

 

 

Note, the word violence. This would include chucking a milkshake as im sure you would agree.

I know you have attended protests against the far right, have you ever chucked anything at them?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault

 

I'm no expert, but I'm not sure that the chucking of a cold drink would constitute "violence". The point of common assault appears to be an act which deliberately or recklessly causes someone else to apprehend immediate violence; the act itself doesn't fit any reasonable definition of violence, otherwise there would be a more serious charge.

 

For the record, no; I've never chucked anything at the Fascists. I'm a lover, not a fighter (and I'm equally rubbish at both). I don't lose any sleep over the people who do throw bananas,  etc. though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

So it’s the ‘victim’ that defines the crime?  So if it’s a person you decide is ‘bad’ then it’s not violent.  Can’t you see the issue there? 

It’s obviously tricky in law, which is why the written law is black and white - but then judges have the ability to take context into account when sentencing.

 

I also have absolutely no issue in judging actions based on who was involved, and I doubt you do either.

 

For example, if we were playing football and you booted me on purpose I would think it was just part of the game. If we were playing with our kids and you did the exact same thing to my 7 year old daughter it would be bang out of order.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault

 

I'm no expert, but I'm not sure that the chucking of a cold drink would constitute "violence". The point of common assault appears to be an act which deliberately or recklessly causes someone else to apprehend immediate violence; the act itself doesn't fit any reasonable definition of violence, otherwise there would be a more serious charge.

 

For the record, no; I've never chucked anything at the Fascists. I'm a lover, not a fighter (and I'm equally rubbish at both). I don't lose any sleep over the people who do throw bananas,  etc. though.

So now you're no expert, and its words like "i'm not sure" and "appears to be"

 

I've just shown you a legal website that defines what assault is and it is quite clearly states that it is violence however slight. You yourself finally agreed that throwing a drink constituted common assault.

 

Throwing a drink at someone = Assault = Violence

 

Am I still wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, A Red said:

So now you're no expert, and its words like "i'm not sure" and "appears to be"

 

I've just shown you a legal website that defines what assault is and it is quite clearly states that it is violence however slight. You yourself finally agreed that throwing a drink constituted common assault.

 

Throwing a drink at someone = Assault = Violence

 

Am I still wrong?

Assault isn't always violence. You can commit assault by telephone threats, not even being in the same room, provided your phone call causes the victim to fear that they will immediately be subject to violence. 

 

R v Ireland [1998] AC 147

 

Can silence suffice for a charge of assault and is psychiatric harm sufficient for ABH

 

Facts

 

The Defendant in this case consistently called three separate women over the course of three months. During each call he did not speak, but instead breathed heavily on the line. He was prosecuted and convicted for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 c.100, on the grounds of the psychiatric injury suffered by the victims. The Defendant appealed his conviction and argued that silence cannot amount to assault and further that psychiatric harm was not actual bodily harm.

 

Issue

 

The issue in this was whether silence could amount to assault occasioning actual bodily harm for the purposes of s.47 OAPA 1861. Further, whether psychiatric injury can amount to ABH under the same provision.

 

Held

 

The court held in the affirmative that silence causing psychiatric injury could constitute assault occasioning ABH under s.47 OAPA 1861. Silence could act as a threat where it was done in a way which could induce fear in the victim; where the victim is afraid that the threat will be acted on in the near future, this could amount to an assault. Proximity of the Defendant to the victims is irrelevant to this determination as fear could be induced equally easily over the telephone as in person. It was held by the court that repeated phone calls of this nature could be expected to cause a victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence.

 

“the proposition… that words cannot suffice is unrealistic and indefensible.. (the phone caller) intends his silence to cause fear and intimidation.” (Lord Steyn)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

You're really struggling here, aren't you.  There are a few strands of discussion going on which you are getting tangled up.  I'll separate them for you.

 

Common assault is against the law, even when it doesn't cause (or risk) any injury.  Slopping a cold drink on someone is common assault.

 

Violence - as the word is understood by, y'know, everybody - involves causing (or risking) injury.  Slopping a cold drink on someone isn't, in itself, a violent act.

 

Whether I agree with any specific act of violence depends on the context; see the original post for details.

 

Whether or not I agree with milkshaking would also depend on the context (on roughly the same lines of thinking).

 

Ramming a feather duster up someone's arse would count as rape.  That's both illegal and violent.  (And, for the hat-trick, it's something I wouldn't agree with.)

 

I have not once - at least, not on this thread - said I want any laws changed.  (There are some laws I'd like to change, but I'd rather do that through the ballot box.)

 

You said that you don't approve of protests that go outside the law.  I pointed out that there is a long, long history of positive results being achieved by protests going outside the law.  (I never drew comparison between Ghandi, etc, and any current protests in the UK.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ramming a feather duster up someone isn’t rape.  You need a penis to penetrate for rape. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jose Jones said:

It’s obviously tricky in law, which is why the written law is black and white - but then judges have the ability to take context into account when sentencing.

 

I also have absolutely no issue in judging actions based on who was involved, and I doubt you do either.

 

For example, if we were playing football and you booted me on purpose I would think it was just part of the game. If we were playing with our kids and you did the exact same thing to my 7 year old daughter it would be bang out of order.

 

But a judge can’t say ‘oh I don’t agree with his politics therefore it’s not assault’. Can they? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

The conversation is not just about one incident. When Corbyn got egged, was that violent? Seemed to me it was.

The fella hit Milliband on the shoulder with one, by the look on his face for a split second he thought he was going to be killed - certainly a natural reaction could of been to retaliate as in that moment it is probably more natural to perceive a threat - which the arl fella in Australia did, and twatted the kid. The other fella in Australia it bounced off his shiny head. Certainly the milkshakes at Robinson are not under great control as they are launched but my guess is no one is aiming for the legs.

Pardon the footy on the GF but if you hurl a water bottle at a fella's head taking a corner - is that violent?

 Corbyn didn’t just get egged. He got punched by someone he’s holding an egg. So it was violent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The feather duster up someone was a silly example I used to try and show how a dictionary description couldnt identify all the different things that constitute violence. I shouldnt have used it, far better for me to have listed silly objects that could be lobbed at anyone.

 

Aot, and others, want the law to be different for fascists than it is for someone else. It cant be like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Assault isn't always violence.

The law says it is.

 

You might argue that intimidation isnt violent but the law thinks it is, chucking something at a politician or fascist certainly is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, A Red said:

The law says it is.

 

You might argue that intimidation isnt violent but the law thinks it is, chucking something at a politician or fascist certainly is.

I've just quoted case law which says that an assault can be committed by acts of speaking words/silence. Are you really suggesting that words amount to "violence"? 

 

It's also worth noting that "assault" is a catch all phrase but includes two distinct concepts: assault and battery (also known as assault by beating). Neither of which have a statutory definition, but have instead been defined by different pieces of case law. 

 

Your claim that an assault = violence simply isn't true. Firstly, you've got the standard assault which is your apprehension of immediate unlawful violence. That's self explanatory. No actual violence is required for the offence to be made out. The apprehension/fear of violence is sufficient. 

 

Then there's battery/assault by beating. Again, there's no statutory definition and the offence has been defined by case law. 

 

Case law has defined battery/assault by beating as the 

"unlawful application of force by the defendant upon the victim." But, further case law has clarified what force means:
 

Faulkner v Talbot [1981] 3 All ER 468

Lord Lane CJ defined unlawful physical force as

 

"any intentional [or reckless] touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse. It need not necessarily be hostile, rude, or aggressive.”

 

I think the ratio decidendi of the above case clearly shows that battery/assault by beating can be committed by an act that constitutes "force" and/or "touching" but doesn't require the same act to necessarily be violent, as the word "violence" is not used in any of the judicial definitions of the actus reus of the offence of battery/assault by beating and the force used "need not necessarily be hostile, rude, or aggressive.”

 

Your claim that assault = violence does not stand up to scrutiny, I'm afraid. 

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...