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

12 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

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 - "It need not necessarily be hostile, rude, or aggressive.”

 

The law says that assault is a violent act. You and I would recognise that me phoning you up and breathing down the line is in itself not violent but holds a threat of violence. The law has an umbrella of "violence" to cover lots of things that may not include touching anyone.

 

So, in the case above in the eyes of the law, Assault = Violence

 

When it comes to chucking milkshake on to a politician (or fascist) you might argue that isnt violence, I would argue that it is, either way as far as the law is concerned - Throwing a drink at someone = Assault = Violence

 

Breaking the law in this instance is not the way to win an argument, causes escalation and strengthens to people you are trying to defeat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, A Red said:

The law says that assault is a violent act. You and I would recognise that me phoning you up and breathing down the line is in itself not violent but holds a threat of violence. The law has an umbrella of "violence" to cover lots of things that may not include touching anyone.

 

So, in the case above in the eyes of the law, Assault = Violence

 

When it comes to chucking milkshake on to a politician (or fascist) you might argue that isnt violence, I would argue that it is, either way as far as the law is concerned - Throwing a drink at someone = Assault = Violence

 

Breaking the law in this instance is not the way to win an argument, causes escalation and strengthens to people you are trying to defeat.

 

How do you win the argument, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, moof said:

How do you win the argument, then?

Well on the one hand there are knuckle headed fascist neanderthals and then there is the likes of you who could turn up in overwhelming numbers to out debate and out shout .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, A Red said:

The law says that assault is a violent act. You and I would recognise that me phoning you up and breathing down the line is in itself not violent but holds a threat of violence. The law has an umbrella of "violence" to cover lots of things that may not include touching anyone.

 

So, in the case above in the eyes of the law, Assault = Violence

 

When it comes to chucking milkshake on to a politician (or fascist) you might argue that isnt violence, I would argue that it is, either way as far as the law is concerned - Throwing a drink at someone = Assault = Violence

 

Breaking the law in this instance is not the way to win an argument, causes escalation and strengthens to people you are trying to defeat.

 

I'm not interested in debating whether throwing milkshake on someone is violent. 

 

I'm instead questioning your incorrect claim that assault = violence. And your claim that the law says that assault is a violent act. I've posted a few binding precedents which go some way to refuting your assertion. Other than a short sentence from the Sentencing Council website, words which have no binding or legal effect whatsoever, can you provide any other information which shows that "The law says that assault is a violent act"? Which law? A statute? Case law? Please back this claim up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, moof said:

Pretty sure having a milkshake poured over him didn’t strengthen Farage or tommeh 

But it does, it gives them propaganda, hands them the moral high ground and is an aid to recruitment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours 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?

Have a read again of that link you posted; or even just the definition of common assault that you quoted from that link.

 

It does not say "common assault = violence".

 

I'm not "now" claiming not to be a legal expert; all along, I've tried to avoid discussion of the law and stick to a normal English-language understanding of a commonly-used word. I speak English, which is how I understand what the clause "... or make that person think..." means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Have a read again of that link you posted; or even just the definition of common assault that you quoted from that link.

 

It does not say "common assault = violence".

 

I'm not "now" claiming not to be a legal expert; all along, I've tried to avoid discussion of the law and stick to a normal English-language understanding of a commonly-used word. I speak English, which is how I understand what the clause "... or make that person think..." means.

I said, chucking a drink = assault = violence

 

"or make that person think" is not violent in the way we understand violence but it is under the law. Chucking a drink is not making a person think violence is on the way, the chucking of it is the violence. Do you agree?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

I'm not interested in debating whether throwing milkshake on someone is violent. 

 

I'm instead questioning your incorrect claim that assault = violence. And your claim that the law says that assault is a violent act. I've posted a few binding precedents which go some way to refuting your assertion. Other than a short sentence from the Sentencing Council website, words which have no binding or legal effect whatsoever, can you provide any other information which shows that "The law says that assault is a violent act"? Which law? A statute? Case law? Please back this claim up. 

To be prosecuted for assault there does not need to be actual violence, the law still considers it as an offence of assault as if it was violent. Therefore assault = violence

 

https://west-midlands.police.uk/your-options/assault

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

I wonder if we'll start getting pre-film "features scenes of violence" warnings if there's a scene when a scorned lover chucks a drink over their partner?

 

Makes you wonder why Grease only has a PG rating and no scenes of violence warnings considering its Rizzo milkshaking Kenickie scene? 

Snuff. Even Live-Leak won't show that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

'An act of civil disobedience' as Mook put it is a very good description of the incident.

An act of legitimate civil disobedience and it was moof. You cant have a legitimate illegal response.

 

Apart from that, spot on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, A Red said:

Well on the one hand there are knuckle headed fascist neanderthals and then there is the likes of you who could turn up in overwhelming numbers to out debate and out shout .

Ohhh, of course, we have to “debate” them. We’d better get them on question time or prime time news, in that case, so we can debate and eviscerate them in the marketplace of ideas. That’s worked so well thus far 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, moof said:

Ohhh, of course, we have to “debate” them. We’d better get them on question time or prime time news, in that case, so we can debate and eviscerate them in the marketplace of ideas. That’s worked so well thus far 

 

Leave it out, Moofy. We’re done here. Milkshake balloons are the answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, A Red said:

I said, chucking a drink = assault = violence

 

"or make that person think" is not violent in the way we understand violence but it is under the law. Chucking a drink is not making a person think violence is on the way, the chucking of it is the violence. Do you agree?

 

Chucking a drink (probably) counts as common assault; not all common assault is violence  (as demonstrated by both the link you posted and the link I posted). Therefore it doesn't follow that milkshake = violence. 

 

Making a person think that violence is on the way is not the same as violence, just as promising a child a puppy for Christmas is not the same as getting a child a puppy for Christmas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, moof said:

Ohhh, of course, we have to “debate” them. We’d better get them on question time or prime time news, in that case, so we can debate and eviscerate them in the marketplace of ideas. That’s worked so well thus far 

How about we bring them on Questiontime and lob milkshakes at them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

How about we bring them on Questiontime and lob milkshakes at them? 

Oh, I’d love to mate, but don’t want to give them the moral high ground. You know, because once someone has had a milkshake poured on them, even the most vitriolic, bitter racism becomes palatable in comparison to that horrific act of violence 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Chucking a drink (probably) counts as common assault; not all common assault is violence  (as demonstrated by both the link you posted and the link I posted). Therefore it doesn't follow that milkshake = violence. 

 

Making a person think that violence is on the way is not the same as violence, just as promising a child a puppy for Christmas is not the same as getting a child a puppy for Christmas. 

Youre struggling here a bit, mixing up y'know real life violence and the legal definition of violence. 

 

Legally - Chucking a drink on someone = assault = violence

 

I'm going to accept your "probably" as the best I'm going to get.

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...