GB News

Any thread where:
1. you call someone "boyo"
2. your reply is "irrelevant waffle"
3. your reply is "liar" because you've lost the argument
4. you quote yourself posting the same incorrect statement again and again with a thumbsup.
Fire up the thread. I'll wait...
 
Nonsense.

Chasing after someone (beyond your property) with a weapon is not a lawful excuse.
why do you think the boundary of your property is relevant? - it isn't
why do you think a person must be unarmed when pursuing a criminal at large? There is no requirement.

Please quote the relevant case law.
To assist the relevant law is:
Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967
Section 24A Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

I'll wait...

Feel free to start a new thread.
 
why do you think the boundary of your property is relevant? - it isn't
Relevant to what?
why do you think a person must be unarmed when pursuing a criminal at large?
I never said they need to be unarmed or armed.

However this...

"..And then race down a public street with said very heavy object (scaffold pole) threatening further violence..."

Is not a lawful excuse.
 
Why does it matter that it's a public street?
In what way was the threat of further violence unlawful?

It's ok to say you haven't got a clue. We already know,
 
I like the way he gets things done, such as stopping two wars
He hasn’t though.
both wars ran out steam before he became president.
any muppet can force Ukraine to surrender to Putin…..but it’s not a solution for long term peace.
 
Why does it matter that it's a public street?
In what way was the threat of further violence unlawful?
You can add what ever you like to elalls' sentence or select parts of it for discussion - I'm not interested.

All I know is this...
"..And then race down a public street with said very heavy object (scaffold pole) threatening further violence..."

..is not a lawful excuse.
 
You can add what ever you like to elalls' sentence or select parts of it for discussion - I'm not interested.

All I know is this...
"..And then race down a public street with said very heavy object (scaffold pole) threatening further violence..."

..is not a lawful excuse.
so just your uneducated opinion as usual..
I dare you and I will humiliate you further.
Such as when? You have been humiliated on every thread you've lied on. I will pick up on ANY of your lies threads and rip them to shreds (AGAIN) anytime you like.

You are a spineless disingenuous lying scumbag, and your posts are worthless.
not going to plan is it?

I've quoted the law, you've no clue - nosenout being nosenout as usual. (y) :

The facts were Mottie prevented a robbery and exercised his lawful right to use reasonable force to attempt to apprehend the robbers. You've provided not a shred of evidence that the force used was excessive.
 
The facts were Mottie prevented a robbery and exercised his lawful right to use reasonable force to attempt to apprehend the robbers. You've provided not a shred of evidence that the force used was excessive.
Exactly this. In Law it is not up to you to prove that you have not used excessive force it is for the prosecution to prove that you have used excessive force.
 
he says..
Fire up the thread. I'll wait...
he means..
I'm not interested.
when proven wrong as usual.

Here's a nice example of a burglar beaten with a baseball bat. Fractured, skull ribs, broken wrist.

Lee Gapper, 20, and his lodger George Goodayle attacked Summers after he broke into their house in Peterborough, Cambridgeshire. Summers was repeatedly hit by Mr Gapper using the metal baseball bat after being confronted downstairs - then Mr Goodayle, 21, set about him with his fists... Judge Hugh Mayor QC said: "They used reasonable force.
Far more force than the pole wielding @Mottie

Noseall says
All I know is ..
not much it appears
It's ok to say you haven't got a clue. We already know,
 
There are countless cases where people will say excessive force has been used although when the full story is uncovered and the evidence is presented then excessive force is usually dropped. Of course excessive force may be the case in a few rare examples but it is rare for excessive force to be upheld by a court.
 
Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.
Says the CPS https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/Householders-2018.pdf
 
Back
Top