At a push, the first punch could be claimed to be self-defence but continuing after the other guy is on the ground is going to be difficult to explain.
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
45 points (100.0% liked)
UK Politics
3098 readers
177 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The guy has his hands in his pockets. He's not attempting to physically attack Amesbury.
There is no self-defence happening there.
Can't say for England, but in America there is such a thing as "fighting words". So what was said here?
If I say, "I will kill your wife and child in front of your fucking face!", you'll probably get away with beating my ass, hands in pockets or no.
I'm not really sure what the law is on it, but I've always presumed that self-defence only applies if someone is physically attacking you or is threatening you with a weapon.
But anyway, I guess this gives new meaning to being canvassed by your MP.
You are not wrong. Self-defence requires you to be able to show you had real reason to fear for yours, or someone else, safety.
So while a verble threat can apply. It needs to be backed up with some physically obvious danger. So hands in pockets etc would def make it hard to prove this MP felt truly threatened. And continuing to attack once the guy was on the ground, very hard.
But not a forgone conclusion. If we invent a history for idea telling
Just the fact this MP had an historical event of violence(according to another article shared). Means it is possible some statement was made that triggered fear, or the guy attacked was involved. Then it is entirely possible for a lawyer to argue the fear response was beyond rational. So the attack was self-defence due to the mental state of the perpetrator. Think PTSD like defence. It's not claiming innocence, just astringent circumstances.
while he was on the floor.
It’s outside! It’s the ground! Fucking useless journalists and editors.
Prescott by the side of the ring with a towel over his shoulders.
You can do it, lad! Get in there!
Edit: fat fingers
I always know where my tqoelyovwr is
🤣 fucking keyboards. 👍