This restores my faith in the legal system

[Sifu Ben]

MDV, what on earth can we not know? He was drunk, returned to the situation rather than walked away, without provocation and having CLEARLY seen his friend hit him first pulled his head down and repeatedly struck him in the face, made no attempt to escape the situation and had to be restrained from attacking further.
Exactly how does this constitute reasonable force used in self defence?
This is yet another case of one rule for us and another for them. Celebrity is the new aristocracy  :shock:

[Afghan Dave]

This is yet another case of one rule for us and another for them. Celebrity is the new aristocracy  :shock:

x1000!

[Elliot]

I agree = we should abolish jury trial altogether and let judges decide guilt on their own, at least they were educated at Oxbridge so we would have coherent and sensible decisions being made.

[Philly Q]

I agree = we should abolish jury trial altogether and let judges decide guilt on their own, at least they were educated at Oxbridge so we would have coherent and sensible decisions being made.

I don't know whether to give a serious or jokey answer...

....OK, seriously, whenever they talk about abolishing trial by jury (even if only in certain cases) it worries me.  But I still suspect juries can be influenced by factors other than the evidence they hear in court.  A friend of mine did jury service on an armed robbery case and she said they found the guy guilty because "we just knew he did it".

Going back to this case, it must be well-nigh impossible to find twelve jurors in Liverpool who can go into the courtroom with no pre-conceived notions - one way or the other -  about Steven Gerrard.

[Plexi Ken]

Going back to the this case, it must be well-nigh impossible to find twelve jurors in Liverpool who can go into the courtroom with no pre-conceived notions - one way or the other -  about Steven Gerrard

This is problem, a huge local hero is unlikely to be convicted by there peers on a minor charge. If the jury where all from Manchester, he'd be 'riding the lighting' by now (cue 'tallica). Gerrards mates plead guilty because they know the jury won't give them benefit of the doubt. They are just 'nobodies', without the resources to hire the best layers money can buy.

[MDV]

MDV, what on earth can we not know? He was drunk, returned to the situation rather than walked away, without provocation and having CLEARLY seen his friend hit him first pulled his head down and repeatedly struck him in the face, made no attempt to escape the situation and had to be restrained from attacking further.
Exactly how does this constitute reasonable force used in self defence?
This is yet another case of one rule for us and another for them. Celebrity is the new aristocracy  :shock:

Has a video and recording of the event been released? Even that wouldnt cover it, actually.

Because that lots far from knowing everything about it. What were they saying, how were they saying it, what was the background of the situation, is there a history to it, does the other guy have a reputation for being violent, did the guy show an overtly aggressive attitude, was gerard being similarly or more belligerent, or less, what instigated his mates involvment, did anyone believe that further violence or escalation or retaliation was inevitable, the list goes on, these are the sorts of things that have to be known to reach a verdict.

Lets just say, both my parents were in the police, and I have a pretty good understanding of how they and the legal system in general works, and if this is the level of detail with which you think about these things I'm glad you arent dealing with situations like this.

[Philly Q]

Has a video and recording of the event been released?

Yes.

The video's been all over the news this week.  No audio though.

[Dmoney]

the video isnt that good at all.
ive watched it a million times (the bit that has been released) and i know i cant say anything for certain.

MDV is right.

If someone came up to me in the street and said "give me your money of i'll punch you" and i straight up hit them first, on CCTV that would look like me assaulting someone, when in fact i've been threatened with theft and violence.

i dont think gerrad has a reputation for being violent.

still, i think the justice system is complete s***, i always find it punishes crimes against commerce with MUCH more force than crimes against a single person. dont even get me started on community support officers.

[Sifu Ben]

MDV, what on earth can we not know? He was drunk, returned to the situation rather than walked away, without provocation and having CLEARLY seen his friend hit him first pulled his head down and repeatedly struck him in the face, made no attempt to escape the situation and had to be restrained from attacking further.
Exactly how does this constitute reasonable force used in self defence?
This is yet another case of one rule for us and another for them. Celebrity is the new aristocracy  :shock:

Has a video and recording of the event been released? Even that wouldnt cover it, actually.

Because that lots far from knowing everything about it. What were they saying, how were they saying it, what was the background of the situation, is there a history to it, does the other guy have a reputation for being violent, did the guy show an overtly aggressive attitude, was gerard being similarly or more belligerent, or less, what instigated his mates involvment, did anyone believe that further violence or escalation or retaliation was inevitable, the list goes on, these are the sorts of things that have to be known to reach a verdict.

Lets just say, both my parents were in the police, and I have a pretty good understanding of how they and the legal system in general works, and if this is the level of detail with which you think about these things I'm glad you arent dealing with situations like this.

MDV, maybe you should actually read/watch something about the trial before you comment.

[MDV]

Alright, lets cut to the chase - unless you were in the bar watching what happened (and listening to it) or in the court for the trial you cant possibly cast a judgment on it. That clear enough?

[Sifu Ben]

In that case we can't make a judgement on anything that happens  :roll: OMG MDV, you've made internet discussion forums defunct at a stroke :p

[MDV]

???

Theres a word, a latin one no less, for the logical falacy you just pulled....I forget what it is now, but it means trying to disprove something by taking the implications to an extremely unrealisticly extended degree and saying that that is actually the case, when it isnt.

Like "what? youre against the death penalty? so you think that murderers should just be alowed to walk free" or "Youre pro-choice, so you must think that its ok for a woman to kill a fetus because she's a bit upset or you can murder newborn children" or "So verdicts have to be passed in courts with full information? Well then we cant have an opinion on anything!" or...well, you get the idea. Whatever the name for it is, its hysterical unthinking.

And, no, we here on an internet forum can have no opinion whatsoever on the outcome  of a trial. For that you have to the judge or on the jury. Were it otherwise, we wouldnt have courts, we'd all just chat about the rumours or the half-baked information we get from the news and render our verdicts via email. Theres a reason courts exist; you've reminded us of it. So, thanks :)

[Elliot]

reductio ad absurdum

[Plexi Ken]

Commonly know as a 'straw man' argument,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

[Sifu Ben]

Except I wasn't misrepresenting MDV's position, I was pointing out the logical flaw in his argument. He said that without direct first hand experience you cannot make a judgement, which is a flawed position. If MDV didn't say exactly what he meant to say, that's not my fault, and TBF he's been the one playing the "Qualify everything you say or I'm going to pull it apart" game.Indeed, you could argue that MDV is trying to make an implied ad hominem attack. In fact I seem to remember being here with MDV before :( .