Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Thought as much
Not going to be too reactionary because, like most of the public, I know fuck all of the specifics. I am a bit confused as to how affray charges work then considering he admitted punching the guy. What exactly is affray?
it seems to be 'being violent or threatening to someone in a situation that could cause those around you to not feel safe'.
I can't really see how he's not guilty of it?
but then I'm not a law man
Well, it's either a) violence or b) threatening someone with violence.
I suppose he could have punched the guy by mistake
In current English Law, affray forms part of the Public Order Act 1986 under section 3. The act states:
A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and the person's conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.
Where two or more persons use or threaten the unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purpose of subsection (1)
For the purposes of this section a threat cannot be made by the use of words alone.
No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
Affray may be committed in private as well as in public places.
A person suspected of affray is subject to arrest, can be tried either in a Magistrates Court or Crown Court, and faces three years imprisonment and/or a fine on indictment; six months imprisonment and/or a fine summarily.
If anyone needs me, I'll be repeatedly punching Gary Neville in the face.
"Britain's Hardest and Most Violent Under 5s"
"Dey will drawp a clwip in yoo fasder dan I can knock back a cheeky 'quila"
that vacancy has been filled. We'll keep your file on record and let you know if any similar positions arise.
Is the law 'it's ok if it's a dj who refuses to play your songs?'
I could've punched SO many people.
It sounds laughable, but I heard that apparently the DJ played Kid Creole's 'Annie I'm Not Your Daddy' song six times in an attempt to wind Gerrard up.
alluding to the rumour that he might not be the father of his children.
that when reporting from court, journalists always give defendants a 'Mister' title.
i.e. "Mr Gerrard was leaving the club when he punched the man in the face"
He's never ever been Mr. Gerrard before. Why start when he's up in court for being a dickhead?
"Stevie G was leaving the club when he punched the man in the face"
Live report coming soon. To be honest, it was just a scuffle. People fight in bars every night. Footballer or not, its just a waste of the courts time and money
Doesn't that make it more likely that he was also guilty of it seeing as they were surely also acting in "self-defence"?
I guess they aren't famous, and he probably slipped them a few quid to take the blame.
how would that stopthe jury convicting him?
so as to paint Mr G in a better light
I remember Matt Le Tissier being involved in a court case, when the jury was asked if anyone was a Soton fan, one man raised his hand, said 'unfortunately so' and had to be replaced.
How they can be guilty of affray but he isn't when they were involved in the same incident and it was Gerrard who threw the punches. I am confuzzled.
seven against one and Gerrard's the only one who gets off on the grounds of self-defence? Not that I ever expected anything different, like.
or he had a more expensive lawyer, is famous, and got his mates to help him out by them all concocting a plausible story. Oh and he got King Kenny and others to write letters saying how wonderful and pacifistic a man he is.
of the incident when he said he thought he was going to be punched, then the other lot steamed in after, not acting in 'self defence'.
I'm pretty sure one of his mates elbowed the bloke before Gerrard was involved
that is accepted as the start of the violence, then the bloke (who was hit) got up which is when Gerrard said he thought he was going be punched.
I'm pretty sure that's what Gerrard said himself; that the guy got elbowed and then looked like he was going to attack (that is, to defend himself). Gerrard was defending himself from self-defence.
so there you go
thinks you're an asshat. Read the thread and then read an article on the story. Everyone in the thread has been perfectly reasonable and is simply confused to how he has been found not guilty, considering the circumstances. Which I'd guess you know nothing about.
You're beascially an opinion litmus test. And, like any good litmus test, you lack any sense of humour.
The renegade e ruined it slightly
It's not opinions other than my own that are worthless. It's yours specifically.
Sorry for the confusion.
The Theo award is given for use of bad English, grammar or lack of accuracy.
Discussion over people. Unless you all show me some law degrees, I'm gonna have to ask you to leave.
but everything to do with whether or not you've read about the case in the newspapers, or whether you've sat through the whole trial and seen all of the evidence/testimony presented.
On the topic of law degress, etc. can somebody with one answer this: If all of his companions have pleaded guilty, are the jury allowed to know that, or do they have to treat the Gerrard case in isolation? I don't know the answer, but that might have affected the verdict.
as you obviously don't need one to sit on a jury. It was a flippant remark.
but i think it depends on whether they were collective co-defendants, or were each tried in a separate trial. even if the jury was SUPPOSED to treat the Gerrard case in isolation, there's no way of knowing whether they did or not anyway....
From what I've read in the newspapers, it sounds like he was very fucking guilty but no doubt he had an expensive lawyer and there was a couple of Liverpool fans on the jury. My dad pointed out yesterday that he really should have been tried in Manchester ;).
And as for the argument that this case shouldn't have come to trial. If someone unreasonably punched me in a bar (which, from my understanding, is what happened - and tbh punching someone is pretty fucking unreasonable ALL the time unless you're in CLEAR PHYSICAL DANGER, which Gerrard certainly wasn't, surrounded by 6 or 7 other big footballers) I'd want them to meet some sort of justice whether or not punches have been thrown in bars since time immemorial.
What's more, I know it's a massive fucking cliche, but footballers ARE role models, and I think if he had been found guilty, the judge would have taken this view and put him in Klink for a little while, which is would most prolly take him down a notch or two and do him some good. But no, this smug cunt gets off, throwing out the impression to loads of kids that you can happily punch someone over nothing and get away with it.
I sound so reactionary I know, but my god is he a fucker.
it's just not desperately nice, yano?
whether they have already entered guilty pleas, or legged it or whatever, where it is relevant to the case.
but worked at a criminal solicitors for a time.
Yeah, gerrard's as guilty as sin.
he's the only 1 of the 7 people involved who was sitting there quietly not doing anything wrong, no matter what a video of him delivering several sturdy uppercuts may seem to show
just another poor hard done by scouser accused of a crime he never committed
no sane jury would find him guilty
No prizes for pointing out that he's dead.
but Stevie G is guilty as sin
this is a disgrace
conclusive imho. As much as I hate to say this, I'm almost certain that if he'd been Steven Gerard (just the two rs), an unemployed dossball from Toxteth he'd have been convicted.
we have heard very little of the evidence via the media (assuming you weren't at the trial) and the judge himself said:
"What at first sight to the casual observer may seem to have been a clear-cut case against you of unlawful violence, has been nowhere near as clear-cut upon careful analysis of the evidence."
Could you imagine the scene on the Kop if he had been sent down?
a 6 month suspended, a £3,000 fine and 200 hours of community service teaching drug rehab kids how to take a free-kick would have been a much better outcome for everyone - including (and especially) Gerard
Jeepers. Very fortunate to get off with that indeed. I mean if he'd been given jail time it would've been an overreaction for what is basically a silly drunken altercation, but to basically justify his actions sets a terrible example.
that'll make you the most qualified person in the thread, so it's pretty definitive
but rarely to do work with criminal proceedings of this type (it's almost entirely corporate law that I'm involved with), so I'm not too sure how it worked with this case re the defendents being tried seperately. I am very surprised (like anschul says) that he's wasn't at least given a suspended sentence & community service.
would have to wait until the outcome of this trial before being sentenced.
Did you hear about his first ever fishing trip? He caught a duck!
No I didn't hear about that but I bet he ate it there and then, feathers and all. Didn't touch the sides.
He got 200 hours community service...and was banned from the england team for the next years' world cup. I wonder how much the FA contributed to wards gerrard's legal fees....
he should've gone down!
It's bamnan who's saying it's fine to punch people (and bizarelly, smack kids)
signing 'Man(b)eater' by Nelly Furtado.
Unless a large deaf party from Chesterfield are in.
don't you know by now? footballers and rock stars are above the law
I doubt that Gerrard would have been jailed, but would have instead got a fine that he could pay easily, and/or community service which would doubtless be something like going around to schools talking about football - something that I'm sure he already does.
With this verdict he is revealed as a bully and a coward and a nasty piece of work. If I were a sponsor, I'd think twice about touting him as a role model.
but if found guilty he would be able to say "I'm sorry, I've served my sentence" and would at least appear contrite. Now he is going to be damned as a cunt in the court of popular opinion as not a bully, coward etc but as a guy who could afford a lawyer who was smart enough to convince a jury to disregard the evidence of their own eyes. And that will just go on and on - from here on, whenever Gerrard is praised, this is going to be thrown back at him.