Booth: "What David did was a defensive reflex" - German Boxing Fed wants Life ban

i don't believe that you are a law student if you think that. it is horse****. there are mountains of case-law proving that it is horse****...particularly in the us.

ask your lecturers.

:good

 

you were talking about palmer vs the queen & saying that "it's recognized that continuing an attack after the danger is over is not justified."

this refers to leaving the situation & coming back when the peril is gone to re-instigate the attack.

this is completely inapplicable to a brawl that is completely over in 30 seconds.

 

I don't need to ask them. It's what they already instructed. Go into google and type "duty to retreat." You'll see it everywhere. Frankly, I don't even understand why you're arguing. The very first link on google is to a wikipedia article on the topic. The very fact that there are links should be enough to prove to you that there is a duty to retreat in many circumstances. Some states don't follow it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

I still don't understand why you're arguing this. I don't know UK law, but unless wikipedia is making up this quote from that case it's self evident: "If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defence."

 

maybe i'm arguing cos i'm not getting all my information off wikipedia.

& you are talking horse****.

"duty to retreat" does not mean & could never mean literally running away. it refers to showing that you are not provoking the situation.

 

read that back...mr law student...then read this:

 

It literally means that you have to retreat. I'm not telling you that you always have to retreat, but there is a duty to retreat under certain circumstances. I can pull the case law if you really, really want.

 

Im a lawyer, Haye will not be convicted of anything.

 

it does not in any way mean that. seriously...if you are a law student (which you clearly are not or god help any clients you get) ask your lecturers.

 

No, the quote in its entirely, which I didn't reproduce, does not refer to any particular situation. It describes self defense in a very general way and I believe it supports what I have said. It doesn't have to do with reinstigating a situation. I'll copy it for you below:

"The defence of self-defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. ...Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. ...It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have [to] avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defence... If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."

 

jesus. stop posting stuff off wikipedia. you clearly aren't a law student & don't get this stuff at all.

the "duty to retreat" is applicable in cases where deadly force is used btw. you don't have any such duty in other circumstances. we don't actually have a law over here where you are allowed to shoot someone...funnily enough...& there is absolutely no "duty to retreat" literal or otherwise. you just have to show that you acted "reasonably" & felt you were in immanent danger.

:good

 

Where did all this "smashing of a bottle" come from.......I haven't seen any footage or read any reports that a bottle was smashed over anyone's head or face for that matter.

 

A bottle isn't a weapon.......especially as it wasn't used as a weapon.

A broken bottle intended as a weapon is a different story.

The bottle was still full of drink and wasn't used as a weapon......watch the footage.

If Haye wanted to use the bottle as a weapon then he wouldn't have held the bottle like the way he did.

 

That quote I did post off of wikipedia, but that's because I don't have any access to your caselaw. I admit I don't know law in the UK, but I still think that quote is pretty clear. And it's from an actual case.

You initially said that a duty to retreat is not provoking a situation. That's not true - what you said above is, however true. I imagine that's because you looked it up. And it's what I said - in certain circumstances you have to retreat. Using deadly forces is one of situations, though sometimes you can use deadly force even when you could have retreated.

 

& what do you think it clearly says? :huh

i'll be honest...i'm no expert in american law. didn't really think about it in the context of actually TRYING not to kill someone...cos haye didn't kill anyone.

you're not an expert in any kind of law tho...

how did haye have a "duty to reteat" in this situation (which you initially said he did).

oh that's right...he didn't.

oops for you.