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

Honestly, STFU. David Haye was there courtesy of Frank ****** and Box Nation.

 

Isn't it ironic that all those journalists and boxing pundits and boxings fans that are condemning these events are on the other hand lapping up these events.......especially the sports journalist.......who would be otherwise just reporting on a pretty dull and uneventful Klitschko victory this morning.

I saw loads of journalist in the conference room but didn't see too many trying to stop the fracas.......they were happily content just to witness the action!

 

That one can't prolong a beating in the name of self defense. It was in regards to whether Haye could attack someone with a tripod that was already immobilized. Note I didn't say that that's what Haye did - only that someone said that he did that.

And where did I say that Haye had a duty to retreat? I didn't. I said, at the very beginning, that I was talking about the law and NOT about this situation. I really only mentioned it to demonstrate that self defense is more complicated than just you get to attack someone back for attacking you.

I'm definitely NOT an expert in the law - I'm a first year student. I'd like to think if you went back to what I wrote you'd see that I was talking about the law generally and not attacking Haye or commenting on what happened in the video.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

(breathes)

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

Some tweets:

 

it doesn't say that. the case was about a man who poisoned someone because they were in a feud with them & felt threatened btw. work out the context mr lawyer-man. atsch

"Additionally, there is often a duty to retreat. Accepting a fight in a bar does not constitute self defense."

duty to retreat refers to avoiding the use of deadly force. it has **** all to do with what we are talking about.

good job mr lawyer-man. :good

:good

 

The judge is laying out a test for reasonable force with self defense in all cases. That the case was about poison is irrelevant to the doctrine. Do you disagree that prolonging a beating in the name of self defense is not self defense?

According to your own government (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/) that test is controlling when considering reasonable force in self defense.

I'm clearly not saying that Haye had a duty to retreat. You're right - it has **** all to do with Haye, unless there's a charge that Haye used deadly force. My first response to you was entirely limited to your description of a bunch of guys beating on someone on the ground, and even then I was just trying to portray that self defense isn't just an open invitation to do whatever you want because you were attacked. Again, I was not talking about Haye.

...I have no problem admitting what I know and what I don't know. If I said that Haye had a duty to retreat then I would have no problem saying that I was wrong, but that's not what I said. I was trying to be clear that I was not talking about Haye, and I stated several times that I couldn't really tell what was happening in the video.

 

Klitschkos can fight him in neuteral site-The P.I wants a fight!

 

Now talk of being banned?

Haye does not deserve a ban for this, that really would be a disgrace.

Chisora maybe for his actions over the 2 days.

 

Exactly, any idiot could see that.

Don Charles initiated the second scuffle, at that point Haye was just standing back, he ended up recieving a couple hits to the mouth.

 

That will be when Chisora grabbed a bottle while being restrained, someone grabbed it from his hand.

 

yes. but it is not what that case was about.

& the specific paragraph you quoted (more than once) was about returning when the "peril" was gone & re-instigated the violence or exacting revenge. that would not be self-defence. read it. that is what it said.

if you were a law student (rather than some scrub trying to look clever using quotes from wikipedia) you might have spotted that.

it has absolutely nothing to do with the haye incident...it would be relevant if he had left & then come back to re-instigate the violence. he did not.

you initially stated that the "duty to retreat" was applicable to situations like this...such as accepting a bar fight. it is not. it is also not applicable in any way to haye. so why the **** are you talking about it?

you have also said that the "duty to retreat" is a legal requirement to literally "run away". it is not. it is about showing that you have made reasonable steps to avoid using deadly force before using deadly force.

perhaps you should have realised that there is a massive difference between self defence (what we are talking about) & self defence as a justification for murder (what you are talking about). perhaps in that context you can forgive my confusion...cos david haye didn't ****ing kill anybody.

law student my ass.

if you're not talking about haye...why not? wtf is this thread about? if this was a thread about fools trying to look clever by lifting quotes off wikipedia you'd be going gangbusters. as it is you look like a moron.

& please explain to me how (in the first response you gave) there would be a "duty to retreat" in a case where 6 guys kicking the **** out of one guy was deeemed self defence in an english court of law? & that is the specific case you were apparently referring to. which proves you wrong.

:nut

you are chatting ****. you don't know what you are talking about. **** off before you embarrass yourself even more than you already have. :good

 

You saw something on the video that no one else who has watched it saw.

 

Why post tweets from a couple of bellends that were not funny then put 12 laughing smileys like a prat? :nut

 

You're quite wrong there. It's called "the duty to retreat" and it's enshrined in British Self Defence Law. There are cases where it's excepted, but you're totally wrong about it not being a legal duty, in many cases it absolutely is.

The bouncer analogy is foolish. They have to be licensed and even so are only allowed to restrain people who are causing mischief.

 

english law? you are completely & utterly wrong.

"running away" is not a legal duty.

you have to show that you acted reasonably & felt that you were in immanent danger before acting yourself.

from the cps:

This content is protected

:hi:

This content is protected