• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Top bullies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dieselman said:
You misunderstand the law.
If genuinely fearing for ones safety, one has the right to attempt escape at whatever cost to any assailant. .
Click to expand...

The poor chap that may now be a paraplegic was not an assailant.
 
Sp!ke said:
then I think that this is far from being a slam dunk as others seem to think.
Click to expand...

The Police and the prosecutors office do carry some sway with regard to this. I'm not convinced your opinion is going to change their view, but give it a go...
 
Let us know how you get on with the prosecutors office.
 
Sp!ke said:
I think I have actually. The answer is that he would be justified in breaking the law but only if the potential risk of doing so was less than this risk he was facing.

Given that he risked killing multiple people by fleeing the way he did and there were other less dangerous options open to him at the time,
Click to expand...

So being beaten and slashed in the face is less dangerous than killing the very same assailants?

From the outcome of the situation it sounds like he was right in breaking the law. These bikers are not victims, how can you not see it? :wallbash:
 
Sp!ke said:
I think I have actually. The answer is that he would be justified in breaking the law but only if the potential risk of doing so was less than this risk he was facing.

Given that he risked killing multiple people by fleeing the way he did and there were other less dangerous options open to him at the time, combined that with the possibility that there is ke information not yet in the public domain relating to was drew the two vehicles together in the first place, then I think that this is far from being a slam dunk as others seem to think.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer.

What were the less dangerous options, (again, just for me, assume that his family is in imminent danger)?
 
renault12ts said:
How do you know he wasn't an assailant...there is no video evidence of this one way or the other.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous argument.

He is obviously innocent until proven guilty.

Besides, Dieselman is incorrect. You do not have the automatic right to try and kill your assailant anyway.


Remember the law that says the potential consequences of your actions have to be less than those of not acting.

You are not therefore allowed to drive someone over (high potential for loss of life) because you *think* they might want to duff you up. This is not reasonable.
 
Sp!ke said:
Here we go again... so I have a different opinion than others.Why should that lead to personal attacks on me?

Isn't this supposed to be a debate? These personal attacks only demonstrate weakness in both argument and intellect.
Click to expand...

Listen, I'll educate you why it's become personal. Simply the comments, attitudes and suggestions you put forward and make are an insult to my intelligence...the most laughable one, RR diver should have got out and discussed the incident the biker caused with the other bikers. Never mind the fact then, you tell anybody that will listen how you would have dealt with the whole scenario, on top of which you implied your a hard man and a biker thus implying again you have a better understanding and grasp of the RR drivers position & situation that he did, totally disregarding anyone else's views that don't agree with your own.

It's close to the stage now, where you should be making an apology to all & sundry for abusing this forum in more ways than one.

Hope the above clarifies why it's now personal, 'cause you've made it so.
 
Last edited:
trapperjohn said:
Because as an "Admin" your choice of simile is, in my opinion crass.
Click to expand...

YES.. it was supposed to be to illustrate the ridiculousness of that arguement.

If it wasn't crass the point wouldn't have been driven home so succinctly.

Anyway...more personal attacks I see. Is that all you got?
 
Jeepers people need to chill.

Why would I need to apologise for having a different opinion on the chain of events? If I were name calling attacking someone in the thread as has been directed at Rashman and I then yes, an apology or multiple apologies would be in order.

Why don't you go through the entire thread and count exactly who owes who an opology.
 
[QUOTE="John Jones ]he most laughable one, RR diver should have got out and discussed the incident the biker caused with the other bikers..[/QUOTE]


This would be the normal way of dealing with this situation. A way that hundreds if not thousands of people have done before and still live to tell the tale.

Of course I would get out and tend to the person I had just knocked off the bike it is the least I could do.

By not doing getting out the car and checking on the other party you will undoubtedly provoke an angry response, it is human nature.

Which brings one back to the law which covers this area where one of the caveats is; "you must not have brought this on yourself"

It could be argued that Lien did just that.

All I am saying here is that this is anything BUT the open and shut case that you all seem to think it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom