Vent - babies on longnhaul flights

sharnad

adouglasmhor wrote: »

It was assault when he kicked my chair hard enough to hurt me.
I posted the legal definition of assault earlier. I didn't assault him - it does not just mean hurt someone and self defence is no offence.

He assaulted me and I dealt with it within the law. If he didn't like it he could have gone to the police, the manager, - but he would have then have had a counter claim from me and been in trouble himself for assaulting me. The police would most likely have just told us to stay away from each other and left it at that. If I had beaten him up or attacked him once I got him outside - that would have been assault - removing someone from your presence who is attacking you is not assault.

what you did to him comes under the legale definition of common assault. What he did was kick the back of your chair. He could claim it was accidental contact and you would have a hard time proving it hurt you. It may have hurt but what you did next could be classed as assault.

Yes assault doesnt just mean hurting someone proven by what you did to him. What you did was not self defence. You could have couter claimed assault but you having no witnesses or none willing to come foward and him having an entire theatre of people seeing what you did I imagine he would win that one.

It is assault to physcially remove someone causing him pain when he wasnt assaulting you. You can say he was but the moment you stood up he wasnt. The easiest way for you to have dealt with it would have been to leave and get a staff member

You caused him to fear that force was due to be used on him. battery was caused when you took him outside by keeping a hold of him.

thats in english law anyway may be different in scotland. I dont believe scottish law distinguishs between the two so if the police turned up you would have probably just been charged with assault.

ILW

sharnad wrote: »

what you did to him comes under the legale definition of common assault. What he did was kick the back of your chair. He could claim it was accidental contact and you would have a hard time proving it hurt you. It may have hurt but what you did next could be classed as assault.

Yes assault doesnt just mean hurting someone proven by what you did to him. What you did was not self defence. You could have couter claimed assault but you having no witnesses or none willing to come foward and him having an entire theatre of people seeing what you did I imagine he would win that one.

It is assault to physcially remove someone causing him pain when he wasnt assaulting you. You can say he was but the moment you stood up he wasnt. The easiest way for you to have dealt with it would have been to leave and get a staff member

You caused him to fear that force was due to be used on him. battery was caused when you took him outside by keeping a hold of him.

thats in english law anyway may be different in scotland. I dont believe scottish law distinguishs between the two so if the police turned up you would have probably just been charged with assault.

No wonder the Chavs rule certain parts of the country with attitudes like this.

I like the idea of the decent people standing up for themselves occasionally and if some little !!!!!! gets his comeuppence, all the better.

sharnad

ILW wrote: »

No wonder the Chavs rule certain parts of the country with attitudes like this.

I like the idea of the decent people standing up for themselves occasionally and if some little !!!!!! gets his comeuppence, all the better.

Yes I do think that chavs rule because people go about assaulting people rather than doing the sensible thing like getting a member of staff to remove the person.

Standing up for yourself can be vocal. I can do it with a look you shouldnt stoop to their level

Alpha58

*Ahem* (clears throat). This post was about babies on longhaul flights? Wasn't it?!

kinglewis121

i can see this being another gary cooper thread

sharnad

Alpha58 wrote: »

*Ahem* (clears throat). This post was about babies on longhaul flights? Wasn't it?!

its turned into babies at the cinema instead

adouglasmhor

sharnad wrote: »

Yes I do think that chavs rule because people go about assaulting people rather than doing the sensible thing like getting a member of staff to remove the person.

Standing up for yourself can be vocal. I can do it with a look you shouldnt stoop to their level

The staff had gone away to hide and it would have been my word against his, how thick do you have to be to not understand that?
I also don't think there is any way you can tell me how someone can rapidly kick a seat back several times in succession accidentally? So I can only assume you missed that bit deliberately so you can bump your gums from your moral high horse.
It's not assault under any law, it's only assault if you get convicted, you are not a lawyer, you are not a judge you are just judgemental.
And chavs do rule the country because seem people haven't got the moral fibre to stand up for themselves and justify their inaction by saying it's someone else's responsibility.
As for doing it with a look? Don't kid yourself do you think a look means anything unless you can back it up?

System

adouglasmhor wrote: »

It was assault when he kicked my chair hard enough to hurt me.

No it wasn't assault. It's only assault if he got convicted

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

No it wasn't assault. It's only assault if he got convicted

That is clearly nonsensical.

It would mean that if you came home and found all your possessions removed from your house you would not have been robbed until someone was convicted (which would make insurance claims problematic ).

Of course, if it were correct, then by the same token, all those who have been suggesting that adouglasmhor assaulted the kicker would also be wrong.

System

Azari wrote: »

That is clearly nonsensical.

It would mean that if you came home and found all your possessions removed from your house you would not have been robbed until someone was convicted (which would make insurance claims problematic ).

Of course, if it were correct, then by the same token, all those who have been suggesting that adouglasmhor assaulted the kicker would also be wrong.

You've misunderstood. If you read his last post that is what he said in regards to an assault.

I was pointing out that if that is what he believed his earlier statement which I quoted could not be true.

I may have been too subtle