- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 13,333
- Reaction score
- 1,835
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Internet bravado, how cute.
What? I was being real
Internet bravado, how cute.
What? I was being real
My brother. Knocked her out with one punch. Broke allot of her facial structure, it was bad.
Of course he went down soon after. Before his punch, she had kicked him in the balls so hard he was bleeding from his mouth.
.... :/
Since when is a kick to the balls equal to breaking facial structure?
The damage must at least be equal. That is GBH right there
If a girl kicks me in the sack, she will get much the same thing. She had no right at all to lay her hands on him in any way.
She was arrested for battery by the way, so your argument goes against the law as well as common sense.
And no, breaking facial structure is not equal to a kick in the balls. Unless she broke his penis ofc, in which case I take it all back. It's not quite the same
Wtf are you talking about?
SECTION 20
“………Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and, being convicted therefore, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years…….”
:roll:
And no, breaking facial structure is not equal to a kick in the balls. Unless she broke his penis ofc, in which case I take it all back. It's not quite the same
rof Trauma to the testicles can render one infertile.
You can roll your eyes all you want. You are still wrong.
I know Kali Bear.
And keep the bratwurst to yourself!
Now being I was a police officer in the state at the time. I can honestly say I know the law a little better than you.
Right. 'In the state' eh?
You know English law better than me. A person who studied this particular aspect. Gotcha
Trolling does not make your ignorant argument any better.
It also does not change the fact you are still wrong as I have shown.
Not so much as many GBH hinges on whether the damage is within reason in response to the threat presented by the female. If he played the self defence card that is.
Not according to the law in the state of Illinois. he only thing that would have made it different is if he had used a weapon.
The damage must at least be equal. That is GBH right there
She was arrested for battery by the way, so your argument goes against the law as well as common sense.
GBH. Sec 20
“………Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and, being convicted therefore, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years…….”
:roll:
And no, breaking facial structure is not equal to a kick in the balls. Unless she broke his penis ofc, in which case I take it all back. It's not quite the same
Punching someone in the face in immediate response to an assault reaches the level of malice?
Learn something new every day.
Breaking facial structure to a simple kick in the balls however much it hurts is not equal damage or reasonable in response imo.
Ofc a good lawyer can argue anything :shrug:
Shown what? Lol.
Whatever dude, nice way to divert from the fact you know **** about the laws I am citing.
Being a police office in another country doesn't give you that knowledge of my country which was the original point I made and you tried to refute me being wrong - without citing anything to support it I may add.
By all means. Let's end the discussion. It was going nowhere anyway. I know I'm right
Breaking facial structure to a simple kick in the balls however much it hurts is not equal damage or reasonable in response imo. Ofc a good lawyer can argue anything :shrug:
That was not the law I originally citied and you tried to refute. Nice spin tho mate.
If you had just google'd GBH. You would have know straight away which law I am talking about, not to mention the simple fact you could have just looked at my location rather than attempting to bull**** about knowing the law
Nice playing with you tho. Shame I need sleep.
I would prefer that we, as a society, rather than distinguishing by gender and saying "hitting women is never okay" should instead say "initiating violence in a family dispute is never okay" and leave gender out of it. This avoids giving a certain type of female the idea that she can hit and not be hit back.
I agree that nobody should ever hit anybody. Definitely that's the best situation. But while you worry about women getting the message that they can hit men is legitimate, isn't men hitting women a radically bigger problem for society? So if we have to choose between sending a message that might encourage women to hit men and a message that might encourage men to hit women, shouldn't we send the message that will focus on the bigger problem?