ATTACK IN E.10

[Proposition Joe]

Told you it was a weird alias.

[tuffers#1]

And I see you are still banging on with Google. Whatever you keep digging up,

street crime in Leyton is "nowhere" near what it used to be.

So have you done a complete 180 CCH
You're now saying the opposite of what you started saying .
Originally it was Never,
Now its nowhere near what it used to be
Make up your mind chappie

Nothing like a 180. You know what I'm saying. And if we're talking about the 60's and before it was as good as never. See if you can dig out a street crime from 1929..
Leyton never had street crime and murder from past years, anything like today.
You're a disgrace, given the brutal assault with a machete on a copper for being questioned about non insurance, when all you can say is that the assailant was provoked - an utter disgrace.

Whats that semi circle ?

P.s
Meaning of
Provoke


/prəˈvəʊk/
verb
stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone.

Seems to be what happened doesnt it

[StockholmO]

Just read this and Proposition Joe sinks to a new low.

[Proposition Joe]

Show your working, strange occasional stalker.

[Disoriented]

Quite a bizarre thread this. Not sure what to make of it.

[Chief crazy horse]

So have you done a complete 180 CCH
You're now saying the opposite of what you started saying .
Originally it was Never,
Now its nowhere near what it used to be
Make up your mind chappie

Nothing like a 180. You know what I'm saying. And if we're talking about the 60's and before it was as good as never. See if you can dig out a street crime from 1929..
Leyton never had street crime and murder from past years, anything like today.
You're a disgrace, given the brutal assault with a machete on a copper for being questioned about non insurance, when all you can say is that the assailant was provoked - an utter disgrace.

Whats that semi circle ?

P.s
Meaning of
Provoke


/prəˈvəʊk/
verb
stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone.

Seems to be what happened doesnt it

Playing on words once again I see. Now clutching at straws by giving an English lesson on the definition of the word provoke. (to remind you, your disgraceful response was, "the attack was provoked by police".) This signals the time for me to abort this thread. And I see no reason to change my words as much as the truth might pain you: 'There was never street crime and murder in Leyton, in years past, like there is today'.

[CreamofSumYungGai]

Show your working, strange occasional stalker.

Any way you can check who is behind this alias using your mod tools?

The only clues I’ve got to go on are an unhealthy ianterest in both you and me and an average postiang time of 3am, so I’m totally stumped....

[Real Al]

Show your working, strange occasional stalker.

an unhealthy ianterest in both you and me

StockholmO syndrome

[tuffers#1]

Nothing like a 180. You know what I'm saying. And if we're talking about the 60's and before it was as good as never. See if you can dig out a street crime from 1929..
Leyton never had street crime and murder from past years, anything like today.
You're a disgrace, given the brutal assault with a machete on a copper for being questioned about non insurance, when all you can say is that the assailant was provoked - an utter disgrace.

Whats that semi circle ?

P.s
Meaning of
Provoke


/prəˈvəʊk/
verb
stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone.

Seems to be what happened doesnt it

Playing on words once again I see. Now clutching at straws by giving an English lesson on the definition of the word provoke. (to remind you, your disgraceful response was, "the attack was provoked by police".) This signals the time for me to abort this thread. And I see no reason to change my words as much as the truth might pain you: 'There was never street crime and murder in Leyton, in years past, like there is today'.

You're a funny f*cker chc

Not that you mean to be ,
Just you stumble over & into it.

You have 4 news 1 ripped in this thread by
L7 & Me & a couple of others

Let it lie now Chap

[Lovejoy]

A machete attacker who left a police officer with skull fractures and deep gashes to the head has been sentenced to 16 years in prison.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ma ... spartanntp

[Thor]

How on earth did he get away with attempted murder? Disgusting that barristers can argue him off that charge, he is scum and pure evil especially when you consider his previous.

[tuffers#1]

How on earth did he get away with attempted murder? Disgusting that barristers can argue him off that charge, he is scum and pure evil especially when you consider his previous.

Probably because the copper put his hands round his throat & then pulled lumps of his hair out.


A mate of mine got knicked years ago ,
while having a slash in an off road car park .

Following a short scuffle he & 1 of the
rozzers went through a window.
He was arrested incorrectly & charged .
It was thrown out of court for wrongful arrest ( incorrect arrest & charge .
some case from the 1800s
Meant that a rozzer could be killed if the person being arrested didnt understand the charge made( as happened in the 1800s) .

Possibly a similar thing as it states the machete wasnt
In his possesion illegally.

[spen666]

How on earth did he get away with attempted murder? Disgusting that barristers can argue him off that charge, he is scum and pure evil especially when you consider his previous.

..... Everyone is entitled to be defended irrespective of how awful the alleged crime is said to be.

A jury of 12 members of the public who unlike you, had heard all the evidence, decided it was not attempted murder.

I would suggest you ask the jury why they reached their decision, but if you did, you would be committing a crime yourself

[Thor]

I know spen but come on... if I get in a fight it's just that, if I pull a bat on that person chances are I'm going to hurt them pretty bad, if I pull out a machete quite possibly I'm gonna kill that person. See where I'm going with this?

There is no way him pulling that out wasn't to tickle him with, it was to hurt him really bad or even kill them.

[Redcard]

Tuffers,are you serious, if so that’s the most ridiculous viewpoint I’ve ever come across. Maybe the machete wasn’t in his possession illegally . Sure, we all walk about with machetes just in case we get the urge to smash someone over the head.
I guess it’s in line with your other political views.

[StillSpike]

The reason he got off the "possession of an offensive weapon" charge is that his defence argued that it was to be used in a gardening job he was going to do.

Weapons fall into 2 categories - ones that are solely weapons - e.g knuckledusters, tasers etc - and ones that could have a legitimate use - e.g, kitchen knives (for cooking), bats (for sport) and gardening machetes (for gardening). If someone is heading to work as a chef with their knives, and gets into a fight, grabs one of their knives in the heat of the moment, and uses it - then they could well be innocent of possession of an offensive weapon (while still guilty of assault, wounding etc etc) I guess that's the defence they've used.

[tuffers#1]

Tuffers,are you serious, if so that’s the most ridiculous viewpoint I’ve ever come across. Maybe the machete wasn’t in his possession illegally . Sure, we all walk about with machetes just in case we get the urge to smash someone over the head.
I guess it’s in line with your other political views.

It wasnt my opinion .

Also the machete was in his van.
He wasnt walking anywhere with it

My mates case was slung out as
It was a point of law from the 1800s .
The barrister quoted it in the court.
Such & such a case from 1857 ( or whenever)
So & so vs the crown .

" if an officer of the law tries to arrest a person & the reasoning behind that arrest is unclear , the suspect
Is entitled to defend himself with full force , even if that
force takes the life of said officer ".

Got nothing to do with my political views which you obviously have no understanding of as it is.

If he was guilty of attempted murder the judge would have directed the jurors to find him guilty , if it was a wrongful arrest & charge then the judge has to direct a jury to ignore it.

As the judge did with my mate who was arrested & then charged for being drunk.
Which in this country is not a criminal offence.

My mate could have killed the copper & would have got off as the initial charge & arrest were both incorrect.

Possibly something very similar happened here.

[tuffers#1]

I know spen but come on... if I get in a fight it's just that, if I pull a bat on that person chances are I'm going to hurt them pretty bad, if I pull out a machete quite possibly I'm gonna kill that person. See where I'm going with this?

There is no way him pulling that out wasn't to tickle him with, it was to hurt him really bad or even kill them.

But Michael Turner QC, defending, said the judge should be more lenient, acknowledging the jurors' rejection of the more serious charge of attempted murder and their acceptance that Rodwan was not carrying the machete unlawfully.
He said the attack on PC Outten, 29, was not premeditated, but rather a reaction to the officer putting his hands around his throat and strangling him and pulling out seven of his dreadlocks.

Read all the words of the story Thor

[spen666]

I know spen but come on... if I get in a fight it's just that, if I pull a bat on that person chances are I'm going to hurt them pretty bad, if I pull out a machete quite possibly I'm gonna kill that person. See where I'm going with this?

There is no way him pulling that out wasn't to tickle him with, it was to hurt him really bad or even kill them.

Come on what?

Are you taking issue with the fact everyone has a right to a defence? -

Are you taking issue with the fact the Jury who unlike you or I had heard all the evidence and reached the verdict?


I think a jury of 12 members of the public are in a better position to reach a verdict than someone on a message board relying on the sensational reporting of some of the evidence in the media is

[spen666]

Tuffers,are you serious, if so that’s the most ridiculous viewpoint I’ve ever come across. Maybe the machete wasn’t in his possession illegally . Sure, we all walk about with machetes just in case we get the urge to smash someone over the head.
I guess it’s in line with your other political views.

It wasnt my opinion .

Also the machete was in his van.
He wasnt walking anywhere with it

My mates case was slung out as
It was a point of law from the 1800s .
The barrister quoted it in the court.
Such & such a case from 1857 ( or whenever)
So & so vs the crown .

" if an officer of the law tries to arrest a person & the reasoning behind that arrest is unclear , the suspect
Is entitled to defend himself with full force , even if that
force takes the life of said officer ".

Got nothing to do with my political views which you obviously have no understanding of as it is.

If he was guilty of attempted murder the judge would have directed the jurors to find him guilty , if it was a wrongful arrest & charge then the judge has to direct a jury to ignore it.

As the judge did with my mate who was arrested & then charged for being drunk.
Which in this country is not a criminal offence.

My mate could have killed the copper & would have got off as the initial charge & arrest were both incorrect.

Possibly something very similar happened here.

Tuffers, your understanding of the law and your statement of the case is very inaccurate. The case you are referring to is one in relation to self defence. You are only allowed to use sufficient force as you believe is necessary to defend yourself. You are not allowed to kill anyone police officer simply for arresting you if you do not understand why.

[tuffers#1]

Tuffers,are you serious, if so that’s the most ridiculous viewpoint I’ve ever come across. Maybe the machete wasn’t in his possession illegally . Sure, we all walk about with machetes just in case we get the urge to smash someone over the head.
I guess it’s in line with your other political views.

It wasnt my opinion .

Also the machete was in his van.
He wasnt walking anywhere with it

My mates case was slung out as
It was a point of law from the 1800s .
The barrister quoted it in the court.
Such & such a case from 1857 ( or whenever)
So & so vs the crown .

" if an officer of the law tries to arrest a person & the reasoning behind that arrest is unclear , the suspect
Is entitled to defend himself with full force , even if that
force takes the life of said officer ".

Got nothing to do with my political views which you obviously have no understanding of as it is.

If he was guilty of attempted murder the judge would have directed the jurors to find him guilty , if it was a wrongful arrest & charge then the judge has to direct a jury to ignore it.

As the judge did with my mate who was arrested & then charged for being drunk.
Which in this country is not a criminal offence.

My mate could have killed the copper & would have got off as the initial charge & arrest were both incorrect.

Possibly something very similar happened here.

Tuffers, your understanding of the law and your statement of the case is very inaccurate. The case you are referring to is one in relation to self defence. You are only allowed to use sufficient force as you believe is necessary to defend yourself. You are not allowed to kill anyone police officer simply for arresting you if you do not understand why.

Spen i am refering specifically to my friends case where
After hearing all prosecution evidence , my friends
Defence barrister stood up quoted the case & said to the judge , we ask this to be slung out.

The copper originally spoke to him because he was having a slash.
It then developed into a scuffle then the arrest & charge were made.

Am incorrect charge of being drunk

Understanding , meant reason for arrest was not clear & that as i already stated the accused would be within there rights to defend themselves with full force , even if that resulted in the death of the officer , as happened in the case so & so v the crown 1800s.

The judge without needing to hear defence evidence directed that all charges be dropped & the case to be dismissed.

The case from the 1800s was explained to us later by the barrister, & that the reason for the arrest was false or unclear & the accused was in fear of his life & used a knife on the policeman who died.

He was released from court with no charge as
It was not clear & therefore not understood why he was being attacked by the police & then arrested.

Only going by what i heard the barrister & the judge say in the court .

I have no reason to disbelieve them

Just trying to explain a possible reason why this fella had the attempted murder charge dropped.

[spen666]

It wasnt my opinion .

Also the machete was in his van.
He wasnt walking anywhere with it

My mates case was slung out as
It was a point of law from the 1800s .
The barrister quoted it in the court.
Such & such a case from 1857 ( or whenever)
So & so vs the crown .

" if an officer of the law tries to arrest a person & the reasoning behind that arrest is unclear , the suspect
Is entitled to defend himself with full force , even if that
force takes the life of said officer ".

Got nothing to do with my political views which you obviously have no understanding of as it is.

If he was guilty of attempted murder the judge would have directed the jurors to find him guilty , if it was a wrongful arrest & charge then the judge has to direct a jury to ignore it.

As the judge did with my mate who was arrested & then charged for being drunk.
Which in this country is not a criminal offence.

My mate could have killed the copper & would have got off as the initial charge & arrest were both incorrect.

Possibly something very similar happened here.

Tuffers, your understanding of the law and your statement of the case is very inaccurate. The case you are referring to is one in relation to self defence. You are only allowed to use sufficient force as you believe is necessary to defend yourself. You are not allowed to kill anyone police officer simply for arresting you if you do not understand why.

Spen i am refering specifically to my friends case where
After hearing all prosecution evidence , my friends
Defence barrister stood up quoted the case & said to the judge , we ask this to be slung out.

The copper originally spoke to him because he was having a slash.
It then developed into a scuffle then the arrest & charge were made.

Am incorrect charge of being drunk

Understanding , meant reason for arrest was not clear & that as i already stated the accused would be within there rights to defend themselves with full force , even if that resulted in the death of the officer , as happened in the case so & so v the crown 1800s.

The judge without needing to hear defence evidence directed that all charges be dropped & the case to be dismissed.

The case from the 1800s was explained to us later by the barrister, & that the reason for the arrest was false or unclear & the accused was in fear of his life & used a knife on the policeman who died.

He was released from court with no charge as
It was not clear & therefore not understood why he was being attacked by the police & then arrested.

Only going by what i heard the barrister & the judge say in the court .

I have no reason to disbelieve them

Just trying to explain a possible reason why this fella had the attempted murder charge dropped.

Tuffers as I said before you are not correct in law.

There is no case that says what you claim it does. You either did not hear correctly or you did not understand the submission and the case referred to.

Try stating what the case is or what the Legislation referred to by the barrister is. I am quite happy to publish the judgement of the case you claim the barrister quoted so the forum can read it for themselves and see it does not state what you think it does.

[tuffers#1]

Tuffers, your understanding of the law and your statement of the case is very inaccurate. The case you are referring to is one in relation to self defence. You are only allowed to use sufficient force as you believe is necessary to defend yourself. You are not allowed to kill anyone police officer simply for arresting you if you do not understand why.

Spen i am refering specifically to my friends case where
After hearing all prosecution evidence , my friends
Defence barrister stood up quoted the case & said to the judge , we ask this to be slung out.

The copper originally spoke to him because he was having a slash.
It then developed into a scuffle then the arrest & charge were made.

Am incorrect charge of being drunk

Understanding , meant reason for arrest was not clear & that as i already stated the accused would be within there rights to defend themselves with full force , even if that resulted in the death of the officer , as happened in the case so & so v the crown 1800s.

The judge without needing to hear defence evidence directed that all charges be dropped & the case to be dismissed.

The case from the 1800s was explained to us later by the barrister, & that the reason for the arrest was false or unclear & the accused was in fear of his life & used a knife on the policeman who died.

He was released from court with no charge as
It was not clear & therefore not understood why he was being attacked by the police & then arrested.

Only going by what i heard the barrister & the judge say in the court .

I have no reason to disbelieve them

Just trying to explain a possible reason why this fella had the attempted murder charge dropped.

Tuffers as I said before you are not correct in law.

There is no case that says what you claim it does. You either did not hear correctly or you did not understand the submission and the case referred to.

Try stating what the case is or what the Legislation referred to by the barrister is. I am quite happy to publish the judgement of the case you claim the barrister quoted so the forum can read it for themselves and see it does not state what you think it does.

If you know what the case is spen then publish it .

Like i said
I know what the defence barrister said as i heard it & all the evidence.

You do not know the case my friend was involved in & you do not know the case that was reffered to.


If you think you do then as i said publish away.

[spen666]

....

If you know what the case is spen then publish it .

Like i said
I know what the defence barrister said as i heard it & all the evidence.

You do not know the case my friend was involved in & you do not know the case that was reffered to.


If you think you do then as i said publish away.

Tuffers if you know (and understand) what the barrister said, then please tell the forum which 19th Century case the barrister quoted. You won't and or can't do so. Given its at least 30+years since you were in court for this case, it is just possible you have not remembered the position properly, or more likely you haven't got a clue what the law is and are spouting incorrect statements of the law

i have stated what the law on self defence is.

You are simply wrong in law. The law does not state what you claim it does.

Please state the case you think supports your (wrong) statement of law. I will happily publish the judgement of that case once you identify it. You are the one who claims there is such a case, not me. I do not know what case you are referring to because there is no such case that supports your statement of what the legal position is.

[Stowaway]

So, The Justin Edinburgh Stand, eh? Good call!!!!!