Stokes Arrested

[Gnske]

how many more of these 'im appalled by the comments here tonight' posts are going to be made?


these comments happen anytime theres a controversial thing on the internet

At least we haven't had any snobs come in here with the old "dude I'm just way too intelligent to talk about this, why do you all have opinions on an opinion-driven forum?"

Oh

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

If this goes to a jury, the morality angle might help right? Or will the jury be supposed to make a decision only based on the facts and law and stuff?

depends on how many cricket lovers in the jury and how badly they want to whoop the aussies in the ashes

 

[Hennybogan]

And the prosecutor will scrub out any fag hag jurors.

 

[mr_mister]

At least we haven't had any snobs come in here with the old "dude I'm just way too intelligent to talk about this, why do you all have opinions on an opinion-driven forum?"

Oh

If this referring to me I gave my opinion earlier

If this is referring to anyone else the joke went over my head

 

[Shri]

You reflexes were not fast enough to catch it.

 

[Gnske]

If this referring to me I gave my opinion earlier

If this is referring to anyone else the joke went over my head

No, I only make references to my enemies.

 

[fredfertang]

Don't forget the 48 point penalty for the 2051 season

 

[DriveClub]

Things getting bad to worse for stokes, apparently there's a Snapchat video leaked of stokes making fun of a disabled kid.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

He isn't making fun of a mentally challenged kid, he's repeating what he saw on tv.

The thing is people use Harvey Price as an easy target too often in Britain because of who his mum is. Granted she is pretty much everything that is wrong about society today in that *** sells and will do anything for a bit of publicity and money but no need to pick on her kid because of that. Me I just rolled my eyes when I saw the clip and thought he was a plonker but I have seen on social media that the fight is one thing and this video is the game changer and he should never play again.

 

[sledger]

If this goes to a jury, the morality angle might help right? Or will the jury be supposed to make a decision only based on the facts and law and stuff?

No. Juries are there to answer questions of fact.

 

[StephenZA]

No. Juries are there to answer questions of fact.

Pull the other one.... (sorry, my opinion of the general public is just so poor, that most could not see a 'fact' clearly if you hit them over the head with it repeatedly.)

 

[sledger]

Pull the other one.... (sorry, my opinion of the general public is just so poor, that most could not see a 'fact' clearly if you hit them over the head with it repeatedly.)

Well, ok, what I mean is that Juries are there to determine questions like:

Do you believe the defendant's claim that he/she did not deliberately take X item from the store without paying for it?

Do you believe the defendant's claim that they were elsewhere at the time of the incident?

Etc...

In Stokes' case the question would be:

Do you believe the defendant's claim that in the circumstances (i.e. the bloke he hit was backing off and holding his hands up in submission) he had a genuine belief that the victim represented a serious threat?

If the answer to this question is "no" then Stokes is toast.

 

[StephenZA]

In Stokes' case the question would be:

Do you believe the defendant's claim that in the circumstances (i.e. the bloke he hit was backing off and holding his hands up in submission) he had a genuine belief that the victim represented a serious threat?

If the answer to this question is "no" then Stokes is toast.

Fair enough, an opinion of evidence. As can be seen by this thread though, it is all over the place. I do suppose that in an actual trial the arguments put forward and evidence of behaviour would probably be much stronger one way or another.... still don't trust juries.

 

[TNT]

Doubt it will go to a jury, I imagine he will plead out to a lesser charge and accept a fine/probation that's if it makes it to court.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If the jury had to decide whether he's a riled up hot head who lost control of his temper or a man carrying out an act of self preservation that would be a real poser.

 

[Gnske]

If the jury had to decide whether he's a riled up hot head who lost control of his temper or a man carrying out an act of self preservation that would be a real poser.

I don't think I'd want to make that decision, it'd plague my dreams for years to come either way.

 

[sledger]

Fair enough, an opinion of evidence. As can be seen by this thread though, it is all over the place. I do suppose that in an actual trial the arguments put forward and evidence of behaviour would probably be much stronger one way or another.... still don't trust juries.

The problem with most of the opinions in here are that so many have been along the lines of "I think Stokes was justified in behaving like he did", not "I think Stokes genuinely believed in the moment that he was facing a serious threat".

As above, whether or not Stokes was "justified" in acting how he did in a moral sense is a complete red herring so far as determining his criminal liability is concerned.

 

[sledger]

Doubt it will go to a jury, I imagine he will plead out to a lesser charge and accept a fine/probation that's if it makes it to court.

A lesser charge than what? Defendants don't get to pick and choose what offences they are charged with you know.

 

[Gnske]

I don't know how many of you are history buffs, but the leader of the Reich, the third I think in the 1940s, actually believed he faced a serious threat from those who believed Christmas should last eight days.

Very few people I know forgive him for what he did.

 

[fredfertang]

Shame for him Stokes won't be able to get the case transferred to Scouseland as my understanding is that up there as long as you play for England you're allowed to wantonly attack annoying members of the public