Rage Online

....and what variation on this should Steven Gerrard get?

Got to be the same as for everyone else I think. But if they do change the law to make it a criminal offense to 'be an utter prick', then he should get life (if convicted, of course)

Really serious ones can be 7 years but, generally, you have to use a weapon to get even 18 months. A bit of a punch-up will probably see community service!

&quotMooro&quot wrote:....and what variation on this should Steven Gerrard get?

About the same Ken Dodd got from a scouser jury?

&quotSteMerritt&quot wrote:Got to be the same as for everyone else I think. But if they do change the law to make it a criminal offense to 'be an utter prick', then he should get life (if convicted, of course)

I think you'll find that the only people who can be convicted of that are those associated with Man Utd.

Um, the crown are taking this one seriously. There's a QC prosecuting for starters! CCTV footage looks rather lame tbh , you see more action at an OxVox committee meeting

&quotAscension Ox&quot wrote:Um, the crown are taking this one seriously. There's a QC prosecuting for starters! CCTV footage looks rather lame tbh , you see more action at an OxVox committee meeting

Really? The worst I saw was a domestic between Trevor and Sally....

Is there a differentiation between the community service handed down and that that players normally do as part of their contract?

My suggestion would be street sweeping outside Goodison or Old Trafford from 5-8pm after matches.....

&quotMooro&quot wrote:....and what variation on this should Steven Gerrard get?

The opposition should get a free kick - and he should be suspended (by any part of his anatomy you care to choose)

Assuming he is guilty of course!

What's the sentence for misspelling &quotsentence&quot?

Well that was a shock,

the England International and local hero who admitted punching a man three times is found not guilty, while the five nomarks/Accrington Stanley players who dragged him away are guilty.

Another triumph for justice

Should never have been held in Liverpool, the potential for bias or worse in the jury was too strong.

An absolute disgrace. Are they now going to charge the other guy with threatening behaviour, because according to this verdict, he's guilty?

I suggest we stick Gerrard and Prescott in a ring, and they can act in self-defence until one is knocked out.

Very easy to criticise from afar without knowing the full facts.

Do those who criticise know what has to be proved for a charge of affray?

The video shows Gerrard punching someone, after some of his mates had already started. That fact wasn't disputed by the defence.

Do those who criticise know what was said beforehand? Had Gerrard been threatened?

There are many circumstances which could have affected the reactions of those who took part in this event, which may be for or against the prosecution or the defence.

What we do know is that 12 men and women, with no obvious axe to grind, sat on a jury, listened to the evidence and said not guilty. This was not a judge having wool pulled over his eyes by a combination of flash lawyer and celebrity stargazing.

A jury verdict should be good enough for all of us.

Maybe those who criticise would be happy to be convicted, for self defence.

I don't know the facts of the case any more or less than anyone else on this forum, and nor do I care more or less about Gerrard, but I think a little less judgementalism in the absence of knowledge would be justified.

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:Maybe those who criticise would be happy to be convicted, for self defence.

I wouldn't punch someone in the face after my associate had shoved him away and elbowed him, so I'm unlikely to be in Stevie G's situation.

&quotSmileyMan&quot wrote:

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:Maybe those who criticise would be happy to be convicted, for self defence.

I wouldn't punch someone in the face after my associate had shoved him away and elbowed him, so I'm unlikely to be in Stevie G's situation.

But would you punch someone if they threatened to kill you, or harm your wife or child?

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is right or wrong to do so, I'm just pointing out that there are arguably justifiable defences for punching someone.

No we don't know all the facts and didn't sit through all the evidence that was presented in court but it does seem a very strange verdict and one that has been achieved at the very least through the use of very expensive lawyers and possibly due to the pre-conceptions of the jury in relation to the defendant.

6 drunks surround a man in a pub wedged between a wall and the bar, one of the six elbows him in the face, another then immediately punches him three times in the face. The lone man does not throw a punch or do anything more threatening than stand up. All this because the man won't let the drunks take over the music in the pub. I'd be completely stunned if anybody other than a multimillionaire local hero could get away with a self-defence argument in the same circumstances, particularly when the other 5 all plead guilty.

Even if Gerrard genuinely felt threatened wouldn't the normal reaction be to push the man backwards and step away from him rather than punch him three times? Particularly when Gerrard is somebody very used to not losing his cool when physically assaulted on a very regular basis on the pitch.

My guess is that he's used to people in Liverpool bars and restaurants bowing and scraping to his every wish and on this occasion Gerrard couldn't handle the fact that somebody was prepared to stand up to him and say no, so he lost his temper and became violent.