Road Rage

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

if the idiot didnt wind his window down he wouldnt have copped a whack in the head to start with.......

I agree, don't wind down the window. it is better that the other guy get changed for damaging property (and his own fist) on something that is repairable rather than getting involved in some form of punch up.

Next time he may have a tyre lever or knife (or worse) and then you won't get out of it with just an assault charge.

By the way, if the charge is assault with grievous bodily harm, you did not give him a couple of light punches, there would have to be fractures involved. Self defence or defence of others revolves around the concept of "reasonable force", reasonable force is hard (not impossible) to claim if the other persons sustains serious fractures (which is what grievous bodily harm alludes to).

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by davway

Been there - done that.
Even though they confronted you, the fact is, you stepped out of the car to ATTACK them - they then acted in self defence - YOU did not.
That is how the law is, like it or not, you were the attacker hence the charge you now face.

Not point complaining about how unfair it is, or if you dont agree, its not going to get you anywhere.
In the eye of the law, you assaulted someone, you did not act in self defense.


Minding your own business (or driving off in this case) is the best bet.
A mate was walking out of a bar in Melbourne early one morning only to see some guy smashing the *** out of his missus (really smashing her).
He went over and did the 'right thing' and intervened, gave the guy some knuckles, broke his jaw and found himself sitting in a jail cell for 3 months on serious assault charges.
Right or wrong, 'mate' had no lawful right to assault the person smashing his missus and ended up copping a charge for it as the person pressed charges.
He was going to appeal the sentence but was told that if it failed, it would be 2 years in prison instead of the 3 months.

Pardon? Your mate needs to seek better legal advice. You absolutely have the right to defend others, let alone loved ones, let alone a woman assaulted by a man provided it was in good faith. Questions arise when the initial attack is over, and it is no longer defending and instead is really simple vengeance or an assault in and of itself. In the case you describe, Im guessing the dizzy dame he defended sided with her boyfriend, not her 'rescuer'.

There will always be issues of proof one way or the other.


Just as a heads up, there are circumstances in Qld for example, where comments from an individual can constitute a defence to assault. That is, if someone says something to you, that is so serious that it may deprive a reasonable person of their self control, that can be a defence against an assault. Now before you think you can touch someone up for being cheeky, the reasonable person portion is not what you think is reasonable, its what a court defines as a reasonable person. Most often, they are two very different things.

Another issue that may complicate things, is the extent to which one goes to 'defend' themselves, or others, aka reasonableness. There are limits.

[chrisfpv]

If it happened exactly the way you say it happened then well done.

get your mate to charge him with assault. He'll drop his charges most likely as he was the one who started the confrontation to begin with.

Any witnesses?

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

yep.. no fun coppin a knifin in the guts from some loose kent........

Absolutely right, you are better to not engage them than find out you are dealing with someone, for whatever reason, doesn't care whether you live or die.

Get the rego, drive off, call the cops.

The cops then have a job to do, not you. Self defence and reasonable force can be made to look completely different in court by an experienced lawyer (I hate those pr!cks). When you end up in court it is about the law, nothing to do with right or wrong.

Aaargh, don't get me started on lawyers.

[GavL]

http://fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11312309

Lucky your mate only got a punch to the face....

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

That's absolute rubbish.... So what you are saying, is if your mum, dad, brother, sister gets a beating in front of you you will just walk away??

You have every right to stop the fight, if you then become involved you also have every right to defend yourself.

How far you then take it is the grey area.

He's saying the safer option was to stay in the car and drive off.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by nuthin' fancy

He's saying the safer option was to stay in the car and drive off.

Yes, in this case that is correct. But a blanket "it's best to walk away" is not always feasible.

Read my reply. I state that you should (if possible) stop a fight. You should also defend yourself should you be on the receiving end.

If you then do more than defend yourself, then yes, that is a no-no.

[TheInterceptor]

Would getting out with a tyre checker and whacking the back of his legs from under him to prevent further assault land you with a charge too?

You (the OP) sound like your in Sydney...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

Would getting out with a tyre checker and whacking the back of his legs from under him to prevent further assault land you with a charge too?

You (the OP) sound like your in Sydney...

Using any form of weapon is almost undefendable, it shows you got out with intent.

I think some here need to realise that there is a difference between being trapped somewhere, and getting out of an area of relative safety to "defend" yourself.

If you were cornered in an alley and your only exit is blocked by your attacker, fair enough. To get out of a car that has its doors closed (and the option of driving off, winding windows up etc), to sort out the attacker on behalf of your mate is not really defence, its attack. At least that is the angle the prosecution lawyer will take.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by XR6_661

The best self-defence is to walk away.

Not all the time.
If someone attacks you and you walk away, then they follow you still attempting to hurt you what can you do?

The scum bags of society either get a slap on the wrist or get away with it completely.
Normal people who get pushed to the edge are the one that end up in more trouble it seams.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Yes, in this case that is correct. But a blanket "it's best to walk away" is not always feasible.

Read my reply. I state that you should (if possible) stop a fight. You should also defend yourself should you be on the receiving end.

If you then do more than defend yourself, then yes, that is a no-no.

You obviously missed the recent incident involving SA's former Deputy Premier Kevin Foley where he stopped and asked a young lady being harassed by her fella if she was ok...

He copped a hiding for his efforts and is lucky to be alive as it was a king hit.

The problem with society today is that a simple blue often escalates to a savage attack and a good samaritan can end up dead in seconds.
Thugs punch to kill these days, i believe its to end the fight quick before they get any attention themselves, most couldn't stand toe to toe so resort to the king hit.
It doesnt help when you have human **** fighting in the form of UFC etc. fueling the notion.

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Not all the time.
If someone attacks you and you walk away, then they follow you still attempting to hurt you what can you do?

The scum bags of society either get a slap on the wrist or get away with it completely.
Normal people who get pushed to the edge are the one that end up in more trouble it seams.

Let's just stick to this issue, stay in the car and you're more likely to end up OK than if you get out.

A scum bag is a scum bag, you'll always think it and he'll never get it.

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

So ya mate got a punch in the head for no apparent reason ???
Always two sides of the story

With all the idiots out there who think they are indestructable causing near accidents and risking other peoples lives just to be in front
Im not suprised we arent poppin people of with hand guns

Well the guy that pulled out right in front of me this morning-in a rav 4- should have got his head caved in. I had to get on the brakes, and start heading for the other lane-good thing I knew it was empty. If it wasn't he was my target.

[TheInterceptor]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Using any form of weapon is almost undefendable, it shows you got out with intent.

I think some here need to realise that there is a difference between being trapped somewhere, and getting out of an area of relative safety to "defend" yourself.

If you were cornered in an alley and your only exit is blocked by your attacker, fair enough. To get out of a car that has its doors closed (and the option of driving off, winding windows up etc), to sort out the attacker on behalf of your mate is not really defence, its attack. At least that is the angle the prosecution lawyer will take.

But what im saying is not attacking the attacker with intent to destroy just using it to incapacitate him to minimise the potential damage.
But i hear you, in the eyes of the law i guess it'd be seen as assault with a (deadly) weapon and in the end all that can be easily avoided.

[Legit290]

i have noticed since i bought a gt last year i have all sorts of prickles wanting to have a go...sticks and stones I know, but it gets on your nerves. I have never gotten out of the car as i have seen things happen but the instances are certainly occuring more regularly and i feel small not having a dig and calling one of these mouth's bluff!

[FPV+fteT3]

Hard situation to be in as a general rule if you cant really handle yourself drive away or stay out of the fighting as it can get dangerous. With correct training however you can incapacitate someone without leaving any marks as a martial arts instructor there are ways to deal with every situation. As a general rule one sharp hit to the solarplexus will drop someone and you can walk away no damage done at the other end of the scale you can beat someone to within an inch of their life, both can be called self defence providing you can prove the threat posed to life required the force you used in defence and you had no other course of action. Think before you react can save a lot of headaches did you really have to fight?
It can be hard for others to judge what force is needed to defend yourself without being there. If it goes to court it will depend who the judge believes.

Do everything you can to avoid confrontation. I do not condone fighting in any way but maybe you have no choice....there is another option would you rather be the one in hospital? Sadly today violence seems more common, however here is a thought most serious martial artists I have trained with over the years dont fight outside the dojo so maybe there is something to be said for being prepared for what may happen outside.
Some of my mates I train with a punch in the face is like saying hello but to the average person it will put you out of the real world especially if you aren't expecting it and is on the button. For the record I would defend a mate if he was punched in the face for no reason that crap is not on IMO.
Good luck with it

[Bucknaked]

I guess if anything, the bloke got a hammering and maybe he'll think twice next time about making a tool of himself and attacking people. Morons like that need a good flogging. Well done. Lets hope you and your mate get off. People think they can what they want and there are no consequences. I think copping a flogging is a good lesson for the oxygen thief

[Road Games]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

I guess if anything, the bloke got a hammering and maybe he'll think twice next time about making a tool of himself and attacking people. Morons like that need a good flogging. Well done. Lets hope you and your mate get off. People think they can what they want and there are no consequences. I think copping a flogging is a good lesson for the oxygen thief

Spot on mate , some people in this thread need a reality check .. seriously !

[CAMS290]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

I guess if anything, the bloke got a hammering and maybe he'll think twice next time about making a tool of himself and attacking people. Morons like that need a good flogging. Well done. Lets hope you and your mate get off. People think they can what they want and there are no consequences. I think copping a flogging is a good lesson for the oxygen thief

+1 for the above quote.

This moron has probably tried this on with other people before and got away with it, he has probably left some innocent people scared and traumatized.

Good on you for giving this brainless thug a hiding, I would of done the same thing, but it does have it's dangers............brainless scum like that often carry guns and knives and it could of turned out badly for you.

[Full Noise]

Vibe XR6,

Instead of putting something stupid in you profile under location, like in your car, what state are you in?

What did you actually do to be charged with GBH?

This doesn’t sound right to me. There are many charges before you get to GBH.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

Vibe XR6,

Instead of putting something stupid in you profile under location, like in your car, what state are you in?

What did you actually do to be charged with GBH?

This doesn’t sound right to me. There are many charges before you get to GBH.

Agreed, if you are going to start a thread such as this at least give the full story. What was the injuries sustained by the other person in your act of defence?

I have found a definition of Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH).

Grievous Bodily Harm: Is referred to by the courts as, "A really serious injury". This definition has been expanded on by the Crimes Act to include any permanent or serious disfiguring of the person

It seems that your lesson that you applied to him has left him with permanent disfigurement/injury, more than just a touch up that many here believe it to be.

A mere touch up is more likely to cop a charge of assault or assault occasioning actual bodily harm, not GBH.

[Falcon Coupe]

A friend of mine was jumped after a football game, he came out on top and did some reasonable damage to the person.
He was eventually acquitted but it still cost him 35k in legal fees.

There is a difference between self defence and pulverizing someone, that's where the courts come in.

[vibe_xr6]

theres some good advice here thanks guys, well my mate wasnt going to charge him but i think he is planning to now, this incident happened in bomaderry i think the town was, im not sure as we were just passing through, as far as the assault goes,3 of his teeth were punched back into his mouth, his lip split open really bad im pretty sure his teeth went through it, 4 stitches in his eyebrow, thanks all for the comments. i am waiting to hear back tomorrow to what this bloke wants to do as they re-interviewed him after the witnesses came forward, again thanks all for the comments, its really made me relise how ****** this law enforced country is when it comes to self defence

[vibe_xr6]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

\A mere touch up is more likely to cop a charge of assault or assault occasioning actual bodily harm, not GBH.

sorry guys, thats what the charge is ^^ it also appears that 2 hours before this incident he was kicked out of a pub after causing a fight.

[vibe_xr6]

GBH is more like them not being able to walk again etc right?
i will keep you's all posted on how this crap turns out, hopefully it all turns good as this is the last thing i need !

[TheZHLANE]

The law is there to protect criminals

[vibe_xr6]

heres an interesting read that my dad sent to me.

Strictly, self defence is not a defence. Self defence is an issue that needs to be disproved by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt. Normally a defence will apply once the Crown has proved its case to excuse the actions of the accused. However, if the Crown cannot disprove self defence then the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

The test for self defence has both subjective and objective requirements. Firstly, the court needs to consider the incident from the point of view of the accused. Did he/she do what he/she thought was necessary in the circumstances (considering the danger faced), and was that reasonable.

The court recognises that an accused does not have the time when the incident occurred to precisely determine the exact amount of force that is required to be applied. This is only reasonable when a person has to make a split second decision as to what force he or she should apply to defend his or herself.

However, it would not be reasonable to shoot a person who is threatening to slap the accused. Nor would it be reasonable to shoot a person who after the initial assault is fleeing from the accused. This objective part of the test is what the jury will need to assess to determine whether the accused's actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

Further, self defence cannot amount to retribution. If an accused was assaulted by another person, then while defending him or herself, continued to fight the original attacker to the point that he or she becomes the aggressor, then self defence will not apply. The reason is that the victim did not do what was needed in the circumstances, but went beyond what was needed to defend themselves.

[geckoGT]

So lets see if I get this right, the charge is actually Assault occasioning actual bodily harm?

If so, that fits with his injuries.

GBH from punches to the face would be injuries such as loss of the use of an eye, significant facial fractures requiring surgery etc. Not a few stitches and a few loose teeth.

Anyway, I guess now you can see how a potential charge of GBH can lead to suspicion there was more to it.

Sometimes it is a case of the cops have to inform you of a complaint and charges laid when he pushes the point. Perhaps when the cops point out what a moron he was and that the witness statements are not in his favor, he will change his mind.

Anyway, good luck and I hope it ends well for you, next time wind the windows up and drive off.

Stay safe!

[stang65]

I think 7ou`ll be right mate especially if he was just kicked out of a pub, was he intoxicated at the very least , this along with the witnesses shows his character.

if it does make it to court and you get a good judge he will put 2 +2 together and get 4.
I have been to a court case where an officer was reprimanded for wasting the judges time because it was so obvious that no crime was committed.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by vibe_xr6

heres an interesting read that my dad sent to me.

Strictly, self defence is not a defence. Self defence is an issue that needs to be disproved by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt. Normally a defence will apply once the Crown has proved its case to excuse the actions of the accused. However, if the Crown cannot disprove self defence then the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

The test for self defence has both subjective and objective requirements. Firstly, the court needs to consider the incident from the point of view of the accused. Did he/she do what he/she thought was necessary in the circumstances (considering the danger faced), and was that reasonable.

The court recognises that an accused does not have the time when the incident occurred to precisely determine the exact amount of force that is required to be applied. This is only reasonable when a person has to make a split second decision as to what force he or she should apply to defend his or herself.

However, it would not be reasonable to shoot a person who is threatening to slap the accused. Nor would it be reasonable to shoot a person who after the initial assault is fleeing from the accused. This objective part of the test is what the jury will need to assess to determine whether the accused's actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

Further, self defence cannot amount to retribution. If an accused was assaulted by another person, then while defending him or herself, continued to fight the original attacker to the point that he or she becomes the aggressor, then self defence will not apply. The reason is that the victim did not do what was needed in the circumstances, but went beyond what was needed to defend themselves.

Good post.

Question.

When you got out and went to the attacker, was he still in the process of attacking your friend?