Ballon d'Or Winner
🏆 GOLD VIP 🏆
❸ 3 YEARS ❸
🗐🗐 20 PAGER 🗐🗐
Any reason you're ignoring my last post, QM?
Obviously you're not defending him FFSNot deliberately ignoring, didn't see it as it was on the previous page.
I'm not commenting from a perspective based on feelings, I'm basing it on the law.
There was no threat to McBurnie. He had every opportunity to de-escalate. Like it or not, it's not illegal to film in a public place, there's no right to privacy in that instance.
Am I defending the Leeds supporting twat? Nope, I'm pointing out that legally McBurnie has no defence - the actions of the other guy can be used in mitigating for any sentencing, sure but McBurnie committed assault, end of.
My argument is that you've had two brief clips that don't seem to show the full story and you've decided that there are no mitigating circumstances that may have led to the assault.
How do you know McBurnie has "no defence"?!
Also....in the scenario I painted for you, would you have decked Splotty and do you think you would have a defence in doing so?
In both, there's *distance* between McBurnie and the Leeds fan.
In both clips, McBurnie is the one moving towards the guy and instigating physicality.
Only defence he could raise would be self-defence - you don't need to have been struck but have reasonable grounds to feel in danger. In this instance, the distance between the two rules that defence out...
No, him following filming, being a twat (I know, that would be a reach) wouldn't give me a legal defence for dropping him on the spot.
Plus my wife would have hit him before I had chance to...
From: Aggravating and mitigating factors – Sentencing - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/aggravating-and-mitigating-factors/
Factors indicating lower culpability:
Since you've got a degree in criminal law and know the full facts of the case you can tell me categorically that the first bullet point is bollocks and that you're categorically right as always (like you were about the taser lady, eh?)
- a greater degree of provocation than normally expected;
- mental illness or disability;
- youth or age, where it affects the responsibility of the individual defendant;
- the fact that the offender played only a minor role in the offence.
Just accept that you don't know the full story and that you don't know how exactly how the law works... And just wait to find out what happens when the courts get their hands on the case, like I will be.
Your insistence that you're right about this, even though I questioned potential mitigating factors and you know there are none, shows that you're just chatting rubbish.
Talking to you is a bit like debating Splotty sometimes...
FFS... The videos you keep banging on about are but one piece of the evidence. All I'm asking you to do is consider that you haven't got all of the information and evidence to hand to tell us what's going to happen.And that provocation was? Look at the video - he's 8 feet away, instigates the violence. He could easily have, gasp, walked away.
He's fucked and you know it, just don't want to admit it. You see him walking to the guy with the phone, knock the phone down, stamp on phone and the video catches him throwing punches.
EDIT: I point out he's got no defence. You respond by citing mitigating factors... used for sentencing. As in sentencing after being convicted. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, something that often happens, but he's fucked in providing a defence because self-defence will not be an option to him.
Do I think he'll serve prison time? Hopefully but I'd doubt it.
FFS... The videos you keep banging on about are but one piece of the evidence. All I'm asking you to do is consider that you haven't got all of the information and evidence to hand to tell us what's going to happen.
You are convinced that you are right but I'm just suggesting that you slow your role for a moment and consider that there's further evidence that may suggest he's not as guilty as you suggest.
Personally, from what we've seen, then I think he's guilty... But I'm not arrogant enough to say that what I think is 100% right and just take the alleged victim's word for what he says took place.
Why the fuck would I have problem admitting he's fucked?! It's Oli McBurnie FFS... I have nothing but disdain for the trampy c**t.
The two videos don't seem to inter-connect directly and you're wrong about McBurnie being the party who approaches the other in both.
He is walking toward the victim in the first video in the thread... But unless he's got Go-Go Gadget arms, he doesn't knock the phone out of his hand. Watch it again. He definitely stamps on it though and then we see him hit the guy.
The second video shows the guy with the camera walking towards McBurnie too... are you blind?!
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I’m not sure if it’s the best idea to tweet this but apparently it’s been leaked by someone else anyways so here you go... he’s constantly getting harassed by these idiots <a href="https://t.co/nkwg4nYmlD">pic.twitter.com/nkwg4nYmlD</a></p>— ً (@SufcLuke_) <a href="">May 11, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The guy who is filming is walking towards McBurnie shouting "wha'ya gahnadoabowwrih" (I think). You've made your decision for the prosecution and you can't even get two facts straight from two 20-odd-second videos
Also, the alleged assault looks like it takes place in a completely different street... There appears to be more to this story than what the two videos show.
You said categorically that he has no defence. I literally found something that a defence barrister would use to potentially defend him... Mitigating circumstances used in sentencing. He may end up getting charged but you have continually said that he's the only one in the wrong... If that's the case, then there wouldn't be mitigating circumstances to potentially get him a lighter sentence.
Sometimes that's literally all a defence can do is push for a lighter sentence due to mitigating circumstances... But you know best, of course.