gingerjon Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 Just now, Spidey said: The defence being it was to stop him from being ran over which potentially could do him a lot of damage. I just don’t get how that was possible as if he was in front of behind the car that wouldn’t be possible. by the sounds of it the victim is appealing so this might not go away The way I follow it, she was driving away from him (because she leaving/trying to get away) and he put himself in front of the car. To him it appears that she wasn't slowing down and/or was going to hit him so *in self defence* he opened the car door and punched in the face. I'll correct the above if it's not what has been said but it's how I understand the press reports. But he hasn't been found guilty of GBH so, y'know, can't be a thug. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 2 minutes ago, Tim Streets tache said: Yep. The absolute trash supporters that are ok with and defend this type of behaviour are responsible too. RL has zero moral highground compared to most other sports It’s not as bad as football, where players can do whatever they want and fans (or clubs) couldn’t care less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 1 minute ago, gingerjon said: The way I follow it, she was driving away from him (because she leaving/trying to get away) and he put himself in front of the car. To him it appears that she wasn't slowing down and/or was going to hit him so *in self defence* he opened the car door and punched in the face. I'll correct the above if it's not what has been said but it's how I understand the press reports. But he hasn't been found guilty of GBH so, y'know, can't be a thug. So that sounds like retaliation not self defence. That’s why I find it weird it’s not guilty. But I don’t understand the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 Just now, Spidey said: So that sounds like retaliation not self defence. That’s why I find it weird it’s not guilty. But I don’t understand the law I would guess a competent lawyer could make it sound like IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT their client acted irrationally but still in self defence. I would also guess that a competent lawyer could make a confused and possibly frightened person who'd been punched in the face sound like their story didn't quite add up. Just enough for reasonable doubt about the specific charge of GBH. Now, my confusion is why there wasn't a lesser charge of ABH considered. But, like you, I'm not up to why sometimes that's there and sometimes not. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Streets tache Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 4 minutes ago, Eddie said: It’s not as bad as football, where players can do whatever they want and fans (or clubs) couldn’t care less. Far more cases of drug and domestic abuse in Rugby League. Bare in mind there are also 92 full time professional football teams in England. Compared to 12 in Rugby League. Get your head out of your @r5e pal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hela Wigmen Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 4 minutes ago, Eddie said: It’s not as bad as football, where players can do whatever they want and fans (or clubs) couldn’t care less. It’s exactly as bad as football not that comparing apples and oranges is in anyway useful here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 Just now, Tim Streets tache said: Sorry pal. Far more cases of drug and domestic abuse in Rugby League. Bare in mind there are also 92 full time professional football teams in England. Compared to 12 in Rugby League. Get your head out of your @r5e pal Football has massive issues around fans supporting players who IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS would be called characters and rogues. But there is more pushback now and the direction of travel definitely seems to be towards at least admitting there are issues and addressing them. We're going backwards and fast. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Streets tache Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 Just now, gingerjon said: Football has massive issues around fans supporting players who IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS would be called characters and rogues. But there is more pushback now and the direction of travel definitely seems to be towards at least admitting there are issues and addressing them. We're going backwards and fast. Not forgetting that one of the top,top world stars of the game got jailed for rape last week(Hayne) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughsehhh Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 This thread is a prime example of where social media goes wrong. Last week, people jumped on the Jarryd Hayne conviction as unequivocal proof, a court of law, beyond reasonable doubt etc ect, which is fine, and everyone is equal in front of the law. Now a separate player has been found not guilty, people want to ignore this ruling as it suits their agenda, and wish to literally judge a person based on social media evidence and an interpretation of select quotes from a trial, whilst not being party to the full evidence submitted during the trial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 3 minutes ago, Hughsehhh said: This thread is a prime example of where social media goes wrong. Last week, people jumped on the Jarryd Hayne conviction as unequivocal proof, a court of law, beyond reasonable doubt etc ect, which is fine, and everyone is equal in front of the law. Now a separate player has been found not guilty, people want to ignore this ruling as it suits their agenda, and wish to literally judge a person based on social media evidence and an interpretation of select quotes from a trial, whilst not being party to the full evidence submitted during the trial His defence was that he punched her. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheshire Setter Posted May 18, 2021 Author Share Posted May 18, 2021 27 minutes ago, Eddie said: Don’t put words in my mouth, I don’t think anything of the sort. This is the whole problem. The court case is about THIS incident, and the reasons why he punched a woman in the face during THIS sequence of events. It doesn't matter what sort of person he is or whether he's done it in the past, that is a different issue. To label those who accept court verdicts as being happy with domestic violence is absolutely unfair. We should accept the courts verdict based on the actual evidence, not reject it just because something unrelated to this case makes us feel strongly about it. Conversely - as silly as it sounds - would we reject the conviction of Nazis for war crimes if they have a past record of being really nice guys to other races and colours in the 1920s? Or should we look at the 1930s-40s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 1 minute ago, Cheshire Setter said: This is the whole problem. The court case is about THIS incident, and the reasons why he punched a woman in the face during THIS sequence of events. It doesn't matter what sort of person he is or whether he's done it in the past, that is a different issue. To label those who accept court verdicts as being happy with domestic violence is absolutely unfair. I didn't label anyone. Nor did I say Gelling was guilty of GBH. I called him a thug and stand by that. The acceptance of his thuggish behaviour by rugby league - i.e. rugby league becoming something of a playground for thugs - can be seen by the number of similar incidents that are in the game and the number of times we do absolutely nothing to make players accountable for their actions, whether found guilty of the specific crime of GBH or not. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheshire Setter Posted May 18, 2021 Author Share Posted May 18, 2021 7 minutes ago, gingerjon said: His defence was that he punched her. But aren't we just taking that one piece of evidence in isolation without any context. I don't punch women and never have. One day though I may do that very thing I disagree with in an extreme situation, such as protecting my kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughsehhh Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 11 minutes ago, gingerjon said: His defence was that he punched her. If it's as clear cut as you make out, why did the jury/ judge exonerate him? Please don't repeat the same line as above. You clearly have more intelligence than the judge, so I would welcome your clarification and interpretation of statute law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheshire Setter Posted May 18, 2021 Author Share Posted May 18, 2021 2 minutes ago, gingerjon said: I didn't label anyone. Nor did I say Gelling was guilty of GBH. I called him a thug and stand by that. I know what you mean and I agree he may well be a 'thug' for separate events, but I think Eddie's issue was that you did say he was 'happy for a woman to be punched in the face'. I know it was probably in the heat of them moment as it's an emotional topic, but that was a little unfair. I find all domestic violence abhorrent, but I don't want someone labelled as agreeing with it just for arguing the acceptance a court verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 4 minutes ago, Hughsehhh said: If it's as clear cut as you make out, why did the jury/ judge exonerate him? Please don't repeat the same line as above. You clearly have more intelligence than the judge, so I would welcome your clarification and interpretation of statute law He’s not been exonerated of punching her. Just the charge of GBH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 I have been very vocal on these boards about players behaviour and the fact that wouldn't tolerate some of the actions we have seen - either on the pitch or off. But that is when this behavior has been proved to have happened and deserve punishment. But the circumstances here is that Gelling has been found not guilty of a crime. However much I hate to pictures of his wife with horrible facial wounds, I am not going to advocate punishing a man who has been found not guilty through proper procedure. If there is an appeal and the decision changes then I will change with it. But not until then. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 4 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said: But aren't we just taking that one piece of evidence in isolation without any context. I don't punch women and never have. One day though I may do that very thing I disagree with in an extreme situation, such as protecting my kids. 4 minutes ago, Hughsehhh said: If it's as clear cut as you make out, why did the jury/ judge exonerate him? Please don't repeat the same line as above. You clearly have more intelligence than the judge, so I would welcome your clarification and interpretation of statute law I've literally set out my understanding of the case in a couple of posts above. Also the bit, specifically, that I don't understand which is why the lesser charge of ABH wasn't considered. I'm not remotely challenging the not guilty verdict. I'm quite happy calling him a thug though whose presence on a rugby league field besmirches the game and will cause us real damage in getting people - players, sponsors, volunteers, parents - to be involved now and in the future. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 3 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said: I know what you mean and I agree he may well be a 'thug' for separate events, but I think Eddie's issue was that you did say he was 'happy for a woman to be punched in the face'. I know it was probably in the heat of them moment as it's an emotional topic, but that was a little unfair. I find all domestic violence abhorrent, but I don't want someone labelled as agreeing with it just for arguing the acceptance a court verdict. Apologies - in my head, when I wrote that, I thought I read more clearly than I put it. I'll either edit or delete the line. EDIT - For simplicity's sake, I've deleted the line Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheshire Setter Posted May 18, 2021 Author Share Posted May 18, 2021 4 minutes ago, Spidey said: He’s not been exonerated of punching her. Just the charge of GBH But the punching was accepted as reasonable defence no*? As bad as that may sound. Otherwise couldn't we argue that the Brits during the war acted reasonably in defending themselves against the Germans. So to then say 'Oh the Brits do kill women and kids though' shouldn't be taken out of context? *I am referring to the case in question only of course. If he has been found guilty and punished in the past for domestic violence on a separate case then I condemn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 4 minutes ago, Spidey said: He’s not been exonerated of punching her. Just the charge of GBH It would be hard to exonerate him of punching her given that his defence involves explaining that he did but in the heat of the moment. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheshire Setter Posted May 18, 2021 Author Share Posted May 18, 2021 4 minutes ago, gingerjon said: Apologies - in my head, when I wrote that, I thought I read more clearly than I put it. I'll either edit or delete the line. No problem at all. I just think that sometimes on the internet we act a bit rashly and not like we would over a coffee or in the pub. I am the most guilty of it, that's why I brought it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 1 minute ago, Cheshire Setter said: But the punching was accepted as reasonable defence no? As bad as that may sound. Otherwise couldn't we argue that the Brits during the war acted reasonably in defending themselves against the Germans. So to then say 'Oh the Brits do kill women and kids though' shouldn't be taken out of context? Self defence. Linked to him putting himself in front of a car she was driving away from him and then opening the door and punching her to stop her running him over. This is the defence as presented, as I understand it. All you need to do for a not guilty verdict is put reasonable doubt in the jury's mind. It's one of the reasons why a guilty verdict is often more damning than a not guilty verdict is exonerating. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughsehhh Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 5 minutes ago, Spidey said: He’s not been exonerated of punching her. Just the charge of GBH I never questioned if he punched her or not, so I'm unsure why you've raised that. As I've said to another, can someone explain to me how they are able to make a guilty judgement on him, whilst being in possession of almost none of the evidence that would have been available to the court? The double standards on here are intriguing. If he punched a male in self-defence, would the same outrage and implied guilty verdict on him be made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 5 minutes ago, Hughsehhh said: I never questioned if he punched her or not, so I'm unsure why you've raised that. As I've said to another, can someone explain to me how they are able to make a guilty judgement on him, whilst being in possession of almost none of the evidence that would have been available to the court? The double standards on here are intriguing. If he punched a male in self-defence, would the same outrage and implied guilty verdict on him be made? People are saying punching a woman is thuggish behavior. You can agree or disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.