Summer 2009 Transfer thread

[Matt]

Justice Is Blind my arse.

[saif]

From the evidence I have seen, he looks guilty. The thing is though, I have not been in court for a week listening to a lot of evidence and having all the facts.

Smurf, to say that it is unfair because it is in Liverpool is a little disingenuous - he is not a popular guy with Everton fans at all and the city is actually pretty evenly split.

The thing is, he is guilty of "hitting him" but that is not the charge, the charge is affray and I think a lot of footballers have been acquitted of that. There is no "hitting him" charge - if there was, he would be guilty.
Whatever happens in the courts, LFC should not condone the stupidity of getting involved and there should be sanctions. LFC should make him do community service imho. We should fine him and put those funds (2wks would be 250k apparrently) towards the community.

[abigsmurf]

The problem is the CCTV footage is incredibly damning and nothing really has come out of the trial that indicates it was misleading at all. The prosecution seemed hopelessly inept (you want to convict him, stop telling the jury what a great guy he is and that it'd be a shame if hes guilty) and probably picked the wrong thing to charge him with but...

It was just a dispicable act of yobbishness that he was part of that warranted punishment (even if it was a token punishment). Liverpool won't act on their 'hero' the FA won't have the guts to do a 'bringing the game into disrepute' charge. He's got away scot free and a message of "if you're a popular guy it's ok to be a twat when you don't get your way".

When John Terry was charged and found not guilty many years ago, he was banned from playing for England. CCTV footage showed that the bouncer was threatening him and throwing punches first in that case. He got a punishment when it plain to see he didn't start the fight. Gerrard gets nothing when he did clearly start it.

[Kit]

The thing is, he is guilty of "hitting him" but that is not the charge, the charge is affray and I think a lot of footballers have been acquitted of that. There is no "hitting him" charge - if there was, he would be guilty.

Affray is violence/threatening behaviour right?

[saif]

Smurf, the problem is that you were not on the jury. Nor were most people.
It looks terrible and there is nothing to stop the football authorities acting in some way. In this case, the jury found the case too weak to say he was guilty. I don't know if he ended up in hospital as has happened with other footballers but, obviously,there are aspects to the case that we are not all party to. If you think it is as simplistic as "it was all Liverpool fans", then you have to think about it a lot more. In a jury of 12, if LFC fans want to acquit, there is still a big chance that there will be plenty that would make him guilty on the basis of hating him - maybe they support another team (there are a few of them on Merseyside). That is the legal case.

I said at the time he was twat to be there anyway (although he was "allowed" by the club beforehand) and he has acted like an idiot. The reason is because, he IS an idiot.
AFAIK, (and i don't know the JT case details either), he had to show he felt it was in self defence. It sounds tenuous that he could, but, frankly, I stopped believing most newspaper reports about this some time ago. We do not know what happened.
Where did you get the prosecution speech from?

[abigsmurf]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2009/07/24/liverpool-fc-captain-steven-gerrard-not-guilty-verdict-in-liverpool-crown-court-trial-100252-24231891/

[abigsmurf]

Affray is violence/threatening behaviour right?

Affray is behaviour that would cause a regular person to be afraid of being on the receiving end of violence.

Said 'regular person' doesn't have to be one of the people present but a theoretical person viewing the scene (closes a loophole).

[saif]

Cheers smurf.

I think that article, assuming you have read it, shows why, in a legal sense, he was not guilty. I think it makes "Stevie" sound like a prize knob, but not someone guilty of affray - neither he or the victim were aware of WHO had punched first.
On that basis, it is not hard to show what was shown in terms of "self-defence" as it is whether Steven reasonably thought he was to be attacked. Which he did.

I cannot defend his actions as a person (not a hypocrite) but I can see why he was found not guilty.


I think affray would have to lead to fears by thrid parties of escalation - the third person would have to (reasonably) fear for themselves as I understand it. As an aside, I think that mean very well targetted attacks could not be affray either! (they could be abh or gbh though)

[abigsmurf]

That's why Affray was picked. You don't have to actually use violence to get charged with it. you just have to create a situation that could likely result in violence.

He joined in with 6 other people, I just cannot see how that is self defence. I was never expecting any significant punishment but there needs to be some real recognition that he did something that is unacceptable.

But meh, I'll have to stew in my bitterness. He's not going to get any sanctions from anyone (and maybe even be viewed as a 'victim') and the media will still see him with the same old blinkered vision.

[saif]

Smurf, I don't know if you have any legal training (I assume, on the basis that most don't! - i am no real expert either) but it is the case for the prosecution to bring - they have to prove it was affray. That is how the justice system has worked for aeons - some people benefit from this, some don't. Gerrard's team merely have to prove it was *not* affray, they do not have to prove that it *was* self defence. Obviously, self-defence is one way you can show it was not affray but I am sure there are others, and the apparent fact that he did not go over to start it and did not rampage or do much more than a few punches (I would not want that happening to me, mind) means that, legally it is not affray [according to the judge and jury]. Of course it helps that he has a high profile and can afford better legal defence but, that does also help someone get the prosecuters in.

[glazza]

He was always gonna get away with it most high profile players do,even if the evidence is stacked against them.

[wonderboy]

My take...

Blackadder: I remember Massingbird's most famous case: the Case of the Bloody Knife. A man was found next to a murdered body. He had the knife in his hand. 13 witnesses had seen him stab the victim. And when the police arrived, he said "I'm glad I killed the bastard."

Massingbird not only got him off, he got him knighted in the New Year's Honours List, and the relatives of the victim had to pay to wash the blood out of his jacket.

(7mins 30secs in).
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax0Pv5FOmdk

[MonkeyJuggleDX]

That's why Affray was picked. You don't have to actually use violence to get charged with it. you just have to create a situation that could likely result in violence.

Not even a situation that could likely result in violence.

I was in court for affray but it was dropped and the charge was that my behaviour would 'cause a person on reasonable firmness to fear for their safety' or some bollocks like that.

Oh, another thing that is lol worthy is that I could have a window open, get frustrated with a game, yell at my tv and if a passer by heard me and went to the police, I could be charged with affray.

[NemesiS]

I'm just surprised that people are surprised by the verdict. Theres no way he was ever going to get convicted even tho the evidence was cast iron.

Just shows, that if you have the means, you have a get out of jail free card. Another nail into our farcical judical system

I wonder if the Judge Globe asked him for a signed shirt as a memento afterwards

[abigsmurf]

The praise heaped upon Gerrard by both the judge and the prosecution was absolutely sickening.

This was to be expected but it's still incredibly frustrating. I'd hope the victim mounts a civil case against him (which Gerrard would lose, civil cases have a much lower threshold of guilt).