Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 173 comments are related to the topic:
Ben Stokes
Ben Stokes
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 173
|
By:
they,ll probably both go for compensation now claiming their careers and lifes have been affected
|
|
By:
must have been cricket fans on jury
|
|
By:
All pigs are equal!(however some pigs are more equal than others).
|
|
By:
not surprising. there was enough doubt.
the biggest problem with the prosecution was that the brawl needed dividing into two distinct phases rather than one. The first phase, where stokes could have very legitimately been acting in self defense, was when it was clear he may have been threatened with a bottle. But there's a break in the fight, and Hales and Hale and Ali are all telling him to stop. He has no need to defend himself at this time, no-one, apart from him, wants the fight to continue. And the prosecution should have asked to jury to focus exclusively on this part of the fight, accepting that up until this part started, Stokes had a legitimate right to defend himself, but afterwards, none. Oh well, it waits to be seen how the ECB choose to punish Stokes. |
|
By:
one rule for 'em, one for the rest of us. bang to rights on cctv ...
|
|
By:
Affray
A criminal offense generally defined as the fighting of two or more persons in a public place that disturbs others. Maybe nobody was disturbed. |
|
By:
maybe he's a well known cricketer, not a plumber from Solihull ...
|
|
By:
no point having cctv
|
|
By:
Again, it's not a surprising result. He was almost certainly guilty, but that almost means that there's reasonable doubt.
Self defense is a legitimate excuse in affray charges. It's the prosecutions job to disprove the defendants claim of self defense beyond reasonable doubt. They failed (as I said below, pretty miserably). |
|
By:
I wonder how it compares with the Duncan Ferguson case. Personally I don’t remember the details of that.
|
|
By:
Not comparable I suppose a head butt on the field of play. But prob less injuries inflicted.
|
|
By:
just to be clear ... if you hear someone verbally abusing a gay person you can legally punch them in the face and knock them out.
|
|
By:
Unless it's part of the panto
|
|
By:
hales seen on cctv kicking the blokes head whilst he was grounded. told the cops he wasn't involved. interviewed and released.
seriously .. |
|
By:
hulk23 14 Aug 18 13:04
just to be clear ... if you hear someone verbally abusing a gay person you can legally punch them in the face and knock them out. nope. if someone threatens you a bottle then you can act in self defense. |
|
By:
did he have the same lawyer as oj simpson
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
stokes will lose millions good job in the end
|
|
By:
Prosecution Lawyer Must Be An Impotent Individual.
|
|
By:
you reckon?
you reckon the indians (because they are the people who really line cricketers pockets through the IPL) give a singular sh1t about a not guilty affray verdict. ffs, Mohammad Shami played in the 2018 IPL...... |
|
By:
when was self defense ever chasing after someone down a street ?
|
|
By:
Thought this case was about the shocking last over he bowled v West Indies in the one day final. Guilty as charged as far as im concerned.
|
|
By:
hardly a surprising verdict. fact the jury came back in little over 2 hours shows it should have never have got near a court room. clearly stokes is not the sort of bloke you'd wanna get on the wrong side of after he's had a few drinks but once someone came at him with a bottle you've gotta right to defend yourself. probably went a bit far but was always likely to get the benefit of the doubt
|
|
By:
If it was geoff boycott fight would of lasted 3 days
|
|
By:
absolutely no doubt that Stokes was exceptionally well briefed. In amongst his selective amnesia around certain parts of the night, he was sure to remember the following:
“I felt under threat by these two and felt I had to do whatever it was to keep myself and others around me safe,” he told the jury. When asked if he had become “enraged” at any point during the fracas, Stokes replied that it was a “difficult question to answer”. The sportsman added: “I didn’t know they could be carrying more weapons on them. “They could decide to attack me at any time if I was to turn my back on either of these two. “At all times I felt under threat from these two.” those last two comments gave stokes justified motivation for continuing the fight and the knock-out blow and forced it upon the prosecution to prove that this claim was demonstrably false. And there's just enough doubt/ lack of evidence there. |
|
By:
still guilty as f..k
|
|
By:
 no changing your mind is there mad dog |
|
By:
Someone said earlier, The camera does lie, No it doesn't, But Stokes did, all along imo, but the jury took his word instead of looking at the truth.
|
|
By:
the man with the damage eye socket should sue stokes bet stokes would want to settle out of court 1.01
|
|
By:
the sad thing is if it was an ordinary man in the street he would be waiting in prison ready to be booked in now.........it makes a mockery of the justice system
|
|
By:
its only by luck stokes isn't going the list of one punch killers
|
|
By:
joining* the list
|
|
By:
Found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Time for everyone to move on I would suggest.
|
|
By:
https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1029351464978788353
|
|
By:
Not guilty is not the same as innocent. The burden of proof lies with the Prosecution.
The Martin case still gets my goat. Jailed for the murder of an intruder who had 29 convictions. Martin served 3 years of an 8 year sentence. |
|
By:
Joke, Justice and political systems,the small man has no chance
|
|
By:
Tony Martin shot a fleeing burglar in the back. That's why he was sent to prison, it's very simple.
|
|
By:
In USA anyone on your property is fair game.
|
|
By:
Maybe, but Tony Martin lived in Norfolk, where they're not.
|
|
By:
it's Steven Gerrard all over again
|