Cisse racism

[CJ]

i dont get why its ok for a bloke to hit a woman cause he can kick a football well or is a wizz at snooker.

the fact is you shouldnt hit a woman being a footy player doesnt change it.

[Chrono]

Nothing new in there, no quotes from him and section 39 assault doesn't mean he beat his wife. Getting a caution is not the same as being charged.

[Mattshark]

Nothing new in there, no quotes from him and section 39 assault doesn't mean he beat his wife. Getting a caution is not the same as being charged.

And it doesn't stop him being a prick and it doesn't mean he didn't hit her.

[Chrono]

And it doesn't stop him being a prick and it doesn't mean he didn't hit her.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. You have absolutely no proof in the slightest that he hit her and I don't have to accept anything

[Mattshark]

No, it doesn't mean that at all. You have absolutely no proof in the slightest that he hit her and I don't have to accept anything

Really? The fact is there have been 3 incidences (two with women and one with a minor).
And

A caution is a formal warning that is given to an adult who has admitted the offence.

http://www.westmercia.police.uk/faq/?qid=562

So he has have had to admit the offence to get the caution.

[Chrono]

Which part of this doesn't mean he hit her aren't you getting?

[Mattshark]

Which part of this doesn't mean he hit her aren't you getting?

What part of having to admit it to get a caution is too complex for you?

[Chrono]

What part of having to admit it to get a caution is too complex for you?

Section 39 Assault

"Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any intentional physical contact with another person without their consent."

So yes he clearly beat her and didn't get charged

[Mattshark]

Section 39 Assault

"Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any intentional physical contact with another person without their consent."

So yes he clearly beat her and didn't get charged

Of course you can beat someone up and not get charged with it. You can get cautioned for plenty of crimes.

Oh and quote mining just makes you look foolish:

Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any intentional physical contact with another person without their consent. In common law jurisdictions, including England and Wales and the United States, battery is the crime that represents the unlawful physical contact, though this distinction does not exist in all jurisdictions. Exceptions exist to cover unsolicited physical contact which amount to normal social behavior known as de minimis harm. Assault can also be considered in cases involving the spitting on, or unwanted exposure of bodily fluids to others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault

He got a caution for assault, not battery which suggests the it a more likely a violent offence.

[Chrono]

Ok, I look the fool when you come out with this utter drivel:

Even for his wife beating?

Not really, he is older, less intelligent and a **** wife beating ****.

He beat his pregnant wife, so he is a scumbag prick as far as I am concerned (that doesn't mean he deserves racial abuse, no one deserves that). On top of that he attacked a woman outside a strip club after he left us too. The man is a scab. The man also assaulted a 15 year old kid, how the **** can you want to have him associated with the club?

Firstly you have provided literally no evidence other than your own opinion that he "beat his pregnant wife", the law doesn't suggest that he hit his wife, you weren't there and you have literally no knowledge of the situation in the slightest.

Here is the Crown Prosecution Service's legal guideline on Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act:

Common Assault, contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

9) An offence of common assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery:

* An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. (Archbold 19-166 and 19-172)

* A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another. (Archbold 19-166a and 19-174 to 19-175)

10) It is a summary offence, which carries a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and/or fine not exceeding the statutory maximum. However, if the requirements of section 40 Criminal Justice Act 1988 are met, then common assault can be included as a count on an indictment. Refer to Summary offences and the Crown Court (Criminal Justice Act 1988 sections 40 and 41; Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s 51 and sch.3 para.6 elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

11) Where there is a battery the defendant should be charged with 'assault by beating.' (DPP v Little (1992) 1 All ER 299).

12) In law, the only factors that distinguish common assault from assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, are the degree of injury that results and the sentence available to the sentencing court.

13) Where battery results in injury, a choice of charge is available. The Code for Crown Prosecutors recognises that there will be factors, which may properly lead to a decision not to prefer or continue with the gravest possible charge. Thus, although any injury that is more than transient or trifling can be classified as actual bodily harm, the appropriate charge will be contrary to be section 39 where injuries amount to no more than the following:

* Grazes;
* Scratches;
* Abrasions;
* Minor bruising;
* Swellings;
* Reddening of the skin;
* Superficial cuts;
* A 'black eye'.

14) You should always consider the injuries first and in most cases the degree of injury will determine whether the appropriate charge is section 39 or section 47.

15) There will be borderline cases, such as where an un-displaced broken nose has resulted. Generally, when the injuries amount to no more than those described, at sub-paragraph 34 below, common assault will be the appropriate charge.

16) However, there may be cases where the actual injuries suffered by a victim would normally amount to common assault, but due to the presence of serious aggravating features, they could more appropriately be charged as actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

17) Such serious aggravating features would include:

a) the nature of the assault, such as the use of a weapon, biting, gouging or kicking of a victim whilst on the ground, or strangulation which is more than fleeting and which caused real fear to the victim; or

b) the vulnerability of the victim, such as when the victim is elderly, disabled or a child assaulted by an adult (so that where an assault causes any of the injuries referred to in sub-paragraph (vii), other than reddening of the skin, the charge will normally be assault occasioning actual bodily harm, although prosecutors must bear in mind that the definition of assault occasioning actual bodily harm requires the injury to be more than transient and trifling); or

c) other circumstances when though the injuries are relatively minor the existence of aggravating features mean that the sentencing powers of the court may not be adequate. Refer to the section on Defences to assaults below.

18) Where a charge contrary to section 47 has been preferred, the acceptance of a plea of guilty to common assault will rarely be justified in the absence of a significant change in circumstances that could not have been foreseen at the time of review.

19) Common assault is capable of being racially/religiously aggravated under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The racially/religiously aggravated version of section 39 is an either way offence. Refer to Prosecuting cases of Racist and Religious Crime elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

He got a caution for assault, not battery which suggests the it a more likely a violent offence.

There are two offences: common assault and battery. A person commits the offence strictly known as assault or common assault if he intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. (It is submitted that "violence" in this context means any unlawful touching, though there is some debate over whether the touching must also be hostile).

Confusingly, the terms "assault" and "common assault" often encompass the separate offence of battery, even in statutory settings such as s 40(3)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Causing a person to apprehend violence can be committed by way of action or words: R v. Ireland [1997] AC 147. Of course, words can also mean that otherwise threatening actions are rendered not capable of being an assault, as in the case of Tuberville v. Savage (1669) 1 Mod 3, T. In that case, the plaintiff told the defendant (while putting his hand on his sword) that he would not stab him, because the circuit judge was visiting town for the local assizes. On that basis, the defendant was deemed to have known that he was not about to be injured, and it was held that no assault had been committed by the plaintiff (so as to justify the defendant's allegedly pre-emptive strike).

The "immediacy" required has been the subject of some debate. The leading case, again, is R v. Ireland [1998] AC 147. The House of Lords held that the making of silent telephone calls could amount to an assault, if it caused the victim to believe that physical violence might be used against him in the immediate future. One example of "immediacy" adopted by the House in that case was that a man who said, "I will be at your door in a minute or two," might (in the circumstances where those words amounted to a threat) be guilty of an assault.

A common assault is an assault that lacks any of the aggravating features which Parliament has deemed serious enough to deserve a higher penalty. Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that common assault, like battery, is triable only in the magistrates court in England and Wales (unless it is linked to a more serious offence which is triable in the Crown Court). Additionally, if a Defendant has been charged on an indictment with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), or racially/religiously aggravated assault, then a jury in the Crown Court may acquit the Defendant of the more serious offence, but still convict of common assault if it finds common assault has been committed.

[Mattshark]

Yes, cos that really justifies Cisse's actions doesn't it.

That is perfectly acceptable behaviour.
Even if he only bruised her or gave her a black, how is that acceptable.

I think it is highly unlikely he made silent phone calls to his wife, do you?

Yes he may not have been a persistent wife beater, but what he did was in no way acceptable, no matter how much of a pedant you want to be in justifying his scummy behaviour.

[Chrono]

Changing your tune a little.

Who is looking for justification? The fact is you said he was a wife beater based on pure assumptions. I didn't suggest he made phonecalls to her I am mearly pointing out that he didn't need to have beaten her to get this caution, it could have been verbal, he could have restrained her, it could be numerous different scenarios but the fact remains that you went off on one all judgemental and now you are trying to imply I am a pedant and that I justify hitting women just because you look stupid.

[Mattshark]

Changing your tune a little.

Who is looking for justification? The fact is you said he was a wife beater based on pure assumptions. I didn't suggest he made phonecalls to her I am mearly pointing out that he didn't need to have beaten her to get this caution, it could have been verbal, he could have restrained her, it could be numerous different scenarios but the fact remains that you went off on one all judgemental and now you are trying to imply I am a pedant and that I justify hitting women just because you look stupid.

No, I simply said he may not be a persistent wife beater, but he did enough to warrant arrest and a caution, all of which would make him a cunt, not to mention the 2 other cases, these aren't pure assumptions, the fact is he has been abusive to his spouse, the caution is evidence enough of this.
I'm not implying you are a pedant, I'm stating the fact You happen to seem rather determined to defend the prick.
And I wouldn't say anyone looked stupid when you are a quote miner.

[Chrono]

No, I simply said he may not be a persistent wife beater, but he did enough to warrant arrest and a caution, all of which would make him a cunt, not to mention the 2 other cases, these aren't pure assumptions, the fact is he has been abusive to his spouse, the caution is evidence enough of this.
I'm not implying you are a pedant, I'm stating the fact You happen to seem rather determined to defend the prick.
And I wouldn't say anyone looked stupid when you are a quote miner.

I didn't realise being right was the same as being a pedant. It's probably far better to make vague assertions when referring to someone as a scummy wife beater.

Him getting a caution for assault even on several occasions doesn't make him a cunt

Trying to be a smart arse is great but I've provided more than enough information for you, and me giving you a full paragraph of relevant information isn't quote mining you moron especially as you were completely and utterly confused:

He got a caution for assault, not battery which suggests the it a more likely a violent offence.

Confusingly, the terms "assault" and "common assault" often encompass the separate offence of battery, even in statutory settings such as s 40(3)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

If you are going to try and insult me at least know what you are talking about.

[Suarez]

Oh dear, Cisse the wife beating footballer has had some equally disgusting abuse directed his way.

I'm sure he'll live to beat another day.