Gerrard getting sued

[Chrono]

Looks like you are changing your opinion.

Do you still think he is a ****?

Where did I change my opinion?

[Chrono]

Simple question...if it was you who got attacked by 5 lads, would you just turn the other cheek and walk away? If you are, well done you. I wouldn't. I'd want the people who did it brought to justice, and then i'd want some sort of compensation, at least to cover my treatment costs.

Depends on if I went looking for it :wink:

[dom9]

Where did I change my opinion?

Did you see the plaster on his nose? The guy went looking to get media attention with false injuries because he thinks he can get a quid or two out of Gerrard. For this reason I believe he is a prick.

You also don't know it was unprovoked

False injuries? He had a plaster on his nose and also a chipped tooth after getting ****ted, so whether you like it or not, he was hit.

He was hit first, by one of Gerrard's "mates" and was knocked off balance. He was then punched repeatedly by Gerrard, who thought the man was lurching towards him. These facts are not in dispute, never have been. Gerrard admits this version of events, CCTV backs it up. In fact, from what i can see of the tapes and the testimonies, the man never even through a punch.

No where in any testimonies or stories to come out in the press does it mention verbals, the whole argument stemmed from the man not giving into Gerrard's request. Again, this is not disputed by Gerrard.

So yes, i think he's entitled to some damages, be it he's a manc or not.

I don't dispute any of this but the press not mentioning verbals or it even being used in his defence in court doesn't mean it didn't happen. Either way, I would rather stand by our captain than some random Manc.

See bits in bold.

[red g]

i thought it was proved in a court of law it was ok to hit a manc??

[Chrono]

See bits in bold.

I wasn't denying the fact he got hit. Only a child wears a plaster on their nose.

[Reece]

I wasn't denying the fact he got hit. Only a child wears a plaster on their nose.

And God.

[dom9]

I wasn't denying the fact he got hit. Only a child wears a plaster on their nose.

You said he had false injuries.

And God.

[Chrono]

You said he had false injuries.

Ok, this is dragging a bit.

I am saying that although he got hit, putting a plaster on your nose indicated that the nose is damaged and a) from the pictures I have seen it wasn't (maybe slightly bruised and b) wearing a plaster won't help anything but does draw attention

[Warren]

In civil law this is not necessarily the case - as Neil Young says, there is a lower standard of proof required. It's more like, "on the grounds of probability"

He will probably settle out of court.

I'm afraid that's wrong.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty at his criminal trial but was found to be responsible in a civil case. I know it's the other side of the Atlantic but the principle is the same.

Given Gerrard has admitted hitting the guy then he could be held liable for the damage caused.

Yes he does. It's a lower standard of proof in a civil case.

These are the only sensible and correct posts in this thread

[Scratch]

Depends on if I went looking for it :wink:

Ah, so you think the manc went looking for it then? Even tho it was Gerrard and his mates who went up to him?

[CJ]

someone dares question the god that is Stevie G? so we call him a ****. this from the supposedly most knowledgable fans in the country.

The CCTV shows he was hit. Gerrard admits hitting him. not sure about verbals before. i have heard from family and friends in Southport that there where (even my nan at 87 claims to know what happened) but i can see no reason why the manc doesnt sue him.

why do we have to defend the indefensable ???

[Neil Young]

Did Gerrard give you a good pasting as well, "in self defence"?

No. A piece of French bread took offence at being eaten and, in its death throes, lashed out.

[Neil Young]

Sorry about that, better?

As for the relevance of being a prick, with your long criminal record, I can see why you might think it's a factor the jury takes into account.

[RedReet]

someone dares question the god that is Stevie G? so we call him a ****. this from the supposedly most knowledgable fans in the country.

The CCTV shows he was hit. Gerrard admits hitting him. not sure about verbals before. i have heard from family and friends in Southport that there where (even my nan at 87 claims to know what happened) but i can see no reason why the manc doesnt sue him.

why do we have to defend the indefensable ???

How do you know it’s indefensible? Like it or not, some people deserve to be hit.

A bit extreme, but if it was reported that Joey Barton was jabbed by someone, would everyone be jumping to his defence?

I don’t know the DJ, but for all I know he could have purposely been winding up Gerrard, looking for a reaction.

I’m not saying that was the case, the DJ might have been a little angel, totally undeserving of what happened to him, but none of us know, so can you argue who is right and who is wrong?

[Chrono]

As for the relevance of being a prick, with your long criminal record, I can see why you might think it's a factor the jury takes into account.