Not only that but I just read he's actually had cameramen following him around all season as they are making a documentary about his first season as a manager (for some reason)
Surely if this were to be used as a defence, the onus would be on Barton to prove that it was true, not the other way round. Especially bearing in mind that anyone using such a defence has essentially already admitted to carrying out the assault, but is trying to mitigate it.
So why didn't he smash the cameraman from behind into the back of the metal posts in the tunnel several minutes after being filmed if he had a problem with the filming?
So he acted in self defence by chasing Stendel down the tunnel? A Court would laugh at that suggestion.
..and pushing him from behind so he went head first into a metal post, A weird self defence argument.
Giving the accused the benefit of the doubt in the manner you suggest, isn't the way the law works. If it was no-one would be convicted.
who said Barton chased Stendel down the tunnel? - a defence of provocation and self-defence is difficult to challenge in court.
Provocation to violence isn't a defence. Self defence is when you fear for your life or there is no other option to prevent yourself or someone else from getting hurt
Lots of big media companies want the footage.... https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/8861315/joey-barton-assault-fleetwood-netflix-documentary/ I think Fleetwood will stand by him because Barton is a well known guy who gives them media attention they have never had before with a previous boss.
The mind boggles. People on here giving him the benefit of the doubt. Same sort of folks who thought Jimmy Savile was OK.
The filming was adjacent the dugouts. The alleged attack was some 50 yards away in the tunnel. Why didn't he act whilst the filming was happening? Why not take issue with the cameraman? It would be bad enough taking exception there and then, but pre meditated if he's walked all the way to the tunnel to make his move.
As someone else said, Barton has to prove without doubt that he felt threatened and was acting in defence and had no choice but to use violence not the other way round.
that is something a good barrister could do on Barton's behalf (which is the reason why I don't think it will ever get to court)
you're not answering my question -- 'Can you prove that Barton wasn't irked/provoked by the filming?'