Girl fined for fighting back at masked man

Originally posted by Jinglelord
I recall somewhere on an official UK government web-site they did recommend taking self defense classes as opposed to carrying a weapon...

Anyone taking a self-defense class needs to arrested for pre-crime because they intend to do serious injury to someone in defense. Unless the self defense class was a 3 step program:

1. Find mobile
2. Call police
3. Ask attacker to wait for police

Then again, given the millions of cameras in London I suppose the police already knew about the attack and just didn't care.

reply to post by Shamatt


I am glad we agree on something but allowing a low life the ability to tool-up illegally versus someone who may need a weapon to defend themselve legally, is not exactly dangerous. Criminal gangs and mafia always win in this situation.

In the usa we have ms-13, nazi lowriders, cribs, aryan brotherhood, chinesse/italian/russian mafia etc. In england you have jamacan gangs, italian and russian mafia importing drugs/weapons/girls, chavs, etc.

Yeah no self defense allowed unless you want to go the illegal way and then pay a fine to the state. Criminals could not give a rats ass about paying fines because the cops are too chicken # to go after them. Just prey on the general populace instead!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
When someone attempts to rob you, kill you, rape you, breakdown the door of your residence, etc. its called self-defense and the attacker should have no rights what-so-ever. Only with a perverted judicial system that is enabled by a corrupt political system does self-defense become a crime.

Self-defence means using reasonable force against those who are attacking you.

She was kicking her attacker in the head after he had been knocked unconscious. By definition, an assailant is incapacitated in that situation.

Self-defence isn't a crime.

It's perfectly simple:

If you knock out someone who's physical attacking you, then you have used reasonable force and will not be charged with any crime.

However, if you use reasonable force and incapacitate the attacker, and then start to dangerously and violently assault him when he is physically incapable of defending himself, then a new assault has taken place.

It's got to be a reasonable level of self-defence, and the woman in this story exceeded that level by some distance.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as "over-reacting" and "excessive force" under these circumstances. You attack me and I either send you to the hospital or I kill you and yes its worth it imo. Its better to be judged by twelve then carried by six. Amen!!!!!

If you want to live an anarchic, chaotic and loosely administered ''free-for-all'' society, then you are probably correct.

Some of us, on the other hand, prefer to live in a society where civility and fairness trump ''the Law of the Jungle'' and ''eye for an eye'' justice.

There are so many logical and practical arguments which go against your Wild West way of thinking.

For example, the initial conditions of an assault:

It could be an accidental ''assault'' whereby someone accidentally bumps or hits you; there have been occasions where some drunk has smashed into me by accident, which is usually accompanied by a ''sorry, mate'' on his part. What if I decided to ferociously attack him in response, under the cover of ''self-defence'' ? After all, he did ''assault'' me first.

What if you get attacked by someone who is obviously mentally disturbed and in need of psychiatric sectioning ? Should you still be allowed to beat your assailant to a pulp in ''self-defence'', even so it's not necessarily his fault that he's acting aggressively ?

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


So if someone stronger attacks you are you going to use "reasonable force" or beat the living daylight out of him?

Example: A nicely dressed sixty year old man is walking down an isolated corridor somewhere in london and is approached by four gangsters demanding for everything he has or else.

1)you cry mommy
2)you pull out your .45acp and blow them to hell
3)you get into a physical fight with them and end up dead and abandoned.

I choose 2 for obvious reasons.

Obviously we do not know all the circumstances in this incident but I will favor a girl preserving her person rather than some drunk sob who has evil intentions. In the uk and europe in general there are many such back-ass-judgments being passed probably to just collect fines from misdemeanors and because the authorities are too lazy/cheap to prosecute felons.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
So if someone stronger attacks you are you going to use "reasonable force" or beat the living daylight out of him?

You beat the living daylight of him - and that is perfectly lawful.

The law is intended to stop people from taking justice into their own hands and attempting to administer immediate vigilante revenge on somebody who hasn't been through due process.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the scenario of the staggering drunk illustrates my point: I may be walking along at night, minding my own business, when someone comes blundering into me and knocking me off balance. On near-deserted streets at 2am, I may interpret the physical collision as a threatening assault, and consequently punch an inebriated man into the gutter in ''self-defence''.

Despite the fact that the drunken man had no violent or nefarious intentions, I could continue beating him because - as I far as I would be concerned - he was potentially a deadly assailant.

There lies the inherent problem with this ''self-defence'' justification. Don't even get me started on the sleepwalkers !

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Example: A nicely dressed sixty year old man is walking down an isolated corridor somewhere in london and is approached by four gangsters demanding for everything he has or else.

1)you cry mommy
2)you pull out your .45acp and blow them to hell
3)you get into a physical fight with them and end up dead and abandoned.

I choose 2 for obvious reasons.

1. Being grossly outnumbered, you prudently hand over the money in your wallet, as they will most likely be drug fiends looking for money to buy an immediate fix of whatever substance gets their tits off.

2. You pull your pistol out against four gangsters who are most likely equally well-armed and have to put your hands in the air while they train their weapons on you and steal from your pockets.

You see, your second points falls into the circular reasoning that always makes this pro-gun argument fail; you are not allowed to carry a .45acp in the UK. So, if you were legally allowed to carry a pistol, then it's fair to suggest that these ''gangsters'' would also legally carry.

The idea of a law-abiding citizen negating a criminal threat by packing heat is very naive... I suggest you look at the violent crime rates in US states which have ''shall-issue'' regulations as opposed to ''may-issue'' or ''no-issue'' states...

3. That's a possibility, especially with adrenaline pumping you may wish to duke it out against this gang. However, you're almost certainly going to end up with the same outcome as taking option 1, although you may have a few more bruises to show for it.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Obviously we do not know all the circumstances in this incident but I will favor a girl preserving her person rather than some drunk sob who has evil intentions.

Absolutely.

I fully support the girl's legal right to defend herself and incapacitate her assailant. But she did not have a right to violently attack her alleged attacker in a way that could have caused death or brain damage.

Kicks to the back of the head can result in brain damage from mild levels to the most severe.

Those actions can never be rationally condoned.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
In the uk and europe in general there are many such back-ass-judgments being passed probably to just collect fines from misdemeanors and because the authorities are too lazy/cheap to prosecute felons.

Oh, behave yourself !

Every day on ATS, I read some of the most backwardass legal decisions and social stories that invariably emanate from the USA.

Perhaps you need to get your own legal system and social chaos in order before pointing the finger at our society ?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Despite the fact that the drunken man had no violent or nefarious intentions, I could continue beating him because - as I far as I would be concerned - he was potentially a deadly assailant.

There lies the inherent problem with this ''self-defence'' justification. Don't even get me started on the sleepwalkers !

Yeah I guess there is always the possibility someone will misinterprate someone else's actions and decide to act upon emotion. Perhaps the girl was stupid? Is that what you are implying?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You see, your second points falls into the circular reasoning that always makes this pro-gun argument fail; you are not allowed to carry a .45acp in the UK. So, if you were legally allowed to carry a pistol, then it's fair to suggest that these ''gangsters'' would also legally carry.

The idea of a law-abiding citizen negating a criminal threat by packing heat is very naive... I suggest you look at the violent crime rates in US states which have ''shall-issue'' regulations as opposed to ''may-issue'' or ''no-issue'' states...

Hardcore criminals always have weapons because they do NOT care about local statues. Only law abiding citizens care and become victim of the "limited self-defence" scheme. Your studies seem biased, rushed and shallow.

Dear Beretta Arms Company, thank you for manufacturing the Beretta 950 Jetfire .25 auto that I gave to my girlfriend to keep in her purse even though in liberal nanny state Canada it's ilegal to do so. As she told me, she would rather have the charge of carrying an ilegal firearm on the very odd chance the cops search her purse than fall victim to the droves of human garbage that walk around underground parking garages late at night in Toronto.

If your government has taken away your right to protect yourself it is up to YOU to equal the playing field, it is your right to defend yourself, even if it means breaking laws that basically in the end protect the criminal and not the victim. Afterall, most liberal nanny state countries like Canada have extremely weak sentences for first offences such as carrying a small pistol anyways, so in the end it's worth it, it might just save your life one day.

reply to post by Jocko Flocko


I like your style Jocko, the libertarian way trumps this mutant liberal 'society' that Europe has created.
Oh and pay no attention to SH, he's just another brainwashed Brit who seem's to think it's rainbows and lollypops, until he happens to get attacked that is

A good friend of mine was a wised-up socialist before I met him.
He used to be into all that 'don't harm anyone and you don't get harmed bs.'

Well he got robbed in Spain on leaving a restaurant by some big thug that was built like a brick outhouse!
Guess what? Now he strongly believes in self-defence with a weapon. He's a libertarian socialist now and carry's a weapon on him now thank you very much

The lie I hear from brain drain idiots that if people carried guns there'd be anarchy is pure bs.
People already carry guns illegally and there's hardly a killing spree every day in the UK with that as there would be legally.

I don't understand why anyone is expecting a higher standard of behaviour from this young woman than they expect from her attacker.

The judge said that she continued to kick her assailant "when there was no longer any need" clearly indicating that he had been a threat to her, and nobody doubts that she "needed" to defend herself.

It isn't suggested that she had been any threat to him until he jumped on her. She was on her doorstep, trying to get into her house.

The article also says that the police found the man later, some streets away and that neighbours said he had "appeared" to be unconscious. So how long was he apparently unconscious for? At some stage he seems able to have got up and walked away, so he was only 'out' for a short period of time. Long enough for his victim to get to safety, one assumes. So she incapacitated him just long enough to make her escape.

It's unfair to suppose that she is a 'them' rather than an 'us', but IF she is that's the chance that this man took when he chose to attack her. She can hardly be blamed because he made a poor choice of victim. Let's further suppose that some other woman was lucky that Docherty made the choice he did, when he set out to stalk and attack a female late at night, and ended up being tackled by a woman who was up to defending herself and leaving him in no condition to stalk someone else.

I can't accept this prosecution against the victim when the authorities have failed to prosecute and jail her attacker. They're effectively saying that she's done their job for them, but have made her pay for the privilege.

If this awful man doesn't accept that getting kicked in the head is fair punishment for what he did, and if the kicking fails to re-habilitate him, what makes the streets of his neighbourhood safe from any more criminal activity from him?

At the point the attacker was unconscious on the floor - or even just on the floor depending on the circumstances - it would be very hard for any court or jury to honestly say there was an imminent threat of violence. Whether or not the guy deserved it, the defence of self-defence could not apply to her actions after he went to the ground.

This is not a matter of "stupid UK laws". The same can be found in many jurisdictions around the world including a small number of US states that I have looked at. I wouldn't be surprised if this was mirrored in most, if not all, the states. Off the top of my head, Michigan would be one example - there was a self defence act passed about 5(?) years ago that set out a similar provision for the use of non-lethal force in self defence (specifically using the word "imminent" as well) and I seem to recall case law relating to where force became excessive that mirrors almost exactly the reasoning used by the UK courts.

Personally I'm quite happy for the guy to have the living daylights beaten out of him, but the discussion isn't about what we want, it's about what the law allows.

On a final note, the papers before the courts normally paint a different picture to what the newspapers report afterwards.

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by star in a jar
The person who fined her needs to have a burlap bag placed over his/her head and summarily executed.

Um, no the judge needs to have this overturned and have all his case files pulled up and examined by a counself of half women and half men citizens, that have the power to remove him and nullify his pension.

That would be reasonable.

Any form of harm that is not immediate self defense of self or other is never ever justified.

I'm confused. Are you agreeing with the decision or disagreeing? Because the last sentence is exactly the reasoning used by the courts to reach their conclusion.

If you're being ironic then I must say, it's a rather delicious irony

God save the Queen and be sure to pay her for fighting back against a would be robber/rapist. I've never been to the UK but with stories like this and with all the Brits defending her fine as being justified I never want to go there.

Originally posted by jrod
God save the Queen and be sure to pay her for fighting back against a would be robber/rapist. I've never been to the UK but with stories like this and with all the Brits defending her fine as being justified I never want to go there.

You might want to consider what is being defended - the prosecution or the conviction.

Should the prosecution have been brought in the first place? Not in my personal opinion, which seems to be an opinion echoed by a number of people here. However, as a prosecution WAS brought, was the conviction correct at law? Yes, she crossed a line that exists in most if not all jurisdictions - between self defence and an attack in its own right.

So what happens in your location if you shoot a fleeing attacker in the back? Or shoot them on the head while they are incapacitated on the ground? Do you get a medal? I'm always interested in learning about how the law works in different countries

reply to post by EvillerBob


Shooting someone in the back in most states is illegal. Shooting someone while they are obviously incapacitated is illegal.

Expecting a teenage girl to act "reasonably" in a situation like she faced, where the attacker got off scott free, and the attacker is loose to commit the crime again is not the same thing. There were no weapons involved here. Only adrenaline, fear, and survival instinct.

reply to post by projectvxn


I quite agree. This is where I think the confusion comes from. While I may disagree with the law that applies to this case, I agree that the judge was correct in the way he applied the law. If the outcome is wrong it was because of the law itself, not necessarily the way it was applied.

The parallel with shooting an assailant who is no longer a threat is to bring out the fact that most if not all jurisdictions recognise that a line has to be drawn somewhere. In the UK, specific actions are considering aggravating, including kicking someone in the head while they are on the ground. This action comes up time and time again in cases relating to street brawls and pub carpark fights, and in my experience almost always defeats a defence of self defence. The law is applied exactly the same in those situations as it was here, and the outcome is usually right in my opinion.

It would be interesting to track down the reasoning given by the judge but I am not sure whether it is readily available. Rarely tend to look at scottish cases until they hit the House of Lords.

EDITED TO ADD: About the "reasonable" element - you make a very good point. The stance in UK law is that someone is not expected to "weigh to a nicety" whether the amount of force they are using is a proportionate response. The courts talk about someone doing only what they "instinctively and honestly" thought was necessary in the circumstances. If they have convicted, it's because the evidence before the court was sufficient to persuade the court her actions were not instinctive and honest. For all we know there was a witness that saw her walk into the house in high heels, come out five minutes later wearing steel toe-capped boots, then start kicking him while screaming "DIE! DIE! DIE!". All we do know is that the court was convinced that she had crossed a line.

reply to post by projectvxn


This girl kept hitting her assailant well past the point of reasonable self-defense. That's what you're advocating for. Go live in the jungle, I guess? There you can shoot anyone and anything that so much as looks at you the wrong way. But in the so-called civilized world, we have laws that prevent that and even though you don't realise it, you should be glad we have them.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


My common sense tells me that allowing many of the posters in this thread to carry a weapon on them at all times would only result in an increase in violence, not the other way around. Your common sense may vary.

reply to post by pikappa


Are you capable of having a debate without being rude or accusatory?

God man.

reply to post by projectvxn


Sorry that I hurt your feelings with my posts, but at least you can be sure I won't randomly start shooting at you the day I find you staring in my direction from the other side of a room...

reply to post by pikappa


Yeah ok dude.

Anyone who carries a weapon just starts shooting at someone who staring at them...That's how it works here in the US...100 million gun owners and we just can't resist shooting each other over stares.

You didn't hurt my feelings. The problem is that you'd rather fling insults around and make immature comments like in your post there than deal with people at an adult level.

It's pathetic. Your comments say more about you than about anyone else you direct them to.