It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
However, she went too far by continuing to kick her attacker on the head even after he was knocked unconscious.
Sheriff Donald Muirhead told Burleigh she was entitled to hit Docherty to protect herself. But he added: "You lost control. You kept on kicking him when there was no longer any need."
Originally posted by Shamatt
It's a question of reasonable force. Once the guy is unconcious on the ground he is no longer a threat - is it therefore reasonable to continue kicking him in the head and face, causing him serious injuries? He may have deserved it in our minds, but the line needs drawing somewhere. Are we to return to a vigilante society where we doll out our own punishments to those who we feel deserve it?
Originally posted by WatchRider
Originally posted by Soshh
Originally posted by WatchRider
Spare a thought for 'prison-island' UK were you CANNOT defend yourself against an attacker!!!!
You can use reasonable and proportionate force to defend yourself. People do this every day with no problems and she would not have been fined if she had not used unnecessary force.
Now show me EXACTLY where reasonable force begins and defensive force to prevent an attacker hurting you ends?
It's this stupid wording and mis-speak from the law-givers that gives the criminals such lee-way to run amok!
All sucked up and defended by the brainwashed masses who can't think for themselves.
Originally posted by Seiko
I read the article and I am to understand she is being fined for 'going to far" more or less. After the attacker was unconscious she continued to kick his face.
If you've ever read Ender's Game you might understand the basic instinctual reasoning that happens here. She was frightened and very upset, she was attacked. She wanted to make sure he never attacked her again. The situation was created by the attacker, not her.
I find her actions to be validated, but I am not a judge. If on a jury I couldn't in any way find her guilty.
Originally posted by AshleyD
Notice how everyone in this thread is OUTRAGED by this travesty of justice.
Originally posted by buddha
So! she should have let him attack her.
drag her in to her house.
LET him rape her, then rob her.
then call the police.
BUT Rape is not a crime any more....
So Nothing will be done about him!
and ALL the criminals will now know
they are untouchable..
Originally posted by grindhouzer
Originally posted by buddha
So! she should have let him attack her.
drag her in to her house.
LET him rape her, then rob her.
then call the police.
BUT Rape is not a crime any more....
So Nothing will be done about him!
and ALL the criminals will now know
they are untouchable..
WTF?? r u serious?? YOU SICK (*expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive) piece of (expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive expletive)
Get the (expletive) off this site you (expletive)
However, she went too far by continuing to kick her attacker on the head even after he was knocked unconscious.