Girl fined for fighting back at masked man

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I'm with you on everything but the right to carry firearms. For me there is just too much of a chance for stray bullets catching innocent bystanders. Unless, of course, people where required to go through training in how to use the firearm effectively and accurately.

I do however want to see a change in UK law that would allow us to carry knives, mase, tasers etc. I used to carry a butterfly knife myself but I decided to stop because of the mandatory minimum sentences that go along with being tooled up.

what can you say it England, where else , storries like don't even surprise me any more

As usual a bunch of idiots suing the wrong person. This could've ended alot worse. So much for protecting yourself.

Originally posted by Liquesence


While true that she might have gone too far (debatable considering the circumstances), this does NOT address the fact that the attacker was not charged--with anything--even though he followed her to her house and was the initial aggressor/ATTACKER.

Talk about bassackwards "justice," although i know little about the UK.

Absolutely. It is totally unacceptable that he not be charged. This is insanity.

Originally posted by bsbray11
This is why Americans will never give up their right to own and carry a firearm for self-defense.

If you let the government take your right to defend yourself out of your hands then this is the nonsense that follows.

Get off your high horse buddy....We get tricked into the same stuff.

Dont' act like we are better then them.

The girl went too far by kicking the man in the head when he was unconcious. That's not cool, even if the man was a scumbag.

The report is strange because it says she was with her boyfriend, a Mr Twaddle but it does not say what part, if any Twaddle played in all of this. It may be they had words in the place Mr Docherty was thrown out from, but it seems strange he put on a mask yet didn't bother with some form of weapon if he was going to confront them when they left. Its also bizarre that he was not prosecuted. The only thing it says about him is that he suffered severe facial injuries. Do we really want him on our streets thinking he can put on a mask and go after couples or women? The other thing that is not clear is if the young woman had any previous convictions or was more than able to defend herself with some form of martial art. I can understand if she were shocked/traumatized and simply could not stop for fear he might have got up again - who knows?

The trouble with British Law is that it is deliberately ambiguous. One is, according to the law in this instance, entitled to use reasonable force to defend oneself. However, it should be noted that lawyers and solicitors here make bucket loads of money 'interpretating' the law. What is reasonable in front of one set of lawyers and whoever is judging a case may not concur to what is viewed as reasonable to a different set of lawyers and people judging in another Court. There is no set standard.

Everything today that the police can use to grab people and take their dna is done by our police. We have the biggest dna data base in the world. The police even get themselves involved in school playground spats. There use to be a good relationship here with the British Bobby but now there is a huge gap in that relationship for more and more people and we don't have the bobby anymore we have thugs kitted out like they are at war with the British Public.

reply to post by WatchRider


Ever hear those stories where a school bully keeps hitting a smaller kid until the smaller kid defends himself, only to be treated by some idiot school administrator as if the smaller kid was as equally responsible for the fight as the bully who hit him first?

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing you can expect in a country where you are no longer respected by the government as a citizen and are instead treated like a ward of the state.

A nanny-ocracy, where common-sense becomes a contradiction in terms.

Excessive force? That "sheriff" needs to check his wife's pantry: his bollox are sure to be there in a jar right next to the pickled eggs. What a disgrace to manhood.

If the SOB is still breathing, the real victim didn't use enough force, imho.

You put an attacker down and keep at it until you are positive he isn't getting back up any time soon.

Are the prisons public or private property in the uk? In the usa there is a growing trend of incarcerating as many as possible with high turnover rates and of course collecting fines. Misdemeanors are way more profitable than felonies, so naturally they prefer them. Not to mention they are quicker to prosecute.

Money making scam 101

Originally posted by OpusMarkII
what can you say it England, where else , storries like don't even surprise me any more

Alas this in Scotland, a place where I thought some common-sense and understanding to the defender's of their own citizen's liberty was commonplace.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


They're public property mate. But with the economy going the way it is who knows for how long.

2nd

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by pikappa
This thread is being quite an eye-opener for me. So, when you guys advocate for "the right to bear arms" what you actually mean is the right to shoot/stab/kick in the face anyone whom at any one time you may have perceived as a threat to yourself or your property. I guess I should have expected nothing less from the "guns don't kill people" crowd.

If someone poses a real threat to me you bet your last dollar that I'm going to punch, kick, stab, shoot the bastard until he is no longer a threat. I would expect the same of any human being who is being threatened the way this girl was.

You've obviously never had to defend your life. Until you do you won't be able to appreciate the type of response seen here. It is perfectly natural to do what this girl did.

Starred Proj.

It's a little hard to think perfectly clearly when you believe you are fighting for your life: the adrenaline is soaking your brain and body, and your pulse is up around 180. Anyone who thinks it's like a video game that they can put on "Pause" while they go get another Redbull is in for a rude awakening one day.

Originally posted by Soshh

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.

Reasonable force is the level of force required to protect you or others from an unlawful application of force in any given situation, as the situation is judged to have been perceived by the individual at the time. It is a deliberately ambiguous term because it is based upon the circumstances of each case.
Does that answer your question?

Yes but not in any manner to guarantee the liberty or safeguard of a human-being in the world we live.

The very ambigious nature from the 'reasonable force' paradox is it rely's on the QUESTIONABLE judgement of a biased and downright broken justice system.
This system is out of our hands and punishing the lawful in favour of the criminals and don't you forget it!

If America got one thing right it's that the citizens have some of the strongest civil liberty's in the west when it come to defence and well-being...

Originally posted by ScousePhil
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I'm with you on everything but the right to carry firearms. For me there is just too much of a chance for stray bullets catching innocent bystanders. Unless, of course, people where required to go through training in how to use the firearm effectively and accurately.

edit on 28-5-2011 by ScousePhil because: (no reason given)

This is where I disagree, with a good training and practise down the range the risk of injuring innocent party's is negligable and worth the right to protect yourself...

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.

Originally posted by cripmeister
The girl went too far by kicking the man in the head when he was unconcious. That's not cool, even if the man was a scumbag.

I partly agree, I say party because kicking a person unconcious is a very different thing to doing it WHILE they are unconcious.
In fact to subdue a threat against a thug who is superior in weight, danger and power by a person who is untrained and at risk I don't have a problem with what she did.

Now to give you another scenario, if she had even the mildest form of pepper-spray or self-defence weapon he could of possibly been fended off with little bs fallout from judge this jeffery's idiot.

Originally posted by ScousePhil
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

They're public property mate. But with the economy going the way it is who knows for how long.

2nd

edit on 28-5-2011 by ScousePhil because: (no reason given)

I am going to be blunt with you. They fined here because it was an easy 500 pounds for the state! Going after the stalker, perhaps with limited evidence, was too much of a risk for the prosecutors so they basically gave up.

You guys have state capitalism...just like in america. Socialism died during the 80's when reagan and thatcher took over and completly screwed the system beyond repair me thinks. Just read my signature.

American version of what happened, note what happened to the assailant in this video compared to the bs back in Scotland / UK...

reply to post by mydarkpassenger



People always get all uppity and self righteous when it comes to using violence to defend oneself. Most of these people have never been in any situation except maybe a school yard fist fight. Real violence requires the person who is defending to use overwhelming force to stop the attacker, period.

"Reasonable force" is anything that stops your attacker from attacking you. Up to and including stoping the dudes head into the ground if need be.

Originally posted by WatchRider

Originally posted by Soshh
Reasonable force is the level of force required to protect you or others from an unlawful application of force in any given situation, as the situation is judged to have been perceived by the individual at the time. It is a deliberately ambiguous term because it is based upon the circumstances of each case.
Does that answer your question?

Yes but not in any manner to guarantee the liberty or safeguard of a human-being in the world we live.

The very ambigious nature from the 'reasonable force' paradox is it rely's on the QUESTIONABLE judgement of a biased and downright broken justice system.

It isn't difficult to determine what constitutes 'reasonable force' when the concept is applied to a specific situation. It is only "very ambiguous" when you're trying to explain it outside of the context of a particular set of circumstances. In this case it was extremely clear but this is not why it was branded "exceptional".

I have 'defended myself' more times than I care to remember in various ways using varying degrees of force and the many 'attackers' have given me far more hassle during than the police have or ever will after the fact. The system has worked very nicely for me and I am not unusual. If the 'victim' can successfully argue that reasonable force was used, then they will have no problems.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not you believe that this man deserved it or that he's the scum of the earth or whatever, the fact is that not by the wildest stretch of the imagination is an unconscious man leaving you no other option than to kick him repeatedly in the head.

The law does not require you to wait before defending yourself. You may spontaneously access an object and use it as a weapon and this may be considered reasonable. You may kill the 'attacker' and the force used may still be considered reasonable.

So to clarify; the law sanctions anything up to and including the pre-emptive application of a weapon to kill an attacker if the circumstances dictate that this is a reasonable course of action. Is that unfair? Or did you believe that this is illegal here regardless of the circumstances?

This system is out of our hands and punishing the lawful in favour of the criminals and don't you forget it!

I've already forgotten it, sorry!

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

 

People always get all uppity and self righteous when it comes to using violence to defend oneself. Most of these people have never been in any situation except maybe a school yard fist fight. Real violence requires the person who is defending to use overwhelming force to stop the attacker, period.

"Reasonable force" is anything that stops your attacker from attacking you. Up to and including stoping the dudes head into the ground if need be.

That's correct and it has never been any other way. Bolded for emphasis.