Girl fined for fighting back at masked man

Yes but the 'law' you are quoting is not the 'law' but a set of statute's that sprang from an admiralty court.
Common law trumps that statutory law each and every time.
This is what the police are supposed to follow....

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.

So in the US the attacker would have been shot dead? How is thatt in any way better?

Originally posted by Mikeyy

Originally posted by infolurker

Originally posted by metaldave
This story is completely crazy...
I find it hard to believe...

I find it quite believable. They have lost their minds over there.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

www.thisislondon.co.uk...

just wow. reading that, I have lost all respect I ever had for the UK. There government is pure fail.

I think you two should start looking at the madness in your own country before you start critisising others. There are as many examples of idiot police and judges in most western countries as there are in the UK. For example, in Australia a man got charded as a pedophile for having Simpson cartoon pictures which had been changed to make it look lke Bart and Lisa were having sex. Charged in court for pedophilia for owning cartoon pictures!!!

In the US, blimey, where do I start? You know what, I don't need to - you already know about that mad country.

ETA This link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones!!!!!

Originally posted by revmoofoo
reply to post by WatchRider

 

You'd be amazed how often this happens in the UK. One of my Karate students battered the hell out of a convicted rapist when he jumped her and she ended up doing time because she made such a mess of him. When I rule the world, beating the hell out of scum-bags will be seen as each individuals duty; especially if they are sex offenders.

Rev

If you were anything like a decent martial arts teacher your students would understand restraint. They would understand the concept of reasonable force, and they would understand that handing out a battering using martial arts by way of punishment is not acceptable. As soon as the attack on you is over the fight must stop. One you have defended yourself to the point of no more personal danger, any more punishemnt handed out by you is basically an assault.

People like you are dangerous. Teach respect and restrains, teach personal defence. Do not teach that it is OK to hand out a beating.

Originally posted by Shamatt

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.

So in the US the attacker would have been shot dead? How is thatt in any way better?

Because you don't get charged with murder when you shoot them. Unlike this girl who was fined for attacking a stalker with her feet, while the stalker himself got off with nothing. So in the UK the person defending themselves gets in trouble while in the US the person who is attacking, gets killed, end of story. That's what's better about it.


And for that reason, breaking into someone's home in the US, can be as dangerous as jumping into a volcano. That's the whole point, to dissuade people from doing it. People don't jump into volcanoes very often.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Shamatt

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.

So in the US the attacker would have been shot dead? How is thatt in any way better?

Because you don't get charged with murder when you shoot them.

Unlike this girl who was fined for attacking a stalker with her feet, while the stalker himself got off with nothing. So in the UK the person defending themselves gets in trouble while in the US the person who is attacking, gets killed, end of story. That's what's better about it.


And for that reason, breaking into someone's home in the US, can be as dangerous as jumping into a volcano. That's the whole point, to dissuade people from doing it. People don't jump into volcanoes very often.

edit on 28-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

So someone being dead for attacking another is better than someone being fined a few hundred pounds for going too far?

No wonder the world is in the state it is in!!!!

Originally posted by Shamatt
So someone being dead for attacking another is better than someone being fined a few hundred pounds for going too far?

Was it wrong for her to defend herself at all? If not, then how do you draw the line exactly, between what is justified and what is "going too far" when you are talking about a young girl trying to fight off an older man who just stalked her home?

Someone being fined for defending themselves when attacked is a travesty of law and order. It's siding with the "bad guy." It's definitely not worth it, for the law to start victimizing the attackers themselves at the expense of the real victims. I can't understand how you don't think this is a dangerous trend to be following. The UK has already been disarmed and now you're kissing up to criminals at the expense of those they attack. Next you will be begging for your politicians to be hardened criminals too?

In the US we don't have this trend because we more often than not do not take pity on the attackers, because it was their decision to attack, and once that attack has begun, self-defense is fair game, including using lethal force if there is a reasonable fear that the victim's own life could be taken.

For example, a man I knew was having his home broken into. The man heard what was going on and confronted the intruder with a shot gun. He told the intruder that if he came in through the door, he would be shot. The intruder didn't seem to care and finally busted through the door anyway, only to be met with the lethal shot he was just promised. In the UK you're not even allowed to have a gun in the first place, or even use a knife, so maybe this whole situation would be alien and difficult to grasp for a Brit, but charging the person defending themselves with the crime is absurd. And in this case the man who defended himself here was not charged with anything. No one was charged with anything. The only person that would have been charged, was dead. Before you take so much pity on him, imagine what kind of person would bust into a home already knowing that a man was standing inside waiting on him with a gun. You don't think those kind of people have anything to do with why the world is in such a mess today? The man with the gun was defending himself, his family and his property and simultaneously reminding every other would-be intruder out there that not everyone is defenseless in America, and the law does not take much pity on violent criminals who are dealt with by citizens exercising self-defense.

No wonder the world is in the state it is in!!!!

Are you talking about the countries the US has invaded defending themselves using lethal force? Because I personally think the US criminally invaded these countries and their people have every right to exercise lethal force while defending themselves.


And just to clarify, I don't think having to kill anyone is a favorable situation. Or even to attack another in self-defense. It would obviously be favorable not to have a confrontation at all. But we do not always get to make that decision. And when we are forced with a confrontation, we instinctually seek to defend ourselves. The girl in the OP was not trying to make a point to seriously injure someone so much as she was just trying to protect her own self, and she was frightened. To fine her and let the other guy off without any charge, is not any conception of justice that I'm familiar with.

"But she continued to boot him in the head after he was knocked unconscious."

This is why she was fined. Regardless of what else seems to be the case, if you continue to maim someone when they are unconcious you should be charged. She also (admitted) serious assault.

Just knocking him out was great and if it was me and I did that I would just tie him up and call the Police but she continued to kick someone unconcious and could have killed him as a result. Had he not attacked her he would not have been hurt but there is a principle of retribution that when carried as far as she took it makes her as bad as he was.

I know. I was attacked last week and when I finally felled my opponent who was bigger and some twenty years younger, I just held him until he pleaded to be let go. Police are laying charges on him but I have something far better in store as my investigations discovered something that will costs him mnay thousands of dollars and that is much more satisfying that if I had just laid into him when I had him down. Assaulting him when he was down would have been wrong and I can say all this becuase I've been there.

reply to post by bsbray11


It is a small world after all ....Blacksburg, Dublin, NRV oh hell yeah.....my old stomping grounds......still have kin around the area. whew-----ok

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Shamatt

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.

So in the US the attacker would have been shot dead? How is thatt in any way better?

Because you don't get charged with murder when you shoot them.

Unlike this girl who was fined for attacking a stalker with her feet, while the stalker himself got off with nothing. So in the UK the person defending themselves gets in trouble while in the US the person who is attacking, gets killed, end of story. That's what's better about it.


And for that reason, breaking into someone's home in the US, can be as dangerous as jumping into a volcano. That's the whole point, to dissuade people from doing it. People don't jump into volcanoes very often.

edit on 28-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

So someone being dead for attacking another is better than someone being fined a few hundred pounds for going too far?

No wonder the world is in the state it is in!!!!

You talk about a few hundred pounds like it's pocket money. Where I'm from and I'm sure many other places in the UK that's a serious amount of money.

Let someone who's been around the block a few times tell you something, you don't put a balaclava on unless you're ready to do damage. I've been around criminals all my life and when the bali goes on things are getting serious.

When the adrenaline kicks in do you really think she was concerned about reasonable force? As far she was concerned she just wanted to survive a possibly fatal attack. I don't know what utopian world you live in where an attacker just decides to call it quits when he gets knocked of his a**e but he had very bad intentions toward her.

This isn't a game, you can't ask a determined assailent for a timeout.

Originally posted by ScousePhil

You talk about a few hundred pounds like it's pocket money. Where I'm from and I'm sure many other places in the UK that's a serious amount of money.

Compared to the loss of a life it is an insignificant sum of money. I do understand however, that £500 is a lot of dosh to a lot of people. I have also been arround a bit!

Originally posted by ScousePhil

Let someone who's been around the block a few times tell you something, you don't put a balaclava on unless you're ready to do damage. I've been around criminals all my life and when the bali goes on things are getting serious.

When the adrenaline kicks in do you really think she was concerned about reasonable force? As far she was concerned she just wanted to survive a possibly fatal attack. I don't know what utopian world you live in where an attacker just decides to call it quits when he gets knocked of his a**e but he had very bad intentions toward her.

This isn't a game, you can't ask a determined assailent for a timeout.

Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with you about the ballaclava goin on, and this guy being trouble. I totally agree that the woman in question did what she needed to do in order to protect herself. What I am saying (And this is not provable I know) is that I strongly susspect that at some point the woman would have realised that the bloke was out cold and just continued, through her anger, to give him a good kicking. I spent 6 years living in Scotland, I know the territory. If I am right then she deserves this fine.

However. If you ask me if I support her actions. Well, they were wrong, and once she was safe she should have stopped. But there is an overwhealming part of me that cries out "this bstard got what he deserved". But - whether he deserved it or not, I do not find it acceptable to give someone a good kicking.

I spent the last 20 years living on South London, and I have seen more than my fare share of drunken violence. I have had 1 very close friend killed in a street fight, and another work friend shot dead in his parents pub ater a new years eve party. Violence beyond what is forced on you to protect yourself is just wrong.

We could argue endlessly about her cognitive state, and whether or not she realised how far she was going. I suppose given more evidence of that I might advocate giving her the benafit of the doubt, but in the absence of that additional knowledge, I stick to my orgional stance, that she went too far.

reply to post by Shamatt


Fair dues you're entitled to your opinion.

Just so you know though a sudden increase in adrenaline can cause the person to blackout. I remember a case similar to this where a man was brought in on charges of manslaughter after being attacked by two people but was aquited on the grounds of, I think it was called diminished responsibility, because he'd basically blacked out due to stress.

If I find the link to the story I'll post it.

reply to post by Unity_99


That poor girl would get arrested for being a public nuisance. The Brits just cannot win. All the laws are promulgated to protect the 'establishment' not the common person.

the globalists want to kill us, in that context it all makes sense, doesn't it?


violent offenders are most certainly better persons according to the rulers. may they receive what they deserve and may the people stop being complicit with this type of warfare, or we will not survive.

Originally posted by ScousePhil
reply to post by Shamatt

 

Fair dues you're entitled to your opinion.

Just so you know though a sudden increase in adrenaline can cause the person to blackout. I remember a case similar to this where a man was brought in on charges of manslaughter after being attacked by two people but was aquited on the grounds of, I think it was called diminished responsibility, because he'd basically blacked out due to stress.

If I find the link to the story I'll post it.

Please do, I would be very interested to read it, as I have some experience of this. As I said, we can argue endlessley about her mental state - but in the absence of any additional information that would be speculation. If in theory it was proven that she had blacked out then I would change my views.

Originally posted by Shamatt

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.

So in the US the attacker would have been shot dead? How is thatt in any way better?

I'd say that a woman gripping a handgun having just slain a rapist is somewhat better to one that's been raped and killed by her assailant but hey that's just me.

You are, what I would call, a useful idiot to the ptb while not even realising it.

While more thin-end of wedges are driven into the once fine country of the UK fools like yourself try and somehow justify the pussification of the people.

Your experiences in a big city are irrevelant to the right to bear arms, lethal or none-lethal.
Either you empower a citizen with the full right to defend themselves (US) or you take it away entirely (UK near as dammit), there can be no half measures as it's a license for the criminals and their crony's to run rampant.

Originally posted by Shamatt

Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with you about the ballaclava goin on, and this guy being trouble. I totally agree that the woman in question did what she needed to do in order to protect herself. What I am saying (And this is not provable I know) is that I strongly susspect that at some point the woman would have realised that the bloke was out cold and just continued, through her anger, to give him a good kicking. I spent 6 years living in Scotland, I know the territory. If I am right then she deserves this fine.

Ok maybe she deserves the fine, but doesn't the stalker deserve to be booked on *stalking* and *assualt*?

She admitting being violent and we have already established the drunken idiot was wearing a mask and stalking her. Why does the system punish the defendent for sticking up for herself, yet the attacker gets way with stalking and assault(or attempted assualt). I am not a lawyer mind you, but it seems either punish both or punish no one is more fair.

If the uk does not have enough prisons, then build more! But they need to cool down with misdemeanors and go after felonies more. They also need to allow basic defense weapons such as mace, tasers and perhaps switchblades aka stilletos. Ah I love that CLICK sound, because its when things start getting serious. Have you been to any soccer match lately and confronted an out-of-control chav?

Good for this girl. I hate how the victims are always punished for defending themselves in front of danger.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Shamatt

Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with you about the ballaclava goin on, and this guy being trouble. I totally agree that the woman in question did what she needed to do in order to protect herself. What I am saying (And this is not provable I know) is that I strongly susspect that at some point the woman would have realised that the bloke was out cold and just continued, through her anger, to give him a good kicking. I spent 6 years living in Scotland, I know the territory. If I am right then she deserves this fine.

Ok maybe she deserves the fine, but doesn't the stalker deserve to be booked on *stalking* and *assualt*?

Yes, he does. And at no point have I sadi he should not be punished. I suppose I could have mentioned that!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

She admitting being violent and we have already established the drunken idiot was wearing a mask and stalking her. Why does the system punish the defendent for sticking up for herself, yet the attacker gets way with stalking and assault(or attempted assualt). I am not a lawyer mind you, but it seems either punish both or punish no one is more fair.

If the uk does not have enough prisons, then build more! But they need to cool down with misdemeanors and go after felonies more. They also need to allow basic defense weapons such as mace, tasers and perhaps switchblades aka stilletos. Ah I love that CLICK sound, because its when things start getting serious. Have you been to any soccer match lately and confronted an out-of-control chav?

Do you have any idea how much death this would cause? Stupid thing to say man!