19 year old girl fined 500 British pounds for defending herself; old news but gives a peek into mind

Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

I understand your point, but if I was attacked and got the upper hand, I would want to make sure my attacker was staying down. Why? Fear that he would get up and come after me again.

I'm not advocating killing the person or beating them to a pulp. There would come a point, I think, when it would be obvious if I had done enough damage to get away.

I just wonder...could she have been thinking the same thing?

Exactly. Excellent point. If it were a serious attack-- in other words, if I believed that my attacker meant to seriously injure, rape, render unconscious, or kill me, I would not stop my self-defense until the attacker was either unconscious, or running, or at the least not moving at all.

I think that's perfectly reasonable.

If a guy is trying to club me on the head or stick a knife in me, and I knock him on the ground, I would not consider it excessive at all to stomp him another few times-- providing he was still attempting to attack or get up. Maybe his getting up signaled an intent to flee, as opposed to continued attack, but when in that situation you don't necessarily have the luxury to make that assumption and turn out to be wrong. I'm sorry-- but the safe and expedient fleeing of my attacker, while better than a continued attack, is not my concern. Attempts to stand up, or do just about anything but lie prone and / or put hands up "defensively" will be considered as attempted continuation of the attack, and will be dealt with accordingly.

Don't like it? Don't go around attacking people and you have nothing to worry about.

reply to post by 200Plus


Laws are made and they can be changed when they don't work. You commit a crime, you need to also take whatever consequences befall you in the act thereof. If you want your skin intact, don't commit crimes. Fair deal, imho.

Originally posted by Suspiria
There's a solution to this.....Don't call the police, beat the living # out of the barstewards and dump them in a ditch. It's not like most of us bother to report crimes these days anyway. What they going to do go to the police and tell them they were burgling your house, you got the better of them and left them in a ditch full of cow #? Most of em would be too embarrassed to say anything and they'd have to prove it.

The police won't bother....They'd have to do some work. It's easier just to nab you for defending yourself the minute they show up when YOU'VE rung them.

edit on 8-1-2013 by Suspiria because: (no reason given)

While I certainly understand and sympathize with this view, I don't entirely agree with it. First, if the police are not called it may be more likely that the attacker retaliates for being thwarted later.

Second, it increases the legal ambiguity, and if caught, may decrease believability while increasing suspicion (toward yourself) and possibly leaving yourself open to assault charges, if you beat them badly enough.

PS-- Love the avatar.

reply to post by CosmicEgg


I would not for a second disagree with what you said. I feel laws are far too lax against criminals, but that is a topic for another thread.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
It's a funny concept some of us UK inhabitants have called "proportionate response." I'm not sure if it's shared with other groups, but it goes like this - if someone punches you on the nose, and even continues their assault, if you somehow as a result of your battling abilities manage to gain the upper hand, you aren't entitled to kick them to a bloody pulp just because you believed your attacker meant to do that to you,. People who want to beat anyone who has the effrontery to attack them until they are no longer moving, are dangerous sociopaths. As would be someone who wanted to shoot someone until they stopped wriggling, even though they had an opportunity to flee the moment a target had hit the floor and dropped whatever weapon they may have held.

Yes, we get it.

I believe "proportionate response" was started by Neville Chamberlain.

reply to post by iwilliam


The right to self-defence does not give you the right to act like a crazed animal. While it's accepted that controlled aggression may not always be a feasible option, when the opportunity is available, such as when you've got a downed opponent, and you're not convinced they are going to give up AND you can't run for assistance, or to safety, THEN you'd be perfectly entitled to stomp on your attacker's ankle as hard as you possible could. You seem to think a stomp on the head would be equally as apt, am I right?

Originally posted by sconner755

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
It's a funny concept some of us UK inhabitants have called "proportionate response." I'm not sure if it's shared with other groups, but it goes like this - if someone punches you on the nose, and even continues their assault, if you somehow as a result of your battling abilities manage to gain the upper hand, you aren't entitled to kick them to a bloody pulp just because you believed your attacker meant to do that to you,. People who want to beat anyone who has the effrontery to attack them until they are no longer moving, are dangerous sociopaths. As would be someone who wanted to shoot someone until they stopped wriggling, even though they had an opportunity to flee the moment a target had hit the floor and dropped whatever weapon they may have held.

Yes, we get it.

I believe "proportionate response" was started by Neville Chamberlain.

It goes back further than that. Try googling "Bushido." People who are highly proficient in the art of self-defence have a code of honour, and will only ever use the amount of violence necessary to negate a particularly threat. Those are the only kind of people I'd really trust to own such lethal weaponry as is available if you shop discreetly on the US market.

reply to post by 200Plus


More to the point, his premeditated behavior did nothing to curry understanding from the court. They looked on a potentially fatal situation for her to somehow be an overreaction on her part. He went home and got a balaclava so he could follow her to her home to confront her. That is his own confession.

From her perspective I can imagine these things were running through her mind:
** He now knows where I live, therefore this place is no longer safe for me ever again.
** Is this a rape/murder/torture scenario?
** How do I regain my security and prevent harm to me?

They took neither her personal well-being nor her peace of mind into consideration when making this ruling against her.

It could have been that he simply wanted to confront her and her friend about the events of the evening, but then why the balaclava? Why follow her to her home? No rational person would do this, you simply let that sort of thing just go. He went to a lot of effort to seek her out and scare her. That doesn't seem to have mattered much though. That, to me, is the mystery here.

The mystery here is, if he admitted all that, why didn't the police press charges against him for it? Getting a severe kicking in the course of commmitting a crime doesn't give you a pass on your errant ways, or it certainly doesn't in my experience.

reply to post by 727Sky


Britain is a very scary country these days - if you murder someone you are likely to get 18 months in jail .. all sentences are immediately halved. The violent are seen as victims and the real victims the abused are seen as collateral damage.. it is a very very sick country now.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


I disagree. having been jumped, attacked, and picked on, you dont stop until the SOCIOPATH that attacked you is sufficiently out of the fight.

You cant measure the degree of acceptable force on a universal basis. Everyone is different and has a different tolerance for pain and damage.

If you are going to KILL me, I might try to kill you first. I would not worry about preserving your life if you were just trying to take mine. Sorry, law of nature supersedes the law of man.

If you are just trying to rob me, I will try to stop you, and I might in turn rob you. I would take the opportunity to teach you a lesson.

I will not sit here and act like a morally superior hypocrite that preaches universal love and respect while denying reality and human nature, the same reality and human nature "morally superior" hypocrites would act upon in a similar situation.

No one is buying it. Sorry.

It is more mentally deranged and disassociated with reality to act like we are little Gods running around forgiving and loving all...that is such BS I dont know where to even start. We are not benevolent. While those type of people DO exist, they are special for their uniqueness. It is NOT the norm and I will hardly believe even half of those claiming to be such people.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
I disagree. having been jumped, attacked, and picked on, you dont stop until the SOCIOPATH that attacked you is sufficiently out of the fight.

Been in all those situations myself, and have never stomped someone into a pulp. I might have done this one time, if my opponent's mate hadn't intervened. To this day, I'm glad he did, as I'd have been doing a serious prison sentence, otherwise.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
You cant measure the degree of acceptable force on a universal basis. Everyone is different and has a different tolerance for pain and damage.

Exactly. A person should have a good idea of his/her own self-defence capabilities, know what battles they can win and which ones to avoid altogether. Acceptable force is circumstance based. If the 19 yr old woman in the OP was 13 stone and built like a brickie, and her 43 yr old attacker was a drunken, 4ft 8in weasel and not even carrying a weapon, stomping him into the ground - however good it might feel - is completely unnecessary.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
If you are going to KILL me, I might try to kill you first. I would not worry about preserving your life if you were just trying to take mine. Sorry, law of nature supersedes the law of man.

Try using that for your defence in a courtroom.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
If you are just trying to rob me, I will try to stop you, and I might in turn rob you. I would take the opportunity to teach you a lesson.

Are you confident of being able to do that with or without a gun, or is it dependent on you being able to own a firearm?

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
I will not sit here and act like a morally superior hypocrite that preaches universal love and respect while denying reality and human nature, the same reality and human nature "morally superior" hypocrites would act upon in a similar situation.

No one is buying it. Sorry.

Not selling it. I don't even know where you got the idea from.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
It is more mentally deranged and disassociated with reality to act like we are little Gods running around forgiving and loving all...that is such BS I dont know where to even start. We are not benevolent. While those type of people DO exist, they are special for their uniqueness. It is NOT the norm and I will hardly believe even half of those claiming to be such people.

edit on 12-1-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)

Again, I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

Originally posted by HelenConway
reply to post by 727Sky

 

Britain is a very scary country these days - if you murder someone you are likely to get 18 months in jail .. all sentences are immediately halved. The violent are seen as victims and the real victims the abused are seen as collateral damage.. it is a very very sick country now.

This is completely wrong. Prison sentences for NON-VIOLENT crimes get half remission on their sentence for good behaviour. Violent criminals still only get a third remission on their sentences. Are you one of these people who'd like to see prisoners get no remission, and leave warders to deal with people who had no incentive for good behaviour, seeing as they were doing a full sentence either way?