19 year old female fends off attacker but is found guilty
- Thread starter Sky
- Start date
- Status
bluetopper
Member
Ms. Burleigh is on Facebook also. I contacted her Sunday to express my outrage. She replied today.
Kleanbore said:
Whether he/she misunderstands the law all depends on whether or not Ms Burleigh was within the bounds of legal self-defense.
If we take the proposition that she was defending herself appropriately for granted, it's not a bad summation.
He/she did not say "The attacker was responsible what happened to him...no matter what."
Sheepdog1968
Member
I lived in the UK for two years. I enjoyed it. However, they have a completely different mindset about self-defense. I had many discussions about it with my colleagues. It used to boggle my mind. This doesn't surprise me too much based on my experience there. Having said that, there is a time when you have stopped the attach and you are no longer defending yourself.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
The presumption of innocence requires that we believe that Docherty was legally culpable for the outcome until a guilty verdict for Burleigh is reached.
Well, that has absolutely nothing to do with assigning guilt for his own murder to one who has been killed in lawful self defense.
The kind of law to which you refer is the one that is invoked when a policeman or citizen lawfully or unlawfully takes the life of a felon during his commission of a crime, and the felon's accomplice is charged with murdering the deceased felon.
For example, in the recent Oklahoma city shooting, a robber was killed by a pharmacist. The pharmacist was convicted of murder in the first degree, and so was a second robber, and two men who had recruited the robber were also so convicted.
While the deceased individual had been committing a felony, it would be meaningless to say that he murdered himself.
Harley Quinn
Member
Interesting side story.
Do you have a link to accompany???
I wonder if anyone is setting up a paypal account, for this one
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Interesting side story.
Do you have a link to accompany???
See Post # 85 in the thread at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=594815 for the newspaper story links.
I wonder if anyone is setting up a paypal account, for this one
Ersland (the OKC pharmacist in question) does have a legal defense fund, I don't know about a paypal account. He had a contributions jar at the pharmacy, that story made the news because the jar was stolen at one time.
lpl
Do you have a link to accompany???
See Post # 85 in the thread at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=594815 for the newspaper story links.
I wonder if anyone is setting up a paypal account, for this one
Ersland (the OKC pharmacist in question) does have a legal defense fund, I don't know about a paypal account. He had a contributions jar at the pharmacy, that story made the news because the jar was stolen at one time.
lpl
Harley Quinn
Member
Thanks Lee
I visited the thread...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=594815&page=4
No assist is warranted...
I visited the thread...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=594815&page=4
No assist is warranted...
Last edited:
Flfiremedic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 447
Didn't the SAS kind of patent the whole don't turn your back on a live enemy?
bubba15301
Member
how is this firearms related
??
??
It isn't, but it's allowed according to the rules of this specific forum: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=561603
mr.trooper
Member
In my opinion, Once you initiate a violent crime, then YOU are responsible for the outcome (even if you loose).
The ATTACKER is the one who initiated the event, thus HE is the one who is ultimately responsible for the outcome because HE is the only one who had the opportunity to think through things at his leisure.
An example: If you are in the passenger seat of a moving car... and you suddenly scream BOO! at the driver, causing them to swerve into a tree, killing YOU, Is the DRIVER responsible? Should the driver have "restrained themselves"? NO! The driver reacted instinctively to a violent action. The IDIOT who startled the driver is solely responsible for his own demise.
In the same way, the Idiot who attacked the woman is solely responsible for his injuries no matter how severe they were/could have been. The woman is no more culpable than if someone else had injected her with a strong drug against her will (exactly what happened when the THUG caused her adrenal glands and fight/flight mechanism to activate).
If and ONLY if she had returned to the downed man to LATER, after coming down of the adrenalin, would she be responsible for initiating her own assault.
The ATTACKER is the one who initiated the event, thus HE is the one who is ultimately responsible for the outcome because HE is the only one who had the opportunity to think through things at his leisure.
An example: If you are in the passenger seat of a moving car... and you suddenly scream BOO! at the driver, causing them to swerve into a tree, killing YOU, Is the DRIVER responsible? Should the driver have "restrained themselves"? NO! The driver reacted instinctively to a violent action. The IDIOT who startled the driver is solely responsible for his own demise.
In the same way, the Idiot who attacked the woman is solely responsible for his injuries no matter how severe they were/could have been. The woman is no more culpable than if someone else had injected her with a strong drug against her will (exactly what happened when the THUG caused her adrenal glands and fight/flight mechanism to activate).
If and ONLY if she had returned to the downed man to LATER, after coming down of the adrenalin, would she be responsible for initiating her own assault.
La Pistoletta
Member
I don't know how many Iron Maiden fans there are here, but they're a British band and one of their songs has lyrics that deal with this type of insanity going on in Britain, where the response to guilt is pity, and the response to innocence is punishment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9J3rHHVk94
Quoting a few particularly relevant lines:
"A life of petty crime gets punished with a holiday
The victims' mind are scarred for life most everyday
Assailants know just how much further that can go
They know the laws are soft conviction chances low
You can't protect yourselves even in your own home
For fear of vigilante cries the victims wipe their eyes
So now the criminals they launch right in our face
Judicial system lets them do it, a disgrace"
Quoting a few particularly relevant lines:
"A life of petty crime gets punished with a holiday
The victims' mind are scarred for life most everyday
Assailants know just how much further that can go
They know the laws are soft conviction chances low
You can't protect yourselves even in your own home
For fear of vigilante cries the victims wipe their eyes
So now the criminals they launch right in our face
Judicial system lets them do it, a disgrace"
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
So if I punch you in the thigh unjustly, you are justified for shooting me with a shotgun and I am responsible for your actions?
And this is the reason we have to have so many and very specific laws. Everybody has an opinion on these matters and not all opinions agree.
The attacker may have initiated the attack, but he did stop and was reported to be unconscious. At that point, the hero of this story initiated her own attack and became responsible for her actions.
Not sure what you are trying to say.
No, not according to the law as it has stood for centuries. More than one person can be found guilty of a violent crime.
Take the Ersland case: the pharmacist, one of the robbers, and two men who planned the robbery were all convicted of murdering the robber who died. The deceased died because he attempted a robbery, but that did not make him the only one who was responsible for his own death.
Were that true, we would live in a lawless society, in which one could summarily execute any person who had struck him.
No--there are limits to the lawful use of force in our society.
Well, in the case at hand, the woman was not responsible for "initiating" her own assault. She was, however, charged not because she defended herself, but because she kicking someone who no longer represented a threat to her because he was unconscious; the fact that that someone had allegedly attacked her did not justify her action.
Had she returned later, she would indeed have been more culpable. To illustrate that, suppose that the man had died; in the event as it has been reported , she would likely have been charged with manslaughter, but had she departed and returned to finish him off, we would be reading about murder.
Everyone should understand and remember the following:
One may lawfully defend oneself when it is immediately necessary, but one may not use more force than is necessary, nor may one punish a criminal for an act that has already been committed or use force against someone because he may constitute a threat at some time in the future.
Carl N. Brown
Member
To adapt the old song about "Dirty Laundry" to lawful self defense:
If they're unconscious, they're no longer a credible threat. Although I would recognise that heat-of-passion-or-anger as a mitigating circumstance it is not defensible as a justification.
Clearly you are not a 19 year old female who is being attack ---to win, she has to bring everything she has to the fight. That includes all the fight she has in her, and to me that means to keep kicking until the adreniline wears out. The only rule in a fight for your life is to win .
Yes.
OK, if that is what is necessary.
To you, maybe, but not to the law, for some eight or nine centuries now.
She may keep striking until the threat is neutralized; she kept kicking after that. The adrenalin, as Carl N. Brown said, could be seen as a mitigating circumstance to reduce the charges, but not as justification.
One may analyze and debate what that properly means and what it does not, but it is important to realize that repeating such cliches can be dangerous. In the trial of Larry Hickey in Arizona, the phrase "always cheat; always win" used by self defense instructors in courses in which Hickey was involved was used to portray the defendant to the jury unfavorably as a person with a violent mindset.
Let's all be careful here.
There are large questions pertaining to the action or inaction of the boy friend. He could have testified as to her sense of danger after knocking the man down. This is an interesting case but hardly anything for gun owners in the US to be concerned about. It seems the British have taken steps to make their laws more reasonable.
When your attacker is down you can take steps to be sure he is no longer aggressive. That does not mean you can shoot him if he twitches.
When your attacker is down you can take steps to be sure he is no longer aggressive. That does not mean you can shoot him if he twitches.
Harley Quinn
Member
Ala Tom...
I agree with you
Not enough information about the male companion, helping and other ending up, unconsious on the ground, then the kicking begins
Seems to me quite a few wits must have swayed jury/judge to come up with fine situation
I agree with you
Not enough information about the male companion, helping and other ending up, unconsious on the ground, then the kicking begins
Seems to me quite a few wits must have swayed jury/judge to come up with fine situation
That's true while you are in reasonable fear for your life, but this case is about what one does after winning the fight.
I know we are beating to death a single difference in opinion . Probably summed up more than anything by the statement of "reasonable fear" .
If you have not been in a situation where you in fact have feared for your life it is easy to use the word reasonable. If you however have known the moments of fear that come out of life threatening situations, you likely have a different perspective on what's reasonable, or you know that reason has nothing to do with it.
In the real world to me the fights over when the magazine is empty , or when "I" "feel" safe. Don't start one - won't be one .
Under the law, the term "reasonable belief" is used. Reason has everything to do with it. How frightened one may be does not enter into justification.
Justification requires the following:
Note the last item.
To you, maybe, but not to the law, for some eight or nine centuries now.
The case will not be a self defense case if the actor...
For those who may somehow believe that the case cited illustrates problems with the laws of the United Kingdom, note that all of the above is taken from an instructional paper prepared for the education of criminal defense attorneys in the United States.
Read this for a more complete understanding.
Bonesinium
Member
While I disagree with Burleigh being charged and fined, I understand it, and have come to expect things like this. She may have been wrong for kicking him while he was down, but come on. Really? It seems there is no subjectivity to the way judges think, or at least less then there should be.
However, how does the attacker not get charged at all? You kidding me? That is a joke. Completely ridiculous. So attempting to attack, hurt, murder, rape, or assault somebody is fine to to in the UK as long as you don't succeed? Talk about messed up.
However, how does the attacker not get charged at all? You kidding me? That is a joke. Completely ridiculous. So attempting to attack, hurt, murder, rape, or assault somebody is fine to to in the UK as long as you don't succeed? Talk about messed up.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
