19 year old female fends off attacker but is found guilty

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Bonesinium: She may have been wrong for kicking him while he was down, but come on. Really?

Down and out, according to the report.

"She may have been wrong"? Yep. It was a crime of violence, if she did it, not only in England, Scotland, and Wales, but in every state in the United States of America, and all of the territories. And that's not a recent development, by any means.

It seems there is no subjectivity to the way judges think, or at least less then there should be.

You will note that she did "get off lightly", to use the vernacular; very lightly, as a matter of fact, for a conviction for assault and battery resulting in serious injury. She could well have been imprisoned for up to six months and fined for a much larger amount (ten times as much, by the way), under the law.

However, Sheriff Donald Muirhead did not impose a heavy penalty. Instead, told Burleigh...

[that] 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. In all the circumstances, it seems to me that I can deal with the matter by way of a financial penalty."

The phrase "in all the circumstances" indicates that the court took into account the fear and trauma that she experienced during the incident.

However, how does the attacker not get charged at all?

That remains a mystery to us here. There is nothing in the article to explain it.

Once again, this is not something that would only happen in Scotland, or farther south on the island of Great Britain.

We all need to keep in mind that we may not use force when it is no longer necessary, or more force than is required to meet the lawful objectives of self defense. When force is used after the need has dissipated, the "good guy" becomes a "bad guy" very quickly indeed.

 

[sansoo]

do not keep on kicking

I study kung fu san soo which is essentially a combat art, not a sport art. I have been taught to totally destroy an opponent with the last element of destruction directed when the opponent is on the ground. This can and may result in death. DO NOT EVER DELIVER THE FINAL BLOW UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO DO PRISON TIME FOR 1ST OR 2ND DEGREE MURDER. You may neutralize him but not bludgeon him. When the threat is neutralized, GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE, DON'T STICK AROUND FOR THE COPS TO SHOW UP and WITNESSES MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE THE AGGRESSOR.

 

[mnrivrat]

note that all of the above is taken from an instructional paper prepared for the education of criminal defense attorneys in the United States.

And with that - I rest my case !

 

[Neverwinter]

And with that - I rest my case !

Does anyone else see the irony in using legal vernacular to declare victory for an argument founded in disregard for the law?

 

[Manco]

note that all of the above is taken from an instructional paper prepared for the education of criminal defense attorneys in the United States.

And with that - I rest my case !

That's a non sequitur because the potential "criminal" (if convicted) in a self-defense incident would be YOU, and therefore these criminal defense attorneys whom you apparently hold in low esteem would be on your side. It behooves everybody who practices self-defense to know what these attorneys know if they wish to stay out of prison.

For others who prefer to unnecessarily torture or execute their assailants regardless of the legal consequences, have fun in prison because right or wrong that's where you're going to end up if you ever have to defend yourselves, especially after the prosecutor reads your posts in this thread.

 

[BBQLS1]

lemme see if i got this straight

Bad guy tried to rob her, she kicked the <removed> out of him, so the government decided to finish what the bad guy started and finished robbing the girl...makes sense

 

[hso]

Ok, this has drifted far from the S&T topic into the Legal topic and now just into the "outraged" topic. A little to much ranting and not enough rational analysis at this point.