Red Cent
Member
The moderators do not know my ex. I mean "white flash" moment. Never laid a hand n her. Took out a couple walls and a door though.
BTW, I left.
BTW, I left.
19 year old female fends off attacker but is found guilty
- Thread starter Sky
- Start date
- Status
PedalBiker
Member
I read the story.
Great Britain is a criminal haven as this case shows. The attacker should have been charged with stalking, assualt, public drunkenness and trespassing.
They can run their country as the see fit, I guess, but it's obvious where they're going.
Great Britain is a criminal haven as this case shows. The attacker should have been charged with stalking, assualt, public drunkenness and trespassing.
They can run their country as the see fit, I guess, but it's obvious where they're going.
sm
member
Read hso's post 3 again.
hso,
Yeah, put me in for ten bucks.
hso,
Yeah, put me in for ten bucks.
Onward Allusion
Member
If somebody creates the fund, I'll I throw into the pot, too. Those peeps in the UK need to toss their elected officials out on their tails.
Last edited:
THplanes said:
The article is trying to show the woman was a victim in as extreme a perspective as possible, and highlighting that it was the boyfriend responsible for knocking the guy out and the woman that kicked him when he was unconscious doesn't paint the same picture. A picture of overcoming odds against a stronger guy intent on harm and then being charged for it is the intent of the story.
So the role of the boyfriend is played down, you wouldn't even know he was involved if they didn't mention his removal of the attacker's mask.
The boyfriend was using entirely legal self defense, and was not charged.
The girlfriend was charged and convicted for her role in using excessive force after the threat was determined by the court to be over, but given no jail time and just the fine.
She now is a violent convicted criminal, with a fine to pay.
Red Cent linked:
Pretty pathetic. A homeowner has less rights and as much burden of proof under those new laws as a US citizen in public. Having to match force with force and prove anything they do was reasonable and was necessary even if someone breaks in. And that is an improvement.
While in most of the US a homeowner is well beyond that.
In California for example there is an automatic presumption of justification for deadly force if someone breaks into your home. Armed, unarmed, if someone breaks in at night and I can't see their hands I don't have to wait for muzzle flashes to know they are armed and fire. If they turn out to have been unarmed I still wouldn't be in trouble.
The law allows me to act confidently in whatever way may be necessary to insure I prevail. No requirement to try and have a "fair" fight and potentially lose in my own home. Fair fights work out well for good guys in the movies, but they result in innocent people injured or killed in real life. You don't owe a home invader a 50% chance of winning, a 25% chance of winning or even a 5% chance of winning, killing you, maybe your family perhaps after some torture or rape, etc
You are not obligated to flip a coin when a criminal breaks in, an unfair advantage means you properly prepared.
Now that does not mean you should be blood thirsty or use unnecessary lethal force, but it does mean you don't have be be paralyzed in your home and can act confidently in a manner to defend it.
Additionally in the UK particularly England both the weapon laws and the storage laws are such that a person following the law should typically be unable to defend themselves with a weapon. So if the criminals come well armed they should prevail most of the time.
Guns are supposed to be stored locked up and unloaded even within a home, and of the limited types available to a common citizen they are a relative pain to even acquire.
They have banned mere possession in the home of many inexpensive swords and other weapons.
Stun guns, pepper spray, and most typical non lethal modern implements are illegal 'offensive weapons' that peasants should not possess.
And that is just in the home, on the streets it is even more in favor of the criminals traveling in packs.
So yes if you managed to face criminals in your own home that you can subdue with simple tools available to a peasant and which are not banned in your own home in England (and a homemade weapon is just as likely to turn you into the bad guy in the nanny state) or that you manage to take from the criminal, you can then maybe be determined to have acted in self defense, if you gave them a fair fight and only met force with equal force.
The article is trying to show the woman was a victim in as extreme a perspective as possible, and highlighting that it was the boyfriend responsible for knocking the guy out and the woman that kicked him when he was unconscious doesn't paint the same picture. A picture of overcoming odds against a stronger guy intent on harm and then being charged for it is the intent of the story.
So the role of the boyfriend is played down, you wouldn't even know he was involved if they didn't mention his removal of the attacker's mask.
The boyfriend was using entirely legal self defense, and was not charged.
The girlfriend was charged and convicted for her role in using excessive force after the threat was determined by the court to be over, but given no jail time and just the fine.
She now is a violent convicted criminal, with a fine to pay.
Red Cent linked:
Pretty pathetic. A homeowner has less rights and as much burden of proof under those new laws as a US citizen in public. Having to match force with force and prove anything they do was reasonable and was necessary even if someone breaks in. And that is an improvement.
While in most of the US a homeowner is well beyond that.
In California for example there is an automatic presumption of justification for deadly force if someone breaks into your home. Armed, unarmed, if someone breaks in at night and I can't see their hands I don't have to wait for muzzle flashes to know they are armed and fire. If they turn out to have been unarmed I still wouldn't be in trouble.
The law allows me to act confidently in whatever way may be necessary to insure I prevail. No requirement to try and have a "fair" fight and potentially lose in my own home. Fair fights work out well for good guys in the movies, but they result in innocent people injured or killed in real life. You don't owe a home invader a 50% chance of winning, a 25% chance of winning or even a 5% chance of winning, killing you, maybe your family perhaps after some torture or rape, etc
You are not obligated to flip a coin when a criminal breaks in, an unfair advantage means you properly prepared.
Now that does not mean you should be blood thirsty or use unnecessary lethal force, but it does mean you don't have be be paralyzed in your home and can act confidently in a manner to defend it.
Additionally in the UK particularly England both the weapon laws and the storage laws are such that a person following the law should typically be unable to defend themselves with a weapon. So if the criminals come well armed they should prevail most of the time.
Guns are supposed to be stored locked up and unloaded even within a home, and of the limited types available to a common citizen they are a relative pain to even acquire.
They have banned mere possession in the home of many inexpensive swords and other weapons.
Stun guns, pepper spray, and most typical non lethal modern implements are illegal 'offensive weapons' that peasants should not possess.
And that is just in the home, on the streets it is even more in favor of the criminals traveling in packs.
So yes if you managed to face criminals in your own home that you can subdue with simple tools available to a peasant and which are not banned in your own home in England (and a homemade weapon is just as likely to turn you into the bad guy in the nanny state) or that you manage to take from the criminal, you can then maybe be determined to have acted in self defense, if you gave them a fair fight and only met force with equal force.
Last edited:
throdgrain
Member
Sorry guys but I love all these high and mighty opinions from thousands of miles away.
Some facts.
Scotland is full of drunks. And I know you've all seen Braveheart, but that's a film. Made by Americans by the way
Scotlands government is scarily left wing. They will always take the high and mighty lefty attitude over anything. These are the same people who released that Libiyan murderer a year or so ago.
Scotland is rapidly becoming an autonomous part of Great Britain.
Most of the sensible Scottish people already live in England.We're glad they're here. We'll leave the rest of the country for the neds.
Some facts.
Scotland is full of drunks. And I know you've all seen Braveheart, but that's a film. Made by Americans by the way
Scotlands government is scarily left wing. They will always take the high and mighty lefty attitude over anything. These are the same people who released that Libiyan murderer a year or so ago.
Scotland is rapidly becoming an autonomous part of Great Britain.
Most of the sensible Scottish people already live in England.We're glad they're here. We'll leave the rest of the country for the neds.
Red Cent
Member
"....high and mighty opinions....."
Need to get specific. Whose and what.
"Most of the sensible Scottish people already live in England. We're glad they're here. We'll leave the rest of the country for the neds."
So you are in England? Better than Scotland? Whats a ned?
Sorry, I'm just an old hillbilly redneck from WV.
Need to get specific. Whose and what.
"Most of the sensible Scottish people already live in England. We're glad they're here. We'll leave the rest of the country for the neds."
So you are in England? Better than Scotland? Whats a ned?
Sorry, I'm just an old hillbilly redneck from WV.
steelerdude99
Member
In the article that Zoogster references (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0807/S00435.htm) , "As long as they use no more force than absolutely necessary, people should have confidence that the law will support them, so long as: (listed conditions)." That absolutely necessary force is easy to define in hind sight for the person whose actions are not under the preverbal microscope. Was the person unconscious when he was being kicked or was he saying “When I get up I will kill you both”? It looks to be that UK law will support you IF YOU CAN PROVE you did not use excessive force. In my opinion, a tall order. Another reason not to live in the U.K.
Last edited:
BHP FAN
Member
Back when I was taking Jujitsu one of the instructors was at SF Airport, using the pay phone set against the wall [before cell phones] in the parking garage, when she was attacked. She defended herself successfully, and the was using the phone to call 911, when her attacker regained consciousness, and resumed the attack, savagely beating her with the phone, and inflicting a concussion, as well as numerous other injurys.
Deltaboy1984
Member
The Brits have gone NUTS! Winston Churchill is spinning in his grave.
sniper5
Member
Really, who cares what England thinks about anything? Didn't we have some kind of difference of opinion about rights a couple hundred years ago?
They are a little island that thinks they are an empire. If they weren't strategically located so we could use them as a base to attack European targets they would be worthless to us.
They are a little island that thinks they are an empire. If they weren't strategically located so we could use them as a base to attack European targets they would be worthless to us.
I wonder just how curtious the attacker would have been if he would have knocked her unconsious ?? With the adreniline needed to fend off his attack, I can easily see why she would have given him a couple extra wacks to make sure he is in fact down for the count, and no more threat.
I have no simpathy for a person like him who would attack someone in that manner, and doubt he would have stopped with a simple robbery. He got some of what he deserved . She got victomized twice .
The article says she removed the mask and defended herself. There is no mention in the story about any role the boyfriend may have played. It simply says he was there. So again, do you have any links describing what he did.
06
Member
Good for her. Put me down for $10 also. He should have been like the thief who while running out of a store ran into some Marines working a Toys For Tots display and stabbed one of them. When the ambulance arrived the thief had "stumbled" on the curbing--he had broken ribs, fingers, jaw, arm, and multiple contusions rendering him uncounscious. Poor fellow--curbs just seem to be a problem for some.
kingcheese
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2008
- Messages
- 677
so if she would have killed him in deffense... she would have been good to go?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
I don't get it. We don't allow people in the US to kick an unconscious person in the head. We aren't allowed to shoot unconscious robbers multiple times (ala Ersland). We would considering kicking a person in the head to be a use of lethal force and Erlsand went away for first degree murder for being successful with his.
Somebody tell me again why kicking an unconscious person in the head is self defense.
The only injustice I see here is that the original attacker wasn't charged for the original attack.
Somebody tell me again why kicking an unconscious person in the head is self defense.
The only injustice I see here is that the original attacker wasn't charged for the original attack.
Post #46...
...nails it. With all of the comments here about this having happened in the UK, some may fail to realize that the actions of the lady in question would have been unlawful in any state or territory in our country.
A law abiding citizen may use force when it is necessary to defend. One may not use force when it is unnecessary. Nor may one use force to administer justice. We leave that duty to the courts.
...nails it. With all of the comments here about this having happened in the UK, some may fail to realize that the actions of the lady in question would have been unlawful in any state or territory in our country.
A law abiding citizen may use force when it is necessary to defend. One may not use force when it is unnecessary. Nor may one use force to administer justice. We leave that duty to the courts.
DNS has it right.
Onward Allusion
Member
We may not be allowed to shoot an unconscious BG in the head, but believe it or not, many women self defense classes will teach the victim to do exactly what the woman in the news article did. Kick the BG in the head (into unconsciousness) if possible when he's down and then get the hell away from him. Reason is that it is a likely scenario where the BG gets back up and chases the woman down. I'm not just blowing smoke. A class my wife attended taught EXACTLY that. Don't look at it from a man's perspective. Look at it from a woman's... Do ou really think if you were a woman, that you can outrun a man while wearing heels or non-flat shoes???
Now, going back to the story and re-reading it... The woman in question was probably wrong. I say probably, because once the adrenaline starts pumping most of us if not all of us regress to our ape-like ways...all bets are off. Also, where was the boyfriend in all this???
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
