19 year old female fends off attacker but is found guilty
- Thread starter Sky
- Start date
- Status
I wonder about the witness testimony? The guy went down, slipped or was cold cocked by the boyfriend?
She kicked him once or 20 times? What ever the case he was up walking later? She is not a good kicker for sure!
Police later found Docherty in a nearby street with severe facial injuries and called an ambulance to take him to hospital.
Let someone attack a police officer and see what he and his buddies do to you; attack anyone in a position of authority and see what happens to you. These are trained professionals yet how many times have you seen someone cuffed and beaten or shot in some headline news segment or some video; rage is hard to predict.
He could have been bugging her at the bar from which he followed her. Enough is enough if that is the case. From the article it is implied or possible there might have been something at the bar for he picked her out to follow. Just speculation.
Let some guy attack a woman and the one time out of hundreds of times she ends up defeating her attacker and what happened??
I can not understand why he was not prosecuted for the initial attack. Guess they figured he had suffered enough; poor baby? Bad situation......But I like to think the jury verdict would have been different here in America. Heavy slant to "like to think"!
She kicked him once or 20 times? What ever the case he was up walking later? She is not a good kicker for sure!
Police later found Docherty in a nearby street with severe facial injuries and called an ambulance to take him to hospital.
Let someone attack a police officer and see what he and his buddies do to you; attack anyone in a position of authority and see what happens to you. These are trained professionals yet how many times have you seen someone cuffed and beaten or shot in some headline news segment or some video; rage is hard to predict.
He could have been bugging her at the bar from which he followed her. Enough is enough if that is the case. From the article it is implied or possible there might have been something at the bar for he picked her out to follow. Just speculation.
Let some guy attack a woman and the one time out of hundreds of times she ends up defeating her attacker and what happened??
I can not understand why he was not prosecuted for the initial attack. Guess they figured he had suffered enough; poor baby? Bad situation......But I like to think the jury verdict would have been different here in America. Heavy slant to "like to think"!
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
It wasn't the kicking that was illegal, but the timing. If your wife was taught to do what was in the article and she does, she will be committing illegal acts as well. I don't know of any self defense schools that teach people to commit aggression against unconscious suspects. Maybe you misunderstood your wife or your wife misunderstood her lessons?
How is it you happen to know exactly what shoes the actors in this story were wearing? That information isn't in the article.
With various shoes, lots of 19 year old females could outrun drunken 43 year old males.
Like Ersland, she went too far and stopped acting in self defense and starting acting in vengence, outside of what is legal, got caught, only she got off easy.
BTW, women occasionally do defeat their attackers and don't go to jail as a result. There have been several cases posted on this forum. They acted within the law and there was no legal hassle as a result, in several cases, having killed their attackers. Here are just a few examples of women doing good and not getting arrested for doing bad afterwards...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=403215&highlight=woman+kills+attacker
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=76804&highlight=woman+kills+attacker
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=533561&highlight=woman+shot+intruder
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=518632&highlight=woman+shot+intruder
Onward Allusion
Member
Harley Quinn
Member
Situation is truly interesting, the defender did become criminal...It is a good case it appears IMHO...
Similar to some who feel they can shoot someone because they trespass on property, and in fact, they cannot shoot, unless extreme conditions...
Need a fear for your life (it is best it seems) and when person is unconscious unable to commit the act, need to evaluate, cease actions...Simple really
Considering the fact that the thread is more of an attack against UK seems unusual it is not locked
Similar to some who feel they can shoot someone because they trespass on property, and in fact, they cannot shoot, unless extreme conditions...
Need a fear for your life (it is best it seems) and when person is unconscious unable to commit the act, need to evaluate, cease actions...Simple really
Considering the fact that the thread is more of an attack against UK seems unusual it is not locked
Sounds like the court made allowance for the adrenaline by only levying a fine.
The point we have to take away is that once the threat was stopped she could have simply gone inside and locked the door to further ensure her safety. Instead she stayed in contact with the threat and continued to kick the unconscious perpetrator of the stalking+attack. That's not easy to explain from a sound self defense standpoint.
Remember out goal is to avoid injury. If we can do that by some other means than putting ourselves in contact with an attacker we should. If we can't avoid being in contact with the attacker we should stop the attack as quickly as possible and then escape to avoid further injury. Letting our victory and anger take over only puts us in contact with the attacker longer furthering the chance they'll find the means to reassert themselves and injure us.
BTW, I've sent an email to the reporter who wrote the article and asked how we might help Ms. Burleigh pay the £500 fine levied by the court. I'll let ya'll know if there's a response.
The point we have to take away is that once the threat was stopped she could have simply gone inside and locked the door to further ensure her safety. Instead she stayed in contact with the threat and continued to kick the unconscious perpetrator of the stalking+attack. That's not easy to explain from a sound self defense standpoint.
Remember out goal is to avoid injury. If we can do that by some other means than putting ourselves in contact with an attacker we should. If we can't avoid being in contact with the attacker we should stop the attack as quickly as possible and then escape to avoid further injury. Letting our victory and anger take over only puts us in contact with the attacker longer furthering the chance they'll find the means to reassert themselves and injure us.
BTW, I've sent an email to the reporter who wrote the article and asked how we might help Ms. Burleigh pay the £500 fine levied by the court. I'll let ya'll know if there's a response.
Last edited:
Onward Allusion
Member
Double - No, my wife wasn't mistaken. In fact I'd checked with her before my post. There's the law and then there's reality. No, self-defense classes aren't going to advertise "kill your assailant" or "knock your assailant unconscious", but that is in essence what many of them do in class. Obviously the philosophy varies from school to school & class to class. Different strokes. If it's not your value system, that's fine. BTW, I would rather have my wife "commit a crime" than get raped or killed.
I pretty sure you know that I'm generalizing. I could say "How do you know she wasn't?". I could also say something like "Well, logic would dictate that a woman would wear heels when she goes clubbing.". It isn't about that.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Uh, I know it's Britain but I am reminded that a US Supreme Court ruling mentioned that calm reflection cannot be expected in the face of an upraised knife. ¿Calm reflection should be expected in the presence of a masked attacker? (I suspect tho' once the attacker apppeared unconsious it would be wise to stop out of fear of killing him.)
I am continually reminded that the "reasonable person" who will decide if I was in fear of imminent death or greivous bodily harm in a self-defense situation will be a prosecutor, judge or juror in the quiet and safety of a courtroom.
The Kleck & Gertz National Self Defense Survey (1993-1995) showed 2.4 million defensive gun uses per year, and tabulated ten other national surveys that showed 764,000 to 3.6 million DGUs per year. Some folks wondered, if self-defense with a gun is that common, why don't we see more newspaper or police reports citing self defense? Well, duh: 19 year old female fends off attacker but is found guilty
Street level, most people who defend themselves successfully, gun or no gun, usually think it is better not to call the police or the newspaper. Stories like this just re-enforce that gut level reaction. People should not be afraid to report defense against an attack, especially since, if they let the attacker call the police first, the attacker can play the victim.
I am continually reminded that the "reasonable person" who will decide if I was in fear of imminent death or greivous bodily harm in a self-defense situation will be a prosecutor, judge or juror in the quiet and safety of a courtroom.
The Kleck & Gertz National Self Defense Survey (1993-1995) showed 2.4 million defensive gun uses per year, and tabulated ten other national surveys that showed 764,000 to 3.6 million DGUs per year. Some folks wondered, if self-defense with a gun is that common, why don't we see more newspaper or police reports citing self defense? Well, duh: 19 year old female fends off attacker but is found guilty
Street level, most people who defend themselves successfully, gun or no gun, usually think it is better not to call the police or the newspaper. Stories like this just re-enforce that gut level reaction. People should not be afraid to report defense against an attack, especially since, if they let the attacker call the police first, the attacker can play the victim.
Onward Allusion
Member
Harley Quinn
Situation is truly interesting, the defender did become criminal...It is a good case it appears IMHO...
Similar to some who feel they can shoot someone because they trespass on property, and in fact, they cannot shoot, unless extreme conditions...
Need a fear for your life (it is best it seems) and when person is unconscious unable to commit the act, need to evaluate, cease actions...Simple really
Considering the fact that the thread is more of an attack against UK seems unusual it is not locked
I don't think the thread is a slam against the UK as it is a discussion on the thin line between self-defense and aggression. The woman in the article did cross the line but definitely had mitigating circumstances, hence the fine rather than jail time. I do understand why she did what she did. Honestly, I don't know what I would have done if I were in that situation.
Harley Quinn
Member
Regarding kicking someone in the head, (if wearing a boot or other hardsole shoe) is considered a felony in CA... If, fear for your life, is the reason it is done, might be ok in certain circumstance...
Onward Allusion, you have gotten to personal imho...Your wife aside...This is a case of to much, to late...Bad timing...
Regards
Onward Allusion, you have gotten to personal imho...Your wife aside...This is a case of to much, to late...Bad timing...
Regards
withdrawn34
Member.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
- Messages
- 529
Sorry folks, what she did would've been wrong here in the US, too. SD is fine, but revenge beating is not. At the same time, however, the situation isn't so cut and dry. That is probably why there was a fine rather than jail time.
To be honest, I'm actually surprised she didn't get charged for the actual SD act as well (being the UK and all).
Nonetheless, I am glad she was able to defend herself.
To be honest, I'm actually surprised she didn't get charged for the actual SD act as well (being the UK and all).
Nonetheless, I am glad she was able to defend herself.
True in theory, but how does the victim know that the assailant isn't "playing possum" in order to catch the victim off guard? It wouldn't be the first time. In practice, a few additional kicks to the head could be viewed as insurance, particularly if the victim is otherwise unarmed.
True, but while kicks to the head can potentially be lethal, too, a person who is armed with a gun has a greater ability to defend themselves from subsequent attacks, which implies greater culpability for any unnecessary (in hindsight) actions they choose to take. What I wonder is whether the boyfriend played a part in the decision, since his presence could very well make the actions of the victim seem far more egregious than perhaps they otherwise would.
It's to make sure that the assailant is really stopped, as described above, which is admittedly far more justifiable for a victim who is unarmed (except for parts of their body) and alone. In this case, however, it seems that there was a disparity of force in favor of the victim, making the kicks unnecessary. I suppose it's good enough that they let her off relatively easy with a fine (I guess they'd rather make money than spend it on incarcerating her).
Exactly. I guess he's viewed solely as the victim just because he got hurt worse, and that's just wrong. One could argue that his attack was pretty unnecessary, too, but since it did get the justice system a nice juicy fine, they'll let it slide this time. Like I always say, criminals are very useful to governments.
The other injustice is some of the derogatory comments directed at the country. Yes, there is a lot to criticize about the laws there, and I've done plenty of it, but this particular case is not a good example. And yes, here in the US I've seen the real criminals escape prosecution just because they got hurt, too--it doesn't happen frequently, but it does occasionally happen.
If she were, then she might have been convicted of murder instead.
But the assailant attacked a woman and her boyfriend, who put the assailant on the ground. At that point, kicking him repeatedly was indeed probably retribution, or at least a failure to control her righteous anger at being attacked. If the assailant had been armed (which isn't always obvious, I realize, but people love to use hindsight, don't they?) or the victim had been alone, then perhaps the court would have gone as easy on her as they did her assailant. Who knows, in that case they might have even prosecuted him instead of viewing him as the victim and labeling the real victim as the attacker with an "assault" charge (they should call it something else like "excessive defensive force").
There can be no good reason whatsoever, but I sure hope it wasn't because he was slobbering drunk at the time.
It sometimes may, depending on the sum total of the jury's view of the circumstances, of which we are not completely informed in this case. While the balaclava would seem to make things obvious enough, then again so could the exact descriptions of the events by the eyewitnesses, which we haven't heard. In any case, she got off relatively easy, so it's not exactly a case of self-defense being outlawed--there are plenty of examples, but in my opinion this is not one of them.
More to your point, while it's hardly guaranteed, from what I've seen the verdict would have stood a greater chance of being different in the US, I suppose. This is based on nothing more than seeing numerous examples of charges being waived for things like illegal possession of concealed weapons--apparently the ends justify the means in such cases as long as you were acting in self-defense and only the bad guy got hurt (American juries are usually pretty vindictive against criminals and easy on those who harm them--usually). Maybe there are such examples in the UK, as well, but I seldom if ever hear about them (and therefore may not know enough to comment). With this case, I don't know--it could go either way in the US, and probably would have gone the same way if it was clear to the witnesses that excessive force was used.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
The few additonal kicks for good measure, instead of moving away, are illegal in both countries, and not in theory, but in reality.
Her fine was appropriate if not a light charge.
When I said "in theory" it was in reference to what we allow, not necessarily what is legal. No law can possibly cover all circumstances, which is why people do the judging in accordance with their life experiences (that's what we're told as jurors) in addition to the law, rather than, say, computers. The law itself is therefore only "theoretical" in the face of jury nullification in the name of justice (as well as unfortunate cases of injustice--works both ways). Reality is what people actually do, and in reality if the law is deemed to interfere with the fundamental right of self-defense, then jurors may choose to ignore it, depending on the circumstances. Either way, generally speaking it is better to be charged with assault in self-defense and brought before a jury than it is to die.
By the way, I don't advocate taking unnecessary measures by any means, nor breaking laws if one can avoid it, but I do advocate taking all necessary measures (unless the law is scarier than being assaulted and possibly murdered).
In this specific case, I think the right decisions were made in court (aside from letting the attacker off even easier), so no argument here.
Last edited:
Geckgo
Member
Anyone here who wants to claim I've never been in or close to a "real" fight, fine, believe whatever you like about people you don't know.
As I sit back and watch this discussion carry on I cannot help but notice the emotion and angry words of those who advocate kicking an unconscious person in the skull. Hey, why not stomp on his head while your at it? If he's dead then he can't bother you anymore, right?
These kind of vindictive personalities will not get you far, and I wasn't talking about "agreed upon" fights by drunks. I'm talking about hotheads suckerpunching someone that pissed them off and then getting put on their self righteous behinds, ending the argument. Pick em up, dust em off, make sure they are okay, then buy them a drink. Believe it or not some "victims" really are this civil about how they handle disputes. Imagine if all of us had that kind of disposition.
As I sit back and watch this discussion carry on I cannot help but notice the emotion and angry words of those who advocate kicking an unconscious person in the skull. Hey, why not stomp on his head while your at it? If he's dead then he can't bother you anymore, right?
These kind of vindictive personalities will not get you far, and I wasn't talking about "agreed upon" fights by drunks. I'm talking about hotheads suckerpunching someone that pissed them off and then getting put on their self righteous behinds, ending the argument. Pick em up, dust em off, make sure they are okay, then buy them a drink. Believe it or not some "victims" really are this civil about how they handle disputes. Imagine if all of us had that kind of disposition.
Deltaboy1984
Member
Woman can not afford to give any man a opening to recover and come back for round.
The guy was lucky she didn't stomp him in the temple.
The guy was lucky she didn't stomp him in the temple.
Just because somebody managed to get the upper hand at first doesn't necessarily mean that they'll win the second time around, or even be able to escape. One time I witnessed a pretty big guy get clocked on the side of his head by a woman with her purse, which momentarily stunned him and dropped him to his knees (what was she carrying?!
), but he had recovered enough after a few seconds to catch up to and grab her. I doubt he would have allowed her to do that to him again. Apparently it was a domestic dispute, and fortunately there were people around so it did not escalate any further, but the point is that under different circumstances and with the worst intentions, such an incident could have ended very badly for the victim despite an initially successful defense. I wouldn't have blamed her if she had kept smacking him with her purse or whatever was handy before he could regain his senses, and I'd take this into account if I were serving on the jury. Even homicide is justifiable if the person was reasonably in fear of losing their life.In the particular case being discussed in this thread it was apparently two against one presumably with nobody armed, and they could have barricaded themselves inside the house, so I totally understand the verdict, but I don't think that your argument applies to the general case.
But is the threat really stopped, do they need to be, and could you stop them again if necessary? It depends on the circumstances and the people involved.
That's merely one set of circumstances.
The guy who donned a ski mask and attacked the couple was the one who had been thrown out of the nightclub earlier, according to the article. All of this seems slightly suspicious to me, but I've been called paranoid before.
What is necessary or justified depends on what kind of fight we're talking about, along with the timing of specific events and all of the little details involved.
How do you know they're really unconscious? One might know after the fact, but that's using hindsight, whereas actual self-defense situations are somewhat more visceral and in-the-moment than discussion forums.
Deliberate executions are different from helping ensure that one's assailant will not get back up and continue their assault anytime soon. In my opinion, the latter is justifiable under some circumstances.
There's that, and then there's a smaller person, perhaps a woman who is a target of rape, temporarily having the advantage and needing to make the most of it, purely in self-defense.
There are mutual disputes, and then there are victims who were attacked for no good reason out of the blue with extremely serious intent, such as rape or murder. Although the case in question was indeed an example of unnecessary force due to the disparity of force between the two parties and the fact that the perpetrator was apparently incapacitated, the perp's actions still had all the indications of a violent crime being committed (or attempted), and this was taken into account during sentencing. Under different circumstances, outright acquittal may be an option, as it has been for various illegal acts committed by those who have acted in self-defense, such as the aforementioned carrying concealed weapons without a permit, which district attorneys in the US (not sure about the UK) rarely even try to pursue as long as the shooting was justified and no bystanders were injured (because it would be unpopular and they wish to be reelected).
To me this is analogous to shooting someone taking cover to fire back at you, and other people calling it "shooting a fleeing man in the back."
These witnesses are full of crap...they are not doctors, and even if one of them or more is, they were not close enough to determine the consciousness or ability of the attacker to harm the victim in this case. That makes it no better than hearsay.
These witnesses are full of crap...they are not doctors, and even if one of them or more is, they were not close enough to determine the consciousness or ability of the attacker to harm the victim in this case. That makes it no better than hearsay.
Guys, I set up a Paypal fund. The link is here:
http://www.cleverconversation.net/2011/05/claire-burleigh-fund.html
I made it in GBP. 6 GBP is 10 USD.
Hope this takes off
http://www.cleverconversation.net/2011/05/claire-burleigh-fund.html
I made it in GBP. 6 GBP is 10 USD.
Hope this takes off
Onward Allusion
Member
For the record, I do not advocate stomping or shooting on a BG after they are incapacitated. However, if a couple of kicks to the head on a BG by an assailed upon woman is required to incapacitate I don't see anything wrong with it. It is not a boxing match whereby Marquess of Queensberry Rules are adhered to. To require a victim to think in those terms is ludicrous.
Who exactly is talking about hotheads sucker punching or drunks fighting??? I was under the impression that this discussion was about whether an assault victim has the right to incapacitate a BG with a few kicks to the head to ensure that he doesn't get up to do more harm. I guess in the perfect world a woman could kick the BG in the head and wait to see if he gets back up or just run away and hope the BG doesn't get up and give chase? Otherwise, a more prudent approach would be to kick a couple/few times to make sure the BG is down & out and then get the hell away.
Going back to the OP's article. We don't have all the details. What I can be sure of is that the BG should have been arrested and charged.
Finally, we're not talking about involving guns. Having a firearm changes the setting considerably and that's a whole new can of worms.
Geckgo
Member
Basically, when I red this article is reminded me of a couple times in my life where I have seen women bring their cards to the table and incite problems for very little reason. My first impression from reading the article was that these people were involved in some type of altercation earlier at the bar. As far as "knowing" if the person is unconscious, that's irrelavent to my argument, because there are people here that are advocating that unconscious or not, keep kicking and fighting after the fight is over, people advocate taking things past the point of justice, and a few even advocating homicide.
That to me, is not taking the high road and letting fear take over where rational thought leaves off.
That to me, is not taking the high road and letting fear take over where rational thought leaves off.
Sniderman
Member
Conwict,,
Just went to Paypal, I'm in.
Keep us updated on how this goes for the girl.
Myself, I find it appalling that the perp was not charged but the victim was.
British common law,,,
Just went to Paypal, I'm in.
Keep us updated on how this goes for the girl.
Myself, I find it appalling that the perp was not charged but the victim was.
British common law,,,
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
