It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


My arrest hell after gang beat son

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:53 PM

Originally posted by axehappy
Personally, I would have done whatever was necessary to get them off my family members.

If that meant stabbing and killing them to make them stop, then so be it.

Where is the line between murder and self defence?

I would class self defence as not just the defence of myself, but also my family.
His son would have out the fight if he was already down and getting kicked.... so it was essentially 5 on 1.
Is he supposed to fight fair in this situation?

My idea of fighting against the odds like this has always been to seriously hurt one nice and quickly. Let the others then decide if they want to risk similar injury to themselves by continuing to attack.

If someone I love were involved, then I would be even more ferocious.

I can't really blame this man for what happened.

Its unfortunate that someone died, but murder!?

He was just defending his property and family surely?

[edit on 27/7/09 by axehappy]

So you think dis guy was right?

The line between self-defence and murder?

Stabbing someone 1 time in the leg after i call self defence. Stabbing someone 5 times in the chest i call murder. If he died, it was murder, not self defence.

I mean, 5 times in the chest, how can you ever call that self-defence?

But hey, if someone attacked my kid, or my girlfriend, i would cut his throat and blow his brains out so i could # in his skull. Thats a choice you make. This guy made a choice to try and kill the kid that attacked his son. So if he's man enough to stab someone 5 times in his chest then he should be a man enough to admit he tried to kill the bastard. I know i would!

On the other side, what if your son punched someone in the face and his dad came running and pumped your son full of iron with a shotgun, will you still say it was self defence?

Its like putting someone who stole a bread in jail for the rest of his life. Its insane.

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:56 PM
I'd rather go to jail for protecting my loved ones than do nothing and wait for Police that may or may not show up in time.

He was woken out of a sound sleep to find his Son under attack by five people putting the boots to him. Had he not done what he did, the headline could read "Young Man Killed By Thugs While Defending His Home".

I'm shocked anyone would suggest if you see five thugs possibly killing your Son, it is wrong to pick up a weapon and have at them. What kind of person would stand by and watch that?

I've been the recipient of a gang beating where they put the boots to me on the ground. I woke up in a jail medical facility half dead. They let me go as soon as I could be moved after finding out the circumstances. My crime? Walking down the street at the wrong time.

Who is to say that young man might not have been killed? They had already told the Wife / Mother they were going to burn the house down.

A person who won't protect their own children, jail or no jail is not a person worth knowing. That man is a hero. I wonder how many neighbors lurked behind closed curtains watching?

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 12:01 AM
Thats insane, I agree with what the guy did...

Heck if this had happened at my house all 5 of the kids would have been shot 5 times each, and the cops would have still called it self defense.

Its a shame that one can't defend their property and loved ones in some places.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 12:40 AM
Well, if he's the one who stabbed the guy, he brought it on himself. He should have first called the police to make sure they were on their way. If he chose to intervene in the fight, he should not have used a dangerous weapon.

I say this for several reasons. First, the other thugs were apparently unarmed. If the father seriously hurts someone, then he'll be arrested. Armed man against unarmed man. Looks bad, however you slice it. I think a jury would take into account the man's age, that there were 5 against 2, etc., but if you use deadly force you're going to face criminal charges, if you're the only one who's armed.

Second, and even more important, trying to use a weapon, when you're not trained for it, is incredibly dangerous. Unless you know how to wield that weapon, you are likely to have someone take it away from you and use it against you. If those thugs had been good fighters, that's exactly what they'd have done. Fortunately for this man, they weren't. But five young men could easily overpower one older man with a knife or letter opener.

It's too bad he didn't use pepper spray. Everyone stops fighting, no one gets hurt. No charges against the father.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 01:04 AM
OK, to clarify. This man was *arrested*, not imprisoned. He was charged with attempted murder. He will have a trial during which he will have an opportunity to explain himself, why he did what he did.

Yes, he should be able to stop an attack on his son. Yes, he has a right to fight to protect him, possibly even save his life. Given the circumstances - five against two - a weapon might be appropriate. But it is not up to the police to simply release this man and assume that's the end of it.

The police acted appropriately. Take the man in, charge him, and let him explain himself in court. That's why there are trials in the first place - because often the facts are too chaotic or uncertain for a policeman to make an instant determination. So let the court decide.

This isn't saying that this man doesn't have a right to defend his son and himself, or that he has no right to use a weapon in order to do it. What it's saying is, if you stab an unarmed person, be prepared to justify your actions in court.

I suspect his outrage comes from living in a house that cost a half million pounds, and being treated like an ordinary citizen. Oh, well...

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:11 AM

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
I refuse to believe that there exists a permanent record that resulted in a case of mistaken identity.

You would have a 30 million dollar lawsuit on your hands.

There is no record of undue arrests.

Police could arrest someone and then say "Oops wrong person" and your life would still be screwed. I do not believe this. I need to see some proof to back this claim up.

Well, I still have the paper work that my attorney showed me. Where would you like me to send it?

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:14 AM

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by MrWendal
Police are supposed to be PUBLIC SERVANTS, as in they are here to serve YOU.

they are also there to defend the kid that was stabbed.

They are not here to lock up someone for defending themselves while waiting for their empolyee to finally show up and do his job!

they are there to arrest and detain in connection with any case where they find reasonable grounds to arrest and detain. are you going to try to argue that?

They are there to protect the kid who was stabbed as a result of his own criminal actions?? Fact is, if he was not out breaking the law he would not have been stabbed to begin with. What you are suggesting is no different than a person breaking into your home, slipping and falling, hurting himself, then him suing you for his injuries.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:31 AM
rorshack that of thy outmost sin to frustrate hope and love

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:59 AM
reply to post by axehappy

That right there is what is wrong with the legal system in most 'modern' countries. The criminals have all the rights. It takes the police, what, an average of 15 - 20 minutes to get to a scene? Unless one 'just happens' to be around the corner... In all that time, he and his son could have been beaten half to death, or entirely to death, while waiting for LEO, and what would have been the LEO's response? Well sure, your husband got beat to death, but at least that's legal. Punish the victim, pure filth in it's finest. I am of the thought that if you intentionally come up into someone's yard/house/etc. with a clear mind to cause who-knows-what kind of malicious BS, then you firmly deserve what you get. The perpetrators made the decision to agress against the family, they actively chose push their luck, they should consciously choose to accept what comes. "Well we didn't know he was gunna stab us."


People need to take responsibility for their actions. You know who's responsible here? The A-hole who's idea it was to do the 'vandalism' in the first place, the one guy in the group who said something like: "You know what would be fun?" or some other inane crap like that. THAT guy should be arrested, and charged with manslaughter (or whatever it is over there) for indirectly causing the death of his comrade. The LEO's shoulda clapped Dad on the back and said: "Good job, one less jackass to pollute the gene pool."


posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 05:45 AM
I don't know much about law at all, but I've never heard of a case in the UK where a criminal in a group died and his friends were charged as responsible for his death for being involved in criminal activity.

I don't think the law works like that here... but, like I said, I don't know.. someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I still stand by what I said... if I were in that situation, I would do everything in my power to seriously hurt one of the guys.
Then the others can decide if they still want to fight, knowing that I would possibly do the same to them.
I'd fight like an animal if I or my family were in danger... even to the point of ripping throats with my teeth.

In response to a recent post, I personally don't live in a 500,000 house. I do a normal job, and rent a property. I'm not poor, but I'm certainly not above average as far as money goes.

Even so, I would still be horrified if the police arrested me for protecting myself or my family. I am just an 'ordinary citizen', but that is not treatment I would expect under the circumstances.
Say all you want 'oh, well you can't go stabbing people... you have to be arrested and tried in court'.
To me, that's a failing of the legal system. If you are attacked by 5 guys and happen to have a blade to defend yourself with, well... that's THEIR problem, not yours.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

I'm still amazed at how many Americans honestly believe this fantasy. Men didn't "wear their guns at their sides" unless they were either in a dangerous profession or criminals.

And the police would still haul you in for shooting someone, because as others are trying to nail through the heads of some here, it is the court's job to decide guilt not the police.

If he stabbed the hell out of a kid, yes, he needs to be arrested and arraigned. Yes, there should be charges against him. And then he should be found not guilty by means of self-defense.

Of course, attendant with the mythology of everyone running around with guns and the social decay fantasy of criminals having more rights, comes a belief in vigilante justice and acceptance of the police as ultimate legal authority.

Way to go.

My how naive you are! You take a condescending tone with very little knowledge of the truth!

I grew up in Missouri on the KS, OK, AR line. I have pictures of my grandparents and great-uncles with guns on their belts riding horses to School!! In 1992 when I moved away, MO was still a "Right to Carry" state. It was perfectly legal to wear a gun at your side, it was illegal to conceal it. (I think it is a concealed state now.)

People wore their guns on their sides to defend their cattle from coyotes and wolves, To shoot snakes, To ward off bandits. They would go to school and lay their rifles at the door!! Guns were not reserved for criminals, and they were not feared. They did not have any taboo, or negative connotation like the liberal media today would like you to believe. They were a tool, no different than a shovel or a plow!

Sure in San Francisco or Philadelphia they were not wearing guns in the 1800's, but in the Midwest and TX and the South, they were and..........THEY STILL ARE!!!

Here in Florida, at any one time, I would wager that 10-30% of people in a room are wearing concealed weapons, and nobody is even aware.

I work for the State, and it is not approved to wear a gun in a state building. I look around my office right this second. I can see 11 people. I am certain that 3 men (including myself) are armed. We have discussed it. In addition, I bet 1 or 2 of the women have a gun in their purse!!

Now, this is a quick synopsis at my job. Imagine the number of people in a restaurant or bar that are armed!

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:41 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but are you permitted hunting weapons in the UK?

This is the perfect situation for a 12 gauge warning shot over the head.

The police should investigate any crime. Make sure we have the facts straight.

If the story is true, as told by the article, I cannot imagine any jury in the world convicting this man. In fact the charges should be tossed out completely no need for trial. The youths should be charged with attempted murder.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:12 AM
I'm sorry, but i do believe he should be found not guilty and be aquitted. He was protecting life. he had every right to stab that kid because it was SELF DEFENSE. If his charges aren't reduced to man-slaughter or droppedi will say the justice system is most certainly done for. It's sad that vigilantes have to do real justice in this country now.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:18 AM
reply to post by Leo Strauss

Personally, I've never been hunting but I'm pretty sure that people do have hunting weapons in the UK.

There are gun clubs etc, but I think you have to leave your gun locked up there. I'm not sure if you're allowed to keep a gun in your house...

You hear about raids a lot when people are suspected to have firearms in their houses, so I would assume its frowned upon, even with a license.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:52 PM
Hey people, these English blokes sure as hell are lucky they didn't try this crap in the USA or Texas for that matter because after the Texan dad had shot off all 5 heads, the cops would have come by to admire his shotgun and ask where they can buy one for their own home defense too.

Just a reality over here.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:03 AM

Originally posted by 3DPrisoner
Hey people, these English blokes sure as hell are lucky they didn't try this crap in the USA or Texas for that matter because after the Texan dad had shot off all 5 heads, the cops would have come by to admire his shotgun and ask where they can buy one for their own home defense too.

Just a reality over here.

See I think that's brilliant, and I really wish it was a bit more like that over here.

Lets imagine a dangerous dog like a Doberman or something attacked one of my kids.
I wouldn't get in any trouble whatsoever if I killed the dog to protect my child.

Because its just an animal? We seem to forget that humans are just animals too... difference being, we have the ability to think things through and decide not to act like animals.

When a human reverts to that animalistic state and starts attacking, vandalising, and generally behaving like a wild animal, we should all be well within our rights to treat them as such.

If a pack of wolves had attacked this mans son, he'd be dead, granted... but if he had stabbed an attacking wolf to death he'd be praised as a hero.

We place too much faith in some peoples ability to be 'human' above their basic, animal instincts for violence and killing.

Because unfortunately, that's the basic state of man... pointless violence and killing... self defence is different.
I think its only the intelligence and morals that SOME of us have that has stopped mankind... a race of violent, greedy, nasty little apes.... from wiping itself out so far.

It seems that a lot of youths, and adults, today are reverting back to that feral state.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by 3DPrisoner

Well thats a good thing if you ask me, natural selection works best when everyone is armed.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:17 PM
I hate to see this in the UK - I would consider London to be more dangerous a city than Chicago, to be honest, because at least in Chicago I can wail on the guy who's mugging me.

Pieman, I agree. That guy was going to be arrested. But I think as soon as the bobbies brought him to the station and heard his story, they should have said, "You're free to go, we're sorry for the inconvenience. Your son is at such-and-such hospital. Please stick around town in case we need to question you or have you testify."

Unfortunately, England is notorious for convicting people for self defense, especially with guns. There are constantly homeowners protecting themselves against invaders with a rifle or shotgun, being arrested for gun ownership and murder/assault/battery etc.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:48 PM

Originally posted by kongfuzi
Unfortunately, England is notorious for convicting people for self defense, especially with guns. There are constantly homeowners protecting themselves against invaders with a rifle or shotgun, being arrested for gun ownership and murder/assault/battery etc.

Sorry, but that is patently untrue. It doesn't constantly happen at all, infact here are a list of cases where quite the opposite happened;

Legal to defend your home

A householder returned home to find a burglar in his home:
There was a struggle during which the burglar hit his head on the driveway and later died. No prosecution of householder who was clearly acting in self-defence.

Armed robbers threatened a pub landlord and barmaid with extreme violence:
The barmaid escaped, fetched her employer's shotgun and shot at least one of the intruders. Barmaid not prosecuted.

Two burglars entered a house armed with a knife and threatened a woman:
Her husband overcame one of the burglars and stabbed him. The burglar died. There was no prosecution of the householder but the remaining burglar was convicted.

A middle aged female took a baseball bat off a burglar and hit him over the head, fracturing his skull:
The burglar made a complaint but the CPS refused to prosecute

Seriously mate, it's nonsense, bollocks, BS, a false myth peddled by the ultra-right wing British filth-rags such as The Daily Mail and The Express, that then gets picked up by the American media as a "look at those crazy brits" token story.

You don't get arrested for gun ownership. You get arrested for illegal gun ownership. There's not a ban on all guns, we've got a shotgun upstairs actually, perfectly legal.

This site is about denying ignorance, no? Well your post seemed to be purporting to false truths and lazy cliches that feed ignorance. Please don't speak authorititavely on subjects you know little about.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Karlhungis
[edit] I shamefully admit that I did not read the story. I still wouldn't find the man guilty, but could understand if another juror did [/edit]

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Karlhungis]

True. I could understand how someone would view that as attempted murder

Had it been me, I woulda shot the bastards dead on the spot. For the UK to find a stabbing by letter opener to be attempted murder is not surprising, as this is the same nanny state that has "Knife Amnesty".

My bet is the stupid punk probably won't go around vandalizing personal property and assaulting innocent people on their own property anymore. Perhaps the stabbing did him some good.

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in