Girl fined for fighting back at masked man

reply to post by topherman420


There is no requirement for a victim to press charges. Violence against the person is deemed a crime against society that the police are to charge and then refer to the Crown Prosecution Service who then decide whether to prosecute. That's the theory anyway! In reality, unless the victim makes a complaint, perpetrators are not pursued. Unless the CPS believe they have a watertight case, they will not prosecute no matter how strong the police recommendation. Crime detection and reduction are very target driven and the processes very admin heavy, with the result, IMO, that only the 'easy wins' are ever presented to the courts. Also, although the verdict and sentence means this did not fully apply in this case, men's prisons in the UK are over crowded so convicting women, especially for violent offences that carry custodial sentences, is a handy way to meet those targets!

Originally posted by Seiko
I read the article and I am to understand she is being fined for 'going to far" more or less. After the attacker was unconscious she continued to kick his face.

If you've ever read Ender's Game you might understand the basic instinctual reasoning that happens here. She was frightened and very upset, she was attacked. She wanted to make sure he never attacked her again. The situation was created by the attacker, not her.

I find her actions to be validated, but I am not a judge. If on a jury I couldn't in any way find her guilty.

While true that she might have gone too far (debatable considering the circumstances), this does NOT address the fact that the attacker was not charged--with anything--even though he followed her to her house and was the initial aggressor/ATTACKER.

Talk about bassackwards "justice," although i know little about the UK.

Hopefully she gave the S.O.B. a few extra hard boots to the head just for good measure... and then stuck the sharp heel of her Jimmy Choos into his nether region where it counts most.

It just keeps getting worse doesn't it?

In addition to my previous post, I'll add another way justice failed. Letting this dirt bag free to roam the streets. I wish this girl would have finished the job and stomped him between the legs to hard he couldn't pollute the gene pool.

I'm going to have a sore neck tomorrow from shaking my head so hard. Just unbelievable.

reply to post by topherman420


Usually the cases won't be investigated simultaneously. Once one case has been decided then the other side of the story will be investigated and charges put forward. Scotland has slightly different laws from the rest of the UK, though so not 100% on that one. She was not fined for fighting back - she was fined for kicking an unconscious man on the ground. that sort of action has resulted in death so it is seen as GBH (grievous bodily harm) in the UK as the implication of kicking someone in the head is taken that serious injury was intended.

That being so....I would not want to be the cop told to arrest her for defending herself, asI would have a problem with that (one of the reasons I am no longer a cop). Women have a reasonable defense to using a higher level of force than men in defending themselves as the attackers are often bigger and stronger than them. Even as a cop i told my petite partner that if she was attacked she should do what she needed to in order to get the attacker down and make sure he stayed there which is what this girl apparently did. Unfortunately due to ignorance of the legal system the police will be blamed for this, not the lawyers and politicians who make and control the law.

This was a poor judgement in my opinion, despite the fact that she went a bit OTT on the guy, WFT did he expect sneaking up on a girl wearing a balaclava? She most likely feared she would be raped and killed. He put himself in that situation, she didn't. I am hoping his actions will now be investigated and that he will be charged and sentenced. He has committed assault under UK laws just by scaring her like that - putting her in fear. As long as she provides a statement this should happen. The fact that he hasn't as yet been charged could be because she refused to provide a statement. This actually happens a lot - people who are angry with police refuse to help them with evidence and then complain when no charges are laid. There can't be a charge without evidence of any crime.

She's not fined for defending herself, but for losing control!
Next thing you know you'll be sent to a psychiatrist for anger management in such a situation. lol
Ridicuous and unbelievable.
Go girl, you make us women proud!!

reply to post by James1982


The cop would not have a choice in this case - he/she would have been told to make an arrest, of that I am certain. As for hoping they die, well thats just childish nonsense.

You fail to see the actual problem - the cops don't make the laws, politicians do. And they don't decide whether to progress a case in court - the CPS (lawyers not attached to the police) do. Get your facts straight before going off on a rant.

On one thing I do agree - this girl was failed by the system.

reply to post by teapot


Thanks for the reply. While im not sure about your quota thing being a factor in this (it maybe wasnt violent enough to warrant prison, idk about his past or the severity of his attack, nor how this would be convicted over there) I do agree this was so mishandled. In canada I experienced the same backwards legal system.
I was attacked randomly by a woman when i was 13. She walked past me, grabbed me by the hair and hit me in the face like three times...absolutely no reason behind it. I filed charges, identified her and we went to court. She had a known past of crack coc aine abuse and trafficking, prostitution and stealing, but because this was her first violent crime, she got probation and community service.
To this day I just dont understand the reasoning behind it, and realize how many of the wrong people get jail time and some who should be get a slap on the wrist.

Yesterday at Livingston Sheriff Court it emerged the Crown had decided not to prosecute him - because he was so badly beaten.

Complete nonsense. Did he have any prior arrests, assaults, etc. The article doesn't say which would have been interesting.

Have to wonder if this will stop him from assaulting someone else. If yes, then she saved someone else who would be his next victim.

The law in the UK has become a joke. The police are useless burdened by red tape. It is simple common sense, she was attacked and fought back, oh well he got beaten, a way to avoid getting beaten is not to stalk and attack people. He got what was coming to him, and the woman has to live with that incident for the rest of her life now.

Originally posted by 3finjo
reply to post by James1982

 

The cop would not have a choice in this case - he/she would have been told to make an arrest, of that I am certain. As for hoping they die, well thats just childish nonsense.

You fail to see the actual problem - the cops don't make the laws, politicians do. And they don't decide whether to progress a case in court - the CPS (lawyers not attached to the police) do. Get your facts straight before going off on a rant.

On one thing I do agree - this girl was failed by the system.

You have to understand the failed-system in the UK has the police as part of the problem. They won't break ranks and speak out.
They are totally infiltrated by the freemasons (upper ranks), and Common Purpose (lower ranks and educations / course schedule).
So when you have this then you'll start to understand that the copper on the ground is very unlikely to buck any trend or use his common-sense instincts...

Originally posted by metaldave
This story is completely crazy...
I find it hard to believe...

It's from the UK, you can bet it's true. The people running that country are insane and totalitarian nutjobs.

reply to post by 3finjo


Ty as well as for your reply. The thing I can comfortably say now is that she should be damn proud of her fine, and he should of gotten charged, his intent seems pretty malevolent and she had a right to defend herself. The fine was just there because she made sure he would regret it, which in all logical thinking was more then actually necessary to defend yourself and run. The guy is down, just get out of there (he might get back up and have a weapon) and call the police with the best description you can. She in a way could of put her life in more danger by staying there and kicking him.
I would personally frame the fine whether I believe it to be fair or not. Just think about it, how many will think twice about her now lol. Damn good for her, i cant get this smile off my face XD

reply to post by tacho


In the file for the CPS the police always provide prior convictions as part of the file, so the magistrate would know what they were if any. I can only assume that he didn't, otherwise he should have been prosecuted. The press would not be informed of convictions, hence why it was not reported.

He still should have been prosecuted - as far as we know the police would have charged him and wanted a prosecution - it is the CPS (lawyers) who decide in the UK and they would make the decision, not the cops.

Originally posted by Jinglelord
reply to post by WatchRider

 

Instead of being violent she should have simply rang the police who could have come and reasoned with this man!

I recall somewhere on an official UK government web-site they did recommend taking self defense classes as opposed to carrying a weapon... I suppose they now didn't really mean it? I couldn't find the source in the few minutes I have to post this though... sorry.

Really I must wonder if there is part of this story we're missing, as in is it being over sensationalized and there IS a good reason for it, or if this isn't true: People in the UK need to seriously begin protesting and making their voices heard!

I actually think the ptb release this kind of sht to deliberately wind up the masses to an extent....

reply to post by WatchRider


Not so, common sense can be used and often is. If someone is seriously assaulted, an investigation needs to be done. You can't just turn a blind eye to vigilante justice. The arrest of this girl isn't the problem - she should have been let off in court once her side was heard. Its called mitigation. I know its hard for people with an inbuilt hatred of the police to understand - there seem to be a lot on this site who have that agenda - blame the cops for everything. The public vote for the politicians who pass the rules. Labour weakened the UK for years and you wonder why the laws favor the criminals and not the victims?

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by metaldave
This story is completely crazy...
I find it hard to believe...

It's from the UK, you can bet it's true. The people running that country are insane and totalitarian nutjobs.

You're not wrong there! But there's more! Many are Ideologues, who no matter what side of the psuedo-polarity, share liberal, pro offender rights, views on crime and punishment.

The rights of 'Victims' (or 'Survivors' ie the life outcome of every 'target'), are often overlooked.

From the article it sounds like one of her neighbors ratted her out.

Seems a little questionable that they would wait inside the house letting the attack go on and only call the cops once the guy was down.

reply to post by topherman420


The article does not say what the girl did for a living but this conviction could completely stitch her life up. Many employers now demand that employees have a clean CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) Certificate. Any conviction for violent crime would be listed on a CRB.

Incidently, the CRB is a business owned and management by the Association of Chief Police Officers and CRB checks do not come cheap!

reply to post by Seiko


Agree with what you said, and BTW, good to see you posting again.

To be attacked, especially by a physically larger agressor wearing a hood/baclava could definately bring out a survival instinct to keep on striking/kicking until a person was certain they wouldn't rise again shortly to attack again.

What if she had been able to carry concealed legally (in a different system) and just killed him? I think the local powers should just let it go, allowing that the attacker is damned lucky to be alive, and hopefully with lessons learned. Now, the two victims have to watch their backs for the rest of their lives, and for what??? For a drunken twerp that thought he could attack and control someone. What were his goals? What would he have done if they hadn't defended themselves? We will never know, but this all could have possibly gone badly wrong for the victims. If I were a judge, I would give them both a pass, and private kudos.