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.


Girl fined for fighting back at masked man

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:43 PM
reply to post by teapot

Okay wow Im confused again (this is so why I didnt take law in highschool lol). So her being fined is the same as having a record? I didnt think a fine was the same as a criminal charge.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:44 PM

Originally posted by 3finjo
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.

Information and records relating to prior engagement with other 'agencies' are also included though aren't they. For instance if the guy is known to the police for being a local nutter who sees his CPN every week or has ever been sectioned under the Mental Health Acts?

The CPS won't prosecute if they feel the Court will give weight to any non criminal but nevertheless deviant, behaviour being mitigant to his guilt, ie if the Court are likely to sympathise with the original aggressor as being 'vulnerable'.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by WatchRider

I completely agree with this. Media driven outrage will ensue!

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by 3finjo

The system is completely screwed; every one of those elements is to blame, those police that fail to uphold the law and those judges that fail to uphold justice and those politicians that fail to uphold fairness.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:01 PM
all the laws are being changed gradually by the PTB. whether they be illuminati or zionists or both. the whole idea is to weaken the individual and society so the PTB can really take over totally with less resistance than otherwise. thats why the victims are often held as the worst in their reactive behaviour. morality has nothing to do with it and governments do the bidding of TPTB or they no longer hold government. welcome to the NWOdor.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:01 PM
reply to post by bsbray11

I completely agree. And although i don't "own" any firearms,
I have been investing in precious metals over the past few years. (i.e. - copper jacketed lead for example.)

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:06 PM
Someone needs to go find this guy and place an IED in his ass and make him walk around britain apologizing for his actions and calling for his punishment in prison as well as calling to repeal the draconian british laws that date back to 445 AD.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:07 PM
reply to post by teapot

Actually, no. Other agency records and mental health sectioning are NOT part of the file. If he is deemed to be particularly dangerous due to his mental health then it may be included, but not as a matter of course. And that is not a reason for CPS to not prosecute. They will not prosecute if they decide it is either not in the public interest or if there isn't a realistic chance of prosecution. If they do prosecute and the magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland where this was) decide not to proceed them they have their own reasons and these have nothing to do with the police.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:21 PM

Originally posted by WatchRider
Spare a thought for 'prison-island' UK were you CANNOT defend yourself against an attacker!!!!

I am from the UK and I completely agree with your sentiment. This kind of thing happens daily, I'm afraid. I remember a shopkeeper who was charged with assault for merely restraining a violent thug who was intent on destroying the store. But let's not pretend the US is massively better, either. Defending yourself can be a crime there too.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:21 PM
They are fining HER for beating the crap out of a man who attacked her?

So the guy was "unconscious" and she continued to kick him? So what?! .

I'm sorry, was she supposed to *pause* bend down, and ask the man politely, "Pardon me sir, are you still conscious? If you are still conscious I'd rather like to continue kicking you until you are unconscious so that you don't get back up and KILL me. Sir?"

It's called PRIMAL INSTINCT. If you don't want someone to drop into KILL-OR-BE KILLED mode, then I suggest that you don't put on a black ski mask and attack a young woman.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:21 PM
What? Why this is impossible Europe is a socialist utopia where everything is free and everyone loves everyone and the government is like a nice peaceful grandfather to everyone...

How dare you defend yourself against your attacker why you might hurt him after all... (With snooty British accent)

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:24 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
This is why Americans will never give up their right to own and carry a firearm for self-defense.
If you let the government take your right to defend yourself out of your hands then this is the nonsense that follows.

Too late! The Indiana Supreme Court last week ruled that a citizen has NO RIGHT to defend himself against a police officer's unlawful, warrantless entry into his home:

In a 3-2 ruling, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that there is no right for a private citizen to resist an illegal entry by a police officer. The court stated in its ruling "that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers."
The Indiana Supreme Court stated, "This Court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers." In issuing the ruling the court said, "We conclude that public policy disfavors any such right."

This occurred the same week the SCoTUS ruled that police officers do not need a warrant to enter if they "reasonably believe" a crime has been committed or evidence destroyed, as reported in the same story:

In the other 4th Amendment case, the US Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling, stated that officers did not act improperly when they entered a home without a warrant after smelling marijuana and hearing activity that indicated evidence was being destroyed.

I guess since no one is using the Bill of Rights anymore, the police and courts do not have to honor it either.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:40 PM

Seriously? "going too far"? is why she is getting fined? I thought the man who was wearing a face mask and attacked her was "going too far" but hey who I am to judge?

Justice system my

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:58 PM
I saw that headline and thought "has to be UK" and yes I was right. This is becoming typical of the UK population, they are pushing them into a police state faster than they can bring America into one. I think the real system of control is the UK because it is a complete control grid on a smaller section of land, the entire UNited States would be too hard to monitor so closely.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:13 PM
The state of the world is often why I feel this planet is hopeless.
Not trying to be negative, I already do that without trying very hard.
What was she supposed to do?
Become a victim and face years of psychological torment for bending over on her doorstep?
I'm sorry guys, the last straw should have been years ago, too bad we're too busy watching the T.V. and following people on Twitter.

We can't stand up without someone's permission.
We can't sit down without permission.
We can't even ask permission to ask permission anymore.
Where are we headed?
^tears of sadness

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:14 PM

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.

I do understand what you are saying, although I don't accept the "just following orders" excuse. I know people are probably going to roll their eyes at this comparison, but wasn't the "just following orders" excuse used by Nazis? Was it OK when they did it?

I realize arresting a woman that went overboard while defending herself, and killing people in cold blood are very different things. But the point isn't WHAT is being defended, it's HOW it's being defended. And in both cases it's exactly the same "Just following orders" How far can you take that before it is no longer a viable excuse? In my opinion, not far.

People have to take responsibility for their own actions and not just blame it on someone higher up the chain of command. The basic human right to be able to defend yourself and your property shouldn't be challenged, and while I don't envy the officer having to make the choice between doing what he is told, and upholding a citizens basic human rights, it's still his choice, and therefore he shares the blame. What if ALL of the officers refused to arrest her? Are they going to fire the whole police station? Sometimes people need to make a stand, and this is one of those times in my opinion.

So while wishing death upon him may seem harsh, I wouldn't shed a tear. He made his choice, and that was to abide by the status quo, instead of respecting and defending a citizen in need. Because of that he means nothing to me. Just the way I feel, and I can understand most people aren't going to agree, but I'm not going to change my mind.

Edited to add;

Someone a few posts back mentioned the law in Indiana that allows an officer to enter your house with NO WARRANT and with NO PROBABLE CAUSE. I propose this scenario. Say an officer is told by his superiors to enter someones house. He has no warrant, and no reason to believe anything illegal is going on in there. Because of this new law, that doesn't matter. He can just bust in the house whenever and for whatever reason he wants. Now this is a BLATANT violation of the US Constitution. Yet, it's legal on the state level.

So by your reasoning that an officer is free of all guilt just because he is following orders, when a superior officers orders a cop to illegally break into a house, and the officer does illegally break into the house, you don't think it's his fault? He is just following orders after all, even though he knows it's wrong. You don't lay the guilt on him? I do. Anyone breaks into my house illegally and they are getting 00 buckshot in the chest. I hear a story on the news about a cop breaking into a house illegally and getting shot, I don't shed a single tear. It's his fault. He knew it was wrong. Yet he did it anyway just because "he was following orders"

I don't, and never will accept that. You do something wrong, for whatever reason, be it little voices in your head, or an authority figure telling you to, it's still YOUR choice, and YOU are the one that deals with the fallout from it.
edit on 27-5-2011 by James1982 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:24 PM
Why should s stalker, who obviously knew what he was doing, have mercy shown? I'd assume most "violators" and such know that the person they are attacking may put up a fight. He chose to do what he did, and she reacted.

How was she supposed to protect herself? Yell rape, or fire? and hope someone who heard to come help her? Blow a whistle? that she did not have... Should she have ran with the possibility of being caught?
Seriously...she proceeded to kick more in defense, probably in full out fear-adrenaline-or afraid he was going to get up.
Being fined for, what was clearly self self defense is insane.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:26 PM
She needs to ensure she does not pay the fine, and uses this opportunity to really gain awareness and show her dignity and sovereignity and power. And never, back down. I would never back down and gain support world wide.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by dreamingawake

Good point...

The woman must have had a crap lawyer. How was this woman supposed to know the guy was knocked out? Maybe he was faking, in hopes that she would stop beating him, and then he would get right back up again, knock her out, drag her into an alley and rape the chit out of her.

The law would rather see that happen. They rather the woman play a good little victim and let herself be abused, than actually fight back. Then they have an easy case where there is the bad guy and the victim. A person standing up for themselves is the worst case scenario for the law, they want to be the knight in shining armor that comes in to save the day. If someone saves themselves, then THEY become the criminal because they expose the uselessness of the legal system.

I'm sorry for ranting in this thread so much, but things like this make my blood boil like nothing else. Although I am very happy to see that this woman was strong and stood her ground. The law had to send her a message though: don't fight back, or we will prosecute you. Someone should stalk and attack the Judge's family members, and then prosecute them. See how he feels when it's someone he cares about getting the shaft (literally and figuratively)

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:24 PM
I'm stilling wondering about the witness though. I mean if you didn't have the cajones to help the poor girl at least just say she did what she had to do.

"Oh there's an attempted rape going on outside ho-hum... Wait, wait a minute she's kicking that man in the head rape is one thing but assault is entirely another. Summon the authorities Hamish!"

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in