posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:12 AM
'19 year old girl fined 500 British pounds for defending herself' No, she wasn't.
Originally posted by 727Sky
A TERRIFIED teenage girl has been fined £500 for knocking unconscious a masked stranger who stalked her home from a nightclub in what lawyers have
called an "exceptional" case.
This gets so tedious.
Her problem was she continued to kick the man when he was down.
No, not even that.
However, she went too far by continuing to kick her attacker on the head even after he was knocked unconscious.
Is the argument. Why do you Need to frame it otherwise?
Sheriff Donald Muirhead told Burleigh she was entitled to hit Docherty to protect herself. But he added: "You lost control. You kept on kicking
him when there was no longer any need.
I don't even want to defend the fine and I know that the 'Girl fined for fighting back at masked man '
headline is misleading but come on
ATS. I think the mitigating circumstances completely negate the petty 'letter of the law' justification upon which the fine must stand and debacles
such as this are why the legal system finds itself in such a mess in relation to ever decreasing public confidence.
Read the article fully though, complain about the headline and the fine but be thorough.
She was not
fined for defending herself. She was fined for going too far, her actions strayed from being viewed
defence to being viewed
as gratuitous violence.
"You lost control. You kept on kicking him when there was no longer any need. In all the circumstances, it seems to me that I can deal with the
matter by way of a financial penalty."
Just to reiterate and avoid any "So you agree then...." ignorance: There are mitigating circumstances as I said and I think they are totally valid and
demand attention in such cases. If the spirit of the law were considered instead of the petty, out of context letter of the law then absurdities like
this would be avoided. So I shake my head at such decisions but let's shake our heads for the right reasons otherwise we are not going to get
At this point what should be legitimate outrage at genuine idiocy can drift into being unfocused and impotent to anyone paying attention. Come on ATS
be better than this.
The headline Girl fined for fighting back at masked man
Is at best an accidental misunderstanding fostered by lazy/sensationalist journalism
offered by a sensationalist, morally ambiguous press who jumped the shark long ago in the eyes of many. The headline 19 year old girl fined 500
British pounds for defending herself
offered here could be seen as a purposeful, quite apparent misrepresentation offered to support a personal
I'll say it again: Come on ATS be better than this.
edit on 8/1/13 by JAK because: (no reason given)