Girl fined for fighting back at masked man

reply to post by pikappa


Have you ever been in a spot where you needed to use self defense to save you? Didnt think so.

There is a thing called adrenaline rush that is tied into the fight or flight response. The normal 'civilized thought' does not apply when fight or flight kicks in. If I were this girls lawyer(i am no lawyer) I suppose I could argue that the excessive strikes were not only instinctual but necessary to prevent the larger attacker from coming to and still being a threat.

I live in Florida, we have a law that allows us citizens to fight force with force(one of the few good laws on the book). It is an unwritten rule that when faced with a situation where your life in danger and you have to defend yourself that it is much better in the legal aspect to assure there is only one side to the story for the cops to report.

reply to post by projectvxn


Wow, I'm clearly arguing with a master debater here. Now, to refute your point... wait, you didn't have one to begin with. Why am I still here?

reply to post by jrod


Not that it actually matters, since I know from experience that armchair commandos are pathologically unable to consider different POVs, but yes, I've found myself in situations where I feared for my well-being. I consider the "fight or flight response" argument mostly a lame excuse used by those either unwilling or unable to resist their own thirst for violence. It's funny because ATS is constantly raging about some cops abusing their power and using deadly force even when there would be no need for it, but the same ATS apparently feels entitled to claim that "right" for themselves.

reply to post by pikappa


Put down your wooly hat, stop eating your museli and ditch those sandals you shilling fool for the elites.

People like you are the reason why certain states are penalising citizens for having their right to an effective self-defence.

I think if you want it like the UK, maybe you should haul ass and go there!

reply to post by pikappa


Have you ever been face to face with a would be assailant where you feared for your life?

I'm not exactly an arm chair commando, I went through a police academy/ security forces training while I was in the Navy. I've never had to defend myself against another in a dire situation so I really don't know how I would re-act. I do know the fight or flight response is very real and the resulting adrenaline rush is a powerful experience. If you have never experienced one it would be hard to imagine.

I am more or less a pacifist but I do know if I have defend myself or a loved one I will not hesitate and lucky enough to live somewhere where a victim can defend his/herself without fear of facing charges.

Originally posted by pikappa
reply to post by projectvxn

 

This girl kept hitting her assailant well past the point of reasonable self-defense. That's what you're advocating for. Go live in the jungle, I guess? There you can shoot anyone and anything that so much as looks at you the wrong way. But in the so-called civilized world, we have laws that prevent that and even though you don't realise it, you should be glad we have them.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

My common sense tells me that allowing many of the posters in this thread to carry a weapon on them at all times would only result in an increase in violence, not the other way around. Your common sense may vary.

LOL. People in this thread already ARE carrying weapons, tools and other such devices capable of protecting themselves.
Just the very thought of it rattling the obvious small-minded hysteria types like yourself actually gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

The point is my dis-empowering shill-machine that if the government or laws of a country prevent something on paper, there's nothing to stop people carrying anyway!
It's your inalienable RIGHT to protect yourself and if that means by weapons then by golly it darn well will be by weapons so simmer down and man up for a change.

The way I view it....the guy was drunk and stalking her.....he physically put his hands on her without her permission...she defended herself....and then when he was down on the ground injured...she snapped...was in a momentary state of insanity....and then she continued to beat him....she did go too far...but (to me) it is understandable.

We don't know what has happened to this young woman in the past....she may have been the victim of abuse long before this incident happened. She may have some pent up anger about previous issues.

The fact that her attacker got off without any punishment really bothers me. To me that sends a message of...yes go ahead and attack and abuse women...its ok...and we will blame them for it!

I also would like to know where her boyfriend was in all of this. Some chivalry was certainly called for.

It seems to me the judge in this case is in the (good ole boys club)....who knows what he does in his private life!

First of all I have broken my own rule, "Never reply to an ATS post without reading EVERY post in between."

Second I have broken another rule, "Never Star and Flag unless you have read EVERY post." I will star just for bringing it to the attention of the community but the flag is earned not only by the OP but by the debate that follows.

But you sir managed to get a S&F before I read the third post when you described this country as "Prison Britain." Our American friends may get their knickers in a twist about the odd camera popping up but the UK has an enviable record, we are the most recorded country on the PLANET. Not China, or North Korea, the United Kingdom

en.wikipedia.org...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

On topic, this girl responded in a way I hope many more women will respond with, namely, she kicked the poo poo out of him. He was wearing a freaking ski mask, her brain yelled at her, "This man will KILL you to death, kick the poo poo out of him," and she did. This girl did nothing but prevent herself from being another victim of some twat wearing a ski mask, good on ya! Sure she kept kicking poo poo out of him when he had no more to give but her brain (indeed all of our brains do this) told her if he got up there could be trouble, so she kicked even more shades of # out of him to make sure he didn't get up.

Originally posted by pikappa

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

My common sense tells me that allowing many of the posters in this thread to carry a weapon on them at all times would only result in an increase in violence, not the other way around. Your common sense may vary.

Carrying a weapon at all times(concealed carry permit) and allowing a weapon for hunting and/or self-defense is quite different in theory. In many "liberal" usa states with strict gun laws and in canada a lot of people can possess a firearm for self-defense and for target practice but they are not allowed concealed carry.

I understand its a rather complex topic but just imagine how less tyranical governments such as libya and syria would be if people were allowed the right to bear arms. When the populace is totally unarmed dictators and even elected officials have the tendency to become arrogant, selfish and inconsiderate. In syria I bet the death toll will rise to the many thousands before all is said and done. Even a moderate mubarrack killed 700 of his own citizens and I bet almost all were unarmed and protesting peacefully.

You think europe and america are truely democratic? Governments that refuse to apply common sense and are on a mission of self-destruction. Governments that bend over to the will of corporations and banks, governments that have been shipping jobs overseas for 2 decades now? And when the going gets tough prefer to cut down on social security and welfare rather than on the grossly overbloated black budget? Governments that UNILATERALY give tax payer money to banks to stimulate the economy and then the banks pocket the cash for themselves?

That is no democracy, its a covert dictatorship. At least stalin and hitler were honest about their intentions and people knew what to expect. I would rather deal with a mean sob up front then some coward who plans to backstab me in the future.

Thanks for your failed lesson on democracy. Just keep installing cameras mate and pretty soon the police will know how many times you have sex with your wife and perhaps if your cheating on your spouse to be used as cannon fodder for political reasons. That IMF chief got setup because he was a socialist and wanted to reform lending practices to be more fair toward third world countries but right wing imperialists would have no part in it.

Its a right wing conspiracy, not left wing!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by pikappa

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

My common sense tells me that allowing many of the posters in this thread to carry a weapon on them at all times would only result in an increase in violence, not the other way around. Your common sense may vary.

Carrying a weapon at all times(concealed carry permit) and allowing a weapon for hunting and/or self-defense is quite different in theory. In many "liberal" usa states with strict gun laws and in canada a lot of people can possess a firearm for self-defense and for target practice but they are not allowed concealed carry.

Its a right wing conspiracy, not left wing!

Forget the left and right wing, they are just part of the puzzle, it boils down to libertarianism at the top and authoritarian at the bottom!
The freedom-killer lovers who don't want you to have any rights belong to the (extreme) bottom of the hole...

Okay Hi I'm new here, I have to add my two cents. From a strictly socialist commie position for all of us out there who don't confine to the rules that someone somewhere set out for us: I believe fair for one is fair for all. I believe if the police are allowed to use extreme force in "subduing a suspect" (whether or not it is required) then absolutely this young girl did no wrong. I believe firmly in the absolute right to protect yourself to whatever extent is necessary. If a person is attacking you you have the absolute right to disarm and disengage this person. As a woman who grew up with much larger bigger brothers and male cousins I had to learn to defend myself and learn well. I learned that just because a person is seriously drunk does not make them any less a serious danger. Just because they are down doesn't mean they will stay down. As a very bullied child on the school ground let me tell you that having taking down one opponent does not mean they won't be back with their friends for vengance or they won't hold a grudge and come for you again later.

There is no such thing as unreasonable force when you are seriously defending yourself this does not mean if the person is talking wildly with their hands and accidently hits you you can beat the snot out of them you can deflect the blow without harm. This is clearly not the case. This man followed her home from the bar wore a mask and attempted to do physical harm on her. Had this child been my daughter ( I have a 19 year old) I would have taken a bat or a knife to him myself to make sure he could do no further harm to my child nor anyone elses.

I believe you have the right to defend yourself at that moment in time by any means possible I tell my daughter, who is very petite, that in a self defense struggle there is no unreasonable force and every part of her body is a weapon that she is entitled to use. Any accessory on her person is also subject to that same edict. If she is out matched by size and strength then she has to make sure she can adaquately defend herself.

I believe that a law should be in place and that young women should not have to defend themselves in this manner but I also know that until such a time as people no longer feel the need to conquer, control or destroy what they cannot have otherwise, such things as what this young woman did, are a very vital part of self defense.

I also believe that the law should allow no leeway for a perpetrator of this type of violence as was visited on the young woman regardless of his age, race, culture or religion or the amount of money he or his daddy or his daddy's friends have. Perpetrators should be punished to the full extent of the law, even if they get the poo kicked out of them by a young woman or anyone elsewho decided not to sit around and let a crime happen this is and should be a civic duty to protect yourself and your neighbors.

When all is said and done "anarchy" is not a bad thing if you have enough people to uphold the common law against criminal and legal thugs. In some places it is considered a revolution I think the Americans of all people should be sympathetic to that as it was their revolution against the stranglehold of the British Crown that resulted in their constitution. A constitution that, in my opinion, really needs to be taken back by the people before it is completely gone. Vigilanti justice is also not as bad as the rap it is given--- sometimes. I think it was once called a citizen's arrest when a common person decided to take the law into their own hands and stop a crime from happening and take the criminal into the police station for "due process". I also think capital punishment for certain crimes should be firm and unyielding in certain circumstances. But I digress.

At the end of the day the 19 year old girl should be given a medal not a fine. The perp should be smacked down hard and before anyone extolls their country and the "results" of this out come in their country let me address a crime that came to my attention; I can't figure out the links but I'll give the highlights ( I haven't read all the links posted either sorry!) there is a case of an 11 year old girl that was in either Florida or Texas, (I think), who was picked up by a much older teenage boy and his friends and gang raped. The boys got off, the judge said she was dressing and acting much older for her age and her whole family was ostracized for bringing it to court. I believe the boys in question were highschool football stars. I'll get back to you on that. Also in Canada just a few months back, the girl was "allegedly raped" and the judge let the boy off saying she was giving mixed messages.

Blame the victim isn't just a British problem. It's everywhere! They just don't always label it quite the same.

Originally posted by FEDec
From the article it sounds like one of her neighbors ratted her out.

I'm sure her neighbours know her much better than anyone here on ATS. For all we know she may well be the scourge of the neighbourhood rather than the perceived "poor girl". and don't dismiss the fact that her boyfriend was with her. What the witnesses saw was a pair of teenagers repeatedly kicking an unconscious middle-aged man in the head so of course they should phone the cops.

To say that she was fined for defending herself is not true, just sensationalist journalism intended to get the exact reaction it is getting. Sure, it seems she did initially defend herself by knocking him out (or did her boyfriend throw the ko punch?) but she was fined for stamping on the guy's head while he was unconscious.

All of you who think head-stamping is cool can put your money where your mouth is and find the blog that is requesting Paypal donations to contribute to her fine. Just do a search for Claire Burleigh Fund