British Teenage Girl Fined for Kicking Attacker While Down

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/ed...ack.6775245.jp

Quote:

---

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.
Claire Burleigh, 19, was pounced on by Sean Docherty, 43, as she was about to open the door of her Bathgate home, Livingston Sheriff Court heard yesterday.

Docherty had earlier been thrown out of the nightclub following a drunken argument.
...

Although Docherty, who had downed at least nine pints of beer, was the initial aggressor, his client had ended up being charged, Mr Jackson said.

After Docherty was thrown out of the Bathgate nightclub he returned at 2am to wait for Burleigh to leave, then followed her and her boyfriend home.

Prosecutor Sarah O'Gallagher said Docherty admitted being the initial aggressor. But she added: "Neighbours saw the accused being extremely violent and kicking the complainer as he lay on the ground.

"Witnesses spoke about the complainer lying motionless and appearing unconscious."
...
He told the court: "It might be suggested that this was a nightmare scenario for a young girl going home. He made no comment and there was no confrontation - it was a physical attack on her.

"She turned round and found that there was a man wearing a black balaclava attacking her.

"She was terrified. She lost control and her anger and fear took over."

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. In all the circumstances, it seems to me that I can deal with the matter by way of a financial penalty."

No charges were brought against Docherty.

---

Disgusting. Apparently the rules of old fashioned boxing apply when a stalker attacks late at night; you can't attack them once they fall down - you have to let them rest and recover before getting up and attacking you again. Oh just don't resist; that must be the civilized way.

There are times when I despair over what a wreck my country has become with regard to civil liberties. Then I see something like this - and realize it could indeed be worse.

The final lovely touch is the attacker not even being charged. I guess when British criminals get hurt, they become the victims, like their criminal victimizing of their target is a legitimate social interaction, and when the victim resists they're the ones breaking the law.

CR

I want the death penalty for the sheriff and the prosecutor. I do not wish to share the same planet as these two miserable, incompetent bunch of *******.


What a travesty. A girl that is attacked by a man with a baclava at her own home is entitled to any defense she can put up. It sends a completely wrong signal to demand a teenage girl must even under these extreme circumstances bear the well being of her attacker in mind.


Quite apart from me thinking that, if anything, the girl ought to be be fined for not having killed this animal. He'll do it again. Another girl will be his victim.

Oh, I'll play. What you've overlooked in your righteous anger is that as frightened or as angry as she was she did continue administering the beating/kicking well after the guy was quite clearly not going to crawl back up (clear to other witnesses). That's sort of where the line between justified force crosses into needless violence. Once the guy is obviously not going to crawl back up without the help of an ambulance crew there's not much need for kicking him out of self defense...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Oh, I'll play. What you've overlooked in your righteous anger is that as frightened or as angry as she was she did continue administering the beating/kicking well after the guy was quite clearly not going to crawl back up (clear to other witnesses). That's sort of where the line between justified force crosses into needless violence. Once the guy is obviously not going to crawl back up without the help of an ambulance crew there's not much need for kicking him out of self defense...

---

I'd laugh if this weren't so sad.

Are teenage girls attacked by stalkers supposed to do health evaluations while they try to fight back? How can anyone in the heat of a fight do that?

Quote:

---

well after the guy was quite clearly not going to crawl back up (clear to other witnesses)

---

It's clear now - and only now - and only because the incident is over and the results are there. And other witnesses? This, in the early morning? They had to be at least a bit away, looking at something in the night. And that's supposed to determine if self defense is legitimate? Some useless eyewitness (in so many trials eyewitnesses are wrong about what they saw) with a point of view that is much farther from the action?

And of course the only rational response in an incident like this is exactly what this girl did - to beat the attacker unconscious (as she didn't have a gun). If the attacker isn't unconscious, then he can continue the fight and overpower his victim.

I wish the idea that a victim must check on the health of their attacker and carefully determine if the attacker can get up or is unconscious while in the middle of a fight was so farcical and outlandish it need never be addressed, but sadly that is not the case.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TA

Oh, I'll play. What you've overlooked in your righteous anger is that as frightened or as angry as she was she did continue administering the beating/kicking well after the guy was quite clearly not going to crawl back up (clear to other witnesses). That's sort of where the line between justified force crosses into needless violence. Once the guy is obviously not going to crawl back up without the help of an ambulance crew there's not much need for kicking him out of self defense...

---

Louis doesn't overlook a lot of things. Self-defense in this situation to me meant losing rational control to let the adrenaline take over. A teenage girl does not easily overcome an adult man, with the element of complete surpise and mortified fear on his side.

Perhaps if the girl had come back later, or next week, to get a few more kicks in there would be a cause for criticism. As it is, all I can do is deem it rational self-defense to kick until he doesn't move anymore and then get in a few more just to err on the safe side. And that's just arguing from mainstream society's pussy-must-be-kind-to-rapists perspective.

To me, any harm done to a man who would assault a teenage girl must be applauded by default, and must be made legal. Any prevention of harm deserves the death penalty for putting gitls in harm's way. I realise the rest of the world does not share my opinion in this. Sometimes somebody manages to convince me of some ifs-and-buts about it. But usually not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Are teenage girls attacked by stalkers supposed to do health evaluations while they try to fight back? How can anyone in the heat of a fight do that?

---

This.


On top of that, there is the humane consideration whether one shouldn't in the first place grant a girl in extreme danger her moments of unleashed anger and fear.
Shame on these people and their petty formalist fascist-legalist legal interpretation. It's a teenage girl overcome by fear and anger. Bunch of twisted *******.

If the guy is unable to even get up, with people thinking he was probably dead. It is very safe to assume she can go through her front door and lock it behind her and phone the police. And if he tried to get up again, then she can obviously go and kick him down.

What happened was that it ended up in a situation where the man who attempted to assault her had his life-force kicked right out of him, then he continued for a good 5 minutes after this point.

All she got was a slap on the wrist anyway, so she got away pretty much with nothing.

Sure, you could argue the predator deserves to be using a feeding tube for a week, but it is up for the justice system to deal out justice and not yourself.

Only thing that needs to be done is for the predator to be charged with attempted assault, then it is good work for the legal system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

If the guy is unable to even get up, with people thinking he was probably dead. It is very safe to assume she can go through her front door and lock it behind her and phone the police. And if he tried to get up again, then she can obviously go and kick him down.

---

No, it is not safe to assume such a thing. What is it with people sitting behind computers dictating how things went and decreeing what was and wasn't safe for her to do? What if the door was locked, or she turned to go in and the attacker grabbed her ankles and tripped her? What if he got up and broke into her home anyway?

A thousand possible situations, and the legal system wants to judge her actions with a bleeding heart for her attacker and perfect hindsight.

Quote:

---

What happened was that it ended up in a situation where the man who attempted to assault her had his life-force kicked right out of him, then he continued for a good 5 minutes after this point.

---

What source do you have for the five minutes claim?

Quote:

---

Sure, you could argue the predator deserves to be using a feeding tube for a week, but it is up for the justice system to deal out justice and not yourself.

---

There is no justice system, only a legal system. And the British legal system punished a victim of assault (and likely attempted rape) and let the would-be rapist go free. If that's how the legal system handles things, then it's not dealing out any justice.

CR

Being fined £500 for kicking the crap out of someone isn't too bad. We all know that in such circumstances there is a line between self-defence and assault, to pretend otherwise is foolish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

What happened was that it ended up in a situation where the man who attempted to assault her had his life-force kicked right out of him

---

Clearly the assaulter recklessly endangered himself. He should be fined 500 pounds for causing himself such harm by instigating the altercation.

Ajax

http://expertoutfitters.com/images/232left.jpg

With its reputation for rock solid reliability, double action design, sleek layout, and compact size, the P232 is an excellent choice for self defense.

Oh wait, this was in the UK.

Crazed Rabbit, you left out a few important things in your cutting and pasting:

Quote:

---

Burleigh, who was with her boyfriend Christopher Twaddle, 21, ripped off Docherty's black, paramilitary-style balaclava and defended herself.

However, she went too far by continuing to kick her attacker on the head even after he was knocked unconscious.

---

And:

Quote:

---

Police later found Docherty in a nearby street with severe facial injuries and called an ambulance to take him to hospital.

---

So she was not alone, but with her 21 year old boyfriend and there were also witnesses around who saw her kicking him while unconscious. This makes it sound like less of a life and death situation one might imagine from the OP.

And it's not simply a question of kicking someone when they are down - it's kicking an unconscious person to the head sufficiently violently to cause severe facial injuries.

We don't know all the facts that were presented to the court. Until I know them, I am inclined to be charitable towards the court - the idea that courts are likely to be more sympathetic to a 43 year old male assailant than an 19 year old woman who was attacked is rather strange. I suspect there's more to it than we have been told. It's possible to imagine a scenario in which the verdict is outrageous but equally it is possible to imagine one where it is appropriate. Perhaps the 21 year old boyfriend knocked the drunked assailant unconscious and then Claire just kicked his face for good measure in while horrified onlookers watched.

What does sound wrong is the assailant not being charged with assault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

How can anyone in the heat of a fight do that?

---

The heat of a fight should be gone when the guy is unconscious. Since when is it a fight to kick a motionless body on the ground?

And as has been mentioned, there were other witnesses around, so she wasn't all alone and helpless, it's in the german self defense law as well from what I read on wikipedia.
Excessive use of force is okay if someone is scared of the attacker, but if it's done out of pure hatred then it's not allowed. Now I guess she had a problem explaining how she was really scared of someone who was already unconscious due to her kicks.

And yes, he should be charged with assault or whatever applies.

Are we all overlooking fear of the situation. How did you feel again Husar when a man with a needle attacked you?

Yeah she was probably terrified running high on adrenaline and not thinking too clearly. And now this likely sexual assaulter will get away with nothing not even a damn slap on the wrist he would get in America.

Disgusting.

I'm born on the wrong :daisy: continent.


Enough. Tonight, I'm going to swim the entire Atlantic. Then I'm getting myself an NRA membership and an arsenal to put Rabbit's to shame. I'll practise shooting with PJ. Then I'm off for a few beers and some pool with Dave, with whom I'm going to discuss the capture of Osama and European law enforcement. Then I'll marry Strike, as a wedding gift I'll buy us a modest plot of land in Texas, say, the size of Belgium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Crazed Rabbit, you left out a few important things in your cutting and pasting:

---

I addressed that. It seems to me he was only determined to be unconscious by some witnesses who, in their expert medical judgement in the early morning in poor lighting decided the guy was unconscious.

Quote:

---

So she was not alone, but with her 21 year old boyfriend and there were also witnesses around who saw her kicking him while unconscious. This makes it sound like less of a life and death situation one might imagine from the OP.

And it's not simply a question of kicking someone when they are down - it's kicking an unconscious person to the head sufficiently violently to cause severe facial injuries.

---

Or maybe he got the injuries from falling on his face.

Quote:

---

We don't know all the facts that were presented to the court. Until I know them, I am inclined to be charitable towards the court - the idea that courts are likely to be more sympathetic to a 43 year old male assailant than an 19 year old woman who was attacked is rather strange.

---

No stranger than the attacker not being charged. Besides, it's a British court, and they seem to frown on using violence in self defense. The only civilized thing to do is let the attacker do whatever he wants.

This whole case is based on near-useless witnesses and the sadly-not-so-farcical idea that a girl being attacked has a legal duty to check on the health of her attacker while she fends him off, that being unconscious is an instantly recognized condition in the heat of the fight and can't be misinterpreted (hey, why do you think boxing and martial arts matches use refs to stop the fight?) and she has to follow marquess of queensberry boxing rules and let him get up without interference if he falls down.

And on the notion, completely divorced from reality, that the instant the attacker is knocked back or falls their victim must cease fighting, and that somehow, maybe through magic, the attacker won't be back a split-second later.

At least I know why this fine came about; because the majority of British people support this elevation of criminal rights. Violence, even in self defense, is so uncivilized.

Quote:

---

And as has been mentioned, there were other witnesses around, so she wasn't all alone and helpless, it's in the german self defense law as well from what I read on wikipedia.

---

British witnesses - the sort who formed a society where women are prosecuted for effectively defending themselves and witnesses who come to the assistance of a victim can be criminally charged.

CR

Getting killed, beaten the ..... out of you,... is the known risk you take when attacking someone/breaking in/... It's like a policemen suing the sate because he ended up in a dangerous situation. If you insist on being a criminal, at least take it as a man.

Quote:

---

No charges were brought against Docherty.

---

Forgive my lack of understinding of the legal system, but doesnt that mean the girl didnt actually try to get him imprisoned for assault, why would she not do so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Forgive my lack of understinding of the legal system, but doesnt that mean the girl didnt actually try to get him imprisoned for assault, why would she not do so?

---

I suspect this is because the UK gives assaulted girls 99 lashes for being outside without a male relative.

...I'm going to ignore the british bashing (we do it enough to others to deserve it) but she was out with a male companion.

Have to agree with Moros. Too much bitching from the Police and from criminals, if you can't do your job... do something else. I'm almost certain most female police officers are bigger men than these idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

And now this likely sexual assaulter will get away with nothing not even a damn slap on the wrist he would get in America.

---

Well, apart from a mangled face, at least.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Oh, I'll play. What you've overlooked in your righteous anger is that as frightened or as angry as she was she did continue administering the beating/kicking well after the guy was quite clearly not going to crawl back up (clear to other witnesses). That's sort of where the line between justified force crosses into needless violence. Once the guy is obviously not going to crawl back up without the help of an ambulance crew there's not much need for kicking him out of self defense...

---

Not that I like it but this is true, they didn't have to but they can..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Oh, I'll play. What you've overlooked in your righteous anger is that as frightened or as angry as she was she did continue administering the beating/kicking well after the guy was quite clearly not going to crawl back up (clear to other witnesses). That's sort of where the line between justified force crosses into needless violence. Once the guy is obviously not going to crawl back up without the help of an ambulance crew there's not much need for kicking him out of self defense...

---

Not that I like it but this is true, they didn't have to but they can..

gosh, the old advice we got at conscription camp is true. If we're attacked and we can retaliate in force, make sure your attacker is dead or you risk to be sued back....

I feel really sorry for the girl, she could just draw a pen or fork or another sharp object and pierce that bastard's head via ear, instant kill, no sue back.

PS: actually I'll kill that useless witness as well if I was the girl or her boyfriend. Having down your attacker doesn't meant he's gone for, if you've been into real street fight, you must make sure your assailant is really knocked up, and the surest way to get it is kick/stomp his head as hard as you can. so you can safely get him KO-ed (even that doesn't guarante 100%)

What an awesome boyfriend by the way! and that witness what a couple of heroes! Good to know chivalry is alive and well.

And ajax. I like to get my rapists (because whether he did it or not he is a rapist in my book) to suffer a little more than some stitches on his face.

Stupid case that was handled wrong, that is spun into a travesty of epic proportions.

Girl shouldn't have been fined for beating a criminal down when he is on the floor, but this isn't where all us Americans get to pull out our second penis and talk about how backwards them Euros are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I suspect this is because the UK gives assaulted girls 99 lashes for being outside without a male relative.

---

:laugh4:

Are you trying to invent a new variant of the Godwin?

Apropos the case, since none of us were in the courtroom, it is difficult to make judgment on the outcome. In Europe, it has long been the case that one's human rights are not removed the moment a criminal act is committed and we have the rather liberal idea that someone is considered innocent until proven guilty. This tends to preclude summary execution.

In our euro-weenie socialist paradises, the police often arrest miscreants so that due process of law can deal with them. I suppose that if we were properly civilised, our policemen would would kick down the doors of various neighbours and witnesses and gun them, their children, dogs and hamsters down in cold blood. This would of course, entirely solve crime for ever, like in some more advanced nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Are we all overlooking fear of the situation. How did you feel again Husar when a man with a needle attacked you?

---

He didn't attack me, he threatened me. And even though I felt scared/angry when I saw him later on, I never kicked his head in while he was lying unconsciously on the ground, despite several people here telling me to do that or similar things. That is because punishment has to be dealt out by a judge. I did have violent thoughts but that is also different from kicking the head of an unconscious person, with witnesses around.
Of course I wasn't there, but the witnesses were, and someone decided based on their accounts that the girl kicked a bit too much, I don't see that as very hard to understand. It's not like they jailed her either, they just think she has to accept that she cannot just punish/kill someone because she thinks it's better for her, such is the nature of a modern constitutional state.

And to come back to what you said, I was aware that some of the things I may have done to the guy would have been hard to explain to the police/a judge, that's one reason I didn't want to go there in the first place.

It is a 19 year old girl they are talking about, not a big man trained in martial arts.
If the chap was a stalker who'd bothered her in the past, it is not surprising that she felt angry and afraid and lost control. Even if she kicked him when she was angry, in the light of the situation that he attacked her first, planning to make another one of those ugly cases that keep appearing in the news at frequent intervals, she shouldn't be fined.
Once you're kicking someone in anger it's hard to stop unless you're trained to fight. So what was the girl's mistake? That she got angry at her attacker? That she decided to defend herself in anger?

Now I don't know British laws, but hypothetically, let's say that the drunken man had hit some rock when he fell down, broken his skull and died? What would've been the girl's mistake then? Not kicking him in a safe direction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

What an awesome boyfriend by the way! and that witness what a couple of heroes! Good to know chivalry is alive and well.

And ajax. I like to get my rapists (because whether he did it or not he is a rapist in my book) to suffer a little more than some stitches on his face.

---

Do we know what the boyfriend did or did not do? All I've read so far is a fairly short Scottish newspaper's report (endlessly rejurgigated as it goes viral via right wing US websites). Newspapers have a word limit and they get things wrong. (My limited personal experience of journalism is that in each encounter reported, the journalists have gotten the facts horribly, absurdly wrong.) Until I hear otherwise, my money is on the 21 year old flooring the drunk but who knows?

And why lambast the neighbours for saying what they saw? You imply they did not help, but perhaps you don't need help to kick an unconscious drunk in the head four or five times.

There's no suggestion of rape. Apparently, the attack followed an argument in a bar. I don't feel any sympathy for him, but I don't feel any outrage at the verdict either. I might kick an unconscious drunk's head in if he attacked me and my wife, but I would not claim it was reasonable force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

It's not like they jailed her either, they just think she has to accept that she cannot just punish/kill someone because she thinks it's better for her

---

Yes it probably was better for her not to be raped. :inquisitive:

Anyway, I can't believe anyone is defending this verdict. A guy that stalks a young woman at night in a balaclava should be thankful not to be leaving the scene in a body bag.

I'll tell you what this is!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img21.imageshack.us/img21/93...scismcover.jpg

The miscarriage of justice is not the excessive force charge. It is the fact the initial aggressor was not charged with assault. His injuries would not have occured if he had not stalked and assaulted the woman in the first place. Wearing a balaklava to attempt to conceal his identity suggests a premeditated act to do more than just argue with someone. She should appeal this ruling.

A Sheriff, ie law enforcement officer, acted as judge. Did I read this correctly ?

Is pepperspray legal to use in self-defense in the UK ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwr

Yes it probably was better for her not to be raped. :inquisitive:

---

Absolutely, but that was achieved when he was unconscious, she could have stopped kicking him and waited for police to come.
Since she kept kicking him in the head I assume she either wanted him dead or has very little control over her anger.
I meant that him being dead would be better for her than him being in prison but that doesn't mean she can do what she wants with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

A Sheriff, ie law enforcement officer, acted as judge. Did I read this correctly ?

---

That actually confused me a bit as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherriff

When a girl is attacked and suffers an attempted rape it's entirely understandable she have a twich in her flight-fight respose that causes the descent of "red mist", hence she keeps kicking after he stops moving.

It's what you tend to call a "berserk ragge", and I kid you not when I say that loss of control is terrifying.

Unfortunately this physiological twitch, or whatever it is, doesn't mesh well with the law, hence the fine. I have no particular problem with that because the law must be applied equally. I have a HUGE problem with the girl being fined and her attacker not recieving a custodial sentence for attampted rape and being placed on the sex offenders' register for life.

She should counter-sue the dirtbag to recover the fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

http://expertoutfitters.com/images/232left.jpg

With its reputation for rock solid reliability, double action design, sleek layout, and compact size, the P232 is an excellent choice for self defense.

Oh wait, this was in the UK.

---

americas answer to everything.

kill it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

americas answer to everything.

kill it!

---

European answer to everything

'ehhhhhh just don't'

Nah, the european answer is to fry it:

EDIT: Removed hotlinked image. Please host pictures yourself. BG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Quote:

---

I suspect this is because the UK gives assaulted girls 99 lashes for being outside without a male relative.

---

:laugh4:

Are you trying to invent a new variant of the Godwin?

---

I refer to the other thread: the difference between us and the Taliban is but one of degrees.

Mind that Islamic legal tradition is refined. They too understand the legal system of thought which separates into parts that which to the untrained mind is one event. That's why they can come up with such headlines as 'Raped Fourteen Year Old to Receive 99 Lashes'. Just because she was assaulted does not mean she ought to escape punishment for being unnacompanied. To the untrained mind, this is an outrage: how indifferent, how fascist, must one be, to punish a girl who just got assaulted?

This case is similar, if difffering slightly in degree. How indifferent, how brutal, must you be to have a crying, desperate teenage girl in front of your judge's bench, who got assaulted late at night in her own home by a beast with a face mask, still in mortal fright, possibly forever, how insensitive must you be to fine this girl a hefty punitave amount right before the eyes of her assaulter, who stands there with a big humiliating grin on his face, jeering that the court is finishing the job he started.

Bunch of :daisy:. I want the death penalty for the sheriff and the judge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BG

Apropos the case, since none of us were in the courtroom, it is difficult to make judgment on the outcome. In Europe, it has long been the case that one's human rights are not removed the moment a criminal act is committed and we have the rather liberal idea that someone is considered innocent until proven guilty. This tends to preclude summary execution.

---

Oh, but I agree this man needs a fair trial and then be hanged.

Anything less is being complicit in any further assaults by this man. We need to change the legal system: if a convicted rapist rapes again, those responsible for his release get life imprisonment. Let's share the risks beteen the victims and the legal system.

In America, it is customary for airplane designers to have to be present in the first manned flight of their design. Brutal, but it works wonders for safety. They design at their own peril. We need to introduce this into our legal system for murderers and rapists. Let's see how much risk those responsible for their sentencing and release are willing to take that they will not commit further crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Oh, I'll play. What you've overlooked in your righteous anger is that as frightened or as angry as she was she did continue administering the beating/kicking well after the guy was quite clearly not going to crawl back up (clear to other witnesses). That's sort of where the line between justified force crosses into needless violence. Once the guy is obviously not going to crawl back up without the help of an ambulance crew there's not much need for kicking him out of self defense...

---

Oh, because you Brits have to be so civil! Real smart eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ELITEOFKINGWARMAN88

Oh, because you Brits have to be so civil! Real smart eh?

---

He's Dutch, that other mystical place called 'not-USA' ;)

We can be civil after both of his arms are broken.

This girl wouldn't be arrested in Texas

And I am ok with that

Of course Texans in general do not tolerate barbarity, of course we are not above the contradiction of using our own barbarity to quash those whom wish to upset our civil society.

America is worse than Britain though. A supermarket was fined tens of thousands of dollars for not being able to have a child running loose in a store uncontrolled which injured a customer. Even though it was that customers child!