Happy Slapper get's, well, Slapped!

[TANGODANCER]

This whole situation, real or rigged might be worth a little more debate:

Mummy, there are two factions of society: those who are law-abiding and those who aren't. The law has to be fair to all, but if the attacked guy was charged with assault the video evidence would make him guilty as charged. He would then have to counter-sue the attacker or prove just cause. He would still be guilty of something that came from him walking out of a shop with no ill-intent to anyone. Law or no, that isn't fair. There is no such crime as provocation only as a mitigating circumstance, to the best of my knowlege, though I'm no lawyer.

If all the world were law-abiding, then the law would work. They aren't and, in our misguided society often the innocent become the guilty through no fault of their own. You cannot justify that as any sort of fair and reasonable. Our laws are outdated, unrealistic and yes, an ass when these sort of things can be justified. A couple of years living on a council estate would soon change the minds of the gentlemen of the bar. I do not speak of the bar of the Griffin, but the legal variety.

All in my opinion, of course.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

While I understand that because of your ongoing education you know more on this subject than I'll ever know and I can see that what you're saying-rightly or wrongly-is valid in the eyes of the law I find it hard to believe that you (or a judge for that matter) can honestly say that having been struck in an unprovoked attack first that the victim has not given 'a proportionate response to what happened' in hitting him back JUST THE ONCE. What did you expect him to do, tickle the attacker to submission?

I'm sure your argument would bear weight had the victim responded by kicking the attacker nearly to death, leaving him wheelchair bound for the rest of his life but to hit him back just once seems like a proportionate response to what happened to me.

OK, I expected to be swimming against the tide on this one, but perhaps not to this extent. Let me assure Lennon and others that I am most certainly for real, and this is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that the bottom comment on the matter in the Times Law Weblog is mine, written at 2:08am last night: http://timesonline.typepad.com/law_webl ... .html#more

Three cheers for the 'victim'? Can you possibly be serious? There was no element of self defence at all in chasing after the vested chav, knocking him to floor, and then weighing in with a kick for good measure. Even if this were anywhere close to being a proportionate response to the minor assault suffered originally, taking the law into one's own hands is just not the way we do things in our legal system, and any suggestion that this thug deserves some kind of hero-status for 'fighting back' is perverse. Is this The Times or the Daily Mail?
'He got what was coming to him - why does the law not accommodate this view?' asks John Heard (below). Probably because it believes that two wrongs can never make a right.

Firstly, let me state that my position is undoubtedly what the law is, and is supported by more than 2,000 years of jurisprudence. In a civilised legal system it is not acceptable for individual citizens to exact retribution on the spot and to the extent they see fit.

Of course, when you are attacked, you have the legal right to fight back and protect yourself. I'll quote the paragraph on this in the short Times article;

The law recognises that self-defence is available to crimes committed by the use of force. Case law puts it thus: “It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary.” There is the rub. Self-defence is legitimate but only so long as what is done is "reasonable" in the circumstances. The force used must not be excessive.

There can be no suggestion that this man was acting only in self defence - the brat had run off. A knock-out blow to the face, followed by a kick when the chav was prostrate on the floor unconscious was not a proportionate response to what had gone before.

A 'slap' by its very nature is delivered with the palm of the hand and cannot be said to be an attempt to do serious harm. It is a world apart from a knock-out punch to the head with a clenched fist.

The bloke was perfectly entitled to wrestle him away, not knowing what the true nature of any attack might be, but once he had run off, he was not entitled to seek him out and dole out the severe physical punishment he thought was appropriate for the personal violation he had suffered.

Just as Tony Martin was wrong to shoot the boy running away from his house, this thug was wrong too. It is a damning indictment on the current administration's approach to law and order that previously sensible citizens now see it as being desirable that people take the law into their own hands, because not enough is being done on their behalf.

[bobo the clown]

"Just as Tony Martin was wrong to shoot the boy running away from his house, this thug was wrong too".


But the reality is, whatever the legal twists & turns most people think he wasn't wrong. His main error, in the majority of eyes, is that he didn't kill the pair of the little bastards.

When the law is SO out of line with the majority view then, eventually, the law will become disrespected. In a democracy the law needs to reflect the public's view. Too many laws at present effectively hold the public in contempt.

This creates disaffection & ultimately reaction.

The do-gooders will, eventually, reap what they've sown.

[warthog]

I see where Mummy is coming from. The law allows you to use reasonable force to defend yourself and you could argue that the victim of the happy slapping, whilst quite rightly pissed off, wasn’t in a position where he was under threat. His actions were in retaliation, not defence.

If the law both caught and applied appropriate punishment to the little scrotes, who carry out these the attacks then the letter of the law would suffice, but we all know that doesn’t happen very often, hence support for the retaliation. I’d love to know what Mummy and the law makers (sounds like a pop group) would do if they were happy slapped.

Now, having sat on the fence, I’ll get shot at from both sides.

[Lennon]

The bloke was perfectly entitled to wrestle him away, not knowing what the true nature of any attack might be, but once he had run off, he was not entitled to seek him out and dole out the severe physical punishment he thought was appropriate for the personal violation he had suffered.

Just as Tony Martin was wrong to shoot the boy running away from his house, this thug was wrong too. It is a damning indictment on the current administration's approach to law and order that previously sensible citizens now see it as being desirable that people take the law into their own hands, because not enough is being done on their behalf.

I see where you're coming from, but what would you recommend as a "proportionate response" in this case? Simply walk away and inform the police at a later time?
If the victim had just walked away, what's to say the 'chav' wouldn't have followed him and dealt some more severe blows? After all, this is the type of person who slaps innocent strangers in the face and videos it for fun. I maintain that he got what he deserved. A few months ago someone was kicked to death in London in the name of entertainment.

[CrazyHorse]

Mummy, you make a great case and like I said I'm in agreement with the 'two wrongs' thing and the point that individual citizens cannot exact retribution on the spot but there is a bigger picture here because this was all done in a split second in the heat of the moment..how is the victim supposed to react?

Plus your comment about happy slapping being with the palm of the hand - I'm afraid you're wrong. Hasn't there been one or two cases of actual bodily harm and even one poor bloke being pushed into a frozen lake and then filmed dying in a so called happy slapping? Surely it's reasonable to assume that the victim could have been in fear of his life? I'm sure I would be in that situation and would defend myself accordingly (despite being a pacifist BTW).

[communistworkethic]

The act of "happy slapping" is not just about violence but also of humiliation. Its perpetrators are bullies, nothing more. The fact that the law doesn't allow for retribution specifically is a failing as we all know Judges' application of common sense is variable at the best of times.

[Porrohman]

I can`t wait till that fat bastard with the tash uses it in his next advert.
"Have you been injured?""Knocked out in the street?"

[Montreal Wanderer]

The concept of a happy slapper is quite new to me - what will you people think of next! I would guess that any slapper would at least be guilty of common assault and disturbing the peace. I disagree, Mummy, that the open palm makes a difference - an unexpected slap could cause a heart attack or a serious fall. The retaliation was disproportionate, especially the kick - he obvioulsy has a short fuse and he was verging on grievous bodily harm. I presume the defence would be that he reacted in shock while the balance of his mind was disturbed, and would likely get off with a caution. Personally I don't think either party should be applauded.

[communistworkethic]

While this may be one slap, the phenomenon - goes much further with some extending to serious and extended gang beatings.

As far as I'm concerned, getting away with a slap the first time could easily have been the start of something that progressed. I doubt he'd be doing it again in the future now.

[warthog]

The concept of a happy slapper is quite new to me - what will you people think of next! I would guess that any slapper would at least be guilty of common assault and disturbing the peace. I disagree, Mummy, that the open palm makes a difference - an unexpected slap could cause a heart attack or a serious fall.

A slap can be very damaging. Remember the Tango adverts with the big orange chap in them? They were withdrawn after a number of children sustained perforated eardrums.

[Gertie]

I'm just glad that Hoggie didn't film the encounter at the pub last week.

Just to clarify there wasn't any slapping and no eardrums or hogs were harmed in the incident...

[TANGODANCER]

.

A slap can be very damaging. Remember the Tango adverts with the big orange chap in them? They were withdrawn after a number of children sustained perforated eardrums.

Which makes the whole concept of these idiots doing what they do ridiculous. I hope anyone who defends them never comes up against one. Worse still their parents or families. Makes my blood boil just discussing it. Yet another benefit of the mobile phone abuse to go with paedophilic filming of kids.

[warthog]

I'm just glad that Hoggie didn't film the encounter at the pub last week.

Just to clarify there wasn't any slapping and no eardrums or hogs were harmed in the incident...

That's your version of events. Clearly you aren't counting psychological damage.

[Gertie]

Aaah the scars that don't show....

Hope you're getting some help with that....

[warthog]

Aaah the scars that don't show....

Hope you're getting some help with that....

For those a tad puzzled by all this, I should explain that Gertie's been sending me death threats by PM for months. I didn't take it seriously at first, but a couple of weeks ago she tracked me down to my local pub.

"Happy Birthday!" she hissed, before flicking her golden tresses over her shoulder and flouncing out of the tap room, with a maniacal laugh.*

I haven't been out of the house since.





* This account contains a certain amount of embellishment for dramatic effect. SOTWA's novel has a lot to answer for.

[Gertie]

Yes, and didn't I look the wally when you pointed out it wasn't your birthday either.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Yes, and didn't I look the wally when you pointed out it wasn't your birthday either.

It could have been worse - he might have been Ratbert or something.

[warthog]

Yes, and didn't I look the wally when you pointed out it wasn't your birthday either.

I'm far too much of a gentlehog to answer that question.

[plodder]

Well I'd have smacked the little shite too, and kicked him when he was on the floor. Taken his phone and inserted it in his txtspk.

That would be an appropriate response.....no?