Stabbing Victim Pulls Knife From His Stomach to Kill Attacker

Moggy wrote:I saw on Facebook the other day that somebody I went to school with was facing a jail sentence. He was always a wrong ‘un but nobody was saying what he had done.

He’s been sentenced now so the story is out there.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bris ... nt-3458456

strawberry floating hell

That's an absolutely terrible newspaper article, with so many pop ups.

That's the real crime here.

Moggy wrote:I saw on Facebook the other day that somebody I went to school with was facing a jail sentence. He was always a wrong ‘un but nobody was saying what he had done.

He’s been sentenced now so the story is out there.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bris ... nt-3458456

strawberry floating hell

Reminds me of that time a former friend of mine who I went to school with (cut all ties with him when we started college) got arrested for rape.

He was a nice enough kid growing up but pretty immature and "overdone it with the drink" (his excuse in court) is pretty accurate to his character. He's immature but he never seemed like the kind of guy who'd intentionally harm someone so it was strange when I heard what happened.

Or that time someone posted child pornography to OONM

http://web.archive.org/web/20141024182100/http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Suspended-student-rude-image-website/story-12548751-detail/story.html

Website

Woah, what a story.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Under uk law (I don’t know the Australian laws) he would have gone too far to be acquitted under self defence. The difficulty is that it’s very difficult to get into the mindset of those involved at the time of the incident. I would find it very hard to remain controlled in that situation. Self defence is all about doing what’s necessary to neutralise the threat. If someone has attacked you with a knife, killing them could be justified but only if you had no other choice. From the sounds of the description of the incident he went too far under our law.

I think you cover the key point regarding the self-defence defence which is whether the retaliation of eleven stabs was excessive? I don't think it was. When studying the details of the incident it is easy for third parties to attempt to speculate that one stab back is self-defence, perhaps two is too, but three or more is excessive. This thinking is flawed because it is trying to rationalise the amount of stabs given when in reality, if you have received a knife to the abdomen then this is a genuine attempt on your life, the other person is trying to kill you, therefore in that situation any amount of stabs back will be needed to stop the person because they will likely attempt to stab you again - the first 'unprovoked' act of violence being proof.

The defendant was wrongly advised by his counsel, and he sounded sincerely contrite for the life he had taken. He should have pleaded not guilty and he would have been found not guilty.

That's not a knife. THIS is a knife!

this thread :fp:

"its impossible to work out or rationalise the viewpoint of someone just stabbed, you cant decide whether it was self-defence or not!
"its self-defence therefore hes not guilty of manslaughter!"

Seems he was a big fan of the Chuckle Brothers.

Saint of Killers wrote:
Rightey wrote:If someone tried to stab me to death, I don't think I would really be all there when defending myself. I mean, we're not really being given a lot of information here so we don't know how long the fight lasted, but 11 stab wounds could easily be inflicted on someone in a very short amount of time.

And that's why it's manslaughter and not murder. But I understand what you're saying. (That normal reactions goes out the window after you've been stabbed.)

Maybe the fact the homeless man was stabbed in the back indicates he turned away and the other guy pursued him? If that's the case then it could be argued the pursuer wasn't in further danger but chose to escalate an already awful situation.

He was stabbed in the back? Is that from a different article? I thought it said he just had some cuts on his arms which may have been from trying to defend himself.

It’s in your original post.

rinks wrote:It’s in your original post.

Website

<]:^D wrote:this thread

"its impossible to work out or rationalise the viewpoint of someone just stabbed, you cant decide whether it was self-defence or not!
"its self-defence therefore hes not guilty of manslaughter!"

I’m fine with you disagreeing with me, it’s not confrontational to leave the quoted person’s name in! But the quote has different words added so it which I didn’t write.

It wasnt just directed at you, its not a direct quote, and it sums up the sentiment being expressed - whether intended or not

I think if someone tries to kill you, you're within your rights to kill them.

Yeah thats not how self defence works

Also i get quite annoyed about this because cycles of avoidable violence stem and are reinforced from these attitudes

jiggles wrote:I think if someone tries to kill you, you're within your rights to kill them.

“When we were 5 he pushed me down the stairs in an attempt to kill me. I bided my time and on his 68th birthday I shot him in the head. As he tried to kill me, I was within my rights to kill him. And so m’lord I rest my case.“

Moggy wrote:
jiggles wrote:I think if someone tries to kill you, you're within your rights to kill them.

“When we were 5 he pushed me down the stairs in an attempt to kill me. I bided my time and on his 68th birthday I shot him in the head. As he tried to kill me, I was within my rights to kill him. And so m’lord I rest my case.“

I mean as far as removing the immediate threat to your life.

This is an interesting one because usually the "self defence" defence comes out in situations where the defendant was under a perceived threat - someone with a weapon being aggressive toward them etc. But in this instance this guy has actually been stabbed in the gut, he has for all he knows already sustained a mortal wound and is lashing out in response.

How quantifiable is a "reasonable" response in that situation? At what point when I've been attacked by someone who intends to kill me and I'm fighting for my life should I stop?

Website

A video was taken yesterday of ram-raiders robbing a jewellery story in Shepherd's Bush London. Whilst fleeing the scene one trips and is apprehended by bystanders. A crowd of seven dog-pile in and use a series of tumps and kicks to the criminal's groin and head, there's definitely some stomping in there too. As this is to negate the threat surely this is 'reasonable force'?

Also, in this Brexit-era, London gets a hard rap for being culturally and racially divided. But this video is a powerful symbol of unity as it shows black, white and asian people, young and old, working together to serve the community they love.

https://www.dailyfail.co.uk/news/articl ... -shop.html

<]:^D wrote:It wasnt just directed at you, its not a direct quote, and it sums up the sentiment being expressed - whether intended or not

It's cool.

Moggy wrote:
rinks wrote:It’s in your original post.

Well I'm going blind. :fp:

Venom wrote:Also, in this Brexit-era, London gets a hard rap for being culturally and racially divided. But this video is a powerful symbol of unity as it shows black, white and asian people, young and old, working together to serve the community they love.

Always nice to see a community come together. :wub:

From a legal standpoint I think you're first expected to try to escape from an attacker before attempting to fight them off, then if that fails and violence is needed to incapacitate them, then 'acceptable force' is a valid option.

Killing someone should never be allowed in a civilised society but I think in circumstances like this particular incident the defendant should be given the minimum sentence for manslaughter.

Kezzer wrote:

Stabbing Victim Pulls Knife From His Stomach to Kill Attacker

Who is online

Affiliates