news article

[tris-]

not sure how old this is but -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3813115.stm

imo, its disgusting. the guy is beaten and stabbed in his home yet he is the one being accused. the bit that really takes the piss -

His lawyers argue that he was acting in self-defence but the prosecution say that the violence had already stopped and that it was a revenge attack.

ok so the stabbing stopped and the beating stopped, in his home ofcourse.

but hold on a second just forget that completley, the violence had stopped so he shouldnt of reacted. he should of stood up and said "ok chaps, violence over. be on your way and we will hear no more about it".

i am so pissed off at that. shows how fucked up it all is. give pitty to the people in the wrong and the people in the right can goto prison.

RAGHHHHH

 

[nath]

Not quite, I'm sorry that you feel that revenge is an ok thing to do, and that it's fine to take the law in to your own hands. Part of me thinks that the kid got what he had coming, but that part of me is not the rational logical part that controls my actions/decisions. The fact is, if they had stopped attacking him then it was an act of revenge and he should be sentenced accordingly.

 

[tris-]

but what about the fact that nothing is happening to the shits who started it?
also how can they prove or disprove it had finished? i think its nearly impossible unless it was filmed on camera or something.

im not sure what state of mind you would be in after being stabbed several times and beaten, but i dont think i would be rational in my actions. seeing as i would probably in shock too.

 

[nath]

For now, I think what happens to the other kids is irrelevant. They're not on trial yet.

As for his rationality, and whether the beating had stopped.. well

The trial continues.

I imagine that will be taken in to account and it will be argued out. Don't get angry about miscarriages of justice before they've happened.

 

[SilverHood]

Of course, this is based off the BBC article - sometimes we don't get the full picture, but...

I'm personally of the opinion that the kid got what was coming for him.
Attacking someone with a baseball bat, and stabbing the guy. I mean, just what the fuck do they expect him to do? Roll over and die? Get stabbed again? "Please Sir, may I have some more?"

The accusation is that of a "revenge" attack..... to be honest, they went specifically to his house to beat him up after they had an argument earlier.
If that isn't revenge, then I don't know what is.

If someone had stabbed me, and "was" / "had been" beating on me with a baseball bat, I doubt I would be in any rational form of mind, nor would I realise the consequences of my actions - I'd do whatever the hell I could to make sure it didn't happen again. Like that guy.

The 3 attackers should all get charged with some form of assault - even the kid who lost his eye. Should teach him not to attack people.

 

[Ch3tan]

He got stabbed just below his heart, this would be such a different story had the boy stabbed him an inch or two higher.

So bleeding, and bruised after being attacked by 3 people with bats, he tries to hold them off with a harpoon gun. Sounds reasonable to me. And the article indicates that he only shot when he was swung at again by a bat.

I honestly think that boy got off lightly only losing his eye, sounds like scum who got what he deserved.

 

[pcg79]

'Mr Kirk told police in a statement that he had cocked the gun to keep his attackers at bay and, as he lifted it, was hit in the face with a baseball bat, causing the trigger to go off.'

 

[JBP|]

the thing is your only supposed to use "reasonable" force to hold off an attacker

this means if your attacked with a bat its perfectly acceptable to use a bat in your deffence,not a gun harpoon or otherwise


stupid i know, but there you go

 

[SawTooTH]

I think leaving the harpoon gun next to the front door demonstrates that he was expecting trouble and that there was intent on his half to cause significant damage (malice aforethought). I think thats where the trouble lies. If he had grabbed something and used that whilst being attacked thats a different matter.

 

[Wij]

Maybe it was revenge but in this case I don't care tbh. Neither died. Both got seriously injured. Probably best just calling it quits.

 

[tris-]

the thing is your only supposed to use "reasonable" force to hold off an attacker

this means if your attacked with a bat its perfectly acceptable to use a bat in your deffence,not a gun harpoon or otherwise


stupid i know, but there you go

imo this shouldnt be the case.

imagine - a guy breaks into your house and trys to kill you with a kitchen knife of somekind. all you have handy is a shotgun or a shoe. are you expected to beat off the attacker with a shoe? because a shotgun is not reasonable against a knife, with a shotgun you can kill from a distance but not really so with a knife.
i think these days, if someone is trying to kill you just lay their and be quiet. dont fight back because if you happen to survive and the attacker is bruised somehow they will probably sue you and you will be the one in the wrong.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

gg Nathan Kirk.

 

[dysfunction]

...that he had cocked the gun to keep his attackers at bay and, as he lifted it, was hit in the face with a baseball bat, causing the trigger to go off.

Sounds like self defense to me!
Also they were still in his home at the time he "attacked" them. They were still "armed" and obviously were close enough to him to hit him again.

Its not like they were walking down the street and he came out and shot the boy.

I say it was self defence. If he's found guilty I would get another lawyer...

 

[Escape]

I think leaving the harpoon gun next to the front door demonstrates that he was expecting trouble and that there was intent on his half to cause significant damage (malice aforethought). I think thats where the trouble lies. If he had grabbed something and used that whilst being attacked thats a different matter.

Leaving the harpoon by the door was a smart move by him. He knew he was in danger, so took measures to defend himself.

Being stabbed in the chest, justifies a harpoon in the face as reasonable force. Both are lethal.

What happens if this guy took the beating and didn't react?
The kid and his mates walk away, if they get arrested the 15yr old is taken away for counseling, maybe a month in youth detention and he's back on the streets to vandalise phone booths and commit GBH. Even worse, he's flown out to spain for a two week vacation and then returned to commit more crimes in his town.... whatever. The fact is, he wouldn't be given a just punishment by the authorities.

The 25yr old has a right to defend his propetry. It's easy to read the article and judge him, but I doubt he was thinking straight after being beaten and stabbed by three men, who were probably still threatening him as he fired the harpoon. Violence isn't good, but in this case the kid got what was comming to him. He took the risk and paid for it with his eye.


Personally, I blame the politically correct thought brigade, who banned dicipline. Some kids need dicipline, even with a cane when called for. There wouldn't be as many underage criminals if they were given an old-skool beating by the headmaster, instead of pointless detentions.

 

[Stazbumpa]

The whole "what would you do" debate is an interesting one. I practise kendo, and in my house I have a bamboo shinai sword (used in kendo bouts), 2 oak bokkens (wooden practise swords) and a real carbon steel japanese katana (fecking sharp).

Given the choice when faced with an armed intruder, I would twat him with the shinai, coz that bends and whilst probably breaking a nose, that would be all. The bokken are probably more dangerous than a baseball bat coz they are sword shaped and hard as hell.
Easily crack a skull open with one.

The katana, well lets not go there. Limbs would be removed with little effort.

My point however is not what WOULD you defend yourself with, but what COULD you defend yourself with? How many people have gone on trial for defending themselves because the only thing that came to hand was a kitchen knife? Self preservation is a strong instinct and IF, god forbid, I had to do the same in my own home I just hope I'm sat cleaning my shinai when it happens

As for little shit who lost an eye, just desserts springs to mind. I doubt very much that Mr Kirk wanted said shit to lose an eye, I also doubt very much that he even wanted to fire the harpoon gun. What I am certain of is that he didnt want to be stabbed and beaten up in his own fucking home, and so the survival instinct kicked in.

As for the prosecution argument that the violence had stopped, that is utter bullshit and they fucking know it. How many fights have stopped only for the attacker to return a minute later and start stamping on the poor bastards head while he's on the floor?
There is a saying.

They say "It is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6". Even so, sometimes it shouldn't even come to that.

PS: Escape speaketh much sense.

 

[Collino]

This is some parallels with the guy who killed the burglar in his own home..

...I think there should be a law about when a criminal commits a crime from then on they cannot prosecute anyone against them without some means of discredit. I know thsi would be against many human rigths laws.

But the scum thats out there at the moment would beat the shit out of u leave you for dead then as soon as u push him away from u would press charges because they think they have some "right" to do so..... they do have a "right" technically but surely they should lose all these "rights" as soon as they commit an offense.....

I see this sort of thing a lot in my home town. Being 18 i am now an adult.... although i am young still which means me and my freinds are often a target for absue from younge people who are still seen as kids.. So if a fight starts out to be honest it seems with the law that a kid can nearly kill me and not get so much as a caution and a small fine, but as soon as i or a freind of mine punch them we can be done for GBH etc.. (sorry for little rant)

The law isnt always fair really is it.. ?

 

[Stazbumpa]

The law does not mean justice though, and thats the problem. The law must be seen to be upheld, and quite often the law either wrong, has nothing to do with justice or even both.

 

[kanonfodda]

He has been acquited of GBH, but may face charges of possesing an offensive weapon

More info here

 

[Sissyfoo]

<edit> Just read the link so this bit is irrelevant</edit>

I think the whole law system is a bit fucked up where the criminal is given the same rights as the victim. If some dude got half-deafened by a rape alarm whilst assaulting some young lass and then sued her for damages you would expect any sane and rational society to laugh them the fuck right out of court!

But oh nooooooo...here ya go, Mr. Rapist! £100,000 compensation because of the injuries you received whilst trying to rape the young madam in question!

~rolls eyes~

Hmm...surely stabbing someone in the heart is a wee bit more serious than 'affray'? Oh well...viva la law!