i'm fuming.....

Alan-1965 said:
With you all the way Stan, the more people stand up to the little B@5T@6D5 the better off we will all be.

Very few of them have actually got the b@lls to "front up" to you, then when you give them a smack Hopefully they wont do it to anyone else.

GOOD ON YOU STAN.
Click to expand...

thank you alan,and for everyone else's support...again it is appreciated.

to everyone else...i just hope similar never happens to you,regardless of how much your equipment costs.
 
In the words of Not The Nine O'clock news.....

....."I know these kids, I know their problems, I know their parents, and I think the only solution is to CUT OFF THEIR GOOLIES"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
On a serious note...

You were lucky the rest didnt join in...
So many times in the news that gangs cause serious injuries or worse...

Did he just get up and the gang walked away??
 
chris321 said:
This bit worries me quite a lot. I can understand what you're saying, but feel you're missing the point. Whether is was a glancing blow or not, the youth swung at his face, and made contact. Assault. I don't get why you think this kid is fine to go round hitting people, but it's not o.k to fight back?

I wouldn't do it, but if I ever threw a punch at someone, I'd be expecting one back!

Chris

Edit: Please no-one get personal, as I'm interested in the replies to my questions, but I won't get them if this thread gets locked, which is the direction it's heading at the moment :)
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that I'm looking at this situation from the beginning whereas the majority are looking at it from halfway through, from the point where the youth threw a punch.

If someone threw a punch at me of course I would retaliate. A well placed kick in the 'nads is always better than having to go 15 rounds. The question has to be asked, how did the situation escalate to that point?

The youths threw snowballs which could have resulted in damage. The O.P. (in his own words) Asked them "what they think they were playing at" which in itself is a challenge.

How can that question be answered without being rude, cheeky or arrogant?

He followed it up with "you know full well what,do you think it's funny to knacker 2.5K's worth of equipment with your antics" Which comes across as aggressive. The youths met this aggression with abuse.

The O.P. then states "so i put down my camera and front up to them to see how brave they would be then"

Turns out that at least one of them was braver than he thought they would be and swung a punch at him. Luckily for him the punch failed to connect properly We all know what happened after that.

From my viewpoint, when the youths started to throw the snowballs there were four things that the O.P. could have done. He could have:
1)walked away
2)engaged them on their own terms - a retaliatory strike with snowballs
3) Approached them and informed them that the camera is expensive and likely to get damaged
4) Got aggressive with them.

The O.P. took the fourth course of action which I beleive to be exactly the wrong on. Had the punch to the jaw connected the chances are that pack instinct to attack the wounded would have taken over and the outcome could have been tragic.

Would I have taken an alternative course - yes. I would have approached them and informed them that the camera is expensive and likely to get damaged, in the hope that the youths would stop and I would then be able to go about my lawful business. If that was unsuccessful then I would have walked away.

The snowball throwing could have been a playful act, it could have been an aggressive act. We don't know because we weren't there. The chances are that it was playful because if the youths had instigated the snowballing vindictivly, the O.P. would not have had the opportunity to square up to them. He was able to engage them (albeit aggressively) and enter into a discourse with them. I think it was the O.P.'s aggression that escalated the situation and it is from that viewpoint that I posted.
 
I can't believe I just read all 11 pages of this.

Mark, you did what anyone else would have done. These little chavs need to be taught a lesson in my opinion. Throwing a few snowballs here and there is fine but you just defended yourself. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Well at least they admitted defeat and walked away....

They must have some sense....

(y)
 
sheddy said:
I think the problem is that I'm looking at this situation from the beginning whereas the majority are looking at it from halfway through, from the point where the youth threw a punch.

If someone threw a punch at me of course I would retaliate. A well placed kick in the 'nads is always better than having to go 15 rounds. The question has to be asked, how did the situation escalate to that point?

The youths threw snowballs which could have resulted in damage. The O.P. (in his own words) Asked them "what they think they were playing at" which in itself is a challenge.

How can that question be answered without being rude, cheeky or arrogant?

He followed it up with "you know full well what,do you think it's funny to knacker 2.5K's worth of equipment with your antics" Which comes across as aggressive. The youths met this aggression with abuse.

The O.P. then states "so i put down my camera and front up to them to see how brave they would be then"

Turns out that at least one of them was braver than he thought they would be and swung a punch at him. Luckily for him the punch failed to connect properly We all know what happened after that.

From my viewpoint, when the youths started to throw the snowballs there were four things that the O.P. could have done. He could have:
1)walked away
2)engaged them on their own terms - a retaliatory strike with snowballs
3) Approached them and informed them that the camera is expensive and likely to get damaged
4) Got aggressive with them.

The O.P. took the fourth course of action which I beleive to be exactly the wrong on. Had the punch to the jaw connected the chances are that pack instinct to attack the wounded would have taken over and the outcome could have been tragic.

Would I have taken an alternative course - yes. I would have approached them and informed them that the camera is expensive and likely to get damaged, in the hope that the youths would stop and I would then be able to go about my lawful business. If that was unsuccessful then I would have walked away.

The snowball throwing could have been a playful act, it could have been an aggressive act. We don't know because we weren't there. The chances are that it was playful because if the youths had instigated the snowballing vindictivly, the O.P. would not have had the opportunity to square up to them. He was able to engage them (albeit aggressively) and enter into a discourse with them. I think it was the O.P.'s aggression that escalated the situation and it is from that viewpoint that I posted.
Click to expand...

okay..i felt within my right to question why they had to throw the snowball at me.i don't take kindly to anyone giving me a load of abuse,and seeing as they were 40 or so yards away from me..i walked towards them,and yes..i thought it might just make them change their tone towards me,but it didn't.they were the aggressors,not me.the punch had connected more than i had thought with my chin/mouth being a little sore this morning.the snowballing wasn't them being playfull,it was them thinking they were being clever...snowballs or not,assault is assault..period.they don't have the god given right to throw missiles at whoever they want..whatever they are constructed of!as far as i'm concerned,he is luck i walked away when i did,as i think i restrained myself very well.
 
sheddy said:
I think the problem is that I'm looking at this situation from the beginning whereas the majority are looking at it from halfway through, from the point where the youth threw a punch.

*snip*
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to reply at such length. (y)

While I agree the OP could have dealt with the initial snowball incident differently, I'd be pretty irritated too. There's a big difference between a "What the hell are you playing at", and going for a punch in my eyes.

When on nights out, I've often been challenged in the same way as the OP did to the youth in question (for stepping on someone's foot in a club, spilling a drink, that kind of thing). There's always one who will get up in your face, swear at you, I had one guy throw down his drink and say "Do you wanna go?!" :)cuckoo:). At no point did I feel any urge to take a swing at him, just laughed at the drunken idiot and walked away.

The youth when challenged could have just said "Sorry mate", two words which would have defused the situation completely, but instead he took the different action of throwing a punch, and the result was him ending up on the floor.

Giving the youths the benefit of the doubt, say they were just having fun and playing a joke on people, if it goes south and you **** someone off, you apologise. If I played a prank on someone and they didn't find it funny, I'd realise I was in the wrong for misjudging the situation. If they came over and asked me what the hell I was doing, I'd feel like a prize idiot, say sorry, and leave very quickly.

I'd imagine the guy was embarrassed that he'd actually been challenged unlike from the grannies that they'd been chucking snow at before, tried to look hard in front of his mates, and ended up looking even more like a plank.

(The last bit is a tad judgmental :D )

Chris
 
Think you did well to turn away and walk off, must have been tempting to give him a good kicking

Only thing they respect these days, certainly ain't their parents or the old bill

I captured a couple of these swines up the back of my lane near my car, scared him s***less when his mate legged it and I had him on my own
 
I am totally shocked that the "youth of today" are thowing snowballs - what has the world come to. Shocking! :eek: lol

Of course the adults of today never did such such a thing when they where young, they where peeeerfect childern, said "hello sir" to all passer bys and carried on skipping with their ropes whist eating their apple.

Let kids be kids and if you get annoyed with the "youth of today" then just walk away and dont get involved - they are trying to prevoke you and they *WANT* you to fight back for the thill of it.

If you want to take "matters into your own hands" then just remember that you are responsible and completely accountable for your own actions.

I think people here perhaps need to perhaps stop reading stories in the Daily Mail about the "Politically Correctness gone mad", "Heath and Safety Killjoys", "Killer Hoodies on the rampage" etc. As these kind of stories are demonising kids and creating a world of fear against teenagers who ultimatly are just having fun (like we all did when we where young).

For the record also - I was out in Chester the other night and a similar incident happened to me in that I was hit my a snowball by a teenager, what did I do I hear you say ? - Walk away and remember the days when I was doing something similar when i was a lad.
 
I'm a copper so I do know a bit about the complexities of self defence and reasonable force.

Firstly, it could be construed that having a snowball thrown at you is assault but lets face it, not many people are going to want to stand up in court and tell the magistrates they were assaulted by a snowball.

Secondly, asking the little oiks what they are playing at is perfectly reasonable, cameras are expensive and no one wants them ruined by snow. If the camera was damaged then the oiks have actually committed criminal damage as they were reckless in their actions knowing that Stan had a camera and that the snow may damage it.

Thirdly, when the oik threw the punch he became fair game for a good slap. Common law and section 3 of the criminal law act allow self defence and reasonable force. The oik tried to punch stan and got a good kick in the ghoolies for his troubles, perfectly reasonable response. If Stan had dragged him to the ground and repeatedly kicked his face then that's not reasonable and Stan would probably be in a lot of trouble.

That's the law bit, as for the morality of it all it sounds like these kids were not simply having a fun snowball fight but intentionally trying to be annoying, intimidating and just bloody rude. I'm the first one in the queue for a good snowball fight but if it's started for the simple reason of malice then it's just not cricket.
 
Dave W said:
I'm a copper so I do know a bit about the complexities of self defence and reasonable force.

Firstly, it could be construed that having a snowball thrown at you is assault but lets face it, not many people are going to want to stand up in court and tell the magistrates they were assaulted by a snowball.

Secondly, asking the little oiks what they are playing at is perfectly reasonable, cameras are expensive and no one wants them ruined by snow. If the camera was damaged then the oiks have actually committed criminal damage as they were reckless in their actions knowing that Stan had a camera and that the snow may damage it.

Thirdly, when the oik threw the punch he became fair game for a good slap. Common law and section 3 of the criminal law act allow self defence and reasonable force. The oik tried to punch stan and got a good kick in the ghoolies for his troubles, perfectly reasonable response. If Stan had dragged him to the ground and repeatedly kicked his face then that's not reasonable and Stan would probably be in a lot of trouble.

That's the law bit, as for the morality of it all it sounds like these kids were not simply having a fun snowball fight but intentionally trying to be annoying, intimidating and just bloody rude. I'm the first one in the queue for a good snowball fight but if it's started for the simple reason of malice then it's just not cricket.
Click to expand...

thanks for posting that dave...if i'm honest,i've been a little worried of what may happen,especially judging by some peoples posts on this thread.
 
stan the man said:
thanks for posting that dave...if i'm honest,i've been a little worried of what may happen,especially judging by some peoples posts on this thread.
Click to expand...

Stan, if the little bleeders decide to go to the police then you "may" be arrested and interviewed about what happened. I have no doubt that it would go no where but still, being arrested is not a nice experience for the vast majority of people. Unfortunately the system tends to work on the premise of get your complaint in first.

My advice would be to either phone or go to your local nick and just tell them what happened so it's logged. This means that should the oik make a complaint with 5 rent a witnesses it covers your backside as you've already been to the Police about it.

I know full well that you shouldn't have to bother doing this but I've had to arrest people in the past because some little angel oik has come in with their parent demanding Mr Policeman arrest the nasty man who assaulted my darling angel child when the truth as I quickly established was far from what the child was telling me.

However, don't worry about it. You have committed no criminal offences and there isn't a court in the land would convict you of anything in these circumstances.
 
Wow... that guy takes so much abuse before he smacks him one...

Problem is he will come back with his chav mates and smash the house up...

Ref post #334
 
markw08 said:
Wow... that guy takes so much abuse before he smacks him one...

Problem is he will come back with his chav mates and smash the house up...

Ref post #334
Click to expand...

I was thinking the exact same thing. The guy must be a Saint! Great to see the yob crawl away though :LOL:
 
Dave W said:
Stan, if the little bleeders decide to go to the police then you "may" be arrested and interviewed about what happened. I have no doubt that it would go no where but still, being arrested is not a nice experience for the vast majority of people. Unfortunately the system tends to work on the premise of get your complaint in first.

My advice would be to either phone or go to your local nick and just tell them what happened so it's logged. This means that should the oik make a complaint with 5 rent a witnesses it covers your backside as you've already been to the Police about it.

I know full well that you shouldn't have to bother doing this but I've had to arrest people in the past because some little angel oik has come in with their parent demanding Mr Policeman arrest the nasty man who assaulted my darling angel child when the truth as I quickly established was far from what the child was telling me.

However, don't worry about it. You have committed no criminal offences and there isn't a court in the land would convict you of anything in these circumstances.
Click to expand...

good advice dave..i will ring the local police station and have a chat with them (y)
 
At risk of treading on already trodden on ground, the little ******s shouldn't have done it in the first place.

He punched you, and you finished it.

People need to learn that actions have consequences. I've been smacked around a bit since I've been at uni, all in defence of my friends, and nothing has come of it. I haven't hit back, because I haven't had the opportunity, but my weapon of choice is easily a good discussion.

The Police largely don't bother with these kind of ***** now. They brutally beat the crap out of one of my mates, they go to the Police, the Police put him up in front of a court, and he gets a slap on the wrist and 20 hours community service.
It's easier to arrest the man having a pee on a shop window, or the parents lying about where they live to get their kids into a decent school, or the woman doing 33 MPH in a 30MPH zone and getting a fine and 3 points, because the kids 'know their rights'.
It should be - commit your first offence (I'm talking theft, assault, etc), 6 months in prison. If that doesn't sort them out, the next offence make it 5 years. They do it again? 25 years, no parole.
You might say, "Oh but it will cost more in prison taxes!" but then, I know that most kids would crap themselves at spending 6 months in prison and wouldn't likely do anything again. If they do, and 5 years doesn't sort them out, then what's the point having them on the street? Lock them up out of the way of me! I think crime rates would drop dramatically.

I'd rather talk it out than throw punches. I wish I had time to read through this whole thread and then comment, but I have work to do!

Good one Stan, but next time, kick him so hard he won't be able to make little baby versions of him that will no doubt just sponge off me. :)

Disclaimer: I do not resent the police, or think that the job they do is rubbish OR easy. I fully respect the police and how difficult their job can be at times. What I have a problem with is the judicial system in which these kids who go around beating the crap out of my mates and robbing them end up roaming the streets thinking they own the place (literally, the SMMB massive, look it up) and they're running around doing whatever they want.
 
If these kids don't know you and don't know where you live. I wouldn't go or ring the police. You'll be an easy target for the police to process.

Think about this.

p.s. or maybe my friend was just extremely unlucky with the police and cps.

Lisa
 
Crazyhorse said:
If these kids don't know you and don't know where you live. I wouldn't go or ring the police. You'll be an easy target for the police to process.

Think about this.

p.s. or maybe my friend was just extremely unlucky with the police and cps.

Lisa
Click to expand...

good point lisa..they don't know me or where i live,in as much as i don't know them,or where they live.

mmmm.not sure what to do for the best.
 
stan the man said:
now that is funny...serves him right.
Click to expand...

Thats a slightly different thing...

It deserves him right for being so stupid...

Its when they abuse innocent people gets my back up...

I was game for stupid things when i was a lad but not criminal damage or abuse...

(y)
 
Crazyhorse said:
If these kids don't know you and don't know where you live. I wouldn't go or ring the police. You'll be an easy target for the police to process.

Think about this.
Click to expand...

agreed - just take a step back and think about it...

So: Your going to phone the police and tell them that you want to complain that you got hit by a snowball thown by a cheeky kid which then ended up in them trying to hit you "which slightly catches me on the chin" so you then "retaliated by kicking him in the groin...and he sinks to his knees".

Good luck - let us know how you get on.
 
additionally to the police advice...what about a caution??
the police will try to fob this off on your which goes on your record.
ideally you need to be acquitted of any charges.
pure and simple self-defense from intimidation and being attacked first.
no caution- you were not the instigator of this.
 
mark.carline said:
I am totally shocked that the "youth of today" are thowing snowballs - what has the world come to. Shocking! :eek: lol

Of course the adults of today never did such such a thing when they where young, they where peeeerfect childern, said "hello sir" to all passer bys and carried on skipping with their ropes whist eating their apple.

Let kids be kids and if you get annoyed with the "youth of today" then just walk away and dont get involved - they are trying to prevoke you and they *WANT* you to fight back for the thill of it.

If you want to take "matters into your own hands" then just remember that you are responsible and completely accountable for your own actions.

I think people here perhaps need to perhaps stop reading stories in the Daily Mail about the "Politically Correctness gone mad", "Heath and Safety Killjoys", "Killer Hoodies on the rampage" etc. As these kind of stories are demonising kids and creating a world of fear against teenagers who ultimatly are just having fun (like we all did when we where young).

For the record also - I was out in Chester the other night and a similar incident happened to me in that I was hit my a snowball by a teenager, what did I do I hear you say ? - Walk away and remember the days when I was doing something similar when i was a lad.
Click to expand...

the trouble is mark,a lot of these "youth" that are having "fun",as you put it,do so in a totally different way to we did as "youth"."fun" for a lot of these youth is destroying peoples belongings and possesions,property...need i go on.this is not the way i had fun as a youth,i can assure you.
as for the stories about "killer hoodies on the rampage" etc...that may be sensationalism,but there are a lot of gangs of them hanging around making a general nuisance of themselves,destroying the local park,depriving the smaller children of that pleasure etc..that to me is not acceptable behavior.
 
markw08 said:
Thats a slightly different thing...

It deserves him right for being so stupid...

Its when they abuse innocent people gets my back up...

I was game for stupid things when i was a lad but not criminal damage or abuse...

(y)
Click to expand...

but surely,that is criminal damage mark..it could be mine or your wall/property they are destroying. :shrug:

although i'm sure he won't be doing it so quickly next time :LOL:
 
Personally I'd leave it. You dont know them, they don't know you. Good on you stan for standing up for yourself.

They probably thought bloke out on his own - easy target.
 
What Sheddy said for me - given the course of events post confrontation, I would have done exactly what Stan did! However, in another dimension somewhere, a different Stan instead of confronting the youths, launched a snowball onslaught of his own, won the battle of 'wildlife park' as it was known from that day forth, and the yoofs bought him a pint in the Red Lion to celebrate his unbelievable 1 man victory!! :)

Happy new year everyone!! :D
 
Missed this thread yesterday but just wanted to add my thoughts anyway. Good on ye Stan and glad you and your kit are ok. These scumbags are rife all over Britain and joe public backing down only makes the situation worse.

Hope it hasn't put you off going out and Happy New Year to ye. (y)

Tommy.
 
DizMatt said:
additionally to the police advice...what about a caution??
the police will try to fob this off on your which goes on your record.
ideally you need to be acquitted of any charges.
pure and simple self-defense from intimidation and being attacked first.
no caution- you were not the instigator of this.
Click to expand...

Not true, to receive a caution you have to have actually committed an offence (which Stan hasn't) and fully admit the offence (which Stan won't because he hasn't committed one).

We've all heard the stories about crazy Police action but by and large that's all they are, stories sensationalised to sell papers.

Obviously Stan the decision is yours to make whether to speak to the Police or not but I can assure you that you will not be treated as the perpetrator in this instance.
 
Dave W said:
We've all heard the stories about crazy Police action but by and large that's all they are, stories sensationalised to sell papers
Click to expand...

What?! You mean the police don't all think we're murderers, terrorists, and peadophiles?! But that's what I read in The Sun, so it must be true right?! :LOL:
 
stan the man said:
but surely,that is criminal damage mark..it could be mine or your wall/property they are destroying. :shrug:

although i'm sure he won't be doing it so quickly next time :LOL:
Click to expand...

I agree that video is criminal damage... i meant it was not related to your incident where somebody is physically abused...

The first vid is something i would not like happen to me.. dont think i would have lasted as long a that guy did...

As soon as he grabbed him on the back of the neck or pushed him does this
give him the right to defend himself ????

I think you would have heard from the police by now if they have reported it.. Over 24hrs since the incident...

(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top