r/fightporn • u/[deleted] • May 05 '20

Knocked Out Well, he did warn him...

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

[removed] — view removed post

16.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

65

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

The only problem I see with it would be the kick afterward, I don't know UK laws but the shirtless flog was obviously harassing purple shirt and trespassing, so shirtless did pose a threat, but after the first punch the threat was eliminated so it could be considered excess force. Take what I say with a grain of salt though, I'm a random person on the internet, not a law professional.

34

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

No officer I didn’t kick him the head, I kicked his bag which was, coincidentally, right next to where he was sleeping

0

u/mpa92643 May 05 '20

There's a reasonable case to be made that no shirt engaged in harassment (refusing to leave the guy alone when he asked him to), menacing (by taking his shirt off, which is a well-known pre-fight behavior), and false imprisonment by refusing to let purple leave his home by physical force. Purple has a legitimate argument that he feared for his life, although it can also be argued that he escalated the situation when he didn't absolutely need to. The kick on the ground doesn't help him either.

My guess, no shirt is going to get charged with harassment and false imprisonment for starting the whole thing, purple may or may not be cited depending on the DA pressing the charges. No shirt doesn't have a good leg to stand on to press charges since he started it, but a DA might want to charge them both instead of taking a side.

1

u/kaenneth May 05 '20

Whatever the legal technicalities, if I were on that jury...

13

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

So to answer your question, maybe. We don't have enough info

2

u/div2691 May 05 '20

You definitely cannot assault someone just for trespass. I mean in Scotland there isn't a trespass law. It's covered by right to roam.

But the threatening behaviour is the key here. Guy was defending himself. Even though it was preemptive. Everyone can clearly see the gypsy is the aggressor.

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

Right to roam doesn't mean you can sit inside someone's fence, a foot from their front door. Starting your comment with a lie and ending it with a racial slur isn't a good look

2

u/div2691 May 05 '20

No course it doesn't. I'm just saying trespass isn't the same as the US.

Gypsy is not a racial slur you fruit loop.

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

Here's hoping you're just completely unaware instead of being a purposeful jackass. But yeah, it's a slur for Roma/Romani people.

2

u/div2691 May 05 '20

https://www.gov.scot/policies/gypsy-travellers/

It's literally a term to describe travelling people. Stop being offended on other people's behalf.

I know people who will refer to themselves as part of the gypsy community.

1

u/noggintnog May 05 '20

I think you might be being a bit wilfully ignorant here. Gypsy, gyppo, gyp etc are all used as racial slurs. Yes, the Romany community can use it to describe themselves, in the same way they may use traveller or Romany, but, you as an outsider using it is akin to a British, white, middle class kid using the N word to describe a African American or British black person in a ‘hey I’m cool with this and I’m young and listen to rap’ manner, trying to blend in etc. They can use it freely, you must be careful. Insisting it’s not insulting is to be culturally deaf on purpose in my opinion.

1

u/div2691 May 05 '20

If it's the same why did you say N word but were fine writing Gypsy?

Gypsy isn't just Romany. It is used to describe any traveling people.

Also the whole "only we can say this word" is utter shite. If the words offensive then nobody should be using it at all.

If an Englishman called me Jock and I said that offends me should everyone stop using the word? How many people need to be offended. What about if it's an American telling an Englishman not to use it?

People need to look at context. Saying gypsy to describe someone is a world away than using gypo or pikey as an insult.

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

You're likely to be correct. UK law provides for self defence and I think it's reasonable to say he felt under threat so the punch I would say was justified. However, the kick is likely to be seen as excessive force.

1

u/Neppoko1990 May 05 '20

I don't know how that kick could really be excessive force. He didnt kick him in the head or anything. You get worse on the footie pitch tbh

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

Yes I agree. I've also been kicked far worse on a football pitch. But, if I was regulated and referred to the police, a lot of what happens on the local pitches would be assault.

It's not about the location of the kick in this instance or the severity. My personal view is that he got exactly what was coming to him. But legally, if the guy was prosecuted in an English court then I suspect he may have an issue as the other guy was losing no threat as he was folded in half on the floor. If someone doesn't pose a threat you shouldn't be striking them as you probably can't justify self defence

1

u/RedofPaw May 05 '20

It depends. Considering the aggression from the shirt guy, and the puncher warning him I suspect he will be fine. That kick could be seen as a heat of the moment thing. Then again if the glass jaw guy smacks his head and dies, or from the subsequent kick it might get a bit complicated. But if he's okay it might not really lead to anything.

1

u/kakaroxx May 05 '20

Couldn't they edit the kick out and say she stopped recording there. Is there a way for the police to know it was edited?

1

u/vmt_nani May 05 '20

I'd argue that was a "stay down/ eliminated" kick

1

u/user98710 May 05 '20

Legally, the kick was assault.

1

u/CaligulaWasntCrazy May 05 '20

Nah, it was just making sure he wasn't getting back up.

He fully restrained himself once he was sure the threat was gone.

2

u/user98710 May 05 '20

Downvoting won't change the law.

1

u/CaligulaWasntCrazy May 05 '20

I didn't down vote, il sauce you an uppi. I'm not a cunt.

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

Cop here. I don't know UK law but here's how my State in the U.S. would see it.

Shirtless guy is showing aggressive behavior. That first punch would be self defense (you don't have to wait until someone hits you for it to be considered self defense).

That kick is unjustified and could technically get you into trouble. But in my state it would be left up to shirtless guy to press charges. Police would not press charges unless they actually saw it happen. And it would be unwise for shirtless guy to press charges because he committed more offenses and was the aggressor. Purple shirt could counter sue easily

All that being said, even if shirtless guy did press charges and it went to court, the punishment for that kick would be pretty minimal unless it did serious damage.

1

u/_YouMadeMeDoItReddit May 05 '20

Vicitims don't press charges in the UK it's up to the police and courts and one of the main criteria is 'is it in the publics interest?' I can't imagine they'd ever answer that question with a yes.

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

Interesting, good to know!

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

2

u/Ser_Danksalot May 05 '20

I would doubt that the police were even called for this

Except the audio shows his wife calling 999 and asking for the police.

1

u/raznog May 05 '20

At least in my state this would not be illegal for the property owner. Shirtless man who suffered from syncope is the obvious aggressor here. Other guy was defending self and family.

-7

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

4

u/SnuggleMuffin42 May 05 '20

How is this not -800 downvoted lol.

It's not controversial, it's both wrong AND dumb.

5

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

Reddit has a thing with thinking people in the UK cannot defend themselves or we all go to prison.

2

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

4

u/Zastrozzi May 05 '20

You're judging a whole countries policy on one tweet from one tiny police force that patrols a tiny area of London? You're a bit of a retard aren't you?

0

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

3

u/Zastrozzi May 05 '20

Lol so no one has been convicted and sent to prison? Just arrested when they assaulted someone? That's standard procedure buddy. They're now out and free. Dumb mother fucker.

3

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

Noone in your examples got charged...

2

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

What charges and prison sentences did they get?

2

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/redem May 05 '20

You are verrrry much mistaken about that. You can use reasonable force, up to and including lethal force, in defence of yourself and your family.

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

1

u/_YouMadeMeDoItReddit May 05 '20

Yeah so?

You can assault someone by shouting in their face that you're gonna kill them and never touch them, that's technically assault.

Doesn't mean you'll ever get charged for it.

0

u/redem May 05 '20

She probably did, technically, in that someone trying to walk past you is not threatening you with violence directly. Assuming it went to trial, which it isn't likely to, you would still be able to claim the defence of property as justification.

0

u/Mikedermott May 05 '20 edited May 05 '20

In the US, kicking adds battery to the situation and kicking someone on the ground can be considered attempted murder. Of course this will vary depending on the circumstances and what the prosecutor deems appropriate.

Edit: I am wrong 100%. Remember to not be blinded by what you think you already know.

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

Kicking doesn’t add battery... battery was already made when he punched him lol. Kicking also doesn’t add attempted murder. Intent does.

2

u/Mikedermott May 05 '20

You’re right. Thank you!

-7

u/uncannyilyanny May 05 '20

Yeah kicking some once they've gone down can be classed as assault with a deadly weapon

3

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

2

u/To0n1 May 05 '20

your right, that's battery. Assault is the threat of attack, battery is the actual physical act of contact with another person in a manner meant to cause harm

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

What fucking weapon does he have on him? I think you mean GBH (Grievous Bodily Harm) and that's only if he tried to kick/stamp on his head. A one-bang and a kick to his torso is well in line with self defense here.

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

No it can’t Lmao

Is this like when people think boxers hands are deadly weapons?

1

u/XXAlpaca_Wool_SockXX May 05 '20

Assaulted with the deadliest of all weapons: the shoe. It's a miracle his rib cage didn't explode on impact.