When "Anti Bullying Laws" Go Too Far...
 

I'm a victim of the law gone wrong tonight.

Where I am, it is illegal to hit someone - which isn't a problem. The problem is that it is also illegal to fight back in self defense.

I was in a horrible situation earlier tonight.

I was in a group of people and some kid about my age just came up and for no reason kicked me between the legs.

I got him back, but then he came back again twice as hard - and other people were now involved.

Basically, it was me on the ground getting kicked between the legs over and over by a group I could have beaten to hell on my own.

Did I fight back? No. I didn't want to get arrested.

Did the other kids get arrested? No. You know how it goes - the one that hits first is seen last.

One kid on the ground being kicked over and over is easy to miss.

That kid then getting up and beating the crap out of them is a spectacle not to miss.

What do you think of the protectionist laws?

I know of no state that says you can't defend yourself. Anti bullying laws have nothing to do with self defense. The issue here is he said she said if you had no witnesses on your side. Any cop should clearly see the group was friends and you were the loner.

Me, I ain't taking a arse kicking from anyone without fighting back. This is a case of self defense and for a silly reason you decided not to defend yourself.

Is there a point you would?

Report it. That's the best thing to do right now.

Otherwise in my experience, it's sometimes better to take it and then have the authorities deal with it. Not always, and sometimes you just have to sock one to prevent things escalating completely out of control, but occasionally taking a few kicks and punches like a man and not going into rage mode is the best thing you can do. Having seen people beaten to near-death over nothing and coming close to it several times in my life myself, I'd much rather do everything to stay out of fights period. Police can and do deal with it later, and far fewer people end up in hospital or worse as a result. Doesn't matter whose fault it is or who thought could win the fight. It's just not worth it - no amount of manly pride will heal broken bones, stab wounds, or worse things that you can come out with from a fight.

BTW, thinking about laws when you're getting kicked in the crotch is the least smart thing you can do, to put it mildly. That should have nothing to do with that. Assess what you're really getting yourself into, and realize that no amount of law will save you - or hamper you from saving yourself - in that 5 or 10 minutes before help might arrive. You do what you need to in that time. Ain't about pride. If you feel your life's in enough danger, sock a good one and hope they bug off. If you feel your pride's in some sort of danger - forget it, swallow it and take it like a man, and be happy you came home that night. Nothing else is worth it on a night out.

I think the author of this thread is trying to cover his weakness of incapability to defend himself by turning this humiliating event to some laws that probably not even exsist or works absolutely different :yawn:

There is a thread about kids cage fighting. Majority posters wanted to see it as some sort of scandal, but on the other hand, when it comes to situations like this you must learn to stand for yourself or else you gonna be humbled into the dust by your contemporarys.

Law, cops, mom and dad not always gonna be around when situation is getting hot and when you must take decisions fast concerning your safety in your own hands..

If someone kicks me in the nuts they are going to get an ass whoopin they'll never forget. I'll worry about the law when I'm done with that.

Is A.W up with the usual bull again?
I would be very interested in this strange law that says you cannot defend yourself.
I would also be interested in why this group he was in seems to have joined in kicking him in the nuts after someone did it "for no reason".

Come to Slovenia. Our laws don't know self defence. You kick someone back you're as liable to prosecution as the one who attacked first.

We had an incident just a few years prior. A local bar owner, Roman Velikonja, was threatend by a group of local ''mobsters'' with a gun. He managed to grab the gun from their leaders hands and point it towards them. He was then attacked by knives and he shot one of them. Textbook selfdefence. He got 8 years for murder, they got a compensation for traumatical experiance.

So no, A.W. isn't talking BS, there are places with screwed up laws where it says you cannot defend yourself

Basically works like that in here too. But "self-defence" is, at least by the cases I've seen, a term that is considered individually on each case. I think the rule of the thumb is, that you are allowed to get someone down on the ground, but as soon as you kick his head when he is there, the tables are turned and you are very much liable for prosecution. And of course common sense, such as if a drunken idiot comes run his mouth at you and threatens to kill you, you are not allowed to shoot him "in self-defence."

Basically it's all about what can be reasonably considered self-defence. Usually breaking bones of people is not necessary to make someone harmless, so that could be considered too excessive use of force by the court, whereas simply punching back wouldn't necessarily be.

for a kick or a punch? I doubt even the court or police will make a serious proesecution out of that...comon not even Slovenia is that backwards.
If it's true...well make sure you floor the bastard with one good kick or punch and just walk away.

I'm from Holland myself and the laws work pretty much the same if someone breaks in your house to intend to murder or rape you should allow him and you should consider to offer him coffee while he's doing your wife because if you prevent him doing that by knocking him down with a frying pan and give him a bump on his head...you're screwed.

HunterICX

No cases are dealt with on their merits, self defence is something that is weighed.

Thats a very short sentance for murder, isn't it 15-30?
Perhaps self defence was a factor even though the homicide itself was ruled illegal.
So that case, that was one murder, one attempted murder , two counts of assualt with intent..... 8 years is a bloody short term for conviction on that pile isn't it
Dragged out quite a bit didn't it, lots of convoluted legal processes....and self defence was claimed by the defence wasn't it. How did they manage to claim self defence in court if self defence is illegal?



Same everywhere, local example.
An old man shot a burglar, justifiable defence of property and person.
The burglar then got up so the old mad beat him with a stick, justifiable defence of person, though the degree of the beating he gave could make it questionable.
After breaking the arms and legs and fracturing the skull the old man notices that when he dumps the burglar over a wall he isn't actually dead.
So when he then goes back into the house to get more shells so he can go to the field and kill the now thoroughly incapacitated burglar he commits murder and it isn't self defence.

I guess that's true. But it scares me even more. Laws should be specific about self defence. It should all come down on proving I was attacked first and then automaticly dropping charges and even getting legal imunity from being sued for personal injury. I knock out someone before someone tries to knock me out and it's all down to the whim of a judge/jury, how they themselves see the case. God forbids I defend myself against a minority, the legal system will eat me alive.

Nobody gets more then 10 for single homicide. Only two got 30 years as I recall, both were multiple killers. We have a very leniant penal system. But a very unforgiving public :nope: Once in jail and you're branded.

They won't actually. The police will do their duty, detain both parties, file the papers, some time in the cooler and then off you go. If there was no property damage or inocent bystander injury you won't even be fined. It's the law-suits that follow. You'll get persecuted even if you were the attacked. I know I know, it happens everywhere, there's no doubt, but the legal system is seriusly screwed up if the attacker sues their victim and wins.

I miss the old Yugoslav system. If you got into a fight and the police came, they thrashed both parties and the case was settled.

Wow sorry to hear that Anthony.

Sucks but some people are just broken I guess.

Are you alright?

Aye,

when both parties are fighting both parties are to blame :03:

HunterICX

Betanov, it probably would have helped in the claim of self defence (which of course does exist despite what you said) if the person he killed had died differently.
The lawyers and their experts in several fields tried to paint a picture of how the death didn't really occur how it occured, but despite that and all the appeals the specifics were clear and it couldn't be ruled as justifiable homicide.
As for the whims of judge and jury in matters of self defence, always go for the jury option if available as they will likely have a more reasonable view of what is reasonable.

The killed one (I refuse to call him a victim, he was known around here and not for his charity) did draw a knife when Roman snatched his gun, but it's not known if he then charged him or backed off. The media are everything but informative on this.

Roman should have let himself be stabed first and even then he would do time, if not for shooting his attacker than for robbery for stealing someones gun.

Plus, he's safe while in prison. I doubt he'll live long when he gets out