FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Equality? Yeah right
Equality? Yeah right
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Eeeww. Imagine the feel of hitting someone with your heels and it actually sticking in them! 
-Courtney | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"So I see in my news feeds this morning that a very attractive young lady has avoided a jail sentence for hitting a guy in the eye that hard with a stilleto it stuck there until he pulled it out. Apparently she just happened to have them to hand when he was being a bit of a d*unken arse in a taxi queue. The official line was she just over defended herself and her friend. Now what would happen if a man hit a women that hard with a sharp implement? " I wouldn't says she's a 'very attractive' young lady. Quite the opposite of she behaves like this, and fighting over a crisp bloody pathetic. Course she had the shoes at hand shoes like that at the end of the night would hurt your feet lol. She's lucky being a student she could afford them in the first place, which leads me to believe money got her off a stronger sentence or punishment. If a bloke did it he would have had a much stronger sentence she should be no different at all. The guy she assaulted is lucky he didn't loose his sight or his eye. | |||
"
Eeeww. Imagine the feel of hitting someone with your heels and it actually sticking in them!
-Courtney "And the noise it would make | |||
 | |||
| |||
"
Eeeww. Imagine the feel of hitting someone with your heels and it actually sticking in them!
-Courtney
And the noise it would make "Eeek! | |||
"Where is the news item?" Google shadiya omar | |||
"Where is the news item? Google shadiya omar" I found it | |||
"
Eeeww. Imagine the feel of hitting someone with your heels and it actually sticking in them!
-Courtney
And the noise it would make
Eeek!"Would the noise be worse going in or being pulled out? | |||
| |||
| |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs..." she didn't get away with it, she wasn't sent to prison | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs..." Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. " Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? | |||
| |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better?" My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. " have you googled similar injuries. I'm not putting down what she did as it was wrong but he had cuts, bruises and a fracture. Rightly or wrongly plenty of people don't get sent to prison for that. Also in the article I couldn't see anything where it said she was very attractive or good looking just a student. I'm guessing the picture of her they are showing is of her at her best and not dressed as she would look in court | |||
"So I see in my news feeds this morning that a very attractive young lady has avoided a jail sentence for hitting a guy in the eye that hard with a stilleto it stuck there until he pulled it out. Apparently she just happened to have them to hand when he was being a bit of a d*unken arse in a taxi queue. The official line was she just over defended herself and her friend. Now what would happen if a man hit a women that hard with a sharp implement? " She got a 2 year suspended sentence that's hardly getting away with it. And probably a harsher sentence than many similar offences. This wasn't an unprovoked attack, she acted in defence of her friend who from what I;ve read was being hassled by a bunch of d*unken blokes. I find it hard to feel sympathetic towards him to be honest | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. have you googled similar injuries. I'm not putting down what she did as it was wrong but he had cuts, bruises and a fracture. Rightly or wrongly plenty of people don't get sent to prison for that. Also in the article I couldn't see anything where it said she was very attractive or good looking just a student. I'm guessing the picture of her they are showing is of her at her best and not dressed as she would look in court " I know people who have done time for a lot less | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. have you googled similar injuries. I'm not putting down what she did as it was wrong but he had cuts, bruises and a fracture. Rightly or wrongly plenty of people don't get sent to prison for that. Also in the article I couldn't see anything where it said she was very attractive or good looking just a student. I'm guessing the picture of her they are showing is of her at her best and not dressed as she would look in court I know people who have done time for a lot less " So do I...even when they have been provoked. | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. have you googled similar injuries. I'm not putting down what she did as it was wrong but he had cuts, bruises and a fracture. Rightly or wrongly plenty of people don't get sent to prison for that. Also in the article I couldn't see anything where it said she was very attractive or good looking just a student. I'm guessing the picture of her they are showing is of her at her best and not dressed as she would look in court I know people who have done time for a lot less " well if you put up the links we can compare and then discuss but at the moment we don't have any like for like to compare | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? " If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized. | |||
"So I see in my news feeds this morning that a very attractive young lady has avoided a jail sentence for hitting a guy in the eye that hard with a stilleto it stuck there until he pulled it out. Apparently she just happened to have them to hand when he was being a bit of a d*unken arse in a taxi queue. The official line was she just over defended herself and her friend. Now what would happen if a man hit a women that hard with a sharp implement? She got a 2 year suspended sentence that's hardly getting away with it. And probably a harsher sentence than many similar offences. This wasn't an unprovoked attack, she acted in defence of her friend who from what I;ve read was being hassled by a bunch of d*unken blokes. I find it hard to feel sympathetic towards him to be honest " Defending her from a bag of Walkers?! Bit extreme don't you think. Prawn cocktail isn't my favourite flavour but I've never felt compelled to stab someone in the face over them! | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized." but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. | |||
"So I see in my news feeds this morning that a very attractive young lady has avoided a jail sentence for hitting a guy in the eye that hard with a stilleto it stuck there until he pulled it out. Apparently she just happened to have them to hand when he was being a bit of a d*unken arse in a taxi queue. The official line was she just over defended herself and her friend. Now what would happen if a man hit a women that hard with a sharp implement? She got a 2 year suspended sentence that's hardly getting away with it. And probably a harsher sentence than many similar offences. This wasn't an unprovoked attack, she acted in defence of her friend who from what I;ve read was being hassled by a bunch of d*unken blokes. I find it hard to feel sympathetic towards him to be honest Defending her from a bag of Walkers?! Bit extreme don't you think. Prawn cocktail isn't my favourite flavour but I've never felt compelled to stab someone in the face over them!" The key here is 'bunch of lads'-a bunch of d*unken wankers harassing two women. Who cares what happened to him. If he had not been part of a gang harassing women, then he would not have been hit in the eye. The taxi form should be sued by the girl for not providing security. | |||
...... Sorry couldn't refuse | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. " Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place...  | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. have you googled similar injuries. I'm not putting down what she did as it was wrong but he had cuts, bruises and a fracture. Rightly or wrongly plenty of people don't get sent to prison for that. Also in the article I couldn't see anything where it said she was very attractive or good looking just a student. I'm guessing the picture of her they are showing is of her at her best and not dressed as she would look in court I know people who have done time for a lot less well if you put up the links we can compare and then discuss but at the moment we don't have any like for like to compare " Why would I have a link , I said I know people , not I've read about people . | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... "That's not what she said, though, is it? You don't get charged for what harm you *could have* done. It's the very reason there is a difference between murder and attempted murder, for example. -Courtney | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... "why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause. If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died. How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened? | |||
| |||
"So I see in my news feeds this morning that a very attractive young lady has avoided a jail sentence for hitting a guy in the eye that hard with a stilleto it stuck there until he pulled it out. Apparently she just happened to have them to hand when he was being a bit of a d*unken arse in a taxi queue. The official line was she just over defended herself and her friend. Now what would happen if a man hit a women that hard with a sharp implement? She got a 2 year suspended sentence that's hardly getting away with it. And probably a harsher sentence than many similar offences. This wasn't an unprovoked attack, she acted in defence of her friend who from what I;ve read was being hassled by a bunch of d*unken blokes. I find it hard to feel sympathetic towards him to be honest Defending her from a bag of Walkers?! Bit extreme don't you think. Prawn cocktail isn't my favourite flavour but I've never felt compelled to stab someone in the face over them!" A couple of quotes from the judge "describing the group as intimidating very tall young men who were clearly aware of their level of intoxication." "It was in a situation of hassling and ostentatious behaviour, as far as your friend was concerned persistent irritation" Did he deserve the response he got - no of course not. But it doesn't alter the fact that his and his own friends behaviour provoked the reaction. It would be totally different had she attacked a random guy for no reason and I'm sure the sentencing would reflect that | |||
"So I see in my news feeds this morning that a very attractive young lady has avoided a jail sentence for hitting a guy in the eye that hard with a stilleto it stuck there until he pulled it out. Apparently she just happened to have them to hand when he was being a bit of a d*unken arse in a taxi queue. The official line was she just over defended herself and her friend. Now what would happen if a man hit a women that hard with a sharp implement? She got a 2 year suspended sentence that's hardly getting away with it. And probably a harsher sentence than many similar offences. This wasn't an unprovoked attack, she acted in defence of her friend who from what I;ve read was being hassled by a bunch of d*unken blokes. I find it hard to feel sympathetic towards him to be honest Defending her from a bag of Walkers?! Bit extreme don't you think. Prawn cocktail isn't my favourite flavour but I've never felt compelled to stab someone in the face over them! The key here is 'bunch of lads'-a bunch of d*unken wankers harassing two women. Who cares what happened to him. If he had not been part of a gang harassing women, then he would not have been hit in the eye. The taxi form should be sued by the girl for not providing security." Is offering a crisp harassing someone? And really? Sue the taxi company? How pathetic. | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... she didn't get away with it, she wasn't sent to prison" yeah that. 
the law is never black and white to start off with, or it shouldn't be.
then take into account different judges, juries etc. biases could happen of course. but you can't just act like women get away with something that men always get sent to prison for, this is not a fact at all.
| |||
"So I see in my news feeds this morning that a very attractive young lady has avoided a jail sentence for hitting a guy in the eye that hard with a stilleto it stuck there until he pulled it out. Apparently she just happened to have them to hand when he was being a bit of a d*unken arse in a taxi queue. The official line was she just over defended herself and her friend. Now what would happen if a man hit a women that hard with a sharp implement? " Like all these things you need to know all the facts | |||
"So I see in my news feeds this morning that a very attractive young lady has avoided a jail sentence for hitting a guy in the eye that hard with a stilleto it stuck there until he pulled it out. Apparently she just happened to have them to hand when he was being a bit of a d*unken arse in a taxi queue. The official line was she just over defended herself and her friend. Now what would happen if a man hit a women that hard with a sharp implement? " probably self defence against some men who are always hassling women and grouping them when there having a night out | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... she didn't get away with it, she wasn't sent to prison yeah that.
the law is never black and white to start off with, or it shouldn't be.
then take into account different judges, juries etc. biases could happen of course. but you can't just act like women get away with something that men always get sent to prison for, this is not a fact at all.
"I never said she got away with it. I asked if a man would have got the same in similar circumstances. .. | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... she didn't get away with it, she wasn't sent to prison yeah that.
the law is never black and white to start off with, or it shouldn't be.
then take into account different judges, juries etc. biases could happen of course. but you can't just act like women get away with something that men always get sent to prison for, this is not a fact at all.
I never said she got away with it. I asked if a man would have got the same in similar circumstances. .."but none of us can answer the question as we don't have a like for like case to compare it with | |||
"So I see in my news feeds this morning that a very attractive young lady has avoided a jail sentence for hitting a guy in the eye that hard with a stilleto it stuck there until he pulled it out. Apparently she just happened to have them to hand when he was being a bit of a d*unken arse in a taxi queue. The official line was she just over defended herself and her friend. Now what would happen if a man hit a women that hard with a sharp implement? She got a 2 year suspended sentence that's hardly getting away with it. And probably a harsher sentence than many similar offences. This wasn't an unprovoked attack, she acted in defence of her friend who from what I;ve read was being hassled by a bunch of d*unken blokes. I find it hard to feel sympathetic towards him to be honest Defending her from a bag of Walkers?! Bit extreme don't you think. Prawn cocktail isn't my favourite flavour but I've never felt compelled to stab someone in the face over them! A couple of quotes from the judge "describing the group as intimidating very tall young men who were clearly aware of their level of intoxication." "It was in a situation of hassling and ostentatious behaviour, as far as your friend was concerned persistent irritation" Did he deserve the response he got - no of course not. But it doesn't alter the fact that his and his own friends behaviour provoked the reaction. It would be totally different had she attacked a random guy for no reason and I'm sure the sentencing would reflect that" So being tall makes a man more intimidating? I'm sorry mate but with the greatest of respect (as always) I really can't see that if the roles were reversed the male wouldn't have gone to prison. He'd almost definitely have got a custodial sentence and rightly so. | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... she didn't get away with it, she wasn't sent to prison yeah that.
the law is never black and white to start off with, or it shouldn't be.
then take into account different judges, juries etc. biases could happen of course. but you can't just act like women get away with something that men always get sent to prison for, this is not a fact at all.
I never said she got away with it. I asked if a man would have got the same in similar circumstances. ..but none of us can answer the question as we don't have a like for like case to compare it with "Because most men don't wear high heels... | |||
| |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... she didn't get away with it, she wasn't sent to prison yeah that.
the law is never black and white to start off with, or it shouldn't be.
then take into account different judges, juries etc. biases could happen of course. but you can't just act like women get away with something that men always get sent to prison for, this is not a fact at all.
I never said she got away with it. I asked if a man would have got the same in similar circumstances. ..but none of us can answer the question as we don't have a like for like case to compare it with
Because most men don't wear high heels..."you didn't reply to the responses about people being prosecuted for what they did do and not what they could of done | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... she didn't get away with it, she wasn't sent to prison yeah that.
the law is never black and white to start off with, or it shouldn't be.
then take into account different judges, juries etc. biases could happen of course. but you can't just act like women get away with something that men always get sent to prison for, this is not a fact at all.
I never said she got away with it. I asked if a man would have got the same in similar circumstances. ..but none of us can answer the question as we don't have a like for like case to compare it with "Such is the case when presenting a hypothetical question... | |||
"just google for 'man stabs woman walks free from court'. i already found a few cases. one where a guy stabbed a woman 120 times and never got a custodial sentence." Yeah I have to agree I'm not convinced a man would have got a custodial sentence for this either. | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
"She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence. | |||
"So I see in my news feeds this morning that a very attractive young lady has avoided a jail sentence for hitting a guy in the eye that hard with a stilleto it stuck there until he pulled it out. Apparently she just happened to have them to hand when he was being a bit of a d*unken arse in a taxi queue. The official line was she just over defended herself and her friend. Now what would happen if a man hit a women that hard with a sharp implement? She got a 2 year suspended sentence that's hardly getting away with it. And probably a harsher sentence than many similar offences. This wasn't an unprovoked attack, she acted in defence of her friend who from what I;ve read was being hassled by a bunch of d*unken blokes. I find it hard to feel sympathetic towards him to be honest Defending her from a bag of Walkers?! Bit extreme don't you think. Prawn cocktail isn't my favourite flavour but I've never felt compelled to stab someone in the face over them! A couple of quotes from the judge "describing the group as intimidating very tall young men who were clearly aware of their level of intoxication." "It was in a situation of hassling and ostentatious behaviour, as far as your friend was concerned persistent irritation" Did he deserve the response he got - no of course not. But it doesn't alter the fact that his and his own friends behaviour provoked the reaction. It would be totally different had she attacked a random guy for no reason and I'm sure the sentencing would reflect that So being tall makes a man more intimidating? I'm sorry mate but with the greatest of respect (as always) I really can't see that if the roles were reversed the male wouldn't have gone to prison. He'd almost definitely have got a custodial sentence and rightly so." Of course being tall makes someone more intimidating, particularly if they are d*unk and acting like idiots. They poured the packet of crisps over the girl, and it;s pathetic but when people are d*unk that's an act of aggression that is always going to escalate. | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... she didn't get away with it, she wasn't sent to prison yeah that.
the law is never black and white to start off with, or it shouldn't be.
then take into account different judges, juries etc. biases could happen of course. but you can't just act like women get away with something that men always get sent to prison for, this is not a fact at all.
I never said she got away with it. I asked if a man would have got the same in similar circumstances. ..but none of us can answer the question as we don't have a like for like case to compare it with
Because most men don't wear high heels...you didn't reply to the responses about people being prosecuted for what they did do and not what they could of done
"I'd previously missed it. | |||
| |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... she didn't get away with it, she wasn't sent to prison yeah that.
the law is never black and white to start off with, or it shouldn't be.
then take into account different judges, juries etc. biases could happen of course. but you can't just act like women get away with something that men always get sent to prison for, this is not a fact at all.
I never said she got away with it. I asked if a man would have got the same in similar circumstances. ..but none of us can answer the question as we don't have a like for like case to compare it with
Such is the case when presenting a hypothetical question..."this is a whole 'nother topic really so i didn't want to focus on using the wrong terminology but just to explain; my idea of getting away with it is not getting a prison sentence basically, fairly old fashioned opinion based on how shit community service and probation sentences tend to be really. if she had to recompense him financially then this i would consider partial punishment (and at least retribution) dependent on how much this would inconvenience her. but i do think the focus should be on rehabilitation anyway. i'm a bit skeptical on rehabilitation techniques and whether they work or not - for some people they seem to, for others they just encourage more law breaking due to the fact that they can fake being sorry and don't consider what they received as a punishment. it's also this reason why the law should be flexible on sentencing really. But Bastet pointed out i'd used the wrong words already, which is why i thumbed up her comment to say i agreed with what she said then expanded my reply. | |||
| |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence."you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity | |||
"So I see in my news feeds this morning that a very attractive young lady has avoided a jail sentence for hitting a guy in the eye that hard with a stilleto it stuck there until he pulled it out. Apparently she just happened to have them to hand when he was being a bit of a d*unken arse in a taxi queue. The official line was she just over defended herself and her friend. Now what would happen if a man hit a women that hard with a sharp implement? She got a 2 year suspended sentence that's hardly getting away with it. And probably a harsher sentence than many similar offences. This wasn't an unprovoked attack, she acted in defence of her friend who from what I;ve read was being hassled by a bunch of d*unken blokes. I find it hard to feel sympathetic towards him to be honest Defending her from a bag of Walkers?! Bit extreme don't you think. Prawn cocktail isn't my favourite flavour but I've never felt compelled to stab someone in the face over them! A couple of quotes from the judge "describing the group as intimidating very tall young men who were clearly aware of their level of intoxication." "It was in a situation of hassling and ostentatious behaviour, as far as your friend was concerned persistent irritation" Did he deserve the response he got - no of course not. But it doesn't alter the fact that his and his own friends behaviour provoked the reaction. It would be totally different had she attacked a random guy for no reason and I'm sure the sentencing would reflect that So being tall makes a man more intimidating? I'm sorry mate but with the greatest of respect (as always) I really can't see that if the roles were reversed the male wouldn't have gone to prison. He'd almost definitely have got a custodial sentence and rightly so. Of course being tall makes someone more intimidating, particularly if they are d*unk and acting like idiots. They poured the packet of crisps over the girl, and it;s pathetic but when people are d*unk that's an act of aggression that is always going to escalate. " From what I read he offered her a crisp, she lashed out and knocked them out of his hand, he picked them up and then tried to tip the remainder over her. Now, offering someone a crisp doesn't justify her initial reaction and a decent bloke wouldn't have responded in the way he did but to then assault the guy with something she must have known could cause a serious injury? Surely that's not a justifiable response. I know crisps can be sharp and salt stings a bit if you get it in a cut or in your eye but I hardly think he deserved what he got... | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity "With an offensive weapon you should. | |||
"A lot of woman hating morons on here it seems." Not really, just a debate on the judicial system. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I just wanted to see where it went. People are presenting very valid points. Personally, I am a massive fan k5f women | |||
 | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should."I've thought we'd already decided this thread isn't about should, possibilities or what might have happened. | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should."Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on. | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on. "It depends. How sharp are your heels   | |||
| |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on.
It depends. How sharp are your heels "Well I sharpen mine, so they're pretty sharp | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on. "Anything can be a weapon. Except maybe cotton wool. Oh hang on you can choke someone on it... | |||
| |||
"A lot of woman hating morons on here it seems." Far from it. Violence towards women is something I find utterly abhorrent and I feel it should be dealt with quickly and harshly but I also believe in equality and I feel that because the attacker in this case happens to be female she was treated with a lighter hand. | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.I've thought we'd already decided this thread isn't about should, possibilities or what might have happened.
"Nothing to do with should. The offence of GBH or assault with an offensive weapon carries a custodial sentence. She was found guilty yet didn't receive one. | |||
"A lot of woman hating morons on here it seems. Far from it. Violence towards women is something I find utterly abhorrent and I feel it should be dealt with quickly and harshly but I also believe in equality and I feel that because the attacker in this case happens to be female she was treated with a lighter hand." based on what you feel. It's the ones that shout out equality that are the worst. | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on. "Yes, shoes can be classed as an offensive weapon. Anything you can use to hit or cause injury to another person is classed as an offensive weapon. | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on.
Anything can be a weapon. Except maybe cotton wool. Oh hang on you can choke someone on it..."Yes so that's my question. Is an offensive weapon under the law simply anything other than your own body that's been used to hurt someone? | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.I've thought we'd already decided this thread isn't about should, possibilities or what might have happened.
Nothing to do with should. The offence of GBH or assault with an offensive weapon carries a custodial sentence. She was found guilty yet didn't receive one."but there's many crimes that carry custodial sentences doesn't mean you get them all the while. Anyway as your arguments arnt making sense I'm out of here | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on.
Yes, shoes can be classed as an offensive weapon. Anything you can use to hit or cause injury to another person is classed as an offensive weapon."so basically everything then? | |||
"A lot of woman hating morons on here it seems. Far from it. Violence towards women is something I find utterly abhorrent and I feel it should be dealt with quickly and harshly but I also believe in equality and I feel that because the attacker in this case happens to be female she was treated with a lighter hand.based on what you feel. It's the ones that shout out equality that are the worst. " And how often do I shout about equality? This is probably the first time that I can remember... | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on.
Anything can be a weapon. Except maybe cotton wool. Oh hang on you can choke someone on it...
Yes so that's my question. Is an offensive weapon under the law simply anything other than your own body that's been used to hurt someone? "Not in the US. We have different classes of weapons. I don't know about here though and I'm too lazy to look it up. Although I'd imagine, since they use the term offensive weapon, as opposed to weapon or object, that there are differences. | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on.
Yes, shoes can be classed as an offensive weapon. Anything you can use to hit or cause injury to another person is classed as an offensive weapon.so basically everything then?"Yes, pretty much. From what my brother tells me (yes, he's a police officer) if you don't have a valid reason to be carrying something on your person there is always a chance you can be rrwsted and charged for carrying an offensive weapon. | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on.
Yes, shoes can be classed as an offensive weapon. Anything you can use to hit or cause injury to another person is classed as an offensive weapon.so basically everything then?
Yes, pretty much.
From what my brother tells me (yes, he's a police officer) if you don't have a valid reason to be carrying something on your person there is always a chance you can be rrwsted and charged for carrying an offensive weapon.
"I would rather hear what a lawyer has to say. And there is a valid reason for carry shoes.... | |||
"A lot of woman hating morons on here it seems. Far from it. Violence towards women is something I find utterly abhorrent and I feel it should be dealt with quickly and harshly but I also believe in equality and I feel that because the attacker in this case happens to be female she was treated with a lighter hand.based on what you feel. It's the ones that shout out equality that are the worst. And how often do I shout about equality? This is probably the first time that I can remember..." you really need to stop reading things that arnt there. Your not the only person on this thread although that might come as a shock to you | |||
| |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on.
Anything can be a weapon. Except maybe cotton wool. Oh hang on you can choke someone on it...
Yes so that's my question. Is an offensive weapon under the law simply anything other than your own body that's been used to hurt someone? "I think there are different classes. Weapons of opportunity rather than something that is designated as a weapon (knife/baseball bat etc). Also to take into account is the circumstances and intent. Was it the first thing that came to hand amd how was it used. | |||
| |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on.
Yes, shoes can be classed as an offensive weapon. Anything you can use to hit or cause injury to another person is classed as an offensive weapon.so basically everything then?
Yes, pretty much.
From what my brother tells me (yes, he's a police officer) if you don't have a valid reason to be carrying something on your person there is always a chance you can be rrwsted and charged for carrying an offensive weapon.
"ok, so no valid reason for wearing a pair of shoes then | |||
"A lot of woman hating morons on here it seems. Far from it. Violence towards women is something I find utterly abhorrent and I feel it should be dealt with quickly and harshly but I also believe in equality and I feel that because the attacker in this case happens to be female she was treated with a lighter hand.based on what you feel. It's the ones that shout out equality that are the worst. And how often do I shout about equality? This is probably the first time that I can remember...you really need to stop reading things that arnt there. Your not the only person on this thread although that might come as a shock to you " Then why quote me if you weren't directing your comments towards me? | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on.
Yes, shoes can be classed as an offensive weapon. Anything you can use to hit or cause injury to another person is classed as an offensive weapon.so basically everything then?
Yes, pretty much.
From what my brother tells me (yes, he's a police officer) if you don't have a valid reason to be carrying something on your person there is always a chance you can be rrwsted and charged for carrying an offensive weapon.
ok, so no valid reason for wearing a pair of shoes then
"Wearing? Yes Having them in hwer hand and using them to strike someone? That makes them a weapon as they're no longer on her feet doing the job they're intended for. Had she kicked him then its unlikely they'd been classed as a weapon. | |||
"Until anyone knows the full facts of the case, I don't know how we can comment." This | |||
| |||
"A lot of woman hating morons on here it seems. Far from it. Violence towards women is something I find utterly abhorrent and I feel it should be dealt with quickly and harshly but I also believe in equality and I feel that because the attacker in this case happens to be female she was treated with a lighter hand.based on what you feel. It's the ones that shout out equality that are the worst. And how often do I shout about equality? This is probably the first time that I can remember...you really need to stop reading things that arnt there. Your not the only person on this thread although that might come as a shock to you Then why quote me if you weren't directing your comments towards me?" I quoted you then added a generalisation. Take how you will none of your arguments are standing up on this thread anyway so you will just read what you want into things whether they are their or not | |||
"I work in a court and the public entrance has a metal detector thing that everyone has to walk through and the security guards will frisk people too. They quite regularly take knives off people, mainly those Swiss army knives though occasionally the knives have been bigger but never have they taken shoes off someone in case they were used as an offensive weapon." Swiss army knives aren't illegal to carry providing the blade is less than 3 inches and doesn't lock. They won't take peoples shoe off them if tyre on their feet doing the job they're intended for. If, however, someone starts waving a pair of stilettos around in an aggressive manner you can bet your are they'll be taken off them. Like I said, ANYTHING can be classed as an offensive weapon if it is being used inappropriately or in a threatening manner. | |||
"A lot of woman hating morons on here it seems. Far from it. Violence towards women is something I find utterly abhorrent and I feel it should be dealt with quickly and harshly but I also believe in equality and I feel that because the attacker in this case happens to be female she was treated with a lighter hand.based on what you feel. It's the ones that shout out equality that are the worst. And how often do I shout about equality? This is probably the first time that I can remember...you really need to stop reading things that arnt there. Your not the only person on this thread although that might come as a shock to you Then why quote me if you weren't directing your comments towards me?I quoted you then added a generalisation. Take how you will none of your arguments are standing up on this thread anyway so you will just read what you want into things whether they are their or not " But they are there and we both know why... | |||
"Think we all know he would have been jailed and branded a monster and in my opinion rightly so , however your bang on its not equality at all but then again can you hand on heart say our justice system is fair ?? Reminds me of an incident years ago , was doing the doors in a glasgow nightclub and after the shift we used to go get breakfast and then some of us would get a cab home , anyway we get to the queue for the cabs and there is a guy wandering around totally oblivious to the fact he has a high heel stuck in his skull , looked like he was balancing a shoe on his head he wouldn't believe us when we tried to help and at first it was funny until you realise the seriousness of it . The guy turned out to be ok in the end but no one was convicted or chraged despite our ribbing of the cops about going around and seeing if the shoe fits . "If quentin tarantino did cinderella? | |||
" i already found a few cases. one where a guy stabbed a woman 120 times and never got a custodial sentence." Yes but stabbing someone wih your cock does not count | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on.
Yes, shoes can be classed as an offensive weapon. Anything you can use to hit or cause injury to another person is classed as an offensive weapon.so basically everything then?
Yes, pretty much.
From what my brother tells me (yes, he's a police officer) if you don't have a valid reason to be carrying something on your person there is always a chance you can be rrwsted and charged for carrying an offensive weapon.
I would rather hear what a lawyer has to say.
And there is a valid reason for carry shoes...."I'm also being too lazy to actually look it up. My stilettos are in my hands rather than on my feet by the end of most of my nights out - should I be worried about this | |||
"I work in a court and the public entrance has a metal detector thing that everyone has to walk through and the security guards will frisk people too. They quite regularly take knives off people, mainly those Swiss army knives though occasionally the knives have been bigger but never have they taken shoes off someone in case they were used as an offensive weapon. Swiss army knives aren't illegal to carry providing the blade is less than 3 inches and doesn't lock. They won't take peoples shoe off them if tyre on their feet doing the job they're intended for. If, however, someone starts waving a pair of stilettos around in an aggressive manner you can bet your are they'll be taken off them. Like I said, ANYTHING can be classed as an offensive weapon if it is being used inappropriately or in a threatening manner." They still get them taken off people before letting them in the court. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I've looked up the law. An offensive weapon includes (1) weapons that are inherently dangerous and have blades of a certain size; (2) weapons not inherently dangerous that are adapted to be dangerous (like a bottle that someone breaks); (3) weapons that are not inherently dangerous nor adapted to be dangerous but which are used in a way to cause harm. In the 3rd instance, which we are discussing here, intent to harm needs to be affirmatively proven. There are mitigating factors such as self defense, cooperation with police and prosecutors, and whether the weapon was particularly dangerous. I would say that we don't know all the facts here, but the mitigating factors lean heavily in the woman's favor. Whether it would have been different for a man can only be answered by further research which I am too lazy to perform. -Courtney " Oh, and further to the above, these only relate to carry an offensive weapon, not its use. So, if someone carries an object of the third category intent would have to be established for purposes of her carrying the shoes, not for using them as a weapon. So, unless the prosecution can prove she was carrying her shoes for the purpose/with the intent of using them as weapons, then they would not succeed on an offensive weapons charge. In this case it would be assault. -Courtney | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on.
Yes, shoes can be classed as an offensive weapon. Anything you can use to hit or cause injury to another person is classed as an offensive weapon.so basically everything then?
Yes, pretty much.
From what my brother tells me (yes, he's a police officer) if you don't have a valid reason to be carrying something on your person there is always a chance you can be rrwsted and charged for carrying an offensive weapon.
I would rather hear what a lawyer has to say.
And there is a valid reason for carry shoes....
I'm also being too lazy to actually look it up. My stilettos are in my hands rather than on my feet by the end of most of my nights out - should I be worried about this "Only if you intend to jab a twat in the eye with them! | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... she didn't get away with it, she wasn't sent to prison yeah that.
the law is never black and white to start off with, or it shouldn't be.
then take into account different judges, juries etc. biases could happen of course. but you can't just act like women get away with something that men always get sent to prison for, this is not a fact at all.
I never said she got away with it. I asked if a man would have got the same in similar circumstances. ..but none of us can answer the question as we don't have a like for like case to compare it with
Because most men don't wear high heels...you didn't reply to the responses about people being prosecuted for what they did do and not what they could of done
"What about attempted murder? | |||
"I've looked up the law. An offensive weapon includes (1) weapons that are inherently dangerous and have blades of a certain size; (2) weapons not inherently dangerous that are adapted to be dangerous (like a bottle that someone breaks); (3) weapons that are not inherently dangerous nor adapted to be dangerous but which are used in a way to cause harm. In the 3rd instance, which we are discussing here, intent to harm needs to be affirmatively proven. There are mitigating factors such as self defense, cooperation with police and prosecutors, and whether the weapon was particularly dangerous. I would say that we don't know all the facts here, but the mitigating factors lean heavily in the woman's favor. Whether it would have been different for a man can only be answered by further research which I am too lazy to perform. -Courtney Oh, and further to the above, these only relate to carry an offensive weapon, not its use. So, if someone carries an object of the third category intent would have to be established for purposes of her carrying the shoes, not for using them as a weapon. So, unless the prosecution can prove she was carrying her shoes for the purpose/with the intent of using them as weapons, then they would not succeed on an offensive weapons charge. In this case it would be assault. -Courtney " I'm pretty sure what you're quoting is with regards to the police powers of stop and search. In this case she used her footwear as a weapon and inflicted injury. | |||
"I've looked up the law. An offensive weapon includes (1) weapons that are inherently dangerous and have blades of a certain size; (2) weapons not inherently dangerous that are adapted to be dangerous (like a bottle that someone breaks); (3) weapons that are not inherently dangerous nor adapted to be dangerous but which are used in a way to cause harm. In the 3rd instance, which we are discussing here, intent to harm needs to be affirmatively proven. There are mitigating factors such as self defense, cooperation with police and prosecutors, and whether the weapon was particularly dangerous. I would say that we don't know all the facts here, but the mitigating factors lean heavily in the woman's favor. Whether it would have been different for a man can only be answered by further research which I am too lazy to perform. -Courtney Oh, and further to the above, these only relate to carry an offensive weapon, not its use. So, if someone carries an object of the third category intent would have to be established for purposes of her carrying the shoes, not for using them as a weapon. So, unless the prosecution can prove she was carrying her shoes for the purpose/with the intent of using them as weapons, then they would not succeed on an offensive weapons charge. In this case it would be assault. -Courtney I'm pretty sure what you're quoting is with regards to the police powers of stop and search. In this case she used her footwear as a weapon and inflicted injury. " What I'm saying is she would have to have carried her shoes with the intent of using them as an offensive weapon for her to be prosecuted as such. Her use makes it assault, not with an offensive weapon. Unless she carries her shoes around with the intent of using them to inflict harm. Which I doubt. Cite the law you think applies if you think I'm wrong. -Courtney | |||
"I work in a court and the public entrance has a metal detector thing that everyone has to walk through and the security guards will frisk people too. They quite regularly take knives off people, mainly those Swiss army knives though occasionally the knives have been bigger but never have they taken shoes off someone in case they were used as an offensive weapon. Swiss army knives aren't illegal to carry providing the blade is less than 3 inches and doesn't lock. They won't take peoples shoe off them if tyre on their feet doing the job they're intended for. If, however, someone starts waving a pair of stilettos around in an aggressive manner you can bet your are they'll be taken off them. Like I said, ANYTHING can be classed as an offensive weapon if it is being used inappropriately or in a threatening manner. They still get them taken off people before letting them in the court." They will because, although not illegal, they're still technically a tool that has no place in a court room. They have to be returned to the owner when they leave though. | |||
"I've looked up the law. An offensive weapon includes (1) weapons that are inherently dangerous and have blades of a certain size; (2) weapons not inherently dangerous that are adapted to be dangerous (like a bottle that someone breaks); (3) weapons that are not inherently dangerous nor adapted to be dangerous but which are used in a way to cause harm. In the 3rd instance, which we are discussing here, intent to harm needs to be affirmatively proven. There are mitigating factors such as self defense, cooperation with police and prosecutors, and whether the weapon was particularly dangerous. I would say that we don't know all the facts here, but the mitigating factors lean heavily in the woman's favor. Whether it would have been different for a man can only be answered by further research which I am too lazy to perform. -Courtney Oh, and further to the above, these only relate to carry an offensive weapon, not its use. So, if someone carries an object of the third category intent would have to be established for purposes of her carrying the shoes, not for using them as a weapon. So, unless the prosecution can prove she was carrying her shoes for the purpose/with the intent of using them as weapons, then they would not succeed on an offensive weapons charge. In this case it would be assault. -Courtney I'm pretty sure what you're quoting is with regards to the police powers of stop and search. In this case she used her footwear as a weapon and inflicted injury. What I'm saying is she would have to have carried her shoes with the intent of using them as an offensive weapon for her to be prosecuted as such. Her use makes it assault, not with an offensive weapon. Unless she carries her shoes around with the intent of using them to inflict harm. Which I doubt. Cite the law you think applies if you think I'm wrong. -Courtney " I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just going by what I've been told by my brother and how he has been trained to deal with such things. I'm going to work now but I'll try to get clarification from him regarding it. | |||
"I've looked up the law. An offensive weapon includes (1) weapons that are inherently dangerous and have blades of a certain size; (2) weapons not inherently dangerous that are adapted to be dangerous (like a bottle that someone breaks); (3) weapons that are not inherently dangerous nor adapted to be dangerous but which are used in a way to cause harm. In the 3rd instance, which we are discussing here, intent to harm needs to be affirmatively proven. There are mitigating factors such as self defense, cooperation with police and prosecutors, and whether the weapon was particularly dangerous. I would say that we don't know all the facts here, but the mitigating factors lean heavily in the woman's favor. Whether it would have been different for a man can only be answered by further research which I am too lazy to perform. -Courtney Oh, and further to the above, these only relate to carry an offensive weapon, not its use. So, if someone carries an object of the third category intent would have to be established for purposes of her carrying the shoes, not for using them as a weapon. So, unless the prosecution can prove she was carrying her shoes for the purpose/with the intent of using them as weapons, then they would not succeed on an offensive weapons charge. In this case it would be assault. -Courtney I'm pretty sure what you're quoting is with regards to the police powers of stop and search. In this case she used her footwear as a weapon and inflicted injury. What I'm saying is she would have to have carried her shoes with the intent of using them as an offensive weapon for her to be prosecuted as such. Her use makes it assault, not with an offensive weapon. Unless she carries her shoes around with the intent of using them to inflict harm. Which I doubt. Cite the law you think applies if you think I'm wrong. -Courtney I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just going by what I've been told by my brother and how he has been trained to deal with such things. I'm going to work now but I'll try to get clarification from him regarding it." Like I've said, I prefer to get my legal information from the law or from lawyers. Nothing against cops, but they aren't trained in the law. Here is a link to a government website where I got much of my information. It deals with Article 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offensive_weapons_knives_bladed_and_pointed_articles/ I personally think the woman's sentencing was lawful and justified based on the known facts. And I think a man would gave gotten similar under the same circumstances. -Courtney | |||
"Yes so that's my question. Is an offensive weapon under the law simply anything other than your own body that's been used to hurt someone? " Depends. If you're in s trade that uses general tools then it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to be carrying a screwdriver, chisel, or something that may be used as a weapon in a time of self defence. Your every day person without a good enough excuse to be carrying something like this would be considered premeditated...they have no need for that item to be on them and so chose to have it on them for no reasonable reason. It's why we get taught how to use our keys to disable an attacker, or spray, or something else that might be in your handbag, because it's not unreasonable to be carrying these things around at any time. Same for stilettos, she put them on for a night out and not to attack a guy but she ended up using them as weapons. Seeing as it's common for women to wear heels then it wouldn't be considered that she wore them for the purpose of attacking someone but more for fashionable reasons. | |||
"Yes so that's my question. Is an offensive weapon under the law simply anything other than your own body that's been used to hurt someone? Depends. If you're in s trade that uses general tools then it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to be carrying a screwdriver, chisel, or something that may be used as a weapon in a time of self defence. Your every day person without a good enough excuse to be carrying something like this would be considered premeditated...they have no need for that item to be on them and so chose to have it on them for no reasonable reason. It's why we get taught how to use our keys to disable an attacker, or spray, or something else that might be in your handbag, because it's not unreasonable to be carrying these things around at any time. Same for stilettos, she put them on for a night out and not to attack a guy but she ended up using them as weapons. Seeing as it's common for women to wear heels then it wouldn't be considered that she wore them for the purpose of attacking someone but more for fashionable reasons." Is it really common for them to be in her hand walk down the street now or even in the summer apart dfrom in the park is anyone barefoot who shoes in hand . | |||
"Yes so that's my question. Is an offensive weapon under the law simply anything other than your own body that's been used to hurt someone? Depends. If you're in s trade that uses general tools then it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to be carrying a screwdriver, chisel, or something that may be used as a weapon in a time of self defence. Your every day person without a good enough excuse to be carrying something like this would be considered premeditated...they have no need for that item to be on them and so chose to have it on them for no reasonable reason. It's why we get taught how to use our keys to disable an attacker, or spray, or something else that might be in your handbag, because it's not unreasonable to be carrying these things around at any time. Same for stilettos, she put them on for a night out and not to attack a guy but she ended up using them as weapons. Seeing as it's common for women to wear heels then it wouldn't be considered that she wore them for the purpose of attacking someone but more for fashionable reasons. Is it really common for them to be in her hand walk down the street now or even in the summer apart dfrom in the park is anyone barefoot who shoes in hand ." After a night out, in a taxi queue? It's incredibly common! I'm usually one of them. | |||
"Yes so that's my question. Is an offensive weapon under the law simply anything other than your own body that's been used to hurt someone? Depends. If you're in s trade that uses general tools then it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to be carrying a screwdriver, chisel, or something that may be used as a weapon in a time of self defence. Your every day person without a good enough excuse to be carrying something like this would be considered premeditated...they have no need for that item to be on them and so chose to have it on them for no reasonable reason. It's why we get taught how to use our keys to disable an attacker, or spray, or something else that might be in your handbag, because it's not unreasonable to be carrying these things around at any time. Same for stilettos, she put them on for a night out and not to attack a guy but she ended up using them as weapons. Seeing as it's common for women to wear heels then it wouldn't be considered that she wore them for the purpose of attacking someone but more for fashionable reasons. Is it really common for them to be in her hand walk down the street now or even in the summer apart dfrom in the park is anyone barefoot who shoes in hand . After a night out, in a taxi queue? It's incredibly common! I'm usually one of them. " Me too. Once Marc had to carry me a little ways because the ground was yucky and my shoes were off.  | |||
"I've looked up the law. An offensive weapon includes (1) weapons that are inherently dangerous and have blades of a certain size; (2) weapons not inherently dangerous that are adapted to be dangerous (like a bottle that someone breaks); (3) weapons that are not inherently dangerous nor adapted to be dangerous but which are used in a way to cause harm. In the 3rd instance, which we are discussing here, intent to harm needs to be affirmatively proven. There are mitigating factors such as self defense, cooperation with police and prosecutors, and whether the weapon was particularly dangerous. I would say that we don't know all the facts here, but the mitigating factors lean heavily in the woman's favor. Whether it would have been different for a man can only be answered by further research which I am too lazy to perform. -Courtney Oh, and further to the above, these only relate to carry an offensive weapon, not its use. So, if someone carries an object of the third category intent would have to be established for purposes of her carrying the shoes, not for using them as a weapon. So, unless the prosecution can prove she was carrying her shoes for the purpose/with the intent of using them as weapons, then they would not succeed on an offensive weapons charge. In this case it would be assault. -Courtney I'm pretty sure what you're quoting is with regards to the police powers of stop and search. In this case she used her footwear as a weapon and inflicted injury. What I'm saying is she would have to have carried her shoes with the intent of using them as an offensive weapon for her to be prosecuted as such. Her use makes it assault, not with an offensive weapon. Unless she carries her shoes around with the intent of using them to inflict harm. Which I doubt. Cite the law you think applies if you think I'm wrong. -Courtney I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just going by what I've been told by my brother and how he has been trained to deal with such things. I'm going to work now but I'll try to get clarification from him regarding it. Like I've said, I prefer to get my legal information from the law or from lawyers. Nothing against cops, but they aren't trained in the law. Here is a link to a government website where I got much of my information. It deals with Article 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offensive_weapons_knives_bladed_and_pointed_articles/ I personally think the woman's sentencing was lawful and justified based on the known facts. And I think a man would gave gotten similar under the same circumstances. -Courtney " . I think I'd rather just punch someone than forgoes the agony of wandering around in high heels all night just in case  | |||
"I've looked up the law. An offensive weapon includes (1) weapons that are inherently dangerous and have blades of a certain size; (2) weapons not inherently dangerous that are adapted to be dangerous (like a bottle that someone breaks); (3) weapons that are not inherently dangerous nor adapted to be dangerous but which are used in a way to cause harm. In the 3rd instance, which we are discussing here, intent to harm needs to be affirmatively proven. There are mitigating factors such as self defense, cooperation with police and prosecutors, and whether the weapon was particularly dangerous. I would say that we don't know all the facts here, but the mitigating factors lean heavily in the woman's favor. Whether it would have been different for a man can only be answered by further research which I am too lazy to perform. -Courtney Oh, and further to the above, these only relate to carry an offensive weapon, not its use. So, if someone carries an object of the third category intent would have to be established for purposes of her carrying the shoes, not for using them as a weapon. So, unless the prosecution can prove she was carrying her shoes for the purpose/with the intent of using them as weapons, then they would not succeed on an offensive weapons charge. In this case it would be assault. -Courtney I'm pretty sure what you're quoting is with regards to the police powers of stop and search. In this case she used her footwear as a weapon and inflicted injury. What I'm saying is she would have to have carried her shoes with the intent of using them as an offensive weapon for her to be prosecuted as such. Her use makes it assault, not with an offensive weapon. Unless she carries her shoes around with the intent of using them to inflict harm. Which I doubt. Cite the law you think applies if you think I'm wrong. -Courtney I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just going by what I've been told by my brother and how he has been trained to deal with such things. I'm going to work now but I'll try to get clarification from him regarding it. Like I've said, I prefer to get my legal information from the law or from lawyers. Nothing against cops, but they aren't trained in the law. Here is a link to a government website where I got much of my information. It deals with Article 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offensive_weapons_knives_bladed_and_pointed_articles/ I personally think the woman's sentencing was lawful and justified based on the known facts. And I think a man would gave gotten similar under the same circumstances. -Courtney . I think I'd rather just punch someone than forgoes the agony of wandering around in high heels all night just in case "i think if you looked up some relevant information on crime figures and sentencing,you would find the opposite is true: women serve far harsher terms for violent offences than men...murder in particular; there is stiil the view,though its changing, that a woman must have some seriously wrong with them to be violent. | |||
"Yes so that's my question. Is an offensive weapon under the law simply anything other than your own body that's been used to hurt someone? Depends. If you're in s trade that uses general tools then it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to be carrying a screwdriver, chisel, or something that may be used as a weapon in a time of self defence. Your every day person without a good enough excuse to be carrying something like this would be considered premeditated...they have no need for that item to be on them and so chose to have it on them for no reasonable reason. It's why we get taught how to use our keys to disable an attacker, or spray, or something else that might be in your handbag, because it's not unreasonable to be carrying these things around at any time. Same for stilettos, she put them on for a night out and not to attack a guy but she ended up using them as weapons. Seeing as it's common for women to wear heels then it wouldn't be considered that she wore them for the purpose of attacking someone but more for fashionable reasons. Is it really common for them to be in her hand walk down the street now or even in the summer apart dfrom in the park is anyone barefoot who shoes in hand . After a night out, in a taxi queue? It's incredibly common! I'm usually one of them. " to be honest if your in any town centre when people are going home after a night out half the women have their shoes in their hand we even got special shoes to change into now | |||
"Yes so that's my question. Is an offensive weapon under the law simply anything other than your own body that's been used to hurt someone? Depends. If you're in s trade that uses general tools then it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to be carrying a screwdriver, chisel, or something that may be used as a weapon in a time of self defence. Your every day person without a good enough excuse to be carrying something like this would be considered premeditated...they have no need for that item to be on them and so chose to have it on them for no reasonable reason. It's why we get taught how to use our keys to disable an attacker, or spray, or something else that might be in your handbag, because it's not unreasonable to be carrying these things around at any time. Same for stilettos, she put them on for a night out and not to attack a guy but she ended up using them as weapons. Seeing as it's common for women to wear heels then it wouldn't be considered that she wore them for the purpose of attacking someone but more for fashionable reasons. Is it really common for them to be in her hand walk down the street now or even in the summer apart dfrom in the park is anyone barefoot who shoes in hand . After a night out, in a taxi queue? It's incredibly common! I'm usually one of them. Me too. Once Marc had to carry me a little ways because the ground was yucky and my shoes were off. "I just don't look down | |||
" Now what would happen if a man hit a women that hard with a sharp implement? " I suspect the police would investigate, and if applicable the CPS would take him to trial, where a jury would consider the hours of evidence painstakingly collected by the police, weigh it against the defendants plea and mitigating circumstances, reach a verdict, and the judge would then hand down what he/she felt was the most appropriate sentence. Then a bunch of people on social media would use an article from a newspaper, written in such a way to appeal to the perceived bias of their readership, to reflect their own prejudices... Isn't that roughly what happened here? (But with the added undertone of "Phwoar, she's a bit of alright") Mr ddc | |||
"Yes so that's my question. Is an offensive weapon under the law simply anything other than your own body that's been used to hurt someone? Depends. If you're in s trade that uses general tools then it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to be carrying a screwdriver, chisel, or something that may be used as a weapon in a time of self defence. Your every day person without a good enough excuse to be carrying something like this would be considered premeditated...they have no need for that item to be on them and so chose to have it on them for no reasonable reason. It's why we get taught how to use our keys to disable an attacker, or spray, or something else that might be in your handbag, because it's not unreasonable to be carrying these things around at any time. Same for stilettos, she put them on for a night out and not to attack a guy but she ended up using them as weapons. Seeing as it's common for women to wear heels then it wouldn't be considered that she wore them for the purpose of attacking someone but more for fashionable reasons. Is it really common for them to be in her hand walk down the street now or even in the summer apart dfrom in the park is anyone barefoot who shoes in hand . After a night out, in a taxi queue? It's incredibly common! I'm usually one of them. Me too. Once Marc had to carry me a little ways because the ground was yucky and my shoes were off. "So Is the answer to wear comfy shoes that don't need to be taken off , and thus look good all night rather then just at the beginning ? | |||
| |||
| |||
"So I see in my news feeds this morning that a very attractive young lady has avoided a jail sentence for hitting a guy in the eye that hard with a stilleto it stuck there until he pulled it out. Apparently she just happened to have them to hand when he was being a bit of a d*unken arse in a taxi queue. The official line was she just over defended herself and her friend. Now what would happen if a man hit a women that hard with a sharp implement? " Oh google for woman 17 previous violent convictions bottled man for not saying thank you. She got a suspended sentence. Shes violently assulted 17 people, this time she smashed a glass bottle in a mans face because he didnt say thank you when she picked them up after her d*unken friend knocked them out of his hand | |||
"did you even google any news stories for men getting away with violence under law? ffs... Never found any where a guy had effectively stabbed a girl in the face in public and not been given jail time. Do you think a jail sentence would have been better? My question was what would happen if the roles were reversed? If a bloke stabbed a girl in the face because she offered him a crisp there would probably only be one outcome. I think she was very lucky to avoid jail time. His injuries could have easily been life altering and I'm not just talking about his eyesight either. He could potentially have been lobotomized.but they weren't his injuries and I'm sure if they had been there would of been a different sentence. Oh, that makes it perfectly OK then. Maybe they shouldn't have arrested her in the first place... why not. She was arrested for the damage she did cause not the damage she didn't cause.
If you hit someone in your car (you as in anyone) and they had cuts and scratches should you be charged for manslaughter because they could of gone under the car and died.
How can you start sentencing people on what could of happened?
She should have been charged with GBH with an offensive weapon. Which carries a custodial sentence.you do not always go to prison for your first offense of gbh. It depends on the severity
With an offensive weapon you should.
Do shoes count as an offensive weapon? Surely the offensive weapon bit is about intent - if you're on a night out with a knife, that's different from being on a night out with a pair of shoes on.
Yes, shoes can be classed as an offensive weapon. Anything you can use to hit or cause injury to another person is classed as an offensive weapon.so basically everything then?
Yes, pretty much.
From what my brother tells me (yes, he's a police officer) if you don't have a valid reason to be carrying something on your person there is always a chance you can be rrwsted and charged for carrying an offensive weapon.
I would rather hear what a lawyer has to say.
And there is a valid reason for carry shoes...."Theres a valid reason for carrying a torch however the "defence torches" with large pointed bezels or knobbled ends deisgned to cause serious injury have been classed asnofdensive weapons when careied with the intention of useing them as such | |||
"I've looked up the law. An offensive weapon includes (1) weapons that are inherently dangerous and have blades of a certain size; (2) weapons not inherently dangerous that are adapted to be dangerous (like a bottle that someone breaks); (3) weapons that are not inherently dangerous nor adapted to be dangerous but which are used in a way to cause harm. In the 3rd instance, which we are discussing here, intent to harm needs to be affirmatively proven. There are mitigating factors such as self defense, cooperation with police and prosecutors, and whether the weapon was particularly dangerous. I would say that we don't know all the facts here, but the mitigating factors lean heavily in the woman's favor. Whether it would have been different for a man can only be answered by further research which I am too lazy to perform. -Courtney Oh, and further to the above, these only relate to carry an offensive weapon, not its use. So, if someone carries an object of the third category intent would have to be established for purposes of her carrying the shoes, not for using them as a weapon. So, unless the prosecution can prove she was carrying her shoes for the purpose/with the intent of using them as weapons, then they would not succeed on an offensive weapons charge. In this case it would be assault. -Courtney I'm pretty sure what you're quoting is with regards to the police powers of stop and search. In this case she used her footwear as a weapon and inflicted injury. What I'm saying is she would have to have carried her shoes with the intent of using them as an offensive weapon for her to be prosecuted as such. Her use makes it assault, not with an offensive weapon. Unless she carries her shoes around with the intent of using them to inflict harm. Which I doubt. Cite the law you think applies if you think I'm wrong. -Courtney I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just going by what I've been told by my brother and how he has been trained to deal with such things. I'm going to work now but I'll try to get clarification from him regarding it. Like I've said, I prefer to get my legal information from the law or from lawyers. Nothing against cops, but they aren't trained in the law. Here is a link to a government website where I got much of my information. It deals with Article 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offensive_weapons_knives_bladed_and_pointed_articles/ I personally think the woman's sentencing was lawful and justified based on the known facts. And I think a man would gave gotten similar under the same circumstances. -Courtney . I think I'd rather just punch someone than forgoes the agony of wandering around in high heels all night just in case
i think if you looked up some relevant information on crime figures and sentencing,you would find the opposite is true: women serve far harsher terms for violent offences than men...murder in particular; there is stiil the view,though its changing, that a woman must have some seriously wrong with them to be violent."Not true at all women serve shorter sentences and are less likeley to be sentenced. http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=215 Except for drug ofdences which are pretty even, men are given much harsher sentences. The view is that women only comit crime because of circumstances, theyre desperate, or have been abused or coerced and need to be saved Men commit crime because theyre criminals and need to be punished. | |||
"I've looked up the law. An offensive weapon includes (1) weapons that are inherently dangerous and have blades of a certain size; (2) weapons not inherently dangerous that are adapted to be dangerous (like a bottle that someone breaks); (3) weapons that are not inherently dangerous nor adapted to be dangerous but which are used in a way to cause harm. In the 3rd instance, which we are discussing here, intent to harm needs to be affirmatively proven. There are mitigating factors such as self defense, cooperation with police and prosecutors, and whether the weapon was particularly dangerous. I would say that we don't know all the facts here, but the mitigating factors lean heavily in the woman's favor. Whether it would have been different for a man can only be answered by further research which I am too lazy to perform. -Courtney Oh, and further to the above, these only relate to carry an offensive weapon, not its use. So, if someone carries an object of the third category intent would have to be established for purposes of her carrying the shoes, not for using them as a weapon. So, unless the prosecution can prove she was carrying her shoes for the purpose/with the intent of using them as weapons, then they would not succeed on an offensive weapons charge. In this case it would be assault. -Courtney I'm pretty sure what you're quoting is with regards to the police powers of stop and search. In this case she used her footwear as a weapon and inflicted injury. What I'm saying is she would have to have carried her shoes with the intent of using them as an offensive weapon for her to be prosecuted as such. Her use makes it assault, not with an offensive weapon. Unless she carries her shoes around with the intent of using them to inflict harm. Which I doubt. Cite the law you think applies if you think I'm wrong. -Courtney I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just going by what I've been told by my brother and how he has been trained to deal with such things. I'm going to work now but I'll try to get clarification from him regarding it. Like I've said, I prefer to get my legal information from the law or from lawyers. Nothing against cops, but they aren't trained in the law. Here is a link to a government website where I got much of my information. It deals with Article 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offensive_weapons_knives_bladed_and_pointed_articles/ I personally think the woman's sentencing was lawful and justified based on the known facts. And I think a man would gave gotten similar under the same circumstances. -Courtney . I think I'd rather just punch someone than forgoes the agony of wandering around in high heels all night just in case
i think if you looked up some relevant information on crime figures and sentencing,you would find the opposite is true: women serve far harsher terms for violent offences than men...murder in particular; there is stiil the view,though its changing, that a woman must have some seriously wrong with them to be violent.
Not true at all women serve shorter sentences and are less likeley to be sentenced.
http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=215
Except for drug ofdences which are pretty even, men are given much harsher sentences.
The view is that women only comit crime because of circumstances, theyre desperate, or have been abused or coerced and need to be saved
Men commit crime because theyre criminals and need to be punished.
"True, British legal precedence is very matriarch centric, women get custody of children in custody battles (even though they might be scummy mummies compared to Dad), they similarly tend to get the house and lions share in divorces, they serve shorter sentences or none at all when it comes to violent crimes. And as for men being raped by women? The UK law doesn't even seem to acknowledge it exists or even happens in the vast majority of cases. Seeing as women could never do so, as the law still seems to view them as the "weaker" sex, and therefore physically incapable of doing so. | |||
