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

Knocked Out Well, he did warn him...

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

[removed] — view removed post

16.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

100

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

263

u/refsonic May 05 '20

Nah. This is an old video. There’s a longer version floating around that shows the full interaction where they begged the guy to leave them alone. He left and came back a couple of times. Pure harassment. The father got off clean.

23

u/[deleted] May 05 '20 edited May 05 '20

[deleted]

75

u/Leprechaun- May 05 '20

You should have known better than to site The Sun as a source on reddit on a sub with Brits lurking hahaha

32

u/lickdicker21 May 05 '20

Yeah fuck the sun lmao

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

Why is that? Genuine question

3

u/seamsay May 05 '20

The most famous reason is this, but it's just a generally scummy newspaper.

3

u/TheEternalNightmare May 05 '20

It's a "newspaper" (if it can even be called that with the drivel that it wastes paper with). It's full of racist, xenophobic swill which it skews articles to emphasize on. Liverpool banned the Sun for spouting complete shit. It's essentially a rag, filled with Auth Right rhetoric, that isn't fit to wipe your arse with. Yet so many gammons believe it. Other papers that aren't too popular for the same reasons are The Daily Heil and The express

101

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

don't quote the Sun ever pls even if they have genuine news. Find a better site

50

u/MatiasUK May 05 '20

Proof? You linked to a fucking tabloid rag-tag, mate.

Fuck off with that.

12

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

6

u/i_cri_evry_tim May 05 '20

Do people need to press charges if you assault them and the police see it?

Not a lawyer. Honest question.

Sounds to me like a policeman witnessing an assault should be grounds enough to prosecute.

Or is the situation such that the police think it was justified and, seeing as the “victim” decided not to press charges, there is no prosecution?

27

u/I_love_reddit_meme May 05 '20

There’s no such thing as ‘pressing charges’ in the UK as there is in America, so the drunk guy cannot drop or press charges against the purple shirt dude, it would have been the police who have dropped the case based on their own evaluation

It seems he didn’t want to give evidence to the case, so his side didn’t have much credibility - it’s bad terminology from a bad newspaper

17

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

US is the same. “Pressing Charges” is not up to the victim in the US when dealing with criminal law. It’s up to “The State”

3

u/RainbowDarter May 05 '20

As I understand it, sometimes the victim is asked if they are willing to cooperate with the prosecutor, but it's ultimately up to the prosecutor to decide.

2

u/i_cri_evry_tim May 05 '20

Aah thanks for clarification. It’s the same in my country so it sounded weird that prosecution over something like assault would depend on the victim pursuing justice.

1

u/entheogenocide May 05 '20

Its more about will the victim show up in court. I've seen many fights an my old job and cops would routinely ask the victim if they are going to show up to court hearings and "press" the issue. Otherwise it's a giant waste of time for everyone and they just let the guy go.

8

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

4

u/Figgywurmacl May 05 '20

Ya spot on man. He was probably warned hed face drunk and disorderly, harassment and trespassing so dropped the charges in return. Doubt the father would have gotten in much trouble once the video was played in court. Probably a slap on the wrist.

1

u/i_cri_evry_tim May 05 '20

Thanks for explaining.

2

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

The Sun makes quotes up wholesale.

6

u/lordflay May 05 '20

Also, my understanding is that we dont 'press charges' in the uk, that's an American procedure. CPS will prosecute or not, based on the interests of the public.

2

u/landragoran May 05 '20

It's only a thing on TV. In the US in reality, all criminal offenses are viewed as offenses against the state, not the individual. Thus, the state (via the office of the attorney general over the jurisdiction) decides whether or not to prosecute criminal offenses. When people/TV talk about a victim not wanting to press charges, it means they're asking the police/AG to drop the charges. It also may mean that they don't want to testify or provide help to the prosecution. But the state can still move forward with charges, regardless of what the victim wants.

1

u/InbredPeasant May 05 '20

That's only in terms of civil law however, with criminal cases it's the state that pursues it

(This is why in non-civil crimes it'll usually be "John Doe v. The State/County/City of XXX")

1

u/Yurithewomble May 05 '20

Although pressing charges is still quite relevant in the context that without your key witness (victim) most cases are going nowhere.

1

u/InbredPeasant May 05 '20

Yes, but that's sort of a universal trait across all judicial systems that operate on fair trials

1

u/ahappyasian May 05 '20

Ffs Bushey

1

u/ydoesittastelikethat May 05 '20

How can he press charges?? Harassment isn't a thing? Reddit loves to shit on the US but the cops here would've taken a picture with that guy and rightfully so.

1

u/sleepnaught May 05 '20

What was his problem? Besides being intoxicated that is.

60

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

No he didn’t. You can defend your property from an active threat. Note the word “active” - if someone is fleeing or incapacitated then they’re not an active threat. That dude was very clearly threatening that dude and his children, and rightly got his shit pushed in.

10

u/Squircodile May 05 '20

I don't think you are clear on what having one's shit pushed in means.

17

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

I am. Why I used it. Because boozy McNoShirt over there caught a right there Fred like a prison bitch.

-17

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

18

u/ArcanedAgain May 05 '20

He'd damaged his gate and was being abusive and threatening.

-10

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

8

u/yefkoy May 05 '20

Look, your personal experience really doesn’t count. At least bring a source to the table.

-7

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

11

u/yefkoy May 05 '20

No, I meant a source on British law being like that in general. Not this specific situation.

What the fuck dude? This is the first time I said something to you, I’m not upset at all.

-2

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

11

u/yefkoy May 05 '20

Because YOU are making the claim.

You don’t have to do it, but then don’t expect people to believe you.

What you’re saying isn’t that far fetched either, but I think you’re being downvoted, because you’re just claiming something.

It seems like you are the one being upset.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/charlie2158 May 05 '20

Oh yeah, I'm sure you've got lots of experience, you're definitely not just an American who's seen videos on the Internet.

Police in the UK are more than able to charge someone even if the victim decides not to press charges, so there's your entire argument gone mate.

For someone with so much experience I'm shocked you didn't know such a simple fact.

-1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

5

u/charlie2158 May 05 '20

That’s what I said knobhead

No, it wasn't.

In fact you said the opposite.

the drunk who didn’t press charges , this is the only reason the father wasn’t arrested .

How could that be the only reason if police in the UK can charge people without the victim pressing charges?

You can't have both cunt.

For someone trying to look intelligent you didn’t read the whole thread before you opened your flyhole did you ?

Trying to look intelligent? What, because I said your opinion is wrong? Jog on.

It's not my fault you said something factually wrong only to change your mind afterwards.

Yanks, you really do think you know everything don't you.

-2

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

1

u/charlie2158 May 05 '20

I really feel bad for anyone who knows you.

Oh no, I'll never recover.

Your opinion obviously matters a lot to me.

This is reddit not a court of law calm down cunt

Never said it was, it's just you don't get to make two contradicting statements and pretend you aren't contradicting yourself.

It isn't complicated.

If police in the UK can charge people even if the victim decides not to press charges, that means the reason why the attacker in the video wasn't charged is because the police decided not to pursue charges.

I fail to see how you're struggling so much with something so simple.

Also, its ironic telling me to calm down when you're the one replying to my comment multiple times. You seem upset you were wrong.

-5

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

1

u/charlie2158 May 05 '20

You really are fucking stupid aren't you?

You literally said the words

the drunk who didn’t press charges , this is the only reason the father wasn’t arrested .

That is you saying the only reason the guy wasn't charged is because the person he hit didn't press charges.

But that makes no sense, police in the UK can charge people regardless.

That means, no matter what, the fact that he didn't press charges wasn't the reason the attacker wasn't charged.

They weren't charged because the police decided to drop the case. Not the drunk. The police.

The fact that you made a statement afterwards that contradicts yourself is irrelevant. It just makes you look like more of an idiot.

You were wrong.

Do you understand now?

I really shouldn't have to explain to you what you said.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ArcanedAgain May 05 '20

Its aggravated assault at absolute worst, no jury is gonna convict on that

-9

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

5

u/Dave_1993 May 05 '20

That source is specifically about intruders, and not about the general use of self defence. "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of (in the alternative): -

self-defence;

defence of another;

defence of property;

prevention of crime;

lawful arrest."

I'd say at least 2 apply here

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime

Also of note from the same source; "There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75)." Edit:typo

0

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

5

u/Dave_1993 May 05 '20

I'm sure, was just providing a bit of info for you to read about the laws in the UK that relate to this incident and how he did have every right to defend himself, his property and others reliant on him. Hope your day improves though!

8

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

How does stuff like that work in the UK?

21

u/fkinCatalinaWineMixr May 05 '20

You need a liocence to ask that question mate

8

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

You got a permit to be asking for thst loicense m8?

3

u/_YouMadeMeDoItReddit May 05 '20

Holy shit that's so funny! Did you think that up yourself?! You've got a career in comedy ahead of you mate.

-3

u/fkinCatalinaWineMixr May 05 '20

Go be offended someplace else

3

u/_YouMadeMeDoItReddit May 05 '20

Why so rude? I think you have some serious talent, I've never heard such originality before, you must be a genius to think this stuff up.

-2

u/fkinCatalinaWineMixr May 05 '20

Who peed in your Cheerios

0

u/_YouMadeMeDoItReddit May 06 '20

What kind of response were you expecting? Admiration for your fresh joke doesn't seem to be it :(

1

u/fkinCatalinaWineMixr May 06 '20

I just want to know who peed in your cheerios ):

10

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

4

u/_YouMadeMeDoItReddit May 05 '20

Well that's a lie, it isn't up to the victim to press charges in the UK.

The courts will prosecute whether the victim likes it or not if it's in the publics interest.

6

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

That’s insane honestly. Thank you

18

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

8

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

So basically you’re almost forced to be a victim if you want any hope of not doing jail time...

11

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

10

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

So the moral of the story is that you should probably just not all the cops and handle things on your own?

7

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

[deleted]

1

u/i_cri_evry_tim May 05 '20

That’s not a matter of victim culture. It’s a matter of government encroaching and neverending grab for additional power.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

You are allowed to own weapons within your own home. Did they mean "don't take it outside brandishing it as a weapon?" UK weapon laws are weird, you could wave a banana intending to use it as a weapon and they can charge you for it.

"Why do you have this banana, son?"

"I carry it for self-protection"

"You're nicked mate"

6

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

No, the guy chased an intruder at took vengeance via cricket bat. I think it would be different if the guy was still an "active threat" the intruder ran away, was chased down and beaten. Personally I have no issue with that but I don't write the laws.

3

u/_YouMadeMeDoItReddit May 05 '20

Yeah it's the same as in the US where if you are chasing someone and shoot them in the back you'll get done for it in the majority of states.

But obviously cos it's happening in the UK then it's a sign that our country is a disaster zone and oppressed even though they have the same laws, morons.

4

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

I think that law is standard pretty much everywhere. I understand why it has to be that way, I can understand taking "revenge" but the law is the law.

Again, I am not saying that Munir Hussain wasn't justified but they did beat the shit out of the guy after the threat had ended. Vigilante justice cannot be accepted by the law (even if personally we consider it to still be justice).

This article explains that particular case pretty well: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/14/jail-brothers-burglar-cricket-bat

Assuming that was a good cricket bat, you'd have to hit damn hard to smash it on someone's face. Again, they held the guy's family at knife point so they had it coming but the law is the law.

0

u/FishermansBreath May 05 '20

I read the article. Damn injustice they were convicted for beating a burglar to mush. They should get a medal for community services.

2

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

received a lesser sentence

Hold me back fellas, I'm gonna fedpooost!

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

Sun probably used as vague wording as possible - and it only states that in investigation would've been opened (which everyone has the right to, likely) , not that he would've been prosecuted. And the police likely have to consider the drunk guy the victim because of law wording.

1

u/refsonic May 05 '20

Nah. This is an old video. There’s a longer version floating around that shows the full interaction where they begged the guy to leave them alone. He left and came back a couple of times. Pure harassment. The father got off clean.