Scottish Girl gonna' start a revolution!

[andy06shake]

You assured everyone the man was following and filming the girls as evidence.  And yet how does the video end up being posted online instead of being handed over to law enforcement.  Where if the video was handed over and not posted online, there wouldn’t be this viral mess.  It’s  pretty simple.

Nobody cares, just you.

It is evidence, and that's a fact.

A fact you refuse to accept, but a fact nonetheless.

As to viral mess, that's what happens.

Deal with it. 

[MichSwampbuck]

Brandishing a lethal weapon in a threatening manor is a felonious assault charge in the States. The other person needs only feel threatened to have the charge stick, I'm not sure a weapon is actually necessary, just the threat of one I believe.

Self-defense is is the only possible defense here I should think. When protecting your own life, felony assault isn't considered a crime. If you pull out a weapon to protect your life, it isn't merely a threat but more like a warning to me.

[Kurokage]

You assured everyone the man was following and filming the girls as evidence.  And yet how does the video end up being posted online instead of being handed over to law enforcement.  Where if the video was handed over and not posted online, there wouldn’t be this viral mess.  It’s  pretty simple.

It's not illegal to post a video online?? He decided he wanted to post his own content to YouTube, which is up to him.

[andy06shake]

Brandishing a lethal weapon in a threatening manor is a felonious assault charge in the States. The other person needs only feel threatened to have the charge stick, I'm not sure a weapon is actually necessary, just the threat of one I believe.

Self-defense is is the only possible defense here I should think. When protecting your own life, felony assault isn't considered a crime. If you pull out a weapon to protect your life, it isn't merely a threat but more like a warning to me.

Nobody was hurt and no law was broken by the fellow doing the filming.

Proving self-defence with an axe and a kitchen knife here in the UK simply is not going to fly.

If she had been attacked and picked up the axe or knife to defend herself against a full-grown man, that may be considered the likes of self-defence.

But she was already tooled up which indicates premeditation.

She's not got a snowball's chance in hell of pleading self-defence, as any lawyer will tell her parents or guardians.

[MichSwampbuck]

Nobody was hurt and no law was broken by the fellow doing the filming.

Proving self-defence with an axe and a kitchen knife here in the UK simply is not going to fly.

If she had been attacked and picked up the axe or knife to defend herself against a full-grown man, that may be considered the likes of self-defence.

But she was already tooled up which indicates premeditation.

She's not got a snowball's chance in hell of pleading self-defence, as any lawyer will tell her parents or guardians.

Yeah, I agree, that looks pretty bad and no real defense for lethal threats. I hope they go lightly for her sake and to keep the riots to a minimum when the public hears that she is doing time.

[andy06shake]

Yeah, I agree, that looks pretty bad and no real defense for lethal threats. I hope they go lightly for her sake and to keep the riots to a minimum when the public hears that she is doing time.

It's a children's panel she will most likely have to attend with her parents.
 
Which is different from our proper courts of law.

As long as they act like decent human beings and accept that their daughter was in the wrong, and assure the panel of three people that she won't be walking around the streets with any more offensive weapons, she will probably get off with a warning.
 
But if the parents go in guns blazing, refusing to accept any sort of culpability or responsibility, or start any silly racist nonsense, they may choose to involve social work at some level.
 
Hopefully it's the former as opposed to the latter.

[SurferSoul]

It doesn't matter what you might doubt, just what the law says.

And the law says yes you can indeed be charged. 

In the UK, you don't have to actually hit someone to be guilty of assault.

The law defines assault as doing something that causes another person to fear they are about to be attacked.
 
So if you wave a weapon in a threatening or menacing way, that can amount to assault even without physical contact.

Anything i have said is backed by the facts, not feelings.

Can you claim the same?

I know what's been reported and what's taken place, and it doesn't look too good for the little neds as the video evidence clearly shows. 

I can't tell you if the sister was charged or why not.

You would need to take that up with the Police, who would have established the facts before proceeding.

I had to look it up as I was under the impression assault meant some kind of physical violence even if it was just a slap to the face. But you’re right, it can mean just a threat of violence or that a person feels they are in danger of physical violence. 

This seems absurd to me, I get it that someone throws a punch or something and misses the intent was there, but in this case if the guy felt threatened in anyway he would surely get out of there and not be filming and asking the girl to “show her knife to the camera” he clearly knows the law then. His intent is to get the girls in trouble for assault, while their intent (going off their words) was him to go away and leave them alone. 

Not only that anyone can claim they were assaulted just because of “feels” they get in a row with raised voices, insults are thrown about, someone gets right up in someone’s face so they are pushed away,  therefore assault. Or they can claim they felt they would be attacked when their so called attacker had no intention of attacking them.  Doesn’t seem fair to me at all. The law doesn’t seem to take into account what provoked a non physical assault in the first place. 

Yet kings and queens are only so because their ancestors invaded and killed and subjugated in their conquests. 

I can see it being normalised in the future a crime for looking at someone, “they harassed me with their eyes officer”

[Oldcarpy2]

I had to look it up as I was under the impression assault meant some kind of physical violence even if it was just a slap to the face. But you’re right, it can mean just a threat of violence or that a person feels they are in danger of physical violence. 

This seems absurd to me, I get it that someone throws a punch or something and misses the intent was there, but in this case if the guy felt threatened in anyway he would surely get out of there and not be filming and asking the girl to “show her knife to the camera” he clearly knows the law then. His intent is to get the girls in trouble for assault, while their intent (going off their words) was him to go away and leave them alone. 

Not only that anyone can claim they were assaulted just because of “feels” they get in a row with raised voices, insults are thrown about, someone gets right up in someone’s face so they are pushed away,  therefore assault. Or they can claim they felt they would be attacked when their so called attacker had no intention of attacking them.  Doesn’t seem fair to me at all. The law doesn’t seem to take into account what provoked a non physical assault in the first place. 

Yet kings and queens are only so because their ancestors invaded and killed and subjugated in their conquests. 

I can see it being normalised in the future a crime for looking at someone, “they harassed me with their eyes officer”

But I thought she was actually charged for possession of the axe and a knife, not assault?

Looking at someone a bit funny is not an offence.

[andy06shake]

I had to look it up as I was under the impression assault meant some kind of physical violence even if it was just a slap to the face. But you’re right, it can mean just a threat of violence or that a person feels they are in danger of physical violence. 

This seems absurd to me, I get it that someone throws a punch or something and misses the intent was there, but in this case if the guy felt threatened in anyway he would surely get out of there and not be filming and asking the girl to “show her knife to the camera” he clearly knows the law then. His intent is to get the girls in trouble for assault, while their intent (going off their words) was him to go away and leave them alone. 

Not only that anyone can claim they were assaulted just because of “feels” they get in a row with raised voices, insults are thrown about, someone gets right up in someone’s face so they are pushed away,  therefore assault. Or they can claim they felt they would be attacked when their so called attacker had no intention of attacking them.  Doesn’t seem fair to me at all. The law doesn’t seem to take into account what provoked a non physical assault in the first place. 

Yet kings and queens are only so because their ancestors invaded and killed and subjugated in their conquests. 

I can see it being normalised in the future a crime for looking at someone, “they harassed me with their eyes officer”

I think the law is the same in most states in America if you brandish weapons at people in public, and can constitute an assault. 

The difference is that it is far easier for it to end in the person being shot.

As to intent, that appears to have been to capture the racially motivated attack.

And the man was perfectly within his rights.

If he had done anything else, chances are he would have been in the wrong.

On this occasion, the Police attended, and the law was upheld.

Because at the end of the day, what's not normal is for 12-year-olds  to be running around causing chaos with offensive weapons.

Just to add, she was only charged with carrying offensive weapons, even though brandishing them in such a manner could have constituted assault.

Police did her a favor, really, because racially motivated weapons assault charges can follow you through life.

[argentus]

I think the law is the same in most states in America if you brandish weapons at people in public, and can constitute an assault. 

The difference is that it is far easier for it to end in the person being shot.

As to intent, that appears to have been to capture the racially motivated attack.

And the man was perfectly within his rights.

If he had done anything else, chances are he would have been in the wrong.

On this occasion, the Police attended, and the law was upheld.

Because at the end of the day, what's not normal is for 12-year-olds  to be running around causing chaos with offensive weapons.

Just to add, she was only charged with carrying offensive weapons, even though brandishing them in such a manner could have constituted assault.

Police did her a favor, really, because racially motivated weapons assault charges can follow you through life.

Yes.   To loosely paraphrase, assault is to threaten violence, to hold a weapon in a threatening manner, to brandish a weapon.  

I think the girls armed up and went seeking someone to be offended by.   There are a few websites that have recently featured articles relating to Muslims taking over Europe.  I wonder if this event wasn't inspired by some of those articles.