Teenager drop-kicked for saying you need female genitals to be a woman

[youkiddingme]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8965625/London-transgender-women-drop-kicked-stamped-19-year-old.html

Supposedly being celebrated by TRAs

www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1330041982681571329

Avocado bathroom to you and your family.

@jj1968

Like hell would you say that if three or four men had got a teenage transwoman down on the ground and were kicking her in the head.

I have been in exactly that situation whilst a car full of coppers sat and watched. Some people on this thread I suspect have led very sheltered lives.

And did you handwave it away?

And yawn about the constant sheltered lives bull. I haven't. That is why you and your posts gets on my last nerve.

I used to live in a flipping homeless hostel. Single-sex, thankfully. The mixed sex homelessness hostel in the same town was known for its rate of sexual assault. So I'm against men being allowed into women's hostels. One of my close female relatives served time in a women's prison. That's why I can't ignore that TRAs ignore transwomen in women's prisons.

Men in their prime have died from one punch, because of the way their heads hit the concrete as they fell.

Yes they have, and even those cases have not always resulted in a jail sentence.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8250899/Cambridgeshire-motorist-spared-jail-punching-cyclist-death-broken-wing-mirror.html

[quote jj1968]Men in their prime have died from one punch, because of the way their heads hit the concrete as they fell.

Yes they have, and even those cases have not always resulted in a jail sentence.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8250899/Cambridgeshire-motorist-spared-jail-punching-cyclist-death-broken-wing-mirror.html[/quote]
Thats fucking vile. Men get away with so much violence. Depressing as fuck, like usual.

They could not have easily killed him, anymore than someone punching someone in the face could easily kill them.

That though..while a punch can kill someone, being repeatedly kicked in the head is presumably much more likely.

I see a lot of fights sadly where I live (usually men, when drunk) but its very rare to see someone being kicked in the head tbh. I have a friend who has permanent(mild) brain damage from the very same thing like 15 years back, thats the only time I have ever heard of people kicking others in the head here. Infact, from what I have seen, once someone hits the floor, they are left alone. Its a 'big thing' for the vilent blokes round here apparently, once someone 'hits the deck' you have won so leave it.

Mind, he described it as 'he stamped on my head' which is maybe a bit different to kicking..depends how hard. But either way, its awful behaviour, and the judge should not be condoning it in the way it appears.

*Men in their prime have died from one punch, because of the way their heads hit the concrete as they fell.

Yes they have, and even those cases have not always resulted in a jail sentence*

The difference is intent. As you say, one punch to the face is unlikely to kill someone, but it can result in death is the person then falls and hits their head.

So while they are responsible for that death, the intent to kill is unlikely.

However knocking someone to the floor and repeatedly kicking them in the head? I think anyone knows that will result in serious harm or even death, so the intent to cause serious harm is there...

Isn't it interesting the difference in attitudes round violence that's evident on this thread? Some posters see violence as a bad thing, and think one of the aims of the legal system should be to curb human being's baser instincts and seek prison sentences as appropriate to back this up. Another group of posters seems to think "he looked at me funny" absolves the perpetrators of most of their culpability.

I wonder what facet of socialisation could be behind this difference in attitudes? Whether there's any sort of pattern out there?

Head kicking is especially vicious. I say this as the ex partner of a very violent man. Even he, renowned for his violent, blind rages, didn't kick someone's head when they were on the ground.

@CaraDuneRedux

Isn't it interesting the difference in attitudes round violence that's evident on this thread? Some posters see violence as a bad thing, and think one of the aims of the legal system should be to curb human being's baser instincts and seek prison sentences as appropriate to back this up. Another group of posters seems to think "he looked at me funny" absolves the perpetrators of most of their culpability.

I wonder what facet of socialisation could be behind this difference in attitudes? Whether there's any sort of pattern out there?

Or perhaps some people just think that throwing four people in jail with all the personal and societal devastation that causes is not the best way to deal with an assault which resulted in fairly minor injuries.

Funny old world. There are women in prison for non payment of fines resulting from failing to pay their TV licence, yet kicking someone in the head (which can be fatal and surely is not an action undertaken without intent to cause serious injury) gets a non custodial sentence.

That's a fucked up set of sentencing guidelines. And as a member of society, worried about the societal costs of violence on public transport, I'm failing to see the problem with locking up violent bastards. I think locking up violent bastards is a good idea.

@CaraDuneRedux

Funny old world. There are women in prison for non payment of fines resulting from failing to pay their TV licence, yet kicking someone in the head (which can be fatal and surely is not an action undertaken without intent to cause serious injury) gets a non custodial sentence.

That's a fucked up set of sentencing guidelines. And as a member of society, worried about the societal costs of violence on public transport, I'm failing to see the problem with locking up violent bastards. I think locking up violent bastards is a good idea.

And what happens when you let them out, and they can't get a job, or they've developed a drug problem, and they've made loads of friends and contacts inside who are also violent bastards?

Anyway I'm not that interested in discussing sentencing policies tbh, the point I was making was that there was nothing particularly unusual or lenient about the sentence in this case as some posters seemed to be suggesting.

I think its scary the amount of people who think that kicking someone in the head while they're already on the ground is no big thing.

They've been given a slap on the wrist and virtually a license to do it again. I just hope next time they do it, and there will be a next time, that their victim will be able to walk away and that they get the justice they deserve. Although as a realist I imagine they'll be like most gangs of thugs that curse most neighbourhoods and will just escalate and continue to get away with violence.

Of course provocation is relevant, which is why the judge commented on it. It goes towards mitigation in sentencing. And rightly so - someone who is provoked is less blameworthy than someone unprovoked. As others have said, it works in women’s favour in DV cases. The Sally Challen case involved a blameworthy victim and I am glad that her sentence was reduced to reflect that. Doesn’t make him not a victim but it helps to excuse some of her behaviour.

Sticking up for someone hurling racist abuse at people isn’t a great look even if you dislike the defendants. He sounds very unpleasant but it seems that the court dealt with hit properly by finding the defendants guilty but acknowledging that they were provoked.

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/aggravating-and-mitigating-factors/

Setting out that provocation is a mitigating factor in sentencing for a range of offences. Doesn’t mean that the offender isn’t culpable but it goes towards reducing the sentence.

Presumably prosecuted as public order offence because victim refused to give a statement.

@DrDavidBanner

I think its scary the amount of people who think that kicking someone in the head while they're already on the ground is no big thing.

They've been given a slap on the wrist and virtually a license to do it again. I just hope next time they do it, and there will be a next time, that their victim will be able to walk away and that they get the justice they deserve. Although as a realist I imagine they'll be like most gangs of thugs that curse most neighbourhoods and will just escalate and continue to get away with violence.

There’s also a worrying degree of sticking up for the victim abusing them. Talk of being ‘anatomically correct’ etc. That may well be the case but it doesn’t mean that it isn’t an offensive thing to say to a stranger. It may be anatomically correct to call someone old and fat but it’s still incredibly offensive.

It’s never okay to kick someone who is on the ground and it should ideally have been prosecuted as more serious than public order offence. However, getting angry about the judge’s comments is unnecessary because provocation is relevant to sentencing. There is no suggestion that the judge did anything wrong in recognising that.

Presumably prosecuted as public order offence because victim refused to give a statement.

Actually you're probably right about that

Perhaps worth noting we don't actually know the full extent of the provocation either, just what whoever covered the case for the Daily Mail decided were the most relevant comments by the judge. He could of squared up to them for all we know.

Okay, although to be fair this is in Feminism Chat and male on male violence isn't a feminist issue. Its an issue for men to sort out amongst themselves, preferebly without fists and feet.
I listened to the link about catcalling on the "George, not a pervert" thread and I think its clear that men lack impulse control, they think its okay to let every thought in their head come out of their mouths andthat its okay to respond with violence when their feelings are hurt. As a woman I can't really understand it.

They were more likely to break their own feet than do any serious damage

Gosh yes, their poor, delicate feet might have been injured while stomping.

@DrDavidBanner

Okay, although to be fair this is in Feminism Chat and male on male violence isn't a feminist issue. Its an issue for men to sort out amongst themselves, preferebly without fists and feet. I listened to the link about catcalling on the "George, not a pervert" thread and I think its clear that men lack impulse control, they think its okay to let every thought in their head come out of their mouths andthat its okay to respond with violence when their feelings are hurt. As a woman I can't really understand it.

I've seen women do far worse than what's on that video to someone. Like I said, sheltered lives.

@ArabellaScott

They were more likely to break their own feet than do any serious damage

Gosh yes, their poor, delicate feet might have been injured while stomping.

The latest posts have been utterly nauseating

They were more likely to break their own feet than do any serious damage.

Actually rolling on the bed laughing at this absurdity.

They were more likely to break their own feet than do any serious damage.

In those stilletos? I don't think so.

I have sympathy for neither victim nor offender here. It’s a fairly typical display of the many brawls that men frequently get caught up in (and some women, but not nearly to the same extent or with the same consequences).

However, provocation as a mitigating factor IS a feminist issue. Research on DV suggests that where women do attack men, it’s often in retaliation or after being provoked for a lengthy period of time. If we adopt a policy of ‘no victim blaming ever’ we would have to apply that to female violence against male victims too. And provocation only excuses or explains behaviour, it doesn’t justify it. So in the Sally Challen case, the fact that her husband had abused her to the extent that she then snapped just meant she was guilty of manslaughter rather than murder. Her husband, the abuser, was still a victim in the eyes of the law.

Presumably prosecuted as public order offence because victim refused to give a statement.

There was plenty of other evidence that an assault took place - video, hospital records and a whole bunch of witnesses.

If we adopt a policy of ‘no victim blaming ever’ we would have to apply that to female violence against male victims too. And provocation only excuses or explains behaviour, it doesn’t justify it.

Which is why provocation as a mitigating factor is not the same as victim blaming. The judge went far beyond that with his comments.

He referred to 'the alleged victim' and 'the so-called victim' and said if it wasn't for the (alleged) victim there wouldn't have been a crime. That is victim blaming.