Hacker News Reader

Comment by tombrossman | Hacker News Reader

I wonder what percentage of these people end up recording themselves getting their asses kicked instead? Imagine you are in a foreign city and someone sprayed yourself or a loved one with an unknown substance. I'm not talking about a child with a squirt gun innocently playing around, I mean another adult behaving differently from social norms. I have to think the probability of a violent reaction is pretty high.

View on HN

In the UK, reacting violently to any kind of attack is very likely to result in you being prosecuted for assault. If anyone is wondering why anti-social behaviour and minor criminality is now so common here it is not that decent people don't want to do anything about it, it is because the Police are often perceived to be on the same side of the assailants.

I've downvoted this, since without any statistics to back it up, it's merely repetition of a common, unsubstantiated right-wing meme.

A search along the lines of "arrested assault robber" shows many cases reported in the Daily Mail, Sun, Mirror etc where the opposite happened, but only a single case where the bystander was arrested -- in that case, because the robber died [1].

Anti-social behaviour and minor criminality is the result of decades of underinvestement in education, regions outside London, austerity and an unbalanced economy [2].

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/16/have-a-go-hero-ar...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/society :-)

Thanks. The statement is indeed totally without merit. I’m surprised about the number of ill-informed comments on this issue.

Anti-social behaviour and minor criminality is the result of decades of underinvestement in education, regions outside London, austerity and an unbalanced economy [2].

Ill informed leftist ideology trumps unsubstantiated right-wing meme thanks to a random Guardian link.

I love how "austerity" is the catch all cause of all social problems, despite social welfare spending as a share of GDP massively increasing in the UK over the last 50 years.

They are. It's easier to get a good person to be honest about what they did and why than a criminal. Police are also just as criminal, the thin blue line needs to end.

Agree. A violent reaction would be justified. It's like mugging someone with a fake gun. The victim has no way to tell whether the gun is fake or whether his life is at risk, and a violent reaction would be legitimate.

Just to clarify, a violent reaction (in self defence) might be justified. It's not automatic, and would have to be proportional. For example, it might be enough to simply grab the person and hold them down on the ground until the police arrive unless it quickly became obvious that it was just a harmless prank. If they sprayed you with something harmful, or decide to resist being detained then yes, it may be necessary to use increasing physical force.

If someone threatens my life with a gun, there isn't much violence that wouldn't be appropriate.

I was attacked twice, with bare fists. I was surprised, terrified and did not act rationally. I also have 15+ years of offensive self-defense training (dojo training).

The muscular memory kicked in and I responded to the attack ferociously. I hit him once, twice, three times (blood was splashing around), then finished him with a kick which sent a few of his teeth out. The guy was laying on the floor and yelling as if he was being skinned.

I called the police, they came and I explained them that I was attacked and that this was the effect of my defense. They dutifully noted that I was afraid, shocked, terrified, etc. and beside a round to the police station to sign off a paper I never heard about the ceases again.

I believe that that the response should be proportionate, but to the clear advantage of the victim.

Being hit once and hitting 5 times back - OK. Being slapped and responding by a kick to the body and then another one to the head - OK. Someone attacks you with a knife and you shoot him back with a gun - OK. Being attacked by a 15 yo and hitting him back as if he was an adult - OK

All these is defense against unknown and there is no reason to stop before you are safe (you do not know what that person is going to do next).

Hitting someone, he is not lying on the floor unconscious and you keep on kicking his head - not OK, there was no more risk. Someone runs away with your bag and you shoot him in the head - not OK, you were not in direct danger.

What I want to say is that the proportionality should have a 10x factor in favour of the victim.

EDIT: cannot edit anymore but I meant of course

Hitting someone, he is lying (without the not)

I'm reminded of the Mike Tyson quote: "Everyone has a plan until..." So if I saw friend or family being sprayed with an unknown substance I hope I would err on the side of caution rather than exhibiting the learned helplessness that so many of my fellow Brits seem to have succumbed to. I also expect my judgment as to exactly where that line of caution is would be impaired.

> unless it quickly became obvious that it was just a harmless prank

It's not a harmless prank if the normal reaction is to hold the prankster down. Plus, you are relaxing, taking some downtime and some know-it-all-i-am-funny-oh-you-are-not-you-are-the-downer comes and stages an agression for fun. « It's a prank, bro. »

Getting their asses kicked gets them more hits, so some young youtubers actually aim for that. Though I am never sure how many of them are fake.

Not even thirty, but every day I understand the world less and less.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com