Man Punches Drug Dealer...and?

[FredPuli43]

What does the Daily Mail expect us to think about this? That the man should not have been prosecuted? That he shouldn't have got six years? That the drug dealer should have been prosecuted for something?

What do you make of it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2555893/A-father-nearly-killed-drug-dealer-saw-attacking-vulnerable-woman-street-jailed-pusher-not-prosecuted-injuries-bad.html

[andy-hughes]

AOG -

"Why don't these proper 'Self Righteous' persons who feel they are too superior to read the Daily Mail, just give it a wide berth instead of being so self righteous and hypocritical?"

I can't speak for them - you'd need to address that to any you may encounter.

"/// Taking the law into your own hands is never an option - because this can be the outcome. ///

What would you have done Andy, just looked the other way, only to read later that a woman had been brutally attacked and later died?"

I don't recall saying that - because that is not what I would have done either. So, included in my 'not punching someone into permanent brain damage' reaction is the 'just look the other way' reaction - because neither is appropriate.

"/// If Neale had walked the woman away from the situation taking her out of harm's way, that would be an appropriate response. ///

Yes that would have been easy wouldn't it, (i don't think) do you really think that her attacker would have just let him walk away with her?"

Actually, I do. Bullies hitting a woman will often think twice about attacking a man - I'd certainly take the risk.

"/// It is not the role of citizens to mete out their own perceived level of justice - that way lies a vigilante society where only the most brutal and violent get to have their way about how society operates. ///

It's a good job that 70 year old woman who attacked robbers armed with sledgehammers as they tried to raid a Northampton jeweller's store didn't think like you, what if the one that fell off the scooter had damaged his head, would you had been quite content for her to go to jail too?"

You're clutching at straws here AOG, and trying to make an entirely different scenarion fit your argument - it doesn't. If one robber had fallen off his scooter, that would be an accident, not comparable with a physical assault of such brutality that a man is maimed for life.

"/// So The Mail pushes the usual buttons, the usual suspects will be offering Neale a medal and a shot at the Mayor Of London role, ///

Oh grow up Andy, you are better than this."

A little light humour AOG - calm down!

"No matter what this guy has done in the past it shouldn't be held against him for this heroic deed."

His past has not been held against him - he has been sentenced for this crime, which heaven knows, far from being a 'heroic deed' is lucky not to have seen him serving life for murder.

Let's make sure we understand the circumstances here - saving a woman from attack is a brave and public spirited act, to be applauded. Carrying on to almost kill someone and leave them brain damaged for life rather takes the shine off it - wouldn't you agree?

You can expect to seriously hurt someone who is hurting someone else, and then expect to be hailed as a hero for it - soceity's values don't work like that - and neither does its legal system.

[FredPuli43]

AOG, the complaint is not about the Daily Mail itself, but that there are people who are taken in by the journalistic devices it uses, devices aimed at persuading people to take a point of view which with cold analysis, ignoring the tricks, they ought not to take. It is surprising that the readers are not aware of these devices; some of us had classes at school in which they were pointed out, so we could spot them. But that may be a matter of education or it may be that readers want, in their heart of hearts, to believe the tricked up version and so the paper is merely pandering to that.

[FredPuli43]

Chewn, where would the victim get tens of thousands in compensation from ? (I appreciate the tone of your reply). No doubt the defendant is a man of straw and the criminal injuries compensation for victims is as generous as Scrooge before his conversion.

[emmie]

does it matter at the end of the day, we are not privy to the machinations of the law, nor can one affect the matter in question, any story can be made to appear totally different from the reality, it's just a matter of interpretation. We see and hear of miscarriages of justice every day, that an old lady has been battered and the perpetrator gets off with community service, or that a driver is speeding and kills someone, and gets a light sentence, or none at all. You don't have to read the mail to find those stories, watch the tv news, or on line.

[FredPuli43]

emmie, it's not the subject matter but the treatment of it that is the subject of complaint.

[emmie]

i read through the piece a number of times, confess first go it didn't make a lot of sense. I don;t think either bloke came out with any credibility,
and how the Mail reports on it is their way i guess. There does seem to be a lot of disparity between Mail you buy at the newsagents and that you read on line.

[pixie373]

I think only the drug- dealer should be prosecuted. Both men each threw one punch. I thought the laws of self-protection included protecting others?

[emmie]

not so pixie. the man who struck the drug dealer did so twice, once when the bloke was upright, the next one was when he was down on the ground.

[emmie]

After punching the man on Clarence Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire on August 14 last year, Neale hit him again as he lay on the floor. He then walked away.

Neale, also from Nuneaton, was jailed for six years on Friday after Coventry Crown Court heard the drug dealer had been left fighting for his life.

[pixie373]

Fair enough. I suppose he had no way of knowing whether one punch would be enough, or whether he would get back up and carry on. Hindsight is useful, isn't it?

[emmie]

i think he went down for the other matters as well,

[anotheoldgit]

emmie

/// i think he went down for the other matters as well, ///

The way I read it those 'matters' were committed in the past and he had already been punished for them, surely it would be wrong to punish him twice for the same crimes would it not?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - "emmie

/// i think he went down for the other matters as well, ///

The way I read it those 'matters' were committed in the past and he had already been punished for them, surely it would be wrong to punish him twice for the same crimes would it not?"

I would entirely agree - and I understand that the sentence was for the assault, and not based on previous bad character.

[FredPuli43]

"Neale admitted one count of causing grievous bodily harm, as well as charges of dangerous driving, assault with intent to resist arrest, attempted burglary, aggravated vehicle taking and two counts of driving whilst disqualified".

That's plain enough, AOG. He pleaded guilty to other counts or 'charges' when he pleaded guilty to this assault. He fell to be sentenced on all.

[suechu]

i read the DM, for the crossword, Quentin Letts and interesting articles, everything else I take with a large pinch of salt

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// AOG, the complaint is not about the Daily Mail itself, but that there are people who are taken in by the journalistic devices it uses, devices aimed at persuading people to take a point of view which with cold analysis, ignoring the tricks, they ought not to take. ///

And wasn't that exactly what you were doing by the very fact that you chose to enter this thread?

/// It is surprising that the readers are not aware of these devices; some of us had classes at school in which they were pointed out, so we could spot them. ///

Perhaps a little brain washing by left-wing teachers eh?

/// But that may be a matter of education or it may be that readers want, in their heart of hearts, to believe the tricked up version and so the paper is merely pandering to that. ///

So what you are actually saying is that one is uneducated if they take a different view point to you?

Are you really that naive to believe that papers go to all that trouble, if one thought like you there would be no need for newspapers or radio and television news, because they are all putting their slant on it, and one cannot believe in anything?

Or is that only the Right-Wing media?

[FredPuli43]

AOG , you don't need to be brainwashed by left wing teachers (although why you think my teachers were left wing owes less to evidence than to your prejudices) to recognise devices such as putting "victim" instead of victim, and other techniques. Why do you think the Mail put "victim" for victim ?

People should be able to recognise these tools. Journalists use them and so do politicians, and they have been the weapons of propagandists for centuries.

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

What does it really matter Fred, one reads any material and makes up one's own mind which suits their own thoughts, which has obviously taken place over this matter.

You obviously don't think people are capable enough not to be swayed into believing that black is white, no matter what newspaper said it was, Daily Mail or Guardian?