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

[bunkmoreland]

the drug dealer was a DRUG DEALER who got injured in his dubious line of business,by someone else! Pray,what is your moral question?

[woofgang]

"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."

so not just one punch at a drug dealer then.

[Mamyalynne]

Mr Neale sounds to have some history, judging by the Judge's comments and beyond that it is hard to say.

[bunkmoreland]

so because he had a record ,he was not allowed to defend a woman under attack from an other agressive male, which, on the spur of the moment he would have no idea that this would impact on his future life!! Who is the victim here !! An ex con!!!!

[Mamyalynne]

Punched him to the ground, then hit him again and walked away.

[FredPuli43]

'If you carry on behaving the way you have over the last few years you will be spending the majority of that future behind bars.
'You are very very fortunate you do not face a murder charge.
'You are also an intelligent articulate man capable of doing hard work - but have a grossly irresponsible streak.' [The judge]

What did our hero see? He saw an argument in which a man hit a woman once. Now, there is no evidence that he thought he was hitting a drug dealer; he is not some public hero trying to rid the streets of drugs. He is a thug, evidently with a record of such violence [see the Judge's sentencing remarks]

And what would this drug dealer; a claim made by the defence; have been prosecuted for? Assault occasioning actual bodily harm? That's all that the case discloses, at best. And is he in a fit state to remember the events or to give proper instructions in his defence, given his reported injuries, and thus fit to be tried for abh? And what penalty would he face, given the unlikely course that he was prosecuted?

And why does the Mail call him the "victim" in inverted commas? By what stretch of the imagination is someone who suffers grievous bodily harm, at the hands of a man who pleads guilty to the assault, not the victim of the assault? What else is he? The accomplice ? The inverted commas are to suggest he is not truly a victim, but merely a so-called victim.

[bunkmoreland]

look i,ve no interest in the daily mail!! I saw a story and replied

[tamborine]

Neale should be awarded for defending the woman under attack. 6y is too long to deny his child the presence of a brave father.

The law is an ass - seems crime does pay.

[jeffa]

I'd be very surprised indeed if this isn't overturned on appeal.

[emmie]

hard to make out what's what, but it seems he isn't a particularly good guy, and got jailed for the assault and for other unrelated matters.

[emmie]

however defending the woman against the man was the right thing to do, whether he was a drug dealer or not.

[DrFilth]

and some people wonder why some will look the other way when a old lady is getting mugged or some lady is getting a good smacking in the middle of a busy street

if there is ever a next time i will try to do a quick risk assessment


chuck my jacket on the ground where i think his head will land

[emmie]

like the guy who was taken to court for whacking the thieves who were nicking his diesel, rough justice perhaps, he was at least cleared,
i have no sympathy with thieves, or those who assault women.

[Old_Geezer]

The first punch might arguably be claimed to be defending the woman who owed the money, although one can intervene without violence even then. But when one punches someone who is then on the ground it would be difficult to claim that also was defence, that was continuing an attack.

[youngmafbog]

Seems to be a) he went well over the top (more than reasonable force) and b) there were other crimes also to take into account.

It does seem odd the Police didn't find something to prosecute the drug dealer for, or is demanding money with violence ok if it's a drug debt these days?

Both seem as bad as each other to me.

[andy-hughes]

This is the sort of story the Mail loves - it appeals to the Self Righteous Brothers who make up a large proportion of its readership.

If you look at the case dispassionately, and leave the emotion (and self-righteousness!) out of it - as the law must - the then sentence is appropriate.

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

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

Hitting a man twice - once when he is on the floor - hard enough to cause him permanent brain damage cannot be seen as justified.

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.

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, and the rest will see that this has been a terrible situation, and an appropriate punishment for the crim has been handed down.

[emmie]

sadly too many crims get away with it, many are on our streets causing mayhem and even when caught bang to rights, get little or no punishment
i am not saying what the bloke did was right, but the drug dealer got off from a prison sentence, i have no sympathy, he shouldn't firstly be dealing drugs, nor smacking some woman around. I think the man's sentence unduly harsh, but if it was for the other matters as well, then so be it.

[andy-hughes]

emmie - no-one would argue that the drug dealer was wrong - both in behaviour and income choice, but that is for the law to deal with, not for individuals who deal out summary justice which not only lands them in the same court in which the dealer belongs, but leaves a man brain-damaged for life - that cannot be right by an reasoned argument.

[emmie]

perhaps not, but having been the victim of a number of crimes, don't have a lot of time for the criminal classes.

[B00]

One good thing's come from it, it's got 2 unsavoury characters off the streets.