Innocent 16 yr old girl attacked *warning shocking footage*
This is the shocking moment a 16-year-old girl was beaten unconscious and fell headfirst onto the pavement after a thug ran up from behind and knocked her out cold.
The teenager, whose face has been blurred to protect her identity, was innocently walking along the the road in Plaistow, east London, last Tuesday when she was savagely attacked in broad daylight.
At just after 12.30pm the thug is shown running up behind the teenager and taking a massive swing with his right fist, causing the teen to black out instantly and crash to the ground. No words were exchanged, a completely unprovoked attack.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kpsl2ZETOI"]Man Attacks a teenager of 16 years in London - YouTube[/ame]
Why use the word "innocent"? Do we know it was completely unprovoked? Would opinion be different if the person had a not-quite-so-innocent past? (Of course assuming the victim is "innocent"...)
Why use the word "innocent"? Do we know it was completely unprovoked? Would opinion be different if the person had a not-quite-so-innocent past? (Of course assuming the victim is "innocent"...)
That was just the headline I copied from the news, and yes we do know from CCTV footage, the Police called it an unprovoked attack, she has no criminal past and even the Police can't find a motive.
"A man has been charged with assault in connection with an unprovoked attack on a 16-year-old girl near her home, police said tonight. Michael Ayoade, 34, will appear before magistrates tomorrow." - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2CywS2lXC
"Police believe the suspect had followed the victim from her home, but they did not know each other. Police said a suspect was captured on CCTV jogging away from the unconscious girl on the pavement after what appeared to be a "random" attack" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20441939
To be fair, you'd have to be evil to think a 16yr old kid on her way to sixth form is deserving of being knocked out FROM BEHIND, even if she wasn't innocent. Nothing warrants violence like that.
The fact that she has no criminal past doesn't really mean a lot. Nothing would come up on my police record and I really should have been convicted for a few things over the years.
Of course its not right for anyone to be attacked like that, and I don't think anyone was saying that.
Just pointing out that things aren't always as they seem.
I'm fine! Totally fine. I don't know why it's coming out all loud and squeaky, 'cause really, I'm fine!
To be fair, you'd have to be evil to think a 16yr old kid on her way to sixth form is deserving of being knocked out FROM BEHIND, even if she wasn't innocent. Nothing warrants violence like that.
I never said anything warranted violence, simply posed a question about the use of the word "innocent" in this context and whether or not things would be different had the victim been different.
If you both read the articles, the Police say "they don't know each other" and that it was an "unprovoked" attack. If she is guilty of anything in her past, it has nothing to do with this attack.
She is innocent until proven guilty... Ergo, yeah she probably deserved it, you're right.
If you both read the articles, the Police say "they don't know each other" and that it was an "unprovoked" attack. If she is guilty of anything in her past, it has nothing to do with this attack.
She is innocent until proven guilty... Ergo, yeah she probably deserved it, you're right.
Sigh. I'm just not going to even bother. You know things are bad when people start twisting things.
If you both read the articles, the Police say "they don't know each other" and that it was an "unprovoked" attack. If she is guilty of anything in her past, it has nothing to do with this attack.
She is innocent until proven guilty... Ergo, yeah she probably deserved it, you're right.
If you read Claire's response properly, you would probably understand that she wasn't saying she deserved it, even if she WAS guilty of something. Just wondering if people's responses would be different.
Example. If she had been convicted of an assault previously, would people (not necessarily on here, IN GENERAL) think differently about the attack.
Plus, the police don't know everything. Like I said, nothing would come up on a police check for me, when I would have been charged with GBH in normal circumstances. What the police say is not the be all and end all.
Just to be clear.
I am NOT saying she deserved it, because regardless of anyone's history or background, NO ONE deserves to be assaulted like that.
I'm fine! Totally fine. I don't know why it's coming out all loud and squeaky, 'cause really, I'm fine!
Sigh. I'm just not going to even bother. You know things are bad when people start twisting things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menticide
Plus, the police don't know everything. Like I said, nothing would come up on a police check for me, when I would have been charged with GBH in normal circumstances. What the police say is not the be all and end all.
I see exactly what you mean, and I agree, we don't know, she could have punched him 30 mins earlier. The Police investigators, CCTV etc could all be wrong.
But still I don't think it should make a difference to how you see it, it's still a 34 yr old man vs a 16 yr old girl. Her past shouldn't make anyone think about this assault differently. Especially when there is no connection to her "alleged past" and this attack.
If someone attacked you like that, it shouldn't make a difference to you getting justice, or your innocence with regard to this assault. Even though you had 'nearly almost' been done for GBH once upon a time.
I see exactly what you mean, and I agree, we don't know, she could have punched him 30 mins earlier. The Police investigators, CCTV etc could all be wrong.
But still I don't think it should make a difference to how you see it, it's still a 34 yr old man vs a 16 yr old girl. Her past shouldn't make anyone think about this assault differently. Especially when there is no connection to her "alleged past" and this attack.
Where did I say that I did see it that way? Or have you just jumped to a conclusion and twisted what I said?
