So, you take the position that the appropriate response to a derogatory remark is a severe beating of the entire family with a metal pipe?

Here's a question for you, what if the police had been on the scene and they had beaten the snot out of the kid for making the insult? Would that have been OK? Or do only private citizens have the right to brutalize one another in response to offensive language?
Remember that guy that got tasered at the Kerry speech in Florida? He was pretty insulting. Would you have approved it Kerry just had the cops hold the kid still while Kerry pummeled him with a bat?

Funny as the free speech factor brought the comment.

The UK never had racially motivated crimes; the Oldham Riots were merely a figment of my imagination.

Very true. There's also the watermelon or, as it was called in the olden days, the waterberry.

There is an enormous difference between not condoning something and saying its OK to beat someone up for it.

I don't condone littering, however, I don't think anyone should have a pipe taken to their head for tossing an empty can on the side of the road.

And, speaking of differences, there's a huge difference between making a racist remark and killing someone by dragging them behind a truck. Perhaps there should also be a huge difference between the appropriate responses to such behavior.

I don't know the actual circumstances, only what was reported. In that circumstance I approve of a woman defending herself against even a minor male physical attack, throwing berries or bricks. The police are investigating so I assume whether or not she used what would be considered undue force in repulsing his attack will be determined.

Your other scenario is unrelated.

He didn't throw an object at her?

woe be unto the next person to throw a cherry at Americano.....

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

Oh, so you think the women was defending herself from the dangers of flying berries and that this justifies severely beating a child with a blunt instrament. Yes, she did leave the kid with in a pool of his own blood with two black eyes, but it was in self defense...otherwise she might have gotten berry juice on her clothing, and that can stain.

The kid was 10 years old and armed with small pieces for fruit. He was no serious threat to the women what-so-ever.

Oh, forgive me, while beating children for making insults is indeed atrocious, beating them senseless for throwing a berry at you is quite acceptable. Thank God the kid wasn't armed with a ripe tomato! She might have had to strangled him to death!

Using your logic, you would approve of me taking a metal pipe to a 10 year old in the UK and beating him with it when he told me to go back to the US. Something is seriously wrong with that logic.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

No, but if you were a resident of the UK and he made a racist remark to you while throwing an unknown object at you I'd think you'd have every right to defend yourself from his physical actions. American ghetto children engaged in illegal activities are known to carry and use deadly weapons and that's what I'd base my response on. The degree of self-defense based on my initial reaction seems to be the only discussion point in this thread and judging from the linked report she's suspected of going too far and was arrested for her actions. Be interesting to see how it turns out after the police have made their recommendations.

A few points;

1. Modern Britain is a joke so none of this is entirely surprising.

2. Kids here DON'T have any respect and in this case the lad should have been given a good clout around the ear, although nothing more. I don't see why people are sticking up for this little brat. And the reaction was ridiculous, so I don't see why anyone can stick up for this stupid woman either. The villain here is the shambles that is British society and British justice.

3. The idea of a 'hate crime' - the severity of which seems to be elevated above other crimes of a very similar nature- is terrifyingly similar to the idea of 'thought crime'- for the PC loons who run this country, the assault (although in this case that term is laughable) isn't the crime, it's the possibility that the assailant may have been thinking 'banned' thoughts that led to the assualt, which is treated almost as an afterthought. Worrying.

You do understand that there is a line between lawful self-defence and unlawful excessive force?

That's a good point! Ever see a durian? I belive that's technically a berry.

__________________
So many cowards.

You know who you are.

Isn't that the one that smells really bad ? Could count as chemical warfare in that case, sort of a BMD approach....

__________________
England has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests - Palmerston