• 📚 Admin Project Update: I've added a major feature to PictureBooks.io called Avatar Studio! You can now upload photos to instantly turn your kids (and pets! 🐶) into illustrated characters that star in their own stories. Give it a try and let me know what you think!

Man stops yobs robbing store, is arrested for assault

There were witnesses.

The shopkeeper is a victim of criminal damage, and a witness to assault (on the same person that caused him criminal damage).

Kink is accused of assault, and a witness to criminal damage.

They are both biased.

---

I can't believe I'm having to say this, but...

THE DEFENDANT MIGHT BE BIASED
 
I can see a lot of things that are wrong with this picture:
- we don't have all of it, only what the Daily Mail (bastion of the clear-thinking, level-headed, thoroughly-researched press) wants us to know.

The thing is, it's not just the fact that it's the Daily Mail's article that's been posted as gospel that's ridiculous, it's the fact that the article is only featuring two points of view, one of the guy who's been charged with assault, and one with the guy who's had his shop window smashed...

It doesn't take a legal genius to realise that both of those people have every reason to be biased against the other guy.
 
I can see a lot of things that are wrong with this picture:
- we don't have all of it, only what the Daily Mail (bastion of the clear-thinking, level-headed, thoroughly-researched press) wants us to know
- it's not a representative picture (see Mise's links)
- we don't know how exactly he's crippled, but since he was able to subdue one of the dudes, I bet it's not too harsh.


Obviously it's not the whole picture. I'm particularly interested in why the suspected vandal was not charged with assault.

[Edit:] Ok, I'm overreacting to this. He's only being charged, which the vandal has a right to do.

It's only time to flip out if it's not tossed out in court. I've also read on other websites that the vandal is not being charged because Kink did not want to press charges.
 
Why wasn't the guy that smacked him in the face charged with Assault? He had only asked them what they thought they where doing up till that point.
 
Obviously it's not the whole picture. I'm particularly interested in why the suspected vandal was not charged with assault.

[Edit:] Ok, I'm overreacting to this. He's only being charged, which the vandal has a right to do.

It's only time to flip out if it's not tossed out in court. I've also read on other websites that the vandal is not being charged because Kink did not want to press charges.

Would you mind posting those links please? I can't seem to find anything :( (not sure what to search for...)
 
So far as I can see, it's a case of one guy's word against another. How do the police know Mr Kink didn't assault the alleged vandal? It's intersting to see the sort of people that are automatically believing the 'good guy's' story.
 
The businessman in question:

article-0-01DD33C900000578-587_233x423.jpg
 
Businessman who grabbed a thug for smashing a window is charged with assault

A businessman was stunned when he detained a yob for smashing a shop window only to be charged by police with assault.

Steve Kink apprehended a thug after catching him breaking into a mobile phone shop late at night.

Although the 47-year-old was punched in the face, he managed to pin the offender to the floor.

Passers-by called the police while he stood over him until officers arrested the 25-year-old man.

Mr Kink, who owns a tattoo parlour, was stunned when he found out the next day the suspect had been let off with a caution for criminal damage.

But his shock turned to fury when days later police officers turned up at his house to arrest him for assaulting the thug.

He was taken to his local police station and held in a cell for six hours before being interviewed.

He was then charged with assault and battery and is due to appear before magistrates next week.

Mr Kink said he is appalled at the way he is being treated. He said: 'I thought I was doing the right thing by making a bit of a citizen's arrest. All I did was use reasonable force to hold him down.

'The officers who turned up appeared grateful at first but now I am facing an assault charge.'

Mr Kink was sitting in his wife's town centre bar in Weymouth, Dorset, when he heard a security alarm go off.

He went outside and confronted two men stood near to the Phone Zone store which had a smashed window.

Mr Kink, who is registered disabled following a motorcycle accident 20 years ago, said he was met with a volley of abuse from the pair before being hit.

He said: '"I accused one of them of smashing the window and he said "'what the f*** has it got to do with you?"

'He then took a swing at me and punched me just under my left eye. I grabbed hold of him and managed to sweep one of his legs from under him and I held him there by putting the toe of my shoe on his shoulder blade.

'There were lots of other people around at this stage and somebody had hold of the other bloke he was with. When the police arrived I stepped back and he kicked off at them. When he was put in the police car he tried to kick in the windows.'

A few days later police turned up at Mr Kink's home. 'There were three police officers and a dog handler there. They told me I was being arrested for assault,' he said.

The owner of the Phone Zone store, who did not wish to be named, said he has been left out of pocket by the damage.

He said: 'I am very grateful for what Steve did and at the end of the day he has done the police's job for them.

'The damage to the window was £250 but I don't know how and when I am going to get that back.'

A spokesman for Dorset Police confirmed that Mr Kink had been charged with assault over the incident.

You know, I've not heard of this 'Daily Mail' before but there seems to be some question about their legitimacy.

I have a hard time taking this article seriously, because it is very poorly written. I don't know how many times it's repeated that Mr. Kink was arrested and charged with assault, but the writer really never expands on that. Clearly the police in the UK do not arrest every person who holds another person down. The Police don't arrest people just for the fun of it. What's the other side of the story?

This is an example of crappy, one-sided journalism that is clearly geared to give the reader a particular impression and leave out the story of the opposing argument.

No matter how crazy or ridiculous it is, a good journalist will include the other side of the story.
 
Our armed police has shown that even they can't be trusted with firearms, don't think arming your regular bobby, especially not Commuity Support Offcers is going to lead in a reduction in crime, it's gonna end with a lot of very dead, very dark people.

That's the point, silly. :goodjob:
 
You know, I've not heard of this 'Daily Mail' before but there seems to be some question about their legitimacy...

...very poorly written. I... crappy, one-sided journalism... crazy ...ridiculous...
I thought you hadn't heard of the Daily Mail? you summed it up pretty well...
 
The shopkeeper is a victim of criminal damage, and a witness to assault (on the same person that caused him criminal damage).

Kink is accused of assault, and a witness to criminal damage.

They are both biased.
I meant the people who detained the other guy.
 
....What's a yob?

I thought you hadn't heard of the Daily Mail? you summed it up pretty well...

I know the Daily Mail! I found a copy in a Portuguese airport. I thought it was rude and elitist, and the comics weren't funny. Also, it called the West Island (where I live) a 'backwater' (even though a lot of the houses are huge, and it's mostly anglo suburbs). Horrible newspaper.
 
I meant the people who detained the other guy.
They didn't interview the actual witnesses. They didn't even say if there were any witnesses... Just "a passer-by", who phoned the police while Kink sat on the bloke.

The only two sources in the Daily Mail article are from Kink, and the shopkeeper (who, I've now read, wasn't even there! It was past midnight, so he was at his home).
 
Would you mind posting those links please? I can't seem to find anything :( (not sure what to search for...)

I don't remember the websites, but I did google the guy's name and assault, which pulled up a few sites.

It is apparent to me now that the Daily Mail is a smut paper, along with a host of other major newspapers in England, and stories such as these should be dismissed.
 
I don't remember the websites, but I did google the guy's name and assault, which pulled up a few sites.

It is apparent to me now that the Daily Mail is a smut paper, along with a host of other major newspapers in England, and stories such as these should be dismissed.

Apparently Steve has made an assault complaint against the yob.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/07/07/man-charged-with-assault-for-stopping-vandal-89520-20634696/
"When we got to the station they locked me in a cell." Steve has now made a complaint of grievous bodily harm against the yob.
 
So a yob is an a**hole. What's new? The police is not allowed to investigate a complaint? I think the UK is too light on yobs, but I don't see why this man can't be investigated, especially if it's not all too clear what happened.
 
I am all letting that rape in the alley go uninterupted too! Citizens are just pawns after all, only fit to do operate as the cog they have been told to be.
 
Back
Top Bottom