Man jailed under new non-fatal strangulation law

[bitchstewie]

Hadn't heard of this.

Thug who throttled a woman six weeks after meeting her on Tinder becomes one of the first to be jailed under non-fatal strangulation law

I thought that kind of thing would be covered by assault but I didn't realise Common Assault carries a maximum six month sentence.

Maybe there's a question whether specific legislation was needed for strangulation or whether the maximum sentencing allowed for assault was enough.

34 months in jail.

[LosingGrip]

bhstewie said:

Hadn't heard of this.

Thug who throttled a woman six weeks after meeting her on Tinder becomes one of the first to be jailed under non-fatal strangulation law

I thought that kind of thing would be covered by assault but I didn't realise Common Assault carries a maximum six month sentence.

Maybe there's a question whether specific legislation was needed for strangulation or whether the maximum sentencing allowed for assault was enough.

34 months in jail.

It was/is, however it's clearly a lot worse to strangle someone rather than grab their arm.

[BikeBikeBIke]

bhstewie said:

Maybe there's a question whether specific legislation was needed for strangulation or whether the maximum sentencing allowed for assault was enough.

That was my first thought but the link explains exactly why it's useful.

[Greendubber]

LosingGrip said:

bhstewie said:

Hadn't heard of this.

Thug who throttled a woman six weeks after meeting her on Tinder becomes one of the first to be jailed under non-fatal strangulation law

I thought that kind of thing would be covered by assault but I didn't realise Common Assault carries a maximum six month sentence.

Maybe there's a question whether specific legislation was needed for strangulation or whether the maximum sentencing allowed for assault was enough.

34 months in jail.

It was/is, however it's clearly a lot worse to strangle someone rather than grab their arm.

Username checks out

[Bigends]

This new offence was long overdue. Strangulation was generally recorded as Assault - ABH or attempted Murder - a huge gulf between these two offences

[bitchstewie]

So forgive the daft question but at what point does it step out of being "just" common assault?

Just to be clear I've absolutely no issue with the new law or the stronger sentences but I'm genuinely surprised it needed a separate law as it seems if you "break out" individual types of assault you just end up with loads of really specific laws.

[Rivenink]

Bigends said:

This new offence was long overdue. Strangulation was generally recorded as Assault - ABH or attempted Murder - a huge gulf between these two offences

Is this because it would be much more difficult to prove the intent to murder aspect of attempted murder and so some serious cases were being charged with the lesser crime of ABH, despite being extremely severe?

[Bigends]

Rivenink said:

Bigends said:

This new offence was long overdue. Strangulation was generally recorded as Assault - ABH or attempted Murder - a huge gulf between these two offences

Is this because it would be much more difficult to prove the intent to murder aspect of attempted murder and so some serious cases were being charged with the lesser crime of ABH, despite being extremely severe?

Exactly - all down to establishing intent and the severity of the strangulation

[LosingGrip]

bhstewie said:

So forgive the daft question but at what point does it step out of being "just" common assault?

Just to be clear I've absolutely no issue with the new law or the stronger sentences but I'm genuinely surprised it needed a separate law as it seems if you "break out" individual types of assault you just end up with loads of really specific laws.

I have no idea if it is the reason, but I wonder if its to do with domestics.

I can grab my partners arm and thats an assault. I can grab her around the throat/neck and that would be classed as the same, yet clearly grabbing her around the throat is a lot worse than grabbing her arm.

On the domestic risk assessment if someone says that their partner has strangled/choke/suffocated/drowned them it automatically becomes high risk (along with a few other trigger questions), even if the rest (other than the trigger questions) are negative.

[oddman]

LosingGrip said:

I have no idea if it is the reason, but I wonder if its to do with domestics.

I can grab my partners arm and thats an assault. I can grab her around the throat/neck and that would be classed as the same, yet clearly grabbing her around the throat is a lot worse than grabbing her arm.

On the domestic risk assessment if someone says that their partner has strangled/choke/suffocated/drowned them it automatically becomes high risk (along with a few other trigger questions), even if the rest (other than the trigger questions) are negative.

Lawmakers have listened and are taking the sort of approach seen in health prevention.

Strangulation is a very sinister type of assault which is usually associated with severe coercive control or dangerous fetishism and subsequent femicide.

It makes a lot of sense to attach the label and punish these creeps accordingly

Edited by oddman on Thursday 25th August 20:40

[MikeM6]

oddman said:

Lawmakers have listened and are taking the sort of approach seen in health prevention.

Strangulation is a very sinister type of assault which is usually associated with severe coercive control or dangerous fetishism and subsequent femicide.

It makes a lot of sense to attach the label and punish these creeps accordingly

Edited by oddman on Thursday 25th August 20:40

Absolutely, very much agreed.

[Chebble]

oddman said:

LosingGrip said:

I have no idea if it is the reason, but I wonder if its to do with domestics.

I can grab my partners arm and thats an assault. I can grab her around the throat/neck and that would be classed as the same, yet clearly grabbing her around the throat is a lot worse than grabbing her arm.

On the domestic risk assessment if someone says that their partner has strangled/choke/suffocated/drowned them it automatically becomes high risk (along with a few other trigger questions), even if the rest (other than the trigger questions) are negative.

Lawmakers have listened and are taking the sort of approach seen in health prevention.

Strangulation is a very sinister type of assault which is usually associated with severe coercive control or dangerous fetishism and subsequent femicide.

It makes a lot of sense to attach the label and punish these creeps accordingly

Edited by oddman on Thursday 25th August 20:40

Perfectly put. It’s one of the main predictors of domestic homicide and should be taken very seriously.

It takes surprisingly little force to crush someone’s windpipe - even if you have no intent of killing someone, you might just end up doing so.

[Globs]

oddman said:

Strangulation is a very sinister type of assault which is usually associated with severe coercive control or dangerous fetishism and subsequent femicide.

Perhaps that's true, but it also happens in consensual 'play'.

To block someones airway is not such a good idea, but it's rarely fatal because the body has a mass of oxygen in the blood, so it can cause little to no permanent damage.

I suspect the harshness on strangulation however, is due to the OTHER type of 'strangulation', which SHOULD carry a VERY harsh law. Block the arteries on the neck for only a second, and billions of neurons die, causing a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) which can be just as bad as a head injury in an accident.

Even a short second can therefore reduce IQ, cause brain fog etc - all serious conditions.
IMO you should always warn your kids about this, as a LOT of damage can be done very easily.
If you know any girls who like to 'play', please also warn them. Information, can prevent injury.

[oddman]

Globs said:

oddman said:

Strangulation is a very sinister type of assault which is usually associated with severe coercive control or dangerous fetishism and subsequent femicide.

Perhaps that's true, but it also happens in consensual 'play'.

To block someones airway is not such a good idea, but it's rarely fatal because the body has a mass of oxygen in the blood, so it can cause little to no permanent damage.

I suspect the harshness on strangulation however, is due to the OTHER type of 'strangulation', which SHOULD carry a VERY harsh law. Block the arteries on the neck for only a second, and billions of neurons die, causing a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) which can be just as bad as a head injury in an accident.

Even a short second can therefore reduce IQ, cause brain fog etc - all serious conditions.
IMO you should always warn your kids about this, as a LOT of damage can be done very easily.
If you know any girls who like to 'play', please also warn them. Information, can prevent injury.

Expert witness for the defence I see

Shame the victim is not around to confirm whether she consented to the 'play'

[MikeM6]

Globs said:

Perhaps that's true, but it also happens in consensual 'play'.

To block someones airway is not such a good idea, but it's rarely fatal because the body has a mass of oxygen in the blood, so it can cause little to no permanent damage.

I suspect the harshness on strangulation however, is due to the OTHER type of 'strangulation', which SHOULD carry a VERY harsh law. Block the arteries on the neck for only a second, and billions of neurons die, causing a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) which can be just as bad as a head injury in an accident.

Even a short second can therefore reduce IQ, cause brain fog etc - all serious conditions.
IMO you should always warn your kids about this, as a LOT of damage can be done very easily.
If you know any girls who like to 'play', please also warn them. Information, can prevent injury.

I would suggest that the trauma of thinking you are going to be killed by your partner is extraordinarily damaging, especially if you have endured abuse over a period of time.

This is not about play, this is about breaking someone by ensuring they know you have the power to kill them.

[bitchstewie]

LosingGrip said:

I have no idea if it is the reason, but I wonder if its to do with domestics.

I can grab my partners arm and thats an assault. I can grab her around the throat/neck and that would be classed as the same, yet clearly grabbing her around the throat is a lot worse than grabbing her arm.

On the domestic risk assessment if someone says that their partner has strangled/choke/suffocated/drowned them it automatically becomes high risk (along with a few other trigger questions), even if the rest (other than the trigger questions) are negative.

That makes more sense if it's intended use is more in that context than say a street fight (maybe a bad example but you get the point).

[Globs]

oddman said:

Expert witness for the defence I see

I defended nothing, I was referring to common practice in BSDM etc.
People can learn from this, that with or without intent, strangulation is extremely dangerous.

oddman said:

Shame the victim is not around to confirm whether she consented to the 'play'

I'm not referring to this case specifically.

I'm referring to the general perception that strangulation is not much worse than other violence: It is.
Hence the 'brackets'. Duh.

Some people still think strangulation is a game, whereas even with no intent to threaten or harm, it can result is serious brain injury: and has.

Perhaps instead of judging me with your own measure, you could simply read what I wrote next time?

[oddman]

Globs said:

Perhaps instead of judging me with your own measure, you could simply read what I wrote next time?

I did - it's one of the most fatuous things I've read here and that is quite a bar to clear

You quoted my post where I said it was a dangerous fetish and then mansplain why it's a dangerous fetish

Then you go on to say

Globs said:

Even a short second can therefore reduce IQ, cause brain fog etc - all serious conditions.
IMO you should always warn your kids about this, as a LOT of damage can be done very easily.

What do you suggest for fathers of boys?

'Now son, I was going to teach you how to change a wheel this weekend. Change of plan. I'm going to dig out my old anatomy text books and teach you how to safely apply pressure to the neck in a fetish situation'

Or if parents aren't entirely confident with this training is it going to come before or after putting a condom on a banana in PHSE classes?

Globs said:

If you know any girls who like to 'play', please also warn them. Information, can prevent injury.

What information? and what possible relevance does it have to the new law or the conviction linked to?

Consenting adult using safe techniques/words are unlikely to fall foul of the law
Conflating mutual/consenting fetish activity and abusive control is unhelpful and as I can see it only a defence tactic to muddy the waters.

[Globs]

oddman said:

Bla Bla

Clearly you entirely missed the point that I was making.
Never mind, it happens.