One-Legged Veteran Saves Mother and Baby From Thugs — And Is Promptly Arrested by Police

Stephen Beerling, a one-legged Navy veteran, could have been excused for not intervening when he heard a mother with a baby being harassed by thugs in England. Instead, he grabbed a rusty retractable truncheon that had long been in one of his drawers. After rescuing the mother and baby, he was charged with use of an “offensive weapon”– as opposed to those non-offensive weapons that one might bring to an assault and battery.

Beerling, 52, dialled 999 before running to the aid of the mother and baby. He was thrown in jail for 12 hours and criminally charged for his act.

After the public outcry, prosecutors finally agreed to drop the charge. Kent Police and Senior Crown Prosecutor Janet Garnon-Williams said in a statement: “A decision has been taken jointly to discontinue the case as there is not a realistic prospect of conviction.”

As for one of those men threatening a mother and child, he was charged with possession of cannabis and fined £100 by Maidstone magistrates.

For the full story, click here.

17 thoughts on “One-Legged Veteran Saves Mother and Baby From Thugs — And Is Promptly Arrested by Police”

  1. Mespo,

    Four in the morning is the best time for working; it’s when all the distractions are sleeping.

    Speaking of distractions, I have to be in [The Zoo] at 2pm tomorrow; courtesy of the previous attorney’s “work product.”

    Imagine picking up the ball from a previous attorney who failed three times to intervene as of right in a foreclosure action filed against client’s co-tenant-in-common by naming the previous title holder as a co-plaintiff….

    Take a minute…

    Do you see the problem; I ask only because it’s so idiotic it’s almost transparent. Do you see it? [CURRENT] holder of an interest in real property forms the basis for intervention… so… previous title holder… is a co-plaintiff … how???

    Reverend Cleophus James: DO YOU SEE THE [ZOO]?

    Jake: THE [‘V’]!

    Reverend Cleophus James: DO YOU SEE THE [ZOO]?

    Elwood: What [zoo]?

    Reverend Cleophus James: HAVE YOU SEEEEN THE [ZOO]?

    Jake: YES! YES! JESUS H. TAP-DANCING CHRIST… I HAVE SEEN THE [ZOO]!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0uO5RKI-S8

    Regards,

    Bob

  2. russ, check out the Senate Intel Committee’s Phase II report, then retreat in shame knowing that you’ve actively defended liars whose deception killed Americans by the thousands and Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands.

    Schmuck.

  3. Russ: “The Iraq facts were fairly presented to us; the world saw the danger Saddam was and our President acted.”

    Actually Russ, Bugliosi is as serious as cancer; and your pal Bush is terminal.

    Let me explain.

    While you assert that Bush didn’t “[neglect or shortchange his obligations to the Constitution],” i.e. implying, and begging the question, that the issue is merely contractual in nature, responses such as Mespo’s, i.e. about the importance of Article VI fealty, merely re-affirms your contractual defense.

    But you see Russ, Bugliosi isn’t charging Bush with anything resembling a breach of duty or breach of contract; Bugliosi asserts that Bush DEFRAUDED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE INTO EARLY GRAVES. And unlike you, Bugliosi backs up his claims with facts & evidence; thereby forming something called ‘an argument.’

    You see Russ, Bugliosi has an immense burden of production and persuasion to meet. Fraud is an incredibly hard case to make; especially the gross & wanton variety aimed at the general public; and even more so the variety that results in death. Thus, while you and those like you, i.e. habitually denying that Bush is even capable of committing FRAUD by minimizing his actions down to mere possible breaches of contractual duty, Bugliosi will have to SPECIFICALLY set forth how Bush’s actions and intent exceed anything resembling a breach of contract.

    To wit:

    “Cause of action … for fraud is not made out when only fraud charged relates to breach of contract, and addition of allegation of scienter will not transform breach of contract action into one … for fraud.” Kotick v Desai (1986, 2d Dept) 123 App Div 2d 744, 507 NYS2d 217.

    As you can probably see by now, Bugliosi’s claims of Bush DEFRAUDING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE INTO EARLY GRAVES necessitates a reliance upon a veritable orgy of SPECIFIC evidence in support thereof. And while you whine on about Bush and his alleged breaches of contractual duty amounting to nothing more than ‘impeachment by popular demand’, folks like Bugliosi, accusing Bush of defrauding the country into war and thousands of people into early graves, are necessarily making the case that Bush obstructed “the exercise of [the] legitimate authority of the government in its sovereign capacity.”

    You know what that means; don’t you Russ?

    Hon. Joseph Story: “A conspiracy to levy war, and an actual levy of war are distinct offences. To constitute an actual levy of war, there must be an assembly of persons, met for the treasonable purpose, and some overt act done, or some attempt made by them with force to execute, or towards executing, that purpose. There must be a present intention to proceed in the execution of the treasonable purpose by force.

    The assembly must now be in a condition to use force, and must intend to use it, if necessary, to further, or to aid, or to accomplish the treasonable design. If the assembly is arrayed in a military manner, — if they are armed and march in a military form, for the express purpose of overawing or intimidating the public, — and thus they attempt to carry into effect the treasonable design, — that will, of itself, amount to a levy of war, although no actual blow has been struck, or engagement has taken place.

    This is a clear case; but it is by no means the only case (for many others might be stated), in which there may be an actual overt act of levying war. I wish to state this only as one case, upon which no doubt whatsoever can be entertained. In respect to the treasonable design, it is not necessary, that it should be a direct and positive intention entirely to subvert or overthrow the government. It will be equally treason, if the intention is by force to prevent the execution of any one or more general and public laws of the government, or to resist the exercise of any legitimate authority of the government in its sovereign capacity.”

    Russ: “So please, you, the Cindy Sheehans, and the rest of the looney left, lay off my SON’S COMMANDER IN CHIEF! Your incessant whining is getting sickening.”

    BTW Russ, what’s the penalty for treason and murder; felony or otherwise?

    Death?

    It’s death; isn’t it?

    Whatever would you do Russ; if Bush was convicted of murder and sentenced to death? I can almost hear you now; whining on about how Bush “doesn’t deserve this … to die like this.” That he was … oh, I don’t know, ‘doing a whole host of things (pretending to be a normal human being).’ And I’d bet you’d cry like a bleeding heart liberal; wouldn’t you Russ?

    But you know what Russ, when it comes to murder, the law turns a deaf ear to whining or appeals to pity and emotion.

    After all…

    “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” — Immanuel Kant

    In other words…

    “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.” — William Munny

    Isn’t that cozy?

  4. Russ,
    Since I have time tonight and Mom and Dad are asleep, I can use their computer upstairs to respond to your nonsense. Mespo was spot on when he spoke of the promise that George W. Bush made to the American public on two occasions. He has unfortunately violated that promise on many occasions. He violated his promise to us when he spied on us and did not get a warrant as required by law. He violated his promise to us when he lied about the reasons he had to attack Iraq. He lied to us when he said he wanted Bin Laden, “Dead or Alive”. Then he went out and forgot about al-Qaeda and started planning for the attack on a country that did not attack us. By the way, I almost forgot an important promise that he broke. You had claimed that the President’s number one responsibility was to protect the American public from danger. Fortunately, brother Mespo corrected you on your misunderstanding. I do believe that the President also is required to protect the American public from enemies, but I think you must have forgotten who was the President when we were attacked on 9/11. That’s right, it was George W. Bush. Even under your misunderstanding of his oath of office he broke that promise too.
    Now, I would like to continue our little discussion, but I think I hear Mom and Dad so I have to stop and get back downstairs to the basement before they find out I have been using their computer. By the way, Cindy Sheehan is coming over in the morning to practice her whining so I will need my sleep. Good night and Peace.

  5. russ:

    Invective is what the inferior mind uses to respond to the superior one. Nobody on this blog lives in their Mom’s basement, and most can respond to a challenge of their arguments without getting personal. Apparently that is a problem for you so why not take your half-baked ideas to a “better” blog like the one run by the RNC to feed red meat to their bleating minions.

  6. Greg:

    I have seen Professor Turley call the actions of Bush et als “war crimes” several times on Olbermann. What more do you think he should do?

  7. russ:

    “The OATH President Bush took is very clear and looked at from Bush’s viewpoint, he was doing only what his oath of office required. Of all the responsibilities imposed on a president, none exceeds the obligation to protect the American people.”
    ***********************

    Now I see your problem. You’ve been laboring under a neo-con delusion. Apparently you have no resource available that provides you the text of our Constitution. In fact, it lays out the exact oath, that the world’s most profound group of political scientists carefully crafted. It says verbatim:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    The sacred oath is to protect the Constitution. It is the Constitution that protects the American people, not the abilities (or disabilities) of some elected man or woman.

    Most disturbing about people like you is the utter ignorance of America, her founding principles, and her traditions, to say nothing of the monumental work of the founders like Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Mason, and on and on. It’s like you’re commenting on the political system of France or India, or some other place you vaguely know about but have never visited or studied. Maybe this will explain our contempt for your opinions.

    And by the way, Cindy Sheehan is precisely the kind of American
    our founders envisioned. Maybe the words of another Republican President, whose intellect was a full order of magnitude greater than the mental midget who now holds the lease at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, will strike a chord with you.

    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    –Theodore Roosevelt
    Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918

    Ironic that your kids are fighting for Cindy Sheehan’s right to whine, even as you denounce her, and not your hero worship of some man on horseback.

  8. to: Gregg in Danville:

    The Iraq facts were fairly presented to us; the world saw the danger Saddam was and our President acted.

    Now you choose to complain.

    The OATH President Bush took is very clear and looked at from Bush’s viewpoint, he was doing only what his oath of office required. Of all the responsibilities imposed on a president, none exceeds the obligation to protect the American people. Indeed, any president found to have neglected or shortchanged that obligation would expose himself to impeachment — by popular demand. Bush did what he thought he had to do.

    So please, you, the Cindy Sheehans, and the rest of the looney left, lay off my SON’S COMMANDER IN CHIEF! Your incessant whining is getting sickening.

  9. Mespo,

    You have a fine sense of humor!

    Rafflaw,

    That was a nice thing you said.

    I just saw this film and think many people here would like it as well: Bigger, Stronger, Faster by Christopher Bell. It’s profound, interesting and very funny.

    I wish a good day to all, even if you have a crappy father (just don’t be one!).

    Jill

  10. Rafflaw:

    Thanks to you as well. Like Professor Turley I had a fine day too. I got my deck stained, my yard mowed, and enjoyed watching a 7 on 7 football game with one of mine under center. I must concede the problems multiply exponentially when they hit the teenage/young adult years, but, as you can see, the benefits upgrade too. Best wishes on your day.

  11. Thank you Rafflaw. I have had a great father’s day with breakfast in bed (prepared by four kids under 10), followed by unlimited sudoku and other dad-pleasing activities! We even put up a bird feeder and had instant success.

    I must say that I have been thinking a lot about Tim Russert, since he was such an committed father. I am glad that he was able to enjoy his son’s graduation and a trip to Europe, however, with his son and wife.

    As for my part, I tell my kids that Father’s Day is internationally recognized as the greatest day of the year. They pretend to believe that . . . once a year.

    Best wishes for all of the Dads on the blog.

  12. russ:

    For once we agree on something–though only the observation not the implication. Russert, by all accounts, was a fine man and a respected journalist. His passing is lamentable, but this hero worship is unbecoming, and likely would not have been welcome by this man who appeared to be unaffected by the glitz around him. Times like these where the glamorous people venture forth from their silken lairs to honor one of their own, remind me of Churchill’s retort when asked why he was never awed by the admittedly titanic figures of his day. Churchill quipped, “glamorous people are the glittering scum on the great river of production.” Russert, with his frumpy clothing, kind demeanor, and fearlessness in the face of power, does not appear to me to be a “glamorous person,” but many (not all) of his eulogizers seem to like the title. It seems to me homage enough that Russert was a fine son, husband, and father; did his job well and to the best of his ability; and stood firm for what he believed while in the breach. Who could ask for more of any man?

    Happy Father’s Day to you and all of our fathers whether with us or not.

  13. Did GOD die Friday?

    It has been almost a 72 hour Russert Marathon on MSNBC now.

    Just a few minutes ago Brokaw said GOD (I think he means Russert) could have been POPE, he could have been PRESIDENT, almost anything he wanted because he was ambitious.

    This is starting to get pretty thick, to the point of there must be an MSNBC agenda which is cancelling the continually poorly rated Meet The Press because it is impossible to replace Tim?

    I think that is the agenda; framing this loss of Russert so SNBC has an out on the Meet The Press and ending the losses.

Comments are closed.