Badass 12-year-old girl wrestles with iPhone snatcher

The NY Post reports:

A 12-year-old girl in Derby, England, was attacked and robbed of her iPhone 6s, although footage of the incident shows the young woman putting up a pretty good fight.

Police have made an arrest, and the girl’s family has raised over $1,800 through social media to replace the device.

[protected-iframe id=”9f226a043226bdbfb9d2b451e0ff1cdb-17146794-18685410″ info=”//″ width=”590″ height=”332″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””]

Direct link to video here.


MacDailyNews Take: We recommend, when being mugged, just give up the iPhone as you never know to what lengths these criminals will go (think punches, broken bones, knives, and/or guns).

You only get one life. You can always get another iPhone.

Now, for $1,800, she can get an iPhone X 256GB with hundreds to spare for some AirPods, a nice iPhone case, even a HomePod and more!

It’s also good news that they caught this despicable creep who would wrestle with a little girl to steal something out of her grasp.

All’s well that ends well, especially if they throw the book at him!

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Lynn Weiler” for the heads up.]


  1. She wasn’t fighting for the phone. People always talk about the value of the object as if you can just go to a store, buy another one and everything’s fine.

    What she fought against was the traumatic experience of being mugged. It’s a shocking and very emotional event, perhaps one she knows personally. Such sadness and anger and fear is something no law abiding citizen should have to go through. She doesn’t just have her iPhone, she has her dignity and sense of security.

    1. While everyone must make their own decision in this regard, it is not in my nature to just hand something over to a thug. Clearly, it depends on the circumstances. If the thug has a gun or a large knife, then I will choose my life over money or goods. But, if I get jumped like in the video, I am going to do my best to stomp the thugs ass. Self-defense is instinctive and a natural response.

  2. I’d like to know who filmed it. The camera moves, which means it wasn’t a stationary camera. How could someone just stand there filming for a half minute? I would have run down to help her. Very strange…

    1. Most security cameras have a “detection” function which follows subjects if they are in the view filed for more than a few seconds. I doubt anyone was actually filming it.

    2. That’s an interesting approach. I remember seeing once in broad daylight a guy beating up someone in a Santa Claus suit at Christmas time right at a mall entrance. I was too far away to do anything but cars drove by, people watched and did nothing. Mind you he was with a gang but for the most part I think people are not inclined to do anything that would put themselves at risk.

      I’m glad it worked out for her in this case, assault is not a funny thing to do.

    1. The UK, like most countries, has made a deliberate decision to avoid participating in an “arms race” between good guys and bad guys.

      A friend of mine was a Police Constable in Derbyshire, one of the relatively few who was trained and authorized to use a firearm. His gun was in a locked box in the boot of his car. Opening the box required not only a key he carried on his person at all times, but also a radio signal from his sergeant back at the station. The signal was only given if my friend could provide an adequate explanation for why the use or threat of deadly force should be authorized under the particular circumstances.

      It may not be coincidental that the death rate from firearms in the UK is 0.23 per 100,000 population (including 0.02 from homicide and 0.15 from suicide). The rate in the US is 10.54 per 100,000 (3.60 from homicide and 6.30 from suicide).

      1. … it’s better to submit to the criminals. Have fun with those Muslims over there. And over here the most of the killings are black on black, so it’s not really a negative.

      2. Some time ago, I provided statistics on intentional homicides in multiple countries, in total and broken down by type. The U.S. homicide rate involving firearms, alone, is much higher than the total homicide rate in European countries.

        Immediately after the recent school shooting, I told my wife that one of the Republican solutions would be arming people in the high schools. It was not a big stretch, since that follows the same though process that Texas applied to universities a couple of years ago.

        My father owned various firearms, and so have/do other people in the family. I like target shooting on occasion, and I have an engineering and aesthetic appreciation for a firearm as a well-crafted mechanism. I don’t hunt, but I support sustainable and responsible hunting for those that do, as long as the carcass is utilized and not wasted for a “trophy.” So, I am fairly flexible on the subject of firearms.

        What I am not happy about is the total inflexibility of the NRA, its paid political stooges in Congress and state legislatures, and a hide-bound subset of NRA supporters motivated by paranoia and believing that guns are akin to religious relics, sacrosanct and inviolable. There is nothing in the Constitution that elevates the Second Amendment above the others. In truth, if I had to choose the individual rights that are most foundational to any democracy, I would list freedom of speech, freedom of peaceable assembly, and protection from unlawful search and seizure as the key rights. The right to bear arms was clearly drafted with the idea of defense via local militias, since there was no large, standing national army at the time and no means of rapid transportation of military forces. In addition, firearms were in the flintlock stage in that time – a few inaccurate shots per minute for an experienced gunner. Using modern firearms, a person could do serious damage to the Continental Army. Times have changed. Unfortunately, human nature has not.

        Since the SCOTUS has interpreted the Second Amendment in a more individual, personal manner in terms of the right to bear arms, we have to deal with that reality. However, I submit that every right has limits – constraints imposed by the necessity of protecting that right in the context of the larger society, balancing the one or the few versus the many, and the many versus the few or the one. If you want to continue enjoying the right to bear arms with minimal regulation and oversight, then you need to be part of an effective solution, not an obstacle to that solution. If you continue to insist that your right to bear arms is more important that the safety of children, then you are going to lose. Similarly, if you continue to ignore the available data on firearm homicides across the world, block studies of gun violence, and oppose reasonable restrictions on firearm background checks, registration, carrying, and training, then you will lose. If you continue to insist that the only way to improve public safety is more guns, then you will lose.

        Either take responsibility and become part of the solution, or get out of the way and let others with more reason and common sense deal with the mess that you have intentionally and willfully created.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.