A former UFC announcer named Andrew Friedlander recently took local vigilante matters into his own hands over a Lime Bike. He was known for introducing fighters in the Octagon during UFC events in the UK and Europe during the early to mid-2010s. However, to make matters worse, he grabbed a 14-year-old schoolboy by the throat.
The 51-year-old claimed he was acting out of “civic responsibility” when he confronted the teenager outside his £1.6 million East Sheen home. However, the District Judge rejected his defense, stating that Friedlander was simply “irked by perceived disrespect” rather than acting out of genuine fear.
UFC Announcer Turned Street Enforcer After Lime Bike Dispute, Fails to Defend Himself
The actual incident happened last year in November. It began when Friedlander heard “a loud crunching sound” outside his West London property on Hertford Avenue. He went outside to find a Lime Bike had fallen over, blocking the pavement after a schoolboy’s blazer caught the handlebar as he walked past.
Since they were teenagers, Friedlander should behave politely. But instead of moving the bike, Friedlander confronted the group of teenagers. According to the victim’s testimony, Friedlander approached from behind and said, “Who knocked over the Lime Bike? If you don’t pick it up, I’m going to smash your face through this fence and drag you to my door.”
The 14-year-old told the court, “I was nervous and shocked and he counted down from three and when he reached one he grabbed my neck and dragged me to the Lime Bike and made me pick it up. It was seven steps to the Lime Bike. He was ahead of me and pulling me and I was a bit sore afterwards, there were marks and a scratch on my neck.”
There was a second schoolboy witness who confirmed the incident, telling the court Friedlander had threatened to “slam your heads through my front door” before grabbing his friend’s neck.
Friedlander painted a very different picture in his defense. He had claimed “civic responsibility” for the Lime Bike problem on his street. He said he “felt surrounded” by the group of teenagers and feared for his safety.
He insisted he only grabbed “the material on his shirt and blazer” and any contact with the boy’s neck was accidental. But Judge Sushil Kumar wasn’t convinced. “His actions were not in self-defence and parts of his evidence were deliberately untruthful,” the Judge said.
The judge also stated that Friedlander’s claim of acting in fear didn’t match his behavior. He said, “If he was in fear of violence his action of turning his back on the boys and heading home is puzzling… It was not for you to act as the local vigilante to hold them to account… This offence was an aberration and there has been no repeat of this concerning behaviour since.”
Later, Friedlander’s lawyer, Miss McKee, tried to calm the situation by highlighting his previously clean record and describing him as “usually calm and placid.” She also noted that this was his first contact with the criminal justice system. But it was not enough to save Friedlander from getting a penalty.
ALSO READ: Dricus Du Plessis Issues First Statement Since UFC 319 Title Loss to Khamzat Chimaev
Court Delivers Him £4,400 Reality Check
Judge Kumar made clear that vigilante justice comes with serious consequences. He fined Friedlander £2,500 for the assault conviction, emphasizing that “it was not for you to act as the local vigilante to hold them to account.”
The court added £650 in costs to cover the prosecution expenses. This mandatory fee reflects the resources needed to bring the case through the criminal justice system.
The boy’s mother had photographed the scratch on his neck after the incident, providing physical evidence of the assault. So, the teenage victim will receive £250 in compensation for his ordeal.
A £1,000 victim surcharge completed the financial punishment. This statutory fee funds support services for crime victims across the UK. Still, the total fine of £4,400 may seem small for someone living in a £1.6 million home.
ALSO READ: Sean O’Malley Admits Making the Mistake of Emulating Conor McGregor a Bit Too Much
However, Judge Kumar offered a more insightful perspective on the lasting consequences. He said, “The greater punishment will be the loss of your good character. You will not wear that lightly in your business and your travel,”
