That is self defence.
Self defence is not 3 people beating a guy up after a cricket bat has been smashed over his head. the cricket bat itself would almost certainly be self defence and would not be charged. It was eh fact that after that. 3 uys with metal bars beat the **** out of him. More than likely whilst out cold and as such no threat
because of laws to stop vigilant justice which is very important. I have no idea how I would react but seeing red is not an excuse in a court of law.
How one handles a situation has nothing to do with law and punishment.
I don't care much about what the law states, I like to dish out my own revenge if it involves things I care about. However your point is entirely correct in legal aspects, but I really don't give a **** about what the law states if I were in a situation like this. IF I had to do time, I'd be annoyed and disappointed, but I'd be scared that there'd be no one to defend my family should those ****s come back for more - they THREATENED the family, and tied them up - not exactly opportunists were they?
However you are of course correct in your points, but I don't agree with it at all.
He went too far. It was likely the adrenaline, anger or fear that got the best of him and just went mental.
Still, you won't find me shedding any tears over what happened to the thief, he totally got what he deserved...
Agreed.
Then it would be justified in my opinion if it were in his own home: I would be disappointed to see him go to prison for fighting them off to protect his bound family in his own home.
The difference is, for those who don't see it is that he went to get his brother and hunted the offender, hue and cry style, and beat him senseless in public.
I sometimes wonder if people realise that some of the things they advocate are dangerously close to sharia law. Hue and cry type street justice where a robber is chased by literally the whole street and hacked up is what happens in backward islamic countries. And yes, I've lived in an islamic country where this used to take place (my parents had the misfortune of witnessing this kind of barbarism which is condoned in this thread).
I agree - this is why I'm sort of on the fence, straying towards Mr Hussain and back again. It's the bloodlust revenge that seems excessive and somewhat grotesque... however we're not 100% sure of all the facts, and there could well be a lot of media sensationalist skew on the reporting. I don't know.
My rational side says, yes they went too far, it was excessive and really rather animalistic and grotesque. Unfortunately as much as the initial defence was justified they took it too far...
However my irrational and "blood boiling" side, says, **** you you deserved it.
It's a tough moral dilemma. And AH2 points out excellently the reasons why it's wrong from a legal point of view, and you've summed up perfectly what the differences in the scenarios are.
I'm not saying that people who are saying "good on him" are any more wrong or right than those that are legally strong and saying it was unjustified.
Trying to be objective about this would tend to lead me to the "legal" side of the argument, which ultimately is what needs to be to help have order in this world. However, it's very hard to be objective when you have a lack of facts or at least when you know that the crooks aren't exactly smelling of roses either.
Which is worse? The instigator that puts himself in such a situation as to have retribution sought against them, or those who perpetrate the act of revenge in an unbalanced way?
Sure the law paints a clear cut picture - but I personally find it hard to choose.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
This scumbag would have got away with it and then done it again ![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}