Homeowner fights off knife-wielding burglars, gets 30 months; burglar spared jail

chrisd · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:14

Yozz76 said:
He felt that his children's lives were under threat. Seriously, how far would you go to protect your kids?

Why, after such an upsetting ordeal, would you leave your wife and kids alone in the house while you run up the road to batter his head in? :confused:

Angilion · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:14

MiNxYyY said:
Jesus some of you people are pathetic. A man protecting his wife and kids from being killed is jailed

That is an untrue statement. Note that I am not accusing you of lying, on the basis that you might believe the untrue statement you've just made.

and a burglar who has had 50 previous convictions still escaped jail? Absolute BS justice system tbf.

In our justice system, a person accused of a crime has a right to plead innocent or guilty to whatever they're accused of.

To do so, they must have enough intelligence to understand the question.

The alleged(*) burglar was so badly brain-damaged by the gang of thugs that he no longer has enough intelligence to understand the question. He is unfit to plead and therefore cannot be tried.

Would you really prefer to strip people of the right to plead?

* Yes, alleged. It is not proven that he was one of the burglars.

rypt · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:16

scorza said:
He beat the living **** out of someone who threatened his wife and kids. Fair play I say.

Indeed, the guy should be lucky he is still alive

Strife212 · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:16

Gackt said:
That said, justice and revenge do not mix. People who think revenge = justice are deluded.

reflux said:
Quite amusing to see the number of people equating revenge with justice in this thread. That's a very primitive point of view.

Ok, great.

So lets hear what justice is then.

Angilion · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:16

Mr Doovde said:
I agree in that he went too far. However, I couldn't guarantee that I wouldn't inflict such injuries if experiencing the same incident.

Neither could I. And if I did, I'd deserve to go to jail.

I understand his actions. I don't approve of them.

V4NT0M · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:17

Rids said:
Its pretty easy to judge the guy from the safety of your own home, knowing that most of you have never been in such an awful situation, and I pray that you never will be. Do I think he took things too far? Without a doubt, but I would also argue that the 'victim' placed himself in this situation by committing the crime in the first place. Had he not been in the house, making vile threats against the mans family then things would not have escalated from there.

So anything is a-ok if someone breaks the law, "oh crap that guy stole a loaf of bread lets torture him and murder him brutally" if he hadn't stole the bread in the first place things wouldn't have escalated that far...

I see what you're saying but there is such a thing as reasonable force, which is always open to at least a little contention, however what those people did was way beyond any semblance of reasonable force, as was the example in my example...

Gall1987 · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:18

Voltar said:
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).

This guy talks sense. I think we all have no sympathy for scumbag 'victim' but he still went too far!

snowdog · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:18

Disco Boy said:
Let's start cutting the hands off thieves

Not a bad idea, would have prevented this:

Salem, who has a string of 50 past convictions

Come on, why isn't he in prison for life. 50 convictions is taking the ****.

Somebody may commit a mistake once, perhaps twice, if he's an idiot 3 times.

But 50 ? He SHOULD have had his hands cut off after about 10-20 times caught stealing.

Fuzz · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:21

L0rdMike said:
should have dumped the body and hopefully he would have gotten away with it.

He should have fed them to his pigs, would have been nothing left to identify

Rids · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:21

Skyfall said:
So anything is a-ok if someone breaks the law, "oh crap that guy stole a loaf of bread lets torture him and murder him brutally" if he hadn't stole the bread in the first place things wouldn't have escalated that far...

I see what you're saying but there is such a thing as reasonable force, which is always open to at least a little contention, however what those people did was way beyond any semblance of reasonable force, as was the example in my example...

I'm not saying that it was ok, I was saying that he took things too far. In the heat of the moment though, with adrenaline pumping... who can say how far we'd go. Does he deserve a jail sentence? I can certain see the argument for one, however if he is getting a prison term, than so should the burglar. Or are we selectively applying justice?

Orcish-Horde · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:22

Salem, who has a string of 50 past convictions, was given a two-year supervision order at a court hearing in September this year. He is currently in custody awaiting trial for an alleged credit card fraud.

This says it all to me really, why was he not locked up for the 50 past convictions? In my mind once you get past 2 or 3 convictions people should be facing long periods in jail, 10 years plus for every conviction after that.

The man who give him a beating may have done wrong in the eyes of the law but that very same system of law has done wrong by him. It didn't protect him or his family.

Guest2 · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:22

If someone broke into my house i would defend myself with a cricket bat and hit them if i thought i was in danger. If someone broke into my house, tied up my family and told me they would get killed i would have no hesitation of attempting to kill them.

Maybe he did go too far but you never know what you would do unless you are put in the same situation. Personally i think i would go crazy and not be thinking straight. Maybe this is what happened in this story. Couldnt he claim this in court?

Strife212 · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:22

Orcish-Horde said:
This says it all to me really, why was he not locked up for the 50 past convictions? In my mind once you get past 2 or 3 convictions people should be facing long periods in jail, 10 years plus for every conviction after that.

The man who give him a beating may have done wrong in the eyes of the law but that very same system of law has done wrong by him. It didn't protect him or his family.

Shhh, our justice system works perfectly.

Rids · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:25

Orcish-Horde said:
The man who give him a beating may have done wrong in the eyes of the law but that very same system of law has done wrong by him. It didn't protect him or his family.

A fantastic point which I agree with whole-heartedly.

Glaucus · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:25

Rids said:
than so should the burglar. Or are we selectively applying justice?

he could not plea due to brain damage, that is why he is not in jail.

V4NT0M · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:26

Orcish-Horde said:
This says it all to me really, why was he not locked up for the 50 past convictions? In my mind once you get past 2 or 3 convictions people should be facing long periods in jail, 10 years plus for every conviction after that.

The man who give him a beating may have done wrong in the eyes of the law but that very same system of law has done wrong by him. It didn't protect him or his family.

I must have missed the part of the article that said he had never been to jail, or what the convictions were for, they could have been for stealing sweets from the corner shop for all I know, surely a danger to everyone's families...

And ok so even if the justice system did fail him the correct course of action is not to beat the living daylights out of someone with bats and poles, one should try and stimulate change in the law.

Raikiri · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:28

Guest2 said:
Maybe he did go too far but you never know what you would do unless you are put in the same situation. Personally i think i would go crazy and not be thinking straight.

Just because you (and possibly I) would react in the same manner doesn't make it right.

Guest2 said:
Maybe this is what happened in this story. Couldnt he claim this in court?

Kind of hard to prove temporary insanity and being angry wouldn't quite cut it.

V4NT0M · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:29

Raikiri said:
Just because you (and possibly I) would react in the same manner doesn't make it right.

I have to agree with that, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't do it but there's no way I could be completely sure, however I would not want to get off scot free with it.

King85 · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:31

Don't we have this same discussion every week?

I can't help but this that any man that didn't do the same when his family had been put in such a position is nothing but a coward using laws and statutes to kid themselves that they aren't.

Angilion · 14 Dec 2009 at 23:31

Freefaller said:
I'd be curious to hear what people's thoughts would be if one of the crooks had been killed within the home putting up a resistance to Mr Hussain defending his wife and kids?

It would depend on the nature of the killing. Some examples:

Mr Hussain had punched the crook in the head and the crook had died as a result of hitting something on the way down. I'd say that was reasonable force under those circumstances.

Mr Hussain had kicked the crook in the balls and he died of shock and pain. I'd say that was reasonable force under those circumstances.

Basically, any single blow that caused death without Mr Hussain having intended to kill and without him having good reason to think the blow would probably be fatal = reasonable force.

If Mr Hussain, under the circumstances you described, made an attack that he had good reason to think would be fatal, it's a greyer area and I'd have to have more details and think about it. If, under those circumstances, Mr Hussain had just a split-second opportunity and no real option to use effective but lesser force, I'd rule reasonable force. If he knowingly chose to kill when he had other options, I wouldn't. Although I would consider it extreme mitigating circumstances and impose a minimum sentence.

Whilst subtly different the act of protecting his family no doubt reigned high in his mind. IT was undoubtedly propagated by his brother's involvement.

This situation is not subtly different.

However bear this in mind... rational and clear cut thinking when under such stress is seldom the case.

The law regarding defence of self and others explicitly allows for that. Rightly so, in my opinion.

I think the retribution was justified, however I think the injuries and the continuation of the beating were excessive - conflicted?

Obviously conflicted, because in the same sentence you say it is justified and excessive. It can't be both, can it?

Possibly - but why should the thief be offered any compassion for threatening the family of someone and furthermore breaking into someone's home is hard to accept.

Since no-one is doing that, what are you talking about?