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

As mentioned, very little would have happened to the guy who was beaten if he was just caught.

Evidence

Not only did he restrain people, he threatened with a weapon. He would have got a lot of time behind bars.

the law has zero time for vigilante justice as it should do. There is no place for such actions.
 
I think the beating is the worse of the two crimes on paper.

Crimes don't happen on paper, they happen in real life.

Angillion said:
Mr Hussain was not convicted for using reasonable force in self defence.

He did not use reasonable force.

He was not acting in self defence.

So he was not using reasonable force in self defence.

Mr Hussain's conviction is a miscarriage of justice. It's perfectly reasonable to chase after and beat a man who has just broken into your home then falsely imprisoned and assaulted your wife and kids. Only the asses in the legal profession could think otherwise.
 
Mr Hussain's conviction is a miscarriage of justice. It's perfectly reasonable to chase after and beat a man who has just broken into your home then falsely imprisoned and assaulted your wife and kids. Only the asses in the legal profession could think otherwise.

How is that a misscarriage in any way you look at it. You can not have self justice and the law rightly has no time for people who carry out there own justice.
 
Mr Hussain's conviction is a miscarriage of justice. It's perfectly reasonable to chase after and beat a man who has just broken into your home then falsely imprisoned and assaulted your wife and kids. Only the asses in the legal profession could think otherwise.

It's comments like this that makes me think lots who post on here are some sort of Casey Jones wannabes. Are you still living in the wild west?

I don't agree with the criminal escaping a proper sentence to fit his crime btw.
 
Last edited:
or did they omit the part where fogal was tied up with his family and threatened with a knife.

How does that change anything, a crime was committed, lets allow self justice in all cases. That wouldn't work and is a silly idea, I really don't think you understand what you are saying.

There are strong defence laws in our favour. but you can not then go find someone and dish out your own justice. It is totally unacceptable and he got of lightly. There is no place for it in society and neither should there be.
 
Mr Hussain's conviction is a miscarriage of justice. It's perfectly reasonable to chase after and beat a man who has just broken into your home then falsely imprisoned and assaulted your wife and kids. Only the asses in the legal profession could think otherwise.

Wrong on all counts.

It isn't a miscarriage of justice - reasonable force is a foundation of justice.

It wasn't just "chase after and beat" and it wasn't just the husand and father who did it.

Most people, inside and outside of the legal profession, prefer a system of reasonable law to a system of outlawry and deadly blood feuding.
 
How does that change anything, a crime was committed, lets allow self justice in all cases. That wouldn't work and is a silly idea, I really don't think you understand what you are saying.

How does that change anything? Seriously? In law we have something called man slaughter when you are deemed not to have a normal state of mind at the time of killing someone. Your logic seems to say a crime is a crime and the brutality or motivation behind it bears no importance.

Its pretty easy to chase away someone that has nicked your tv. Its not quite so easy to forgive and forget if they have just threatened to kill you and your family.
 
Those two stories bear no parallels at all apart from the fact that both were burglaries, or did they omit the part where fogal was tied up with his family and threatened with a knife.

and the bit where he beat one of them almost to death?
 
It's comments like this that makes me think lots who post on here are some sort of Casey Jones wannabes. Are you still living in the wild west?

I don't agree with the criminal escaping a proper sentence to fit his crime btw.

Which criminal?

The alleged burglar, etc, escaped trial because he was too brain-damaged to plead guilty or innocent. You can't have a trial in those circumstances.

Two of the thugs received very light sentences for GBH with intent, despite the brutality of the assault and the extremely serious injuries inflicted. It could be argued that mitigating circumstances justified the light sentencing, or it could be argued that those weren't proper sentences.

The other thugs did get off completely, presumably because they couldn't be identified well enough.
 
How does that change anything? Seriously? In law we have something called man slaughter when you are deemed not to have a normal state of mind at the time of killing someone. Your logic seems to say a crime is a crime and the brutality or motivation behind it bears no importance.

Its pretty easy to chase away someone that has nicked your tv. Its not quite so easy to forgive and forget if they have just threatened to kill you and your family.

With your logic I can chase down and beat half to death a drunk from last christmas who threatened to kill me and my fiance.
 

I'm glad you agree that Ben Fogle shouldn't face criminal charges for the crime of having his home broken into :rolleyes:

Fogle says he managed to chase them off but according to the article all he did was open the door. IMO he would have been within his rights to give chase and strike out at the guys breaking into his home, but he didn't.
 
Mr Hussain's conviction is a miscarriage of justice. It's perfectly reasonable to chase after and beat a man who has just broken into your home then falsely imprisoned and assaulted your wife and kids. Only the asses in the legal profession could think otherwise.

That a joke?

A man overtook me today and nearly caused me to have an accident, it aggrieved me, can I follow him and give him a smack when he gets out of his car? (smaller scale, same idea)

What happened to the police? Why do people think they have the right to take the law into their own hands and play god?
 
How does that change anything? Seriously? In law we have something called man slaughter when you are deemed not to have a normal state of mind at the time of killing someone. Your logic seems to say a crime is a crime and the brutality or motivation behind it bears no importance.

Its pretty easy to chase away someone that has nicked your tv. Its not quite so easy to forgive and forget if they have just threatened to kill you and your family.

chasing someone down with mates and having the time to find weapons is not comparable to manslaughter. The fact his family was tied up changes little in the fact that he chased someone down with mates and beat him with weapons.
 
I'm glad you agree that Ben Fogle shouldn't face criminal charges for the crime of having his home broken into

Fogle says he managed to chase them off but according to the article all he did was open the door. IMO he would have been within his rights to give chase and strike out at the guys breaking into his home, but he didn't.

You can't chase someone and strike them, once they leave your house you shouldn't touch them. They are no longer endangering you directly if they are running away.

How hard is that to comprehend?
 
A man overtook me today and nearly caused me to have an accident, it aggrieved me, can I follow him and give him a smack when he gets out of his car? (smaller scale, same idea)

Apples and oranges I'm afraid.

What happened to the police? Why do people think they have the right to take the law into their own hands and play god?

Why do people think that breaking into people's homes, taking their stuff, falsely imprisoning women and children and threatening them is acceptable behaviour?
 
I'm glad you agree that Ben Fogle shouldn't face criminal charges for the crime of having his home broken into :rolleyes:

Fogle says he managed to chase them off but according to the article all he did was open the door. IMO he would have been within his rights to give chase and strike out at the guys breaking into his home, but he didn't.

He chased them with his dog. Says so in the article.

Why would he face criminal charges? He didn't beat one of them into brain damage.

Edit:
Oh, and :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom