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

Apples and oranges I'm afraid.



Why do people think that breaking into people's homes, taking their stuff, falsely imprisoning women and children and threatening them is acceptable behaviour?


At no point has anyone said that it's acceptable, I don't doubt for a minute that all these people think he should have got a decent sentence too.

They don't agree with people taking the law into their own hands and nearly killing someone who was running away.
 
No sympathy for the criminal. People saying that this would lead to this sort of things for stealing etc are just being plain stupid. His family was tied up and he was told he might be killed. He should get some punishment for this but what do you expect.

You cant have a criminal justice system that doesnt punish criminals and expect the victims not to fight back at some point.

As mentioned, very little would have happened to the guy who was beaten if he was just caught. I love reading these people criminal records; some of them make you wonder what you would have to do to actually be taken off the streets.

False imprisonment, assault, threats to kill, all while armed...what kind of fantasy world are you people living in where very little happens to people convicted of those? It's certainly not the UK. Look at the sentencing guidelines for yourself.

A criminal justice system that doesn't punish criminals...where's that? It's also not in the UK. Although the system that many people here are advocating would fit the bill, as it would allow criminals to be judge, jury and executioner and then give them a medal for killing their victims (who obviously wouldn't be able to contradict the criminal's story).
 
Apples and oranges I'm afraid.



Why do people think that breaking into people's homes, taking their stuff, falsely imprisoning women and children and threatening them is acceptable behaviour?

Crime happens, it sucks, but it happens everywhere and it'll never stop, it's not acceptable and that's the whole point, whether it's breaking into somebody's house or nearly killing a man with a myriad of weapons, neither are acceptable. Ever.
 
Apples and oranges I'm afraid.
how it's taking the law into your own hands. You can not take the law into your own hands and neither should you be allowed to.

How about the other two thugs who had nothing to do with it, wouldn't off been seeing red but still joined in with metal bars.

Why do people think that breaking into people's homes, taking their stuff, falsely imprisoning women and children and threatening them is acceptable behaviour?

Who's saying it's acceptable

Which is why I think the law is on the side of the criminal.

Don't be silly you can use pretty much any force you feel is reasonable if you FEEL threatened. How is that on the criminals side. What you can't do is take the law into your own hands which si what this group did. If you allow people to take the law into their own hands you have mayhem and you could do it for any crime at all.
 
Just because someon inflicts a crime on you in NO WAY free's you of guilt from doing another crime. Self defence is one thing, a guy running away is not a threat. Likewise if it were my family I'd be blocking the door, untieing my family, calling the police and an ambulance and getting them safe. Running down the street after one guy while my family are at home, defenseless and possibly in need of medical attention isn't protecting your family.

For those that think its fine, where does it stop, its ok to beat him in the street as he tried to run away, what if they caught up to him at his house, ok to take him prisoner and torture him for the location of the others, for minutes, hours, days, rob his house, kill him, what, where does it stop.

Ignore everything the burglar did, ignore his rights and simply look at what the guy did, he broke the law, if you, I or the burglar beat someone half to death in the street you'd expect to be locked up, almost killing a guy I'm not sure 30 months is even that long. Frankly I'd have given him a longer sentence and the burglar an even longer one. Obviously someone needs to make a call on his mental health but I'd still lock him up in some institution and get the other two in jail aswell. I'd also have locked up the other people who helped beat him to death as there was even less justification for them to do so.

The saving grace for the guy, who I do feel sorry for, is the burglar had such a thick skull, a bat to the head would have killed a lot of people let alone repeated other hits with bats, poles and probably punches and kicks. If he'd died he could, and should have done a very long jail term.
 
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.

Riiight, so a drunk stumbling down the street insulting you and threatening you is akin to breaking into someones house, tying you and your loved ones up and threatening to kill you.

Bear in mind that you are dealing with someone who has shown that they are not very nice by the fact they are in your home with balaclavas on and you are tied up on the floor with a knife waving about.

I think its safe to say I know which situation I would rather find myself in. I have had drunk people screaming that they are going to kill me before but I didnt take it seriously for some reason. I would take those guys in balaclavas seriously though.
 
I think you might be the brain damaged criminal in the story from your posts.... or a troll that was for Scorza not above poster.

A threat of death is a threat of death is it not?
 
Last edited:
Why do people think that breaking into people's homes, taking their stuff, falsely imprisoning women and children and threatening them is acceptable behaviour?

Since these people exist only in your imagination, only you can explain the motives of these fictional characters you have created.
 
The only thing wrong here is the guy who he nearly beat to death wasn't put in jail.

If I ran up jizzed on the queen but she then shot me in the leg with an uzi, she wouldn't go to jail, i would.
 
Which is why I think the law is on the side of the criminal.

Where we differ is that you think two wrongs make a right, I think two wrongs make two wrongs. You're placing too much emphasis on the motive of the crime and it's clouding your view maybe. I can't accept that revenge is ever a good enough reason to give somebody permanent brain damage, if you think differently then we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
how it's taking the law into your own hands. You can not take the law into your own hands and neither should you be allowed to.

He didn't take the law into his own hands, he used reasonable force as the law permits. The only problem is that the legal profession in their ivory towers don't understand what reasonable force really is.
 
Bear in mind that you are dealing with someone who has shown that they are not very nice by the fact they are in your home with balaclavas on and you are tied up on the floor with a knife waving about.

Whys it matter, it is still talking about being threatened and taking the law into your own hands. Therefore the situation could be anything.

He didn't take the law into his own hands, he used reasonable force as the law permits. The only problem is that the legal profession in their ivory towers don't understand what reasonable force really is.

:rolleyes: the law does not permit it at all. In fact it has a zero tolerance for what he did.

It can not be seen as reasonable force, there was ZERO threat and as such no force can be used. You can make a citizens arrest however.
 
fair enough really - it wasn't self defence.

if it had happened in his house then fine, but to chase him down the street and beat him hard enough to give him brain damage? that is too far.
 
Since these people exist only in your imagination, only you can explain the motives of these fictional characters you have created.

Right, so Mr Saleem and his accomplices were all a figment of my imagination now. WTH are you on?
 
Tbh he does deserve the time he got but I just have an issue with our justice system in this country. I am deemed a radical by some but I firmly believe that if you have tough enough sentences you will reduce crime. What this chap did was clearly wrong but I hate the idea of people like that perp getting away with what he did.

I dont think that we have a fair and just system in this country so I maybe dont have as much sympathy when a criminal gets a little street beating.
 
He didn't take the law into his own hands, he used reasonable force as the law permits. The only problem is that the legal profession in their ivory towers don't understand what reasonable force really is.

He didn't - he chased him down the road, with others to help him.

It went from being self defence to revenge once the guy left his house.
 
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?

You can chase someone and strike them if you know they are fleeing after committing a crime. It is not illegal to do so. It is reasonable force in the UK, which has very strong reasonable force laws.

If, for example, I saw someone steal your mobile phone, wallet, handbag or whatever, it would be legal for me to chase them, force them to the ground and punch them in the head. That was the example stated by the home office and the police.

UK law allows for reasonable force in defence of self, others or property, to stop a crime in progress or to restrain a person you have personally witnessed committing a crime. Reasonable force is quite widely defined, essentially being whatever is needed to stop the person and seen in the context of the person using force (i.e. it is not a requirement to logically assess the minimum degree of force needed unless you could reasonably be expected to do so due to training and experience).

UK law is far stronger regarding defence than it is usually made out to be.
 
Back
Top Bottom