Sorry i was not fully aware of how the law works regarding this, but in this case it was not a legal option once they had left his house to chase them and attack them, or was it just the force of the attack?
Homeowner fights off knife-wielding burglars, gets 30 months; burglar spared jail
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Sorry i was not fully aware of how the law works regarding this, but in this case it was not a legal option once they had left his house to chase them and attack them, or was it just the force of the attack?
I very much doubt that unless he started resisting. You can't just punch them for no reason. Unless you have a link.
i) He did not use reasonable force as the law permits.
ii) Just a few posts ago, you said that the law favours the criminal because people are not allowed to use a far, far lesser degree of force than Mr Hussain used. So you're contradicting yourself as well as being wrong about the law (both times).
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/homesecurity/homesecurity01.htm
I've also seen a more explicit statement from someone speaking for the police, in which they stated a blow to the head, rather than simply a blow.
MAYBE reasonable. You can't just attack them. If they try resisting then you can start using more force
So...in the middle of talking about all the people who think Mr Hussain used excessive force, you suddenly and without any indication switched to referring only to Mr Saleem and his accomplices when you wrote 'people'.
Just the force of the attack, which was far beyond reasonable force.
Had they chased him down, forced him to the ground and forcibly restrained him, including punching him if necessary, they would have been fine. They could probably have got away with a bit more force than that, given the extremely provoking circumstances. I doubt if a jury would have convicted them for a couple of punches and a knee in the balls, for example. In fact, I doubt if that would have reached a jury.
PROBABLY reasonable. You can usually just tackle them and hit them once, as that is usually deemed reasonable force according to the home office.
Probably is pretty much the same as maybe. It is not good advice stating you can give them one blow to the head.
That depends how hard you hit them and where, a blow to the head knocking them out will probably land you in hot water. A blow to the Torso leaving no marks would be fine.
Which would be fine, were he in the house and a threat. Not when his running away and could simply be restrained until the police come.
And, before you even start what you or I would do in the same situation is completely ****ing irrelevant. Just because you would do the same doesn't make something any more right.
FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Possibly I'd do the exact same, I couldn't say. But I would still be breaking the law. They were both wrong, they both deserve to be in jail.
Had he not reacted like that he would be free, with his family and the other would be in a state to be tried.
If it were me, my utmost priority would be to keep my family safe. If that was ensured, i would then do everything in my power to restrain the person, or one of the persons, involved... although i would abandon this if i were in doubt of my family's safety (through injury or similar).
If, however, one of my family was killed, I don't know what i would do. I don't think i ever will, unless it were to happen. Let's hope not.
If, however, one of my family was killed, I don't know what i would do. I don't think i ever will, unless it were to happen. Let's hope not.
I know what would have been crossing my mind. If i let these guys run away after what they have done, they might be thinking we will come back sometime in the near future and do the job properly this time.
Imo as has been said already, once you cross the line in terms of breaking in to someone's house etc, you are breaking the law and imo the law is wrong to protect you. guy got what was coming to him and im not sorry for him one little bit.
Probably is quite different to maybe. If I toss a coin, maybe it will land on its edge, but probably it will land on one side.
A blow sufficient to stop them, but not more than that, should be fine. I think the "probably" is to allow for cases where a blow would be deemed excessive because they are already stopped (e.g. they're dazed from being tackled or they were injured when you tackled them).
I think we need expert legal advice to clarify what the home office means, as we're interpreting it quite differently. Is there a lawyer in the house?
You are very wrong, someone broke intomy house 10 years ago, if I suddenly found out their identity does that mean I can go hunt them down. Of course not.
the law does not allow you to hand out justice for a very good reason, that law is not wrong.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
He went and got his brother and somebody else, tooled up with weapons, chased the man down and beat him half to death. How can anyone say this is purely reasonable force for 'self defence'?
It was revenge - pure and simple.
Its being explained on Radio 2 now.
They apprehended the man, and then brutally beat him. They stamped on his head, beat him with bats and a witness heard them saying they were going to kill him.
How can you sit there and type OMG IT WAS SELF DEFENCE?!
It was revenge - pure and simple.
Its being explained on Radio 2 now.
They apprehended the man, and then brutally beat him. They stamped on his head, beat him with bats and a witness heard them saying they were going to kill him.
How can you sit there and type OMG IT WAS SELF DEFENCE?!
Last edited:
Have to agree, if the man ran out of my house my absolute first priority would be to collect my family, get them all together and re-assure them that they were all safe. The thought of leaving them to nearly kill a man at a time like that is absolutely unthinkable to me, to the extent where I just don't get it. The most important thing is my family, not exacting some brutal revenge.
Would you further endanger your life chasing after them though, they had knives, I don't know as it doesn't say but I assume they still had them when they ran off. Would it be worth risking getting stabbed ?
Id just be happy they had left my family alone and would stay with them as they would clearly be in complete shock and hysterics. Leave the Police to do the chasing.
[TW]Fox;15529422 said:
The usual argument seems to be that alleged criminals should be outlawed without trial by their accuser, therefore any degree of force is reasonable.
The old English form of outlawry included a bounty paid for the heads of outlaws. Quite a substantial bounty, somewhere in the region of a month's pay for an average worker. I'm surprised no-one in this thread has advocated restoring that "justice" too.
No, it isn't. Not in this or any other civilised country. The fact that you think it is acceptable is somewhat scary, and far more akin to the sort of behaviour expected in third world backwaters or strongly muslim cultured countries.
Do you really want the UK to have a justice system like that?
It was not self defence or reasonable by any definition of the terms, it was an unreasonable revenge attack, and has been punished accordingly.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;15529422 said:
He made a few mistakes didnt he.
(a) Witnesses
(b) Should have had a nice new patio suddenly apear over night.
But i guess its hard to think straight when you and your family have been tied up and threatend at knifepoint.
The problem with the Law is that if he had just been caught he probably would have served some BS sentence and been out on the streets in no time doing the same thing.