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

[Participant]

Let me clarify, you think we should legalise revenge?

Standard; [TW]Fox trying to sum up a very complex situation with a cliché.

I think we should understand the turmoil of emotions going through someone's head in that situation and take account of all factors. That is not the same as legalising revenge. It's what's known (or should be) as a mitigating factor.

It's far too simplistic to label any potential inaction against this man as 'the legalisation of revenge'.

The law focuses (or at least is meant to) on equity and fairness.

Is it fair that a man that has been tied up with his family, convinced that they were going to die, has to live with the knowledge that if he does nothing, the culprits could very feasibly go unpunished?

Is it fair to assert that the resultant anger boiling inside the man, is unreasonable?

Do you honestly believe that the everyman mowing his lawn in his shirt leaves and catching the Clapham omnibus, would be acting unreasonably in punishing someone physically that had threatened his family with death?

Another victory for the crims afaic.

 

[robbiemc]

Your family needs you with them, not bleeding in the gutter/in prison/dead because you thought you were some sort of hard nut and went to teach him a lesson.

Yes.
Although the thief obviously had no intentions of killing the family (otherwise he would've just done so once he had lost control of the situation), however once he was running away he could well have felt threatened enough to use the knife to defend himself against the vengeance gang.
What use would you be to your family then?

By all means tackle and subdue the thief with some force and hopefully the law will finally remove his liberty and freedom, but beating a fleeing man with so much force that he has brain damage is going way too far.

 

[eggyoke]

I would love to know what some of these people on here would honestly think and do if it happened to them, would they still be defending the person who attempted the burglary.

Most of them would be hidden in their loft converted bedrooms, shivering in the corner.

 

[robbiemc]

Standard; [TW]Fox trying to sum up a very complex situation with a cliché.
..
Another victory for the crims afaic.

Rubbish.
If the thief was just about to murder his family then yes, beating him senseless would be justified (you're in a battle to save lives after all). But rounding up a vigilante posse to beat him close to death when he's fleeing the scene certainly can't be.

 

[Dolph]

Who do some posters keep implying that anyone is defending the burglar for objecting to a vigilante smashing someone's head in with a cricket bat and a metal pipe?

The burglar is scum, who should have been imprisoned long ago, but that does not in any way justify the actions of his assailant, and certainly does not qualify it as self defence...

 

[robbiemc]

Originally Posted by rojones View Post
I would love to know what some of these people on here would honestly think and do if it happened to them, would they still be defending the person who attempted the burglary.

No one is defending the criminal here - he's clearly scum, but that doesn't justify the punishment that was meted out against him.

 

[ethan]

defending himself was not the problem. Several people beating him up with metal poles after he's had a cricket bat around the head is not self defence.

No its not but it is not (to be) unexpected either is it?

They generally only burgle because they get away with it or think they can get away with it.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I think we should understand the turmoil of emotions going through someone's head in that situation and take account of all factors. That is not the same as legalising revenge. It's what's known (or should be) as a mitigating factor.

Do you not think thats why he is serving a 30 month sentance and not a 10+ year sentance for attempted murder? Of course they've taken the mitigating circumstances into account. Thats why he was only jailed for 2 and a half years (And will therefore be out in what, 18 months?) for such a brutal attack.

If you went outside now and did exactly the same thing to do a passer buy, you would be jailed for a LOT longer.

The mitigating circumstances have quite clearly been taken into account. Thats why his sentance was so lenient.

Is it fair that a man that has been tied up with his family, convinced that they were going to die, has to live with the knowledge that if he does nothing, the culprits could very feasibly go unpunished?

He has no idea what would happen to the culprits, this is irrelevent. What are you saying? That if we have no faith in the police its fair to dish out our own brand of justice?

Another victory for the crims afaic.

What a strange world you must live in where being beaten by multiple people to within an inch of your life with a variety of weapons can be considered a victory.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Standard; [TW]Fox trying to sum up a very complex situation with a cliché.

I think we should understand the turmoil of emotions going through someone's head in that situation and take account of all factors. That is not the same as legalising revenge. It's what's known (or should be) as a mitigating factor.

And it has been viewed as a mitigating factor, hence the 30 months suggested sentence rather than the more usual 7+ year term that would be expected for an attempted murder. It is also worth noting that the judge has been at distinct pains to emphasise that it wasn't action taken in defending his family that got Mr Hussain in trouble, it was the subsequent beating of Mr Salem that did it when he posed no legitimate threat to anyone.

It's far too simplistic to label any potential inaction against this man as 'the legalisation of revenge'.

The law focuses (or at least is meant to) on equity and fairness.

Is it fair that a man that has been tied up with his family, convinced that they were going to die, has to live with the knowledge that if he does nothing, the culprits could very feasibly go unpunished?

Hmm, it's a very dangerous slope to travel down for all of us if we let acts of retribution be passed off as self-defence. At the point of the attack was Mr Salem in any way a danger to Mr Hussain or his family? If the answer is no (and given he was running away I don't see how it can be otherwise) then Mr Hussain's actions were wrong - understandable on many levels but still ultimately wrong once he proceeded beyond simply stopping Mr Salem escaping and proceeded to mete out his own justice with the help of others.

Is it fair to assert that the resultant anger boiling inside the man, is unreasonable?

Do you honestly believe that the everyman mowing his lawn in his shirt leaves and catching the Clapham omnibus, would be acting unreasonably in punishing someone physically that had threatened his family with death?

Another victory for the crims afaic.

Yes I would believe him to be acting unreasonably because he has stepped outwith the bounds of the law also, we're back at the old "two wrongs not making a right" situation. If you're asking if it is understandable to act as he did then the answer would be yes but the law cannot and should not condone it.

Not for nothing but it would appear that a jury also found Mr Hussain to be acting unreasonably so the legal invention of the hypothetical man on the Clapham omnibus is perfectly well represented.

None of what I've said above should be taken as defending the burglar, nor that I think he deserved to 'get away with it' but purely as a point of principle it must not become accepted that people should conduct their own retribution. Even if I might do the same thing myself I hope I'd have the strength in my own convictions to admit that I would also deserve the punishment coming to me.

Who do some posters keep implying that anyone is defending the burglar for objecting to a vigilante smashing someone's head in with a cricket bat and a metal pipe?

Because it's a perfectly formed strawman?

 

[Radiation]

Shouldn't wrongdoing start and end with whoever did the first wrong?

If it escalates then that can be considered cause and effect, its understandable for anyone to get angry and violent in a situation like this.

 

[Freefaller]

I've no idea how I'd react either, I like to think I'd let them run.

Your family needs you with them, not bleeding in the gutter/in prison/dead because you thought you were some sort of hard nut and went to teach him a lesson.

As I said I've only ever had to step in once, the person no doubt read my eyes/bodylanguage and quickly decided to step away and go.

I'm not trying to be some "hard nut" and I'm not saying these things to come across as "tough" at all. :/ I'm not saying I would do the same, but I know that I blow my top/see red/lose rationality if my family were to be put in danger at absolutely no thought to myself - I have absolutely no fear of what happens to me which is probably the problem.

A lot of people when overwhelmed by fear and anger keep hitting until they are pulled away or exhausted. It's a very natural reaction.

Again, I'm not stating this is what happened in this instance. Besides, Mr Hussain has dealt his punishment, he's doing time, and the mitigating circumstances means he's only doing 30months (which will be much less, and in a low security prison). The crook has brain damage, and has served as a lesson to his "pals" that crimed doesn't pay - and too bloody right.

Serves the crook right. I have no sympathy for him, and think that although excessively heavy handed Mr Hussain will do his time and I have no ill will towards him, and if anything I'd say good on him for standing up to these pathetic little worms of society.

 

[ethan]

Serves the crook right. I have no sympathy for him, and think that although excessively heavy handed Mr Hussain will do his time and I have no ill will towards him, and if anything I'd say good on him for standing up to these pathetic little worms of society.

Too true m8. It ought to be taken into consideration that not everybody who is going to be burgled is a knee slapping Morris Dancer either.

 

[Werewolf]

It's also worth noting, once again it wasn't a Judge who found him guilty.

It was the members of public making up the Jury.
Or to put it another way, people like us, but who have had the full evidence for and against given to them by both the prosecution and the defence.

 

[cheets64]

Walid Salem and Munir Hussain, enough said.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Walid Salem and Munir Hussain, enough said.

Do explain some more.

 

[scorza]

It's also worth noting, once again it wasn't a Judge who found him guilty.

True, but it was a judge who decided that Mr Hussein had to go to prison, or our civilisation would crumble around us.

It was the members of public making up the Jury.
Or to put it another way, people like us, but who have had the full evidence for and against given to them by both the prosecution and the defence.

I know, God help anyone who ever fights back with this lot on the jury.

 

[Robbo]

Walid Salem and Munir Hussain, enough said.

First thing that sprung to mind aswell.

 

[cheets64]

Do explain some more.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I know, God help anyone who ever fights back with this lot on the jury.

Fights back or runs down the road with a gang of mates and some weapons?

 

[Gothic Draconia]

If he comes into my house and i have to stick a Biro in his eye to protect myself then i'm ok with it. However, if i have to chase him half way down the road to do the same damage, it is not self defense.