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

Reminds me of Eddie Izzard talking about being arrested for "assaulting a police officer" while trying to run away. Wish I could find it on Youtube...
 
Well, there's no accounting for idiots, is there.
Click to expand...
I'm not qualified to comment on that not being aware of the facts. In all fairness though I am wondering whether there was any religious motivation for the way in which the attack was handled.
 
This guy was caught 50 plus times, so we can only guess at how many hundreds of times he actually offended, without getting caught.

Where was he hiding his brain to, that it got damaged?
 
rojones said:
[..]
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.
Click to expand...

I live in the UK, where there are sentencing guidelines. False imprisonment, assault and threats to kill, all while armed, means a long jail sentence here. The home office site suggests at least 10 years, possibly much longer.

Where do you live?
 
Werewolf said:
There is a huge amount of leeway for the person claiming self defence (especially in the home), and it takes someone really going overboard for a Jury to convict when charges are bought against the person (the Jury will pretty much default to siding with the defendant in such cases, as they'll normally think about how they themselves might react).
Click to expand...
The leeway given to people defending themselves is definitely enormous. The tabloids cried their eyes out over Tony Martin, ignoring the fact that he was the only person serving a sentence for killing a home intruder at the time of his conviction.

Fact: a jury will not convict you if you don't go ridiculously overboard. Pinning someone to the ground and smashing their skull with a cricket bat is not self-defence. The defendants deserved a prison sentence. Getting four men together and finding weapons for each of them is not something that is done without any thinking.

Suppose they had come charging out of their house and jumped an innocent man wearing a similar jacket as the burglar. Would the fact that the 'adrenaline was pumping' be accepted as a mitigating circumstance? My arse. People prone to extreme violence under stress should learn to control themselves or face the legal consequences.
 
Angilion said:
I live in the UK, where there are sentencing guidelines. False imprisonment, assault and threats to kill, all while armed, means a long jail sentence here. The home office site suggests at least 10 years, possibly much longer.

Where do you live?
Click to expand...

Suggests only for the large part to be precise ;)
 
Werewolf said:
heh?

The Law is the same at all times in regards to self defence or the defence of others, it's always been what a reasonable person might consider reasonable force under the circumstances.
That includes everything from whacking someone once with your fist, to grabbing a knife/bit of wood/harpoon when attacked.

What it's never included is chasing someone down, continuing to hit them once they are down and unconscious, or shooting them in the back as they are fleeing.
There is a huge amount of leeway for the person claiming self defence (especially in the home), and it takes someone really going overboard for a Jury to convict when charges are bought against the person (the Jury will pretty much default to siding with the defendant in such cases, as they'll normally think about how they themselves might react).

Even the police operate under the same basic law when it comes to protecting people (or themselves) from threats.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the commentary of the forum not the judge.
 
The Law is the same at all times in regards to self defence or the defence of others, it's always been what a reasonable person might consider reasonable force under the circumstances.
That includes everything from whacking someone once with your fist, to grabbing a knife/bit of wood/harpoon when attacked.

What it's never included is chasing someone down, continuing to hit them once they are down and unconscious, or shooting them in the back as they are fleeing.
Click to expand...
unless you were a previously outlawed paramilitary group-then you could please yourself.
 
It is all very well saying this is beyond self defence, I also think so. However it is possible to see how someone could go over board after being told by intruders they are going to hurt their family. The rage inside many normal people can turn them into a potential killer.

Having said that... I am glad that one intruder got caught by the father and his brother, and I am glad they bashed his brains in.

Good old justice, a shame that they didn't do the same to the other intruders.
 
Robbie G said:
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.
Click to expand...

It was treated as a very strong mitigating factor - that's why Mr Hussain got such an extremely light sentence for his crime. The maximum sentence for GBH with intent is life, which would be reasonable in such an extreme case. Certainly at least 10 years. Check out the sentencing guidelines for yourself if you like - they're online at http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/
 
He did go to far but owing to the circumstances you can't expect the victim to react as law would dictate; surely this should be taken in to account when situations like these end up in court? I feel thirty months is harsh.
 
arc@css said:
He did go to far but owing to the circumstances you can't expect the victim to react as law would dictate; surely this should be taken in to account when situations like these end up in court? I feel thirty months is harsh.
Click to expand...

The guy had already run away and no longer posed a threat. No threat means no self-defence... uh... defence. They didn't even use that defence, I have been informed, because it was so absolutely not self defence.
 
My 2 cents

yes if these intruders had stayed within the vicinity of his house while threatening to kill his family and pointing guns/knifes at their heads, then maybe if there was a struggle which left the intruder on the floor then fair play, also in an ideal world if you had cctv evidence which would reinforce your case(which would 9/10 never happen unfortunately) rather than it just be word for word!

but chasing down a street and brutally beating them , mmm maybe we would get away with this in a 3rd world country with a corrupt legal system and government but as we live in the uk this is never going to happen, fair enough giving him a clout to slow him down and stop him so the police can detain him and deal with him, but if your going to ( as said before deal your own justice ) execute your own legal system on this individual then you deserved to be punished as it just isnt the way things work whether we like it or not!

maybe i agree with giving him a good seeing over after threating to do serious harm to your family, but at least make sure you do this without anyone knowing about it otherwise you will have to face the consequences no matter how hard you plea, after all who's decision was it at the end of the day was it to put another persons life in danger just for some personal gain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom