The alleged burglar (how are you sure they got the right man?) wasn't jailed because he was too brain-damaged to stand trial. How can a person who doesn't really understand what's going on get a fair trial?
Homeowner fights off knife-wielding burglars, gets 30 months; burglar spared jail
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
The alleged burglar (how are you sure they got the right man?) wasn't jailed because he was too brain-damaged to stand trial. How can a person who doesn't really understand what's going on get a fair trial?
I had already suggested that cultural aspects might have had a bearing-surmising, of-course.
I believe there must have been a time lag in "dishing out" the beating and so it might also be reasonable to assume that the criminals were known to be repeate offenders and their punishments given out accordingly.
If you thought like that you'd never find yourself in a position to defend anybody.
Last edited:
if anyone threatened my daughter or my wife in that way i'd be baying for bloodMr Saleem is the person accused of breaking and entering, false imprisonment and threats to kill.
Mr Hussain is the person convicted of GBH with intent.
Nobody is arguing about the morality of Mr Saleem's actions.
Racist slavery, for example. Or slaughtering Jews. Or, indeed, breaking and entering, false imprisonment and threats to kill. I'm sure that people who do that don't regard it as morally wrong, or don't think about that aspect of it at all.
He got an extremely light sentence considering the guidelines.
Many people are thugs or wannabee thugs with a lust for violence and killing, at least in their fantasies. What varies is the excuses they use to rationalise it.
Many of them don't even know what happened, or care. You've got key details wrong yourself - his family and property were not under threat from someone with a broken skull some distance from his house.
Wouild it be OK for me to kill you because you no doubt have some resources I want? That's a natural thing for an animal to do. We all have violent instincts. That doesn't make it morally right to act on them.
The two are linked, because people are inevitably talking about what they think the law should be in addition to what it is.
Didnt the burglar go on to commit credit card fraud after his beating? If so, he clearly didn't receive a hard enough beating and probably faked his "too brain damaged to stand trial" to excuse himself from being tried for what he did.
Should have been banged up for longer tbh, went way too far!
Also all the people giving it the 'blah blah, if someone threatens my family I'll tear them a new *******' need to grow a brain
By doing that your actually placing yourself and more importantly your family in far MORE danger!
Revenge is a massive motivator for people so you had better hope that the low life thug that you have killed / vegetated is an only child with frail old parents!!
Otherwise you might have big bad bruv / dad coming after you and your family ready to slit your throats!!
Then some other member of your family can take revenge on some uninvolved member of the other family....BLOOD FEUD, BLOOD FEUD!
If it's done properly, descendents generations from now could be killing each other long after everyone has forgotten the original cause. That's what this sort of thing is for - providing an ongoing excuse for brutality to those people who want an excuse for their brutality.
He was facing charges for credit card fraud. That doesn't necessarily mean he committed the fraud afterwards. The fraud could have been committed before, if he did do it. Even if he did it afterwards, that doesn't mean he's mentally competent - any moron can do something they've done before and get caught doing it.
Do you really think people just took his word for the brain damage? Also, do you think that the witnesses were lying and the hospital staff who treated him were lying?
You're looking really desperate to concoct an excuse to self-justify your bloodlust.
Yes.
Until retribution is equal too, or more extreme to the crime commited in the first place there is no deterent what so ever.
The fact that murderers walk our streets and re-offend is clear evidence of this. If someone thinks they kill someone and get out in 10 years that probably wont intrude into the mind of such a person, who if he is considering killing someone in the first place is probably pretty ******** stupid. But if he was going to be strung up dead for doing it? He would bloody well stop and have a second thought.
Until this country is tough on crime and when i say tough I mean TOUGH we will continue the slide toward the disgusting, disjointed and down right horrible little nation that we are in the process of turning into.
I spent some time over in arab countries visiting a friend who works there. He could walk out all day with his front door unlocked and have no worries about theft. Car left unlocked over night? No problem. Ever going to get drunkenly assaulted or murdered? Nope. Not saying their system is perfect but when the law is strict with clearly defined boundaries people listen or suffer the consequences.
We are in such a mess because of mealy mouthed liberals and their twisted belief that there is good in everyone. Trust me, there is not.
In this case he may have went a wee bit far but I have always been in favour of the "outlaw" rule. You act outside of the law so the law does not apply to you. In this case little mister burglar gets his head panned in? Tough luck sunshine...
Then please **** off and go to such a country, where obedience is enforced by brutality and merciless justice.
I am not a big fan of Blighty yet even I can see that in most cases the justice system IS sufficent, and is so without having to resort to draconian measures.
I could reel off plenty of cases where it has not been. No system is perfect. I do not expect perfection from a legal system but what I do expect is justice
Perhaps my own view of justice does not match with your own so we will have to agree to disagree.
This, in spades.
England used to have a "justice" system every bit as savage and brutal as No1newts is so eager for.
Even better - it allowed people to hunt outlaws for sport, murder them, cut the heads off the corpses and claim a bounty for each one from the local authorities. You could get your bloodlust satisfied and get paid for it - brilliant! Nowadays it could be televised on pay per view too, so all the people at home eager for suffering and death can get vicarious thrills, maybe **** over it in the comfort of their own homes.
Of course, it stopped all crime in the past because, as everyone knows, the more brutal the sentencing is, the less crime there is.
Oh, wait. It didn't. Because that "fact" is a steaming blivet. Crime was at insane rates, especially serious crime. May as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.
What you expect is enough vengeance to satisfy you. That's not necessarily the same thing.
I do have a passing interest on where you draw a line, if you draw a line at all.
It is illegal to block a public pavement.
Imagine you are standing on a public pavement, talking with someone who you happened to have come across while walking along the pavement. Between you, you're blocking the pavement. Maybe it's a narrow pavement, maybe you each have a wide pushchair, whatever. The point is that you're blocking the pavement, so you are breaking the law.
In post 448, you stated:
So, according to you, in this hypothetical situation you and the person you're talking with are now outlaws. No need for a trial or anything like that - anyone who can see you can declare you outlaw immediately.
So, according to you, if I was walking down that street I should be legally entitled to kill you both if I wanted to, because you're outlaws. The law doesn't apply to you, so anyone can freely kill you just to sate their own bloodlust.
Should I be paid a bounty for killing the outlaws?
Very humerous in places. I enjoyed reading that
To which part of the past are you referring as I am sure you'll appreciate there can be very many different reasons as to why people commit horrible crimes: especially if you are living in Victorian Britain and unable to feed even yourself (let alone your family).Edit: Incidently that to which you refer could replace fox-hunting
Why are you always saying "alleged burglar"? Are AS pendantic about the likes of Harold Shipman and Fred West?
Very humerous in places. I enjoyed reading that
Edit: Incidently that to which you refer could replace fox-hunting
I'm going back further. 12th century, that sort of time period. Torture was still considered a reasonable means of determining guilt or innocence (trial by ordeal e.g. plunge your arm into boiling water - if you're burnt, you're guilty), let alone for obtaining a confession and hanging was the usual punishment for pretty much everything. 12p was the cutoff point for theft - convicted of stealing 12p or more and you hanged. 12p was about a week's pay for a typical worker in those days, so maybe £250 would be about the same nowadays. Steal a PS3, get hanged. Towns often had two hanging days a week. Between towns, well, good luck. Lots of outlaws, because many people accused of a crime either escaped from jail [EDIT: before trial] (a small bribe would usually do) or sought sanctuary, abjured the realm and then ran into the forest as soon as they were out of sight.
Last edited:
Was the guy charged with burglary? Was he convicted of burglary?
No, I just have this extremely weird approval of the idea of people being presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Odd habit of mine, I know.
Were Harold Shipman and Fred West ever convicted of murder? Agillion seems to be using the extremely pendantic factette that this Salem bloke has never actually been found guilty of the crime of burgling Hussain just to add weight to his polarised view. Given the description of events this is clearly trying to use a technicality to add unecessary weight to his point.
Extermely odd, if you apply this to the two mass murderers I mentioned above.