Have i said that??..why dont you go back fella and read what i said...i said its a shame that Hussain didnt kill the guy who burgled him and then threatened to kill him...which i meant in jest
.Homeowner fights off knife-wielding burglars, gets 30 months; burglar spared jail
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Have i said that??..why dont you go back fella and read what i said...i said its a shame that Hussain didnt kill the guy who burgled him and then threatened to kill him...which i meant in jest
.Of course it doesnt but the fact that the justice system in this country is nothing more than an arse of itself...i dont blame Hussain for taking the law into his own hands...i would have done the same thing if faced with that terrifying ordeal.
Perhaps its time that these namby pamby judges and the justice system as a whole stop giving criminals their rights and put them away for a long time....no wonder this country is in a mess with criminals getting away scott free.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Wow, really?
Faced with a situation thats just ended with the assailant running away from your property, you would also gather up your brother, a mate, a bunch of weapons and chase him down?
Blimey.
You can not convict someone without proof.
threatening to kill, using violence and tying up is serious and would have almost certainly got and indeterminate sentence. Which usually has a long MINIMUM period and as it says upto proper life.
But because of Munir Hussain actions he could not be charged.
Vigilante justice is not acceptable and has to be punished.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,357
- Location
- The Orion Spur
I wish I could do the right thing in a situation like that but if my family were tied up and threatened in that manner I think I would exact revenge but fully accept the consequences of my actions knowing full well that beating him within inches of his life would ultimately be the wrong course of action.
I think it is right that he was jailed but wrong that the burglar was not, I don't see how getting beaten up allows him a free pass.
I think it is right that he was jailed but wrong that the burglar was not, I don't see how getting beaten up allows him a free pass.
Brain damage meant he could not plead.
If you defended yourself in your home, it is not wrong at all.
What is wrong is getting mates, arming up and chasing them down the street.
After intruding into the home, trying them up and threatening them with death. I can see both views, but I feel 'rage' would take over here personally.
I certainly wouldn't let them hop skip and jump down the street to do it the next day.
Some people are different to others.
It doesn't matter. I know people act differently and I have no idea how I would react. That is not the point though. you can not allow this to happen and the sentence was fare. He got a MASSIVELY reduced sentence compared to what a normal person would get due to mitigating circumstances. But what he did, rage or not. is still wrong and has to be dealt with.
According to the Daily Mail today (it was in the office and I was bored) if the Tories get in power they are going to scrap the "reasonable force" and want to pretty much allow you to do what you want. Great, let's legalise vigilantism 
EDIT:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-escape-prosecution-says-shadow-minister.html
I know it's the Daily Mail, but if it's true...
EDIT:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-escape-prosecution-says-shadow-minister.html
I know it's the Daily Mail, but if it's true...
It does say convictions.
Exactly. The crux of this is really simple - it was understandable, but still illegal.
It's sad how the title of this thread is so deliberately misleading.
yes 50 convictions, then says crimes including. that does not mean that those crimes is what he is convicted of. everyone agrees he should be in prison. But judges have to go by sentencing guidelines and actual convictions. Which he did get jail time for. One being 42 months.
Sorry I am coming to this late but with the asian businessman being jailed, has it not been delt with?
Either which way the businessman guy has my utmost sympathy. Is it clear how he become untied to give chase?
In my eyes, when someone seems to be fruitful in their threats, ie tying up the family etc vocal threats to your life.. whatever becomes of them is as a result of their own actions.
Justice in this country CANNOT be relied upon in any fashion.
Just like if I caught a pedo again (long story, family orrientated), I'd be more inclined to bury him than shop him in.
Do you agree that with that many convictions, he shouldn't have kept being given piffling sentences but should have been jailed for a very long time, if not permanently, because he is clearly never going to change?
I am more scared of murderers than pedos?
I agree with that.
Yes it has, people are saying it is wrong and he should be let off. Which of course is ridiculous.
Yes, as i have said I think we should have an x-strike rule. Regardless of how petty the crime. For every conviction the sentences get exponentially larger and tougher. Prison should be used a lot more in new convictions. I'm sure a 48hour sentence in jail, would put a lot of new offenders off. But it has to be done when they are starting off in crime.
Last edited:
I think his point is that being sexually abused, bad though it is, is not as bad as being murdered and hence the latter is a more serious crime.