Hows that?
Homeowner fights off knife-wielding burglars, gets 30 months; burglar spared jail
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
You can get brain damage from falling over and banging your head though. As we were not there we don't know if the bat was just used to beat his body and the damage was from a fall or punch or whatever.
I'd hate to think what a full swing to the head with a cricket bat would do. A fair bit more than brain damage I'd have thought and serious reshaping of the head.
I'm not defending what they did, but I take what is written with a pinch of salt - as far as I can tell there is no mention of a cricket bat to the head.
Last edited:
Indeed.
And was there any mention of the kind of brain damage he was left with? I'm no doctor but brain damage is just a broad term, and varies to anything from memory loss to being left in a wheelchair needing 24/7 care.
Well, at least it's still violent and he has a criminal record, but I think he should have gone to prison.
All of this nonsense about self defence is irrelevant. This was not an act of defence, it was an act of offence, and an extreme one at that. Such an act should never go unpunished, what on earth are we saying about justice if we allow an attack like this to exist without some sort of prison sentence?
All of this nonsense about self defence is irrelevant. This was not an act of defence, it was an act of offence, and an extreme one at that. Such an act should never go unpunished, what on earth are we saying about justice if we allow an attack like this to exist without some sort of prison sentence?
indeed, and they knew it, a defence of self defence was never presented to the court.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Very pleased for Mr Hussein and his family. Obviously his criminal record still stands and his brother is still in prison thoughI think that the "extreme provocation" that freed Mr Hussein should have also meant that the jury returned a Not Guilty verdict.
But he wasn't not guilty. He, along with his brother and two others, did beat the man despite him no longer being a danger so that entirely removes the possibility of his lack of guilt. In fact you couldn't even have the Scottish verdict of Not Proven - there appears to be no dispute whatsoever that he did beat the man so the best he could hope for is a lenient sentence - which is what he got.
You're right we don't know exactly how the man was beaten but I do think it is telling that there was an eyewitness who asked Mr Hussein and the others to stop attacking yet was ignored. However whether the cricket bat itself caused the brain damage or whether it was being kicked/punched seems slightly immaterial when it was seemingly a direct result of the assault - thin skull rule applies here, take your victim as you find them.
How can you say that. Have you even heard what they did.
Arm up and chased him down the street then beat two shades of blue out of him, with witnesses asking him to stop and them carrying on.
It was not self defence, self defence was not even used in court. It was totally unacceptable and he already got a lenient sentence.
As for why his brother got a reduced sentence that is madness, he was not in the house and would not of been enraged to anywhere near the same degree.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
If you steal a satnav from my car when I leave the window open, can I tie you down, extract your fingernails with pliars, break your nose with a brick, pour petrol on you and set you on fire for a while?
After all, think about it, this wouldn't be as bad as being permanently brain damaged ... so surely according to your judicial scale, me doing that would be fine ...
Yes, it's lame. He and his brother went out of the house and committed a dreadful offence by beating a man senseless, leaving him brain damaged. Now they let one of them out, showing him “mercy”. Well they didn’t show mercy to the man they beat. The Appeal Court should have left him in prison alongside his brother to serve his full term.
Mr Hussein and his brother are morally innocent if not technically, as this more sensible sentence for Mr Hussein reflects. I don't know how anyone can argue that the law in this country doesn't benefit the criminal classes when extreme provocation isn't classed as a defence for anything other than murder (presumably if Mr Hussein had killed the burglar he'd be innocent
).Oh and everyone else can spare me their sympathy for the victim here, who is so brain damaged he's still been committing crimes since the incident.
No he isn't.
And no one has sympathy for the victim. Saying that Hussein is a violent criminal does not mean you have sympathy for the victim. the two are not tied together.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,770
- Location
- London
This.
I think it should be perfectly legal to defend your home against intruders, but this clearly crossed the line from defence to revenge.
It's quite frightening that public opinion is starting to overrule the courts of this country. I see the judge was careful not to let it set a legal precedent, but that won't be realised by joe public, so when a similar situation occurs, they'll think it's entirely within their rights to dish out whatever punishment they see fit.
Sod it, I say we get rid of the courts altogether and try cases via public vote on prime time telly, Simon Cowell could host the program, he'd look good in a judge's wig.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2007
- Posts
- 2,408
Only his word on that.
4 I think. 3 of which had nothing to do with the situation. How his brother is not on a much longer sentence I have no idea.
And I fear most people will ignore this point and think they are condoning the actions. he is still a convicted criminal.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 328
- Location
- west midlands
just shows how messed up this goverment is and its pc brigade
