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

Tripnologist · 20 Jan 2010 at 14:16

britboy4321 said:
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?

Do you really think stealing a satnav is on par with breaking in to someone's home, tying up his family and threatening to kill them?

While I realise it was wrong that they chased the guy down the street, I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing if I found myself in that situation.

Uther · 20 Jan 2010 at 16:55

The guy just got released!

sanaxe1 · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:01

The thing is i would imagine threatening to kill someone in that situation is just the normal thing you would say. Your trying to scare them and make sure they don't do anything while your robbing them. Your not going to say .. "Stay still or i swear to god i will caus you great bodily harm"!

ac1d1ty · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:05

Im dubious at the whole thing. In some reports it says that they were tied up with their hands behind their backs yet were forced to crawl from room to room?????

Then it says that he threw a table at the offender. With his hands tied?

To be honest, i'm dubious at the whole story. Obviously they were up to no good, but even so, something dosent tick right.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100120/tuk-father-who-attacked-intruder-freed-6323e80.html

EdGey · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:20

he went too far yes.... but to not punish the burglars with the same or a worse sentence is madness.

Glaucus · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:21

EdGey said:
he went too far yes.... but to not punish the burglars is madness.

The two are separate and the burglar was not punished as he was Unable to plead. That is why he was not punished. not due to the circumstances or anything else.

Things change I've changed · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:28

I'm not sure this sends out a good signal to the public tbh, it's pretty much an advocation of vigilantism.

scorza · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:28

AcidHell2 said:
The two are separate and the burglar was not punished as he was Unable to plead. That is why he was not punished. not due to the circumstances or anything else.

Strange how he was unable to plead but not unable to go on and commit further crimes (Source: Lunchtime BBC News).

Glaucus · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:31

scorza said:
Strange how he was unable to plead but not unable to go on and commit further crimes (Source: Lunchtime BBC News).

Hows it strange.

It's not as if they just take their word for it. Medical opinions from both sides.

Dolph · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:35

scorza said:
Strange how he was unable to plead but not unable to go on and commit further crimes (Source: Lunchtime BBC News).

To be able to plead, you have to be able to understand and comprehend the full situation and the consequences of your actions

By contrast, among the many motivations or reasonings for commiting crime, not understanding the consequences of your actions is certainly included.

It is therefore certainly possible to be unfit to plead and to continue to commit crime by dint of exactly the same condition inflicted by Hussain...

Angilion · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:37

scorza said:
Very pleased for Mr Hussein and his family. Obviously his criminal record still stands and his brother is still in prison though I think that the "extreme provocation" that freed Mr Hussein should have also meant that the jury returned a Not Guilty verdict.

I think that the extreme provocation should have meant that he got maybe 5 years instead of life. Trying to beat someone to death as revenge should result in a jail sentence.

Angilion · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:39

Spawn said:
Well if he does have brain damage it hasnt taught him anything because from what i have read, soon as he was out of hospital he was out committing fraud etc...in fact im sure the original article said he was due in court on other charges.

Goes to show that some people even if they are severely beaten still dont learn.

Him being due in court on other charges does not mean the things he was due in court for happened afterwards.

scorza · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:41

Dolph said:
To be able to plead, you have to be able to understand and comprehend the full situation and the consequences of your actions

By contrast, among the many motivations or reasonings for commiting crime, not understanding the consequences of your actions is certainly included.

It is therefore certainly possible to be unfit to plead and to continue to commit crime by dint of exactly the same condition inflicted by Hussain...

So he's free to commit crimes ad infinitum since he can never plead. Yup, sounds like the good ol' British justice system to me.

Angilion · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:43

silane said:
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.

Eyewitness accounts have him stamping on the victim's head as the 4 of them tried to beat the victim to death. So it probably wasn't caused by a fall.

Things change I've changed · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:43

I can't beleive people are defending this guy, do you people actually beleive that he has real brain damage, what concrete sources do we have on this ? because even if that's the case that doesn't necessarily mean you don't know what is right from wrong.

Angilion · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:47

lowrider007 said:
I can't beleive people are defending this guy, do you people actually beleive that he has real brain damage, what concrete sources do we have on this ? because even if that's the case that doesn't necessarily mean you don't know what is right from wrong.

Feel free to point out anyone defending the burglar for committing the crimes he's committed.

Or are you arguing that anyone who commits a crime should be outlawed and fair game for anyone who wants to beat them to death?

Things change I've changed · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:49

Angilion said:
Feel free to point out anyone defending the burglar for committing the crimes he's committed.

Or are you arguing that anyone who commits a crime should be outlawed and fair game for anyone who wants to beat them to death?

Err no, read my other post just a few up, I don't advocate vigilantism, but at the same time I think the burglar should have been punished and I am very dubious as to how severe his so called 'brain Injury' really is and how it impairs his moral and ethical judgement.

Dolph · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:49

scorza said:
So he's free to commit crimes ad infinitum since he can never plead. Yup, sounds like the good ol' British justice system to me.

Thanks to the criminal actions of Hussain, it is likely he will now be in the long term care of our mental health system/NHS.

Perhaps Hussain should be made to provide the money to pay for it?

Alternatively, we could make Hussain responsible for the actions of his creation if you insist that someone needs to be responsible?

We are, after all, discussing more than one criminal in this thread.

Angilion · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:58

lowrider007 said:
Err no, read my other post just a few up, I don't advocate vigilantism, but at the same time I think the burglar should have been punished and I am very dubious as to how severe his so called 'brain Injury' really is and how it impairs his moral and ethical judgement.

I'm more inclined to believe the medical expert who testified than random people on forums who reject the idea because they don't like it.

Another possibility: head injuries often cause memory loss. If he had no memory of the burglary, maybe that would make him unfit to plead. You can't plead guilty or innocent if you have no idea what happened.

Also, I think that the alleged burglar has already been punished far beyond what is reasonable...and he didn't even get a trial. This was a punishment beating and attempted murder, not defence.

scorza · 20 Jan 2010 at 17:58

Dolph said:
Thanks to the criminal actions of Hussain, it is likely he will now be in the long term care of our mental health system/NHS.

Perhaps Hussain should be made to provide the money to pay for it?

Alternatively, we could make Hussain responsible for the actions of his creation if you insist that someone needs to be responsible?

We are, after all, discussing more than one criminal in this thread.

I think most people outside of the legal profession would agree that someone capable of committing an act of fraud is capable of pleading Guilty or Not Guilty.

I think it shows your true colours that you'd advocate persecuting Mr Hussein further by making him pay for the treatment of a probably non-existent brain injury. Do not forget that if matey hadn't carried out a home invasion in the first place then he wouldn't have been struck in the first place.

On the one hand we have Mr Hussein, a respectable businessman who now has a criminal record and has served time in prison, not to mention a brother who is still serving time, also not forgetting a traumatised family. On the other hand we have a career criminal who escaped without charge from a particularly nasty and brutal home invasion burglary, and who now has a carte blanche to continue breaking the law for as long as he sees fit. It's not hard to see who the winner is here, and it ain't Mr Hussein.