What is wrong with this judges ruling ...

colintrav

http://www.lite-news.com/uk-man-who-hit-thug-jailed/


I often wonder how such people become judges yet are blind to see the facts

BorisSpencer

When Salem realised the alarm had been raised, he and his two accomplices fled but he was chased by the two Hussain brothers and apprehended in a nearby front garden.

Witnesses said the brothers and two other men beat the burglar while he lay on the ground using weapons including a cricket bat, a pole and a hockey stick.

Salem was left with a fractured skull and brain damage following the “sustained” attack and hospitalised for two weeks.

He was medically unable to enter a plea to the charge of false imprisonment and was handed a two year supervision order for the offence.

Maybe you should read more than the headlnes.

cat_with_no_tail

Oh joy, Daily mail colintrav is back again to regail us with another uplifting tale.

Seems like quite a reasonable sentence to me. They chased this man down and then 4 of them set about him with a cricket bat, hockey stick and pole. Not only that, but they then tried to pass it off on a "group of youths".

I quite agree that judges cannot be seen to be going easy on this kind of revenge attack.

I'm not saying that I'd not do the same thing if someone threatened to kill my family, but I'd make bIoody sure I didnt get caught doing it.

bails87

From the judge:

if people were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender, rather than letting the criminal justice system take its course, then our system would collapse

The problem is that the burglar wasn't locked up. If you've restrained an intruder then call the police, don't drag him off somewhere else, beat him so hard that the cricket bat you're using breaks into 3 peices and leave him with brain damage. Thats assault, not self defence.

Kiblams

bails87 wrote:

Thats assault, not self defence.

Very true, defending yourself or chasing someone from your property with a bat (or other hard implement) is one thing, but knocking them to the floor and then giving them brain damage is something altogether different. :shock:

Tel39

Should be given a medal not put in prison. Although at least the low life scum who burgled him won't be able to do it again anytime soon. I imagine the people in that area are quite relieved about that.

Surf-Matt

If someone burgled my house and tied up my family then the tables turned, I'd be pretty keen to make sure they didn't ever do it again. I think this ruling sucks big time.

cat_with_no_tail

Tel39 You seem to miss the point a little. Had the judge let this guy off the hook, it would be a legal greenlight for every retard with a grudge to go smash the living plss out of anyone who had ever wronged them with the legal defence of "well your honour, he started it, but I had the bigger cricket bat".

It's not like he did this defending his home or his family, the burgalar had left and was running away. Him and 3 of his mates all got tooled up and hunted him down then beat him to the point where he had brain damage. That's what the judge seems to have taken exception to in this case.

IMO, he's lucky to get away with 30 months, it easily could have been attempted murder.

bails87

Surf-Matt wrote:

If someone burgled my house and tied up my family then the tables turned, I'd be pretty keen to make sure they didn't ever do it again. I think this ruling sucks big time.

Which is exactly why victims of crime should have no say on punishments. (Not picking on you Matt, I know others have said the same thing). There's too much emotion, if someone stole my bike I'd want to do something horrible and disproportionate back to them, doesn't make it right or 'just'.

Surf-Matt

A line is crossed when someone breaks into your house. Another one is crossed when your family are put in grave danger.

Whatever the law says, if someone is prepared to intrude and endanger a family, I think it's within the rights of any "head of the house" or able bodied person to do whatever it takes to protect their family.

What was he supposed to do? Tell the intruders off then wait until they tried again?

This defense of criminals is utterly sick and the reason kids and teens run riot - they are above the law it seems and get away with anything.

bails87

Have you read the story? He didn't just crack the guy over the head to incapacitate him. The burglar was chased and hunted down, when they found him they took him off and beat him with bats, poles etc. It doesn't say if they called the police/ambulance or if someone called them to report a guy being beaten, so not sure what happened there.

If the burglar had been smacked on the head, and ended up brain damaged while he was still in the house, then I wouldn't have a problem with it, because there's nothing wrong with self-defence.

I'm not saying the guy didn't deserve a good kicking, but this was a planned attack with weapons, at the end of the day, that's illegal!

The burglar sounds like a right scumbag and should be in jail though. Maybe if he wasn't so unwell from the beating he would be.......ironic eh!

Edit: I've just realised, you're the one defending a criminal, I'm condemning two of them

rubins4

bails87 wrote:

Surf-Matt wrote:

If someone burgled my house and tied up my family then the tables turned, I'd be pretty keen to make sure they didn't ever do it again. I think this ruling sucks big time.

Which is exactly why victims of crime should have no say on punishments. (Not picking on you Matt, I know others have said the same thing). There's too much emotion, if someone stole my bike I'd want to do something horrible and disproportionate back to them, doesn't make it right or 'just'.

Is it right or just that the home owner is in prison, whether the burglar is unwell or not??

The moment you trespass onto someones property, I see no reason why the law or the property owner should take any pity on you, WITHIN REASON. If the intruder (lets not forget there were 3 of them) had been caught in the middle of a burglary and had just legged it, then giving chase and beating them may be over the top, but lets not forget, they were held hostage and threatened with murder!

And as for the 'hunting down', you make it sound like a plan was formulated, flaming torches and pitch forks gathered and a crowd sent on the hunt. What the article says is the home owner and his brother chased them into a nearby garden. They must have assumed they would be outnumbered 3 to 2, I can understand why they would arm themselves. If it were my wife and kids being threatened in my own home I like to think I would do exactly the same thing. As I understand it, one punch in the right place is enough to kill someone (if anyone remembers the club doorman murder case from not so long ago) so its hard to tell exactly how much of a beating the burglar received.

As for lying about it, that would suggest a strong degree of beating administered, but lying about it is inexcusable, and some degree of punishment should be issued, but only to fit the crime, which IMO, the beating should not be counted, because the intruders took any choice out of the homeowners hands the moment they entered his property and threated to kill his family.

bails87

Sorry, I'm just not a fan of vigilante justice. As I've said: self defence, yeah, no problem. But they could have gone back to check on their families, they could have smacked him round the head once or twice and dragged him back to the house to call the police. They didn't, they stayed there and got revenge. It was a "Sustained attack", then they lied to police to blame it on someone else. I think the sentence is harsh considering the circumstances, and I think the burglar should be in jail, as it happens he's in custody awaiting sentencing for something else.

As you say, one punch is enough to kill someone What happens if a "yoof" throws a bottle towards your house, unintentionally it hits, and smashes, your window, showering glass onto your family. You run outside and punch him for threatening your family, he dies. He's undeniably a toerag, but did he deserve to die? I don't think so. By all means restrain him. If you do that and get done for assault/gbh/abh/whatever then I'll agree that you've been hard done by.

If revenge is ok in the "heat of the moment" then it becomes kind of ok ten minutes later. Then an hour, then a day. Then you're allowed to wait til he's released from prison to get him.

As the judge said "there was no allegation in respect of the force used against Salem in defending your own home and family or of the force used by either of you in apprehending Saleem". The 'moment' had gone, it turned into a revenge attack.

colintrav

So some believe that man was out of order ...

What happens when you catch someone tryin to steal your pride and joy that being your bike , please don't say you will do nowt .. you would be full of rage and anger because someone was tryin to steal what you worked hard for .. and spent money on



The culprit that being the theving scummy bas that he is .. deserves what they handed out to him .. because it steals from others .. how many people have had there bikes stolen

I for one would not hold back in carryin out my vengance upon those that deserve it ...

thekickingmule

colintrav wrote:

What happens when you catch someone tryin to steal your pride and joy that being your bike , please don't say you will do nowt .. you would be full of rage and anger because someone was tryin to steal what you worked hard for .. and spent money on

Yes, but as Bails has said several times now, catching someone doing something and acting there and then is one thing. To pick up weapons, and chase someone, then beat the living crap out of them is another. You've turned from the victim into the criminal. I am all for defending your castle, but on once the intruder has left, all you can do is aprehend them, justice is for others.

colintrav wrote:

I for one would not hold back in carryin out my vengance upon those that deserve it ...

Expect a court session similar to the one you posted then.

Northwind

rubins4 wrote:

the intruders took any choice out of the homeowners hands the moment they entered his property and threated to kill his family.

What a load of rubbish. If they'd beaten the robber at the scene, in the house, while stopping the crime then this would make some sense but they chose to chase him, chose to corner him and chose to continue to beat him after he was defenceless, so severely that he's permanently brain damaged. There was no hint of self defence, no suggestion that they considered themselves in danger.

The judge summed it up quite well: "The prosecution made it plain that there was no allegation against you, Munir Hussain, in respect of the force you used defending your family." In other words, the sentence is nothing do to with the initial self defence, and only to do with the revenge attack which followed.

rubins4 wrote:

its hard to tell exactly how much of a beating the burglar received.

4 people beat him with an iron bar, a cricket bat and depending on which reports you believe, a hockey stick. They did stop hitting him with the cricket bat admittedly, but only after it broke into 3 pieces on his head. So yes, I think you can make some judgement of how much of a beating he took. Obviously the jury saw full medical evidence which we don't get to see but it's no great leap.

The irony is, Salem would probably have got a more severe sentence but because he's been left mentally disabled he's no longer legally competent to plead in court.

ride_whenever

the lying about it and the revenge are the biggies here obviously.

If he'd stabbed one of them with a knife in his house and paralysed them then he'd have got off scott free.

he doesn't exactly sound like a upstanding member of society.

colintrav

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/de ... lf-defence

Northwind

It wouldn't apply of course, so it's hard to see why you'd post it in this thread, a law to allow killing in self defence would only apply if it were self defence.

rubins4

I'm not sure where some of this information is coming from, I am looking only at the link provided in the original post. Admittedly, that is not the best way of analysing a situation, but hell, I'm not a judge... but as far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to break into my house, wait for me and my family to return, hold us hostage and threaten to kill us, then they are fair game for any retaliation (sp?) they could expect, and being being beaten is the least they could expect as far as I'm concerned. There is alot of assumptions being made regarding the article that has been published, and its impossible to state true fact from interpretation from anything published in the media IMO.

I understand your point of view bails, but is it unusual/unfair to be tried for murder for punching someone in the situation you mentioned? Northwind, i dont see how location has a bearing on this, given they were in a neighbours garden? Its not like they chased them up the M1?

Northwind

rubins4 wrote:

Northwind, i dont see how location has a bearing on this, given they were in a neighbours garden? Its not like they chased them up the M1?

Location matters because the culprits were leaving the scene, the family were no longer in any danger. As soon as they left the house self defence no longer applied. Like I quoted earlier, the judge specifically stated that this sentence was only to do with the savage revenge attack which occurred after the break-in was over.

colintrav

End of the day the Judge should have seen sense and realised that this would have happend anyhow ...


and the man should have ben sent free .. from a different perspective what happens when a child becomes involvled ... will the father be sent to jail for killing the person that attack his child ..


I rather doubt it .

bails87

colintrav wrote:

what happens when a child becomes involvled ... will the father be sent to jail for killing the person that attack his child ..


I rather doubt it .

YES!

If someone kills/hurts/threatens your child. And sometime after that you carry out a planned attack with you and your weapon carrying mates, then that is assault/GBH/ABH/Attempted murder/murder.

If, however, someone was attacking his child and he'd hit them with a cricket bat then, as the judge said, there would be no allegations against him.

All this talk of retaliation is ridiculous. The fact that you're talking about retaliation shows that it's not self defence, when you batter someone who's running away then that's retaliation. You're not allowed to do it, end of. Chasing someone who's running away puts you in MORE danger, how is that self defence?

You ARE allowed to defend yourself and your home/famiy/possessions. What you're not allowed to do is hand out summary vigilante justice. Don't get the two confused, and don't get whipped up into a Daily Mail rage!

guilliano

Burglar deserved the beating, bloke who dealt it in the manner he did deserved the sentence. If the beating had been delivered in the house in self defence I'd say the bloke should walk free. The fact that he chased the burglar to give him a sustained battering with armed friends takes all the self defence aspect away and makes it a seperate crime

Briggo

The burglar wont be breaking into anymore houses anytime soon though will he.

Job done.

bails87

Cor blimey, this government, letting another violent criminal back out on the streets!

welshkev

i can see both sides of the argument here. but if someone did that to me and my family i'd make damn sure they couldn't do it again, what would my missus be like in the house on her own? she'd be petrified at every little sound!

they'd have to pay. ok, so it's not the pc answer but it's the way it would happen

the article don

I see this ruling was overturned on appeal...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds ... 469850.stm

A close call imo but I think justice has just about been done.

bails87

Look up a couple of posts

cat_with_no_tail

the article don You do realise that you just posted the exact same link that Bails posted 4 hours (and 2 posts) before you right?

Now me and 2 of my family are going to have to hunt you down and stove your face in with bats and metal bars. Unlucky.

montevideoguy

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol ... -bonk.html

Now I know the women in Airdrie aren't the best (manages to be worse than Coatbridge) but even so this is poor