More evidence that the law protects the criminals

[Gavin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bu...rts/8469850.stm



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

A businessman who was jailed for permanently injuring an intruder who attacked him and his family has been freed by the Court of Appeal. Munir Hussain 53, was sentenced to 30 months for grievous bodily harm with intent after he hit Walid Salem with a cricket bat on 3 September 2008.

Hussain and his family had been tied up by three intruders at their home in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire.

His jail sentence is now 12 months suspended for two years.



These is also a supervision requirement for the two years.

Hussain was released from Bullingdon Prison in Oxfordshire where he had been serving his sentence.

'National support'

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, who was sitting with two other judges in London, said he had shown "mercy" to Hussain.

His brother, 35-year-old Tokeer Hussain, who was also jailed for causing grievous bodily harm with intent, had his 39-month jail term reduced to two years.

Hussain's son, Awais Hussain: "They were saying to us they were going to kill us"



Hussain's son, Awais Hussain, said the family was grateful for all the support it had received.

Speaking outside court, he said: "We're extremely grateful to the Court of Appeal and the Lord Chief Justice for releasing my father.

"We're grateful for all the support we have received from the entire nation, and all the attention support from the media.

"Whilst it will be great to have my father home immediately, our thoughts will be with my uncle, Tokeer Hussain, who won't be released as yet... We hope he stays strong."

He added: "I don't think our family will ever get over it."

Hussain and his brother, who were both described as being at the heart of their community, were imprisoned in December after being found guilty at Reading Crown Court.

The court heard Hussain and his wife and children returned from their local mosque to find intruders wearing balaclavas in their home.


They were tied up but the businessman escaped and enlisted his brother to help chase the offenders down the street, bringing one of them to the ground.

The pair left Salem with a permanent brain injury after hitting him with a cricket bat.

The force of the blow was so hard that it broke the bat into three pieces.

Lord Judge said: "This trial had nothing to do with the right of the householder to defend themselves or their families or their homes.

"The burglary was over and the burglars had gone. No one was in any further danger from them."

The decision to free Hussain comes one day after judges rejected his appeal against his conviction.

Lord Judge said the case was one of "true exceptionality".

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said people who put themselves in danger to tackle criminals should be celebrated as "heroes".

Courageous members of the public "make our society worthwhile", he said as part of a widening political debate about the rights of people to use force to defend themselves.

[/b]This is similar to what happened with Myleene Klass. A group of teenagers were trespassing on her garden, looking in through the windows, and scaring her daughter. Miss Klass then lifted up a knife and waved it at the group through the window. She was then told, by the police that she was not allowed to carry an offensive weapon in her own home. Seriously, what is the world coming to?

 

[shtove]

I take the opposite view. Self defence is essential, but this guy went beyond the bounds. I think it's a simple concept but hard to judge when the circumstances are so distressing - as long as a jury has decided that way I'm content that justice has been done. The punishment is another matter.

The UK had a big debate about this years ago, when Tony Martin shot a fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun and killed him. The idea was that a dead burglar doesn't burgle again, but in my view it was plain murder. He was charged with that offence and convicted, but he had it reduced to manslaughter on appeal - his defence was the laughable liberal excuse of reduced capacity.

I think the Myleen Klass thing was just a bit of publicity. And I am in favour of people keeping guns to defend themselves - against the gubmint because their goons and bureaucrats are the biggest threat to liberty.

 

[Bullitt]

If I caught an intruder in my house, they'd do well to walk again once I've finished with them.

 

[feicarsinn]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullitt @ Jan 20 2010, 07:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

If I caught an intruder in my house, they'd do well to walk again once I've finished with them.[/b]

Agreed. Lots of hurls round the gaff, smack right in the head or kneecaps. No sympathy for scummers.

 

[MunsterMan]

We are changing the law in Ireland soon that would make using "reasonable force" against intruders perfectly legal.

 

[bristol-iain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jan 20 2010, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I take the opposite view. Self defence is essential, but this guy went beyond the bounds. I think it's a simple concept but hard to judge when the circumstances are so distressing - as long as a jury has decided that way I'm content that justice has been done. The punishment is another matter.

The UK had a big debate about this years ago, when Tony Martin shot a fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun and killed him. The idea was that a dead burglar doesn't burgle again, but in my view it was plain murder. He was charged with that offence and convicted, but he had it reduced to manslaughter on appeal - his defence was the laughable liberal excuse of reduced capacity.

I think the Myleen Klass thing was just a bit of publicity. And I am in favour of people keeping guns to defend themselves - against the gubmint because their goons and bureaucrats are the biggest threat to liberty.[/b]

Admittedly permanently injuring the intruder is ott (although I'd hope that was unintentional) and the shotgun thing was murder but often violence is the only way, I'd highly doubt an intruder would respond well to "excuse me but would you mind putting my tv down and leaving the premises" (or words to that effect) so a frying pan to the noggin is acceptable to me.

 

[shtove]

What do you do when the scum is running away and therefore no longer an immediate threat to life and property?

Go to the police. But that doesn't amount to much, so much better if you have a gun and are known to have a gun. That way the scum don't come near in the first place - unless they want to nick the gun. f***ing scum - you can't win!

 

[feicarsinn]

Very hard to think " Well I suppose my property isn't in danger, better let the c*nt go."

I'm quite liberal on the issue of people breaking into your gaff. Anything goes as long as you don't kill them.

 

[MunsterMan]

The view in the US certainly seems to be a good burglar is a dead burglar, even one shot while fleeing the scene.

There was a case here a few years ago of an elderly farmer shooting a Pikey who had been tormenting him for weeks while the Pikey was running away, the farmer walked over to the body on the ground and put another round in him, and got manslaughter if I recall correctly.

Another side to the argument is if burglars expect to be met with force they will be more likely to use more excessive force themselves, but I have no problem with a Hurley to the back of an intruders head.

 

[Gavin]

Shtove, to me it seems like you feel that it is ok for a burglar to tie up someone's family and tell them that he is going to kill them, but if someone comes in to help they are not allowed to use a lot of physical force as they might harm the intruder badly - maybe that is just me. IMO too many bad things happen in the world, to good people, but when good people try and protect their family and possessions they are not allowed.
I remember reading an story in which a women called the police to tell them that an intruder was in her garage and she was scared. The police told her that they were too busy and couldn't send anyone for another two hours. The lady hung up and took matters into her own hands. Ten minutes later she called the police again to tell them not to worry because she had shot the intruder - the police came around straight away - strange that? The woman was arrested and she was charged.
Perhaps I am too harsh, but in my view you should be able to use as much force as you want when you are in danger. It is also the same with people who have been found guilty of murder and robberies. If they are guilty of murder - death penalty, none of the 20-35 years in prision but only 15 if you are good.

 

[Olyy]

I think reasonable force against an intruder should be (could be? im not sure) legal.
If the burglar did attack him, and got hit with the cricket bat in the process, while not "acceptable", it's jusifiable. However this guy chase the guy down and beat him half to death.
I'm really in two minds about it all, part of me thinks, good on him, they tied up/threatened to kill him and his family, but the other part thinks it went too far

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gavin @ Jan 21 2010, 08:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Perhaps I am too harsh, but in my view you should be able to use as much force as you want when you are in danger. It is also the same with people who have been found guilty of murder and robberies. If they are guilty of murder - death penalty, none of the 20-35 years in prision but only 15 if you are good.[/b]

I agree, but only with as much force as we need to repel the threat. We all feel the temptation to use as much force as we want, but that's the Wild West.

So a jury gets down to this question: where's the threat when the scum are running away? Nowhere, unless you fear future attacks. In this case there was fear of such attacks - not enough to justify a cricket bat beating, but just enough to excuse that reaction and mitigate the punishment. Seems just to me.

 

[Bullitt]

We live in a world where if a burglar falls through an upstairs window and injures himself on your property, he can actually sue you. Crazy, but true - It's a Health and Safety loophole that means business have to spend thousands on replacing rooflights of factories into mansafe systems, even if the roof is asbestos and considered a "no-go" area.

 

[munster]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullitt @ Jan 20 2010, 09:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

We live in a world where if a burglar falls through an upstairs window and injures himself on your property, he can actually sue you. Crazy, but true - It's a Health and Safety loophole that means business have to spend thousands on replacing rooflights of factories into mansafe systems, even if the roof is asbestos and considered a "no-go" area.[/b]

Ya I heard a while ago that a man broke into a house and fell on a knife and sued the owners thousands!!!

 

[Gavin]

It gets to a point where if the criminals escape they can always come back and do the same again, where-as if you knock the tar out of them, they are not going to do it again.

 

[munster]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gavin @ Jan 20 2010, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

It gets to a point where if the criminals escape they can always come back and do the same again, where-as if you knock the tar out of them, they are not going to do it again.[/b]

Well if you have a gun theres no need to shoot them if you just shoot at them I think they get the message...

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jan 20 2010, 07:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

What do you do when the scum is running away and therefore no longer an immediate threat to life and property?

Go to the police. But that doesn't amount to much, so much better if you have a gun and are known to have a gun. That way the scum don't come near in the first place - unless they want to nick the gun. f***ing scum - you can't win![/b]

As with a lot of these cases, when you've been held prisoner and had your family threatened, it kind of changes things and throws rationality out of the window.

So when you break free and drive the attackers from your home and property, of course, the rational and sensible thing to do is to dial 999 like any civilian and call in the pros.

However, if you've seen someone threaten violence against your own flesh and blood in a highly stressful environment such as a violent burgulary then all rational thought is clouded by red mist.

And when the opportunity presents itself to chase the bad guy and deal your own brand of jusitice then naturally you're going to grab a cricket bat and beat his brains in. I would do the same primarily because I know I would be absolutely beside myself with rage and fury.

Don't say I agree with it though but I can perfectly understand the actions of the man.

Where this whole "mob justice" thing starts to take more sinister turn is when you have the likes of the Daily Mail congratulating Loyalist and Republican dissidents tarring and feathering suspected criminals. That it not only pro-active rather than reactive, it also encourages the public to call them rather than call the police.

There was a fantastic program on Radio 4 about mob justice in Ulster and I've had the misfortune to see photos of women tarred and feathered for the crime of sleeping with British soldiers. Theres a limit and I think its at chasing the guy with a cricket bat and its not with shotguns, tar or feathers.

 

[stormer2010]

IMO if someone comes into your home and has no respect for your rights and that of your family, they forfeit their own. Simple as that.

But once outside and running away, I would say that some semblence of reasonability is called for. A cricket bat to the head while running is pretty reasonable IMO. A second go at him would have been one step too far.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Jan 21 2010, 06:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jan 20 2010, 07:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What do you do when the scum is running away and therefore no longer an immediate threat to life and property?

Go to the police. But that doesn't amount to much, so much better if you have a gun and are known to have a gun. That way the scum don't come near in the first place - unless they want to nick the gun. f***ing scum - you can't win![/b]

As with a lot of these cases, when you've been held prisoner and had your family threatened, it kind of changes things and throws rationality out of the window.

So when you break free and drive the attackers from your home and property, of course, the rational and sensible thing to do is to dial 999 like any civilian and call in the pros.

However, if you've seen someone threaten violence against your own flesh and blood in a highly stressful environment such as a violent burgulary then all rational thought is clouded by red mist.

And when the opportunity presents itself to chase the bad guy and deal your own brand of jusitice then naturally you're going to grab a cricket bat and beat his brains in. I would do the same primarily because I know I would be absolutely beside myself with rage and fury.

Don't say I agree with it though but I can perfectly understand the actions of the man.

Where this whole "mob justice" thing starts to take more sinister turn is when you have the likes of the Daily Mail congratulating Loyalist and Republican dissidents tarring and feathering suspected criminals. That it not only pro-active rather than reactive, it also encourages the public to call them rather than call the police.

There was a fantastic program on Radio 4 about mob justice in Ulster and I've had the misfortune to see photos of women tarred and feathered for the crime of sleeping with British soldiers. Theres a limit and I think its at chasing the guy with a cricket bat and its not with shotguns, tar or feathers.
[/b][/quote]
We don't disagree. But remember the mob used to be HM's security force in Norn Iron - thugs with badges. Not a glorious period in British history.

 

[Prestwick]

No. No. I completely disagree with that point and as the son of someone who served at the height of the troubles that drives me insane.

Various British governments and the civil service between 1950 and 1997 were frankly rubbish. At no point, even in parts under Thatcher's era were the British ever decisive or ever completely agreed that using....armed mobs was a credible tool for restoring order. Yes, there may have been a couple of voices but for the most part British decision making was frankly in paralysis and half the time they were being led around by the Ulster Unionists.

At no point did the Government or the Army condone or back loyalist mobs. Never. I will argue that to the death with you.

Heres a skeleton out of the cupboard, one of my Dad's friends? Sgt Michael Willetts of 3 PARA. He was at the front desk of the Springfield Road RUC station recording a complaint from a young catholic mother whose house had suffered damage from an early morning raid earlier that day. At that moment a youth threw a bomb into the building. He threw the mother and her kid into the corner and covered them and took the blast and saved their lives. When he was stretchered out of the building he was spat on and stoned.

He died later that day.

Did he approve of the mobs? No be bloody didn't. Did he think they were "HM's security force"? No he bloody didn't.

People in Ulster have enough ghosts to deal with but I have a father whose life was irrevocably changed between 1968 and 1972 and because of the immature and childish actions of the two sides in Ulster and the shambolic way the British government handled itself he can't get those years back now so now he and his family have to deal with that and pick up the pieces.

Sorry but that is quite a sore subject for me.