Man who attacked intruder freed

Man who attacked intruder freed

news.bbc.co.uk

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 in 2008.

(visit the link for the full news article)

In my opinion, this man should never have been jailed in the first place. I mean, the intruders tied up his family. What is the UK coming to when you cannot defend your own home? The authorities say that if you have an intruder, you must remain calm and call the police.

Stuff that for a game of soliders. If my family is under threat, you had better believe that I am going to get violent. It is okay for members or parliament to advocate this, they do not need to worry. They have armed police protection, who would not think twice about opening fire on you should you be the intruder.

Opinions please. Do you think that a citizen has the right to use physical force in order to protect his home and family from attack?

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher


In my opinion, this man should never have been jailed in the first place.

Damn Straight!

The authorities say that if you have an intruder, you must remain calm and call the police.

Ummm yeah... that sounds like it would work!

"Excuse me ol' chap but would you stop assaulting my family for a moment while I call the police"?

If my family is under threat, you had better believe that I am going to get violent.

I hear ya man. If anyone breaks into my house, they do so with the full knowledge that they risk death. Plain & Simple. Oh yeah... and I won't be ringing the cops... if you know what I mean!

Do you think that a citizen has the right to use physical force in order to protect his home and family from attack?

Absolutely! Your house is your castle and lethal force is completely acceptable. If people can't accept that, then don't break in.

I'm not going to sit about, stay calm and give some potential murderer the benefit of the doubt in harming my family & myself... after all... the loser has already broken into my bloody house right!

IRM

[edit on 20/1/10 by InfaRedMan]

I think the main reason he got sent to prison originally is after the intruders left the house he got himself tooled up & chased them & gave them a savage beating.. imo was well deserved & he didnt deserve to go to prision. At least he is out now though

you are right, it should never have come to that- the guy deserved a medal for services to the community

Weapons are strategically hidden all around my house.

If anyone was ever foolish enough to intrude into my property I wouldn't hesitate in taking whatever measures necessary to ensure that neither I or my family were hurt.

Fair play to the guy who defended his home and he should never have been arrested and imprisoned in the first place.

Opinions please. Do you think that a citizen has the right to use physical force in order to protect his home and family from attack?

Yes I do


In fact, I believe the people of the UK have the right to use physical force to protect their land, their lives, their quality of life, their finances and futures, etc. from those who describe themselves as 'the government'

Same with those who describe themselves as 'the media'

Same with institutions who call themselves World Health Organisation and United Nations, etc

He wasn't exactly 'defending' himself though was he. Basically he and his brother chased after one of the intruders and beat the crap out of him in the street. According to one account, a passer by pleaded with him to stop. They broke the cricket bat in 3 places while they were smashing his head in.
I think you'll find that is what is called 'mob justice' or 'taking the law into your own hands'.
Unless we think vigilante-ism is a good thing, it's in our interests for this sort of thing to be stamped on. Or do you want to be next in line - say someone embarks on a revenge attack and gets the wrong person?
That said, I can see that it's tempting to take matters into your own hands, as our justice system in the UK is so pathetic. Plus his adrenaline must have been on overdrive. I'm sure this would have been the case for the defence and it's probably why his brother is still in prison, as he couldn't plead the same emotional turmoil..
So - glad he was released. But with reservations.


[edit on 20-1-2010 by unicorn1]

Originally posted by unicorn1
He wasn't exactly 'defending' himself though was he. Basically he and his brother chased after one of the intruders and beat the crap out of him in the street. According to one account, a passer by pleaded with him to stop. They broke the cricket bat in 3 places while they were smashing his head in.
I think you'll find that is what is called 'mob justice' or 'taking the law into your own hands'.
Unless we think vigilante-ism is a good thing, it's actually in our interests for this sort of thing to be stamped on.
That said, I can see that it's tempting to take matters into your own hands, as our justice system in the UK is so pathetic. Plus his adrenaline must have been on overdrive. I'm sure this would have been the case for the Defence and it's probably why his brother is still in prison.
So - glad he was released. But with reservations.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by unicorn1]

It isn't really vigilante-ism- this all happened in the same "sequence" so to speak- it is not like rumours that a paedophile may be living in a house somewhere and a mob go and burn the wrong house.

Mitigation should be given in the extreme for someone who comes home ti find intruders threatening to kill their family- in that instance I would quite happily kill the intruder given half the chance- my loyalty is to my family, not the perverted values of the state

[edit on 20-1-2010 by blueorder]

I would like to thank you all for your valuable input. It is clear that some of you, whilst supporting the protection of ones home, feel that the defendant exceeded the force required in order to protect his family and home. So, let me rephrase the original question.

Do you think that a citizen is justified in using the "minumum force required" in order to protect his family and home from intruders?

reply to post by TheLoneArcher


I would go as far as to say anyone in my home who treatens to kill my family deserves to die

reply to post by blueorder


Personally, I totally agree with you. If anyone came into my house by force, tied up my wife and kids and threatened to kill them, I would cut them off and feed them to him while he slowly bleeds to death.

reply to post by blueorder


I woud go as far to say that anyone in my home who threatened my family WOULD die!

I am an avid cricket and baseball fan and also like to indulge in DIY

reply to post by TheLoneArcher


Absolutely LoneArcher. I don't want to appear some weak kneed pacifist.

If we get an intruder in our home, how are we to know they aren't rapists, murderers, high on drugs.... The sanctity of the home has been breached and it must be terrifying. So I would strike first and ask questions afterwards.
Frankly I would consider the use of just about any force to be reasonable in those circumstances. They are the ones who broke into my space, they are responsible if they get hurt. Are we supposed to have a polite conversation asking what their intentions are? Or maybe we could stand there protesting politely while they make off with our valuables...

[edit on 20-1-2010 by unicorn1]

reply to post by unicorn1


LOL. That is certainly what the police would like to have us do. My goodness, if we were to every hurt a poor little criminal in pursuit of his career.

Just to clarify the misconceptions that are often promulgated by certain media outlets: under UK law, a person does have the right to defend themselves, anyone else & also their property with violence. However they must use "reasonable force". There is no 1 size fits all definition of "reasonable force", obviously, because each set of circumstances are different & reasonable in 1 may be wholly inappropriate in another. It is up to the police & Crown Prosecution Service initially to decide whether to press charges & then for a jury to decide.
Make no mistake tho, you can legally kill someone if, for instance, they attack you, you hit them & they die of an injury received. Still, whether it is reasonable force would depend on how they attack & then for you, with what, how hard & how many times you hit back.
The crucial thing here is that you cant beat someone to a pulp merely for being in your house, but you could wrestle them to the ground to stop them escaping with your TV. If you're small & a big man comes for you with his fists, I'd guess hitting him with a cricket bat, as many times as it took to make him stop would be ok.
Chasing someone down the street, knocking them over & then, for revenge, breaking the bat over their head into 3 pieces, is not going to impress a jury.
Btw, grievous bodily harm with intent is a very serious crime which could easily get you 10 years. The judge in the original trial obviously felt there were mitigating circumstances to have given them such light sentences: they'd have been out in 15 & 20 months respectively, since you only do 1/2 of less than 4yrs, with good behaviour.
My guess is it was the tying up part or I'd expect them to have been charged with attempted murder. On a personal note, I think it'd be very difficult to hit someone with a cricket bat so hard that it broke in 3 (!) & since the man was on the ground, a boot in the ribs ought to have been enough to keep him down to be arrested. They should have been sent down for longer & served their time.

reply to post by unicorn1


Yep, that's where I'm somewhat torn. If someone enters my home and threatens anyone living there (I keep seeing this emphasis on it being family) I will do what it takes to ensure that we remain safe. I take zero issue with beating the hell out of someone that comes into my home and makes such an insane mistake.

Like you said, chasing him out into the street and beating him enough to break the cricket bat 3 times is a bit excessive. You're only supposed to use force to get clear of danger, not for vengeance or killing yourself.

As this is a conspiracy area, or so I hear , I will offer this since so many have said it in one way or the other: The government/police do not do enough to make you feel safe, therefore you do what you must (in some cases justifiably termed vigilantism, sometimes not.) When this thought pattern takes hold enough, you can be sure that there will be new laws introduced to further reduce your rights to defend yourself and get you back in line with depending on TPTB. I wouldn't be surprised if this case in particular with its excesses was merely a test to see what reaction would be.

Once someone flees my home, I will call the police. I will not go chasing down the street cracking weapons over their heads to the point that they break. Call me sick, but I like the thought of leaving criminals to rot in jail, I see no purpose in giving them an express pass to the afterlife.

reply to post by TheLoneArcher


Minimum force required ?

Question of degree. And everyone will form his/her own interpretation of 'minimum'

After all, most of us have seen the bad guy get back up from the floor, reach into his boot for his knife, after which he goes ape

So the citizen mindful of this yet still wishing to obey the law re: minimum force, would be forgiven, surely, for putting in the extra punch or boot, to make sure the bad guy stays down until the police arrive

Trouble is, the extent of the threat posed may very well be magnified in the mind of the home-owner. A peeping Tom might be judged a rapist, an opportunist burglar might be regarded as potential killer/kidnapper. In which case, the home-owner may well be guilty of exceeding 'minimum force' in his wish and intention to put the burglar, potential rapist, potential murderer permanently out of action

It's to be doubted we'll ever live in a world where people are branded according to severity of their intended crime. For example, a burglar is hardly likely to hand a business-card to his victims, which states: ' I am a certified petty criminal and under no circumstances will I cause physical harm to my victims or other. Home-defenders please note: only minimum force may be used upon my person. Please be assured that any person using in excess of minimum force should I be apprehended, will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law '

Therefore, I believe that once someone steps beyond the line of decent behaviour (this includes all crimes, big and small) then they have entered the grey area, a no-man's land where all bets are off. No guarantees of safely or rescue.

Crims know this, which is why they carry weapons, 'just in case I need it'.

Ok. Same goes for potential victims. They may not carry weapons. They might have to improvise. Things might get out of hand because hey ... kids aren't taught in school how much force is appropriate when someone is attempting to rape your sister or shoot your grandparents or steal your car

Message is: leave other people and their property alone or accept what happens to you without whining and playing victim

If the criminal in the case under discussion had stayed at home or gone for a game of tennis that night instead of entering another man's home and traumatising his family --- he'd still have an intact skull

reply to post by Bunken Drum


The perversions of what the current state considers to be "right" and "wrong", would not enter consideration if some is in my home threatening to kill my wife and kids, the "state" and "jury" may not be impressed by me caving his head in, but screw them, that is not what I would be thinking.

Our "state" has become perverted over the last 40 years