Man who attacked intruder freed

reply to post by Bunken Drum

Syntactical Error - to defend, you must be being attacked. Having pride affronted &/or feeling afraid does not constitute an attack. If you are attacked, the moment the attacker is subdued, if you carry on, you are the attacker.

You believe that ?


If so, I hope you're placed in the position to put your beliefs to the test


Also, if this is your belief, what are your beliefs re: pre-emptive strikes ?

Its kinda funny that most of the people that tout far left political ideals of gun registration or outright bans are the ones saying it would be ok to execute someone if the bust your window in.

Force will always be ruled upon in a case by case basis. A case where an 82 yr old man shoots an intruder may be ok on tuesday but not ok on friday...depending on all the surrounding circumstances INCLUDING the people making the decisions.

This guy went above and beyond...reasonable ended when the intruder fled the house.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

Bit extreme, isn't it?

By all means, defend your family as I would too, but to go so far as killing someone just because you can? Doesn't make you any better than they.

why not just restrain them and wait for the Police? No jail time for you, thugs are behind bars, everyone is happy.

[edit on 20/1/10 by stumason]

You know what? You make me sick. Really, you do. Go ahead and be the big, big man that you are and restrain the intruder. The rest of us will do whatever it takes, *Whatever It Takes*, to stop the psychopath from doing anymore harm.

Yeah, "restrain" him. That's rich, good luck with that. What happens if you make one error and he or they manage to go on another bender. Congratulations, you get to watch your family get raped and murdered.

I have no understanding for people like you, I personally know of a handful of folks who talk like you and they always seem to defend the police and criticize stories like these at the same time. Where it's horrible when someone does something like this and you have all the words in the world to lament it, but when police or authorities do nothing, or worse, do the savage violence, you have all the words in the world to back them up.

What would have happened if this intruder got away, hm? He runs off, you report to the police, and then he comes back at 3AM pissed off... what then hotshot? Maybe he doesn't go back to your house, maybe he goes to another home to let off steam and satisfy his lust for power and control? Yeah, that would be great huh? Getting to wake up in the morning to realize the intruder you didn't subdue enough had raped and killed a child the same night.

I have every right in the world to kill someone who had just tied up my family and threatened to kill them, in my own home. I mean, are you serious? Let me guess, the cops have the right to kill him right? Would you have been saying the same thing if the intruder was gunned down by the police under suspicious circumstances... I most certainly doubt it.

reply to post by BingeBob

This guy went above and beyond...reasonable ended when the intruder fled the house.

Obviously not and particularly not in Mr. Hussein's opinion

Obviously not in the opinion of the UK public, either, which registered its fury about Hussein's sentencing to such a degree that the law decided to release him

Since when were criminals allowed to call the shots ? 'Ooopsie .. here we were, in your home. And then we tied you and your family up and threatened your lives, etc. But oopsie .. you got free. We're running. That's it now. It's over. You can't touch us because we're running away after what we did to you and if you touch us now, we'll be in the right and you'll be wrong. That's the criminal code and you'd better obey'

To which Mr. Hussein replied: ' Don't think so '


Criminal has cracked head

Hussein has been vindicated by public opinion and his happily living his life again

I like justice .. real justice. And I'm happy to be amongst the majority in that respect

reply to post by Dock9


Let me put this to you then:

What if someone got burgled and the attackers fled, being chased by the homeowners. You're walking down the street and, due to a case of mistaken identity, the homeowners pounce on you and kick your skull in.

I assume that, because of your stance that they are well within their rights to take law into their own hands, that you would not mind this at all? You had no chance to protest innocence, which is a fundamental right. You had no fair trial with a jury of your peers, which is another fundamental right. But they, according to you, have the right to dish out street justice on a whim.

There is a reason laws are in place and that is society doesn't collapse around you. Even those who stand accused of crimes have the RIGHT to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and they have the RIGHT to a fair trial.

You would be upset if denied the same. You CANNOT have people taking the law into their own hands and being Judge, Jury and in some cases, executioner.

You have the right to defend yourself, sure, but you must do so in a manner fitting the situation. You certainly do not have the right to take justice into your own hands and meter out punishment, which is what this guy did.

Originally posted by unicorn1
I think you'll find that is what is called 'mob justice' or 'taking the law into their own hands

Ohhh Yeahhhhh!
Damn Straight!
At least that scumbag won't be stealing or hurting people any more.

reply to post by stumason

Well said
He didn't exactly follow through in a rush of adrenaline. He and his brother proceeded to carry out a sustained and violent attack. Let's not pretend this was self defence.
But the court has accepted he was emotionally destabilised by the incident and let him go. Not so with his bother.
I think this is the right decision.
Do we really want a society where people take the law into their own hands and extract their own vengeance?
What if you end up the innocent victim of a mistaken attack?


I'm sorry to say I think this is also a race issue.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by unicorn1]

Good points Stu,
I think if you are in fear of your life or that of your family you should be allowed to take as much action as it takes to eradicate that threat.

However if you are in a situation like Mr Hussain,where the low lifes have already left your property,and your family are still alive-I think it is then the job of the police.

What Mr Hussain did was a form of revenge,rather than self defence at that particular moment IMO.

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

news.bbc.co.uk...

Thats excessive IMO after the offender had ran off.
If however Mr Hussain had done the same in order to prevent his son being stabbed,I.E when the offender was threatening him with a knife;Then no charges should have been brought against him.
It was preciesly because the cricket bat hit took place after the offender had fled that Mr Hussain was charged and imprissoned I think.

IMHO any person that comes into your house with intent to rob/harm/kill you needs to be wiped off the face of the planet.

This is something I honestly cannot understand. How can lawmakers say that they have even a tenuous connection with the common man when laws like this are made? Call the police when someone is kicking in your door or is actually IN the house ? In a situation like that there should be only one rule to remember: Make the first shot count.

Originally posted by niteboy82
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.

I would be willing to bet that you have neither a wife nor children. Am I correct? You probably have had no experience with someone who has committed a crime against you and gotten off because of an attorney. Again, am I correct?
In all of the above, I have the experience. I too would have chased the assailants down the street an beat the tar out of them. I certainly would have broken an arm and a leg to prevent them from having an easy opportunity to prey on their victims.
As far as rotting in jail, most REPEAT offenders get out on bail and never appear in court at their appointed time. It isn't until later that they are apprehended for ANOTHER crime.
D.C alFinae (Italian for "then back to the beginning)
Just my thoughts, no offense

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Violater1]

Originally posted by unicorn1
I'm sorry to say I think this is also a race issue.

I'm sorry, but this should end right here. This is a wild speculation based on absolutely zero proof. The perpetrator had a rap sheet a mile long, for years. Couldn't have been that he was just a scumbag? Nope, race issue. Give me a break.. seriously, there is no need for instigating this nonsense, it always blows up way beyond what it started as.

No offense, but these sort of accusations and speculations are not needed right now. Here you are talking about unnecessary violence and "mob justice" being dangerous, yet you have absolute no regard for these words you just uttered. You do realize how much violence is perpetuated by claims of racism...? Have you no shame?

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Dock9

 

Let me put this to you then:

What if someone got burgled and the attackers fled, being chased by the homeowners. You're walking down the street and, due to a case of mistaken identity, the homeowners pounce on you and kick your skull in.

I assume that, because of your stance that they are well within their rights to take law into their own hands, that you would not mind this at all? You had no chance to protest innocence, which is a fundamental right. You had no fair trial with a jury of your peers, which is another fundamental right. But they, according to you, have the right to dish out street justice on a whim.

There is a reason laws are in place and that is society doesn't collapse around you. Even those who stand accused of crimes have the RIGHT to be presumed innocent until proven(sic) guilty and they have the RIGHT to a fair trial.

You would be upset if denied the same. You CANNOT have people taking the law into their own hands and being Judge, Jury and in some cases, executioner.

You have the right to defend yourself, sure, but you must do so in a manner fitting the situation. You certainly do not have the right to take justice into your own hands and meter out punishment, which is what this guy did.

Oh Come On!
Mistaken identity?
That makes about as much sense as me being at a bowling alley, and my ball goes across three lanes, knocks down all the pins, and the person in that alley claims a strike!

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Violater1]

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
I think if you are in fear of your life or that of your family you should be allowed to take as much action as it takes to eradicate that threat.

And indeed you are.

In addition to the defence of "reasonable force" there is also a common law defence should your partner/children are at risk. You can take whatever action, within reason, to protect them and yourself from harm. If that results in the injury of the assailant, then fair do's.

But once you have injured and subdued the assailiant, you cannot then continue the attack, otherwise you become the very "scum" people seem willing to label the original assailant as.

Chasing someone away, catching them and then beating them so much that a cricket bat breaks and they are left crippled (and a burden on the state) is not a defensive act, it is a revenge attack.

Chasing someone, subduing them and holding them till Police arrive is quite acceptable. Subduing someone shouldn't mean they get crippled, unless they really put up a fight. These guys continued beating this man while he was on the ground AND even when passers by begged them to stop, as it was clearly a very violent act.

Seems alot here don't understand a "proportionate" response. Kind of ironic, as I know some people would say Israel is disproportinate in it's dealings with the Palestinians, but essentially what they do is akin to what some are championing here.

The law backed down and released Hussein in response to the public which has had a gutful of Evil is Good, War is Peace

It's understandable the law would attempt to blur the edges initially. After all, our governments grant themselves leave to launch 'pre-emptive strikes' and to invade other nations in much the same way as the thugs invaded the Husseins' place

When the victims fight back, our governments label them 'foreign insurgents' .. as if they have no RIGHT to defend themselves and their lands

So, in order to sustain this monstrousness in the eyes of what 'they' foolishly regard as the 'stoopid public', they jailed Hussein for being .. basically .. the civilian equivalent of a 'foreign insurgent'

But they crossed the damn line and the public roared. Hussein was released, albeit reluctantly. But released, nonetheless

The criminal however will have his busted head forever. And that appears to irritate a certain faction, who bleat on and on about 'not taking justice into your own hands'. But far better true justice be administered by those living in this real and dangerous world, than by a disgustingly compromised and clueless legal fraternity who depend, by the way, on the taxpaying public for their inflated salaries

These are my rules: if someone presumes to remove justice from the equation with regard to me and mine, then I give myself permission to restore justice as I see fit

Second part: I don't invade or initiate attacks. The only time anyone's going to have a problem with me is they invade and/or attack me or mine

Considering I have a spotless record from the legal standpoint, my rules obviously work very well

There was NO 'mistaken identity' in the case under discussion

And as for 'taking the law into their own hands' --- this applies first and foremost to the thugs who invaded the Hussiens' home

As for 'society collapsing' --- that's precisely the result achieved by the 'blame the victim' legal-double-dutch which finally ... as pertains to Mr. Hussein ... became the straw that broke the camel's back and resulted in such public outcry that the legal fraternity KNEW they'd gone too far this time and backed off, releasing Mr. Hussein

Once again, I'll repeat that we will NOT live in a society which allows criminals to call the shots. The criminals 'left' the Hussein house and decreed it was 'over'. Wrong. The only way it could be 'over' is if the criminals had not invaded the Hussein house to begin with. Once they crossed that line it was anything goes. As when they bound and threatened the Husseins. Was it 'over' then ? No. The thugs only decided they wanted it to be over after Hussein desperately broke free. After that, it was Hussein's turn to decide when it would be over

And that's that. The criminal is in a basket and Mr.Hussein can go back to living his life. Which is what he and his family WERE doing until a bunch of grubs decided to exert what they hoped would be power and control over a family of innocent strangers

reply to post by stumason


Maybe when the police are allowed to go back to doing what they used to do so well until the lunatics took over the asylum, people will regain confidence in them and WILL subdue criminals and await the police arrival

The police are employed these days to collect revenue for the state, rather than protect the public

Nature abhors a vacuum. Police fail in their duties and fail to arrive or, if they do, fail to catch the culprits, leading the public (a much larger force) to step into the gap and protect themselves

Simple really. The public, via taxes paid, employ the police to protect them from criminals and assailants. The police are not honouring the terms of their employ. They are failing their employers. They are being utilized as nazis against the very public which pays them

Next we have the foul legal fraternity which imposes ludicrously lenient sentences ... which released dangerous criminals to strike again ... which permits a studiously anonymous parole board to inflict grotesques such as serial paedophiles and house them near schools --- and which appears to launch its most punitive measures against the non-offending public

That's quite apart from police forces thick with Freemasons who spend most of their time pandering to the criminal fraternity and springing each others delinquent offspring from court

No amount of self-righteous forum back-slapping and preaching is going to convince the public to treat criminals with kid gloves

And the sanctimonious rant about broken cricket bats is falling on deaf ears. The majority never fell for the 'blame the victim' line

The Hussein victory was the tide turning. Criminals and psychotic lawyers have had their day. And Sharia law is breathing down the necks of the liberal loonies. Watch the pendulum swing

reply to post by Violater1


It was an example, nothing more, of someone metting out their own version of mob justice, essentially by-passing the law, the courts and the rights of EVERY man to presumed innocent until proven guilty and to have a fair trial. The mistaken identity angle I took was to highlight that people can and do make mistakes and that mob justice is never a good path to go down.

As to the cricket-bat busted criminal being rendered by victim Hussein as a 'burden on the State'

..... was the theiving little thug employed PRIOR to breaking and entering the Hussein household and threating people with death ? No ? So he was a 'burden on the State' in any case, right ?

Likewise, if the thug were jailed for his crimes against the Hussein family, he would be ..... yes, a 'burden on the State'

What is the world coming to? I'm sick of these stories where some intruder or whatever comes in and does harm to you or your family and then the home owner is the one who gets in trouble. I remember reading one story a burglar fell through a skylight or something and cut himself on a knife in the kitchen and had sued the home owner and won. I mean come on how much more absurd can things get?

Like the intruder will just stand and watch you 'calmly' call the police in the first place? For a start you wont be calm in that situation.

No way anyone would watch their family get tied up and perhaps even killed whilst on the phone to the police, who will take at least 10 minutes to get the the scene.

By that time the intruder could of killed everyone in the house, had a cup of tea and a slice of cake, and casually strolled on out of the building.