manshimajin Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 i would guess that in the circumstances the bloke had pints of adrenalin pumping round his system. This could have caused the 'undue use of force'. Would a suspended sentence have been better in the circumstances where the judge has said he was 'brave'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Got too agree with you there, Manshimagin. Far more appropriate. It would have sent out a very clear message too other low-life scumbags. Mind you, it seems that they have their rights whilst they rob/assault you and your family. It makes me feel quite angry. Grrrrrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 i would guess that in the circumstances the bloke had pints of adrenalin pumping round his system. This could have caused the 'undue use of force'. Would a suspended sentence have been better in the circumstances where the judge has said he was 'brave'? I see in the Times today that the guy is on suicide watch at prison because he can't come to terms with why he's been jailed and the robber has gone free. A strange message indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 It would have sent out a very clear message too other low-life scumbags.Would it? I definitely don't think so. Mind you, it seems that they have their rights whilst they rob/assault you and your family.He isn't justified in away way shape or form in chasing after the thieves and then pounding his head with a metal object becuase they were simply robbing him! It is because these men used force on the family and threatened to kill them, apparently. I see in the Times today that the guy is on suicide watch at prison because he can't come to terms with why he's been jailed and the robber has gone free. A strange message indeed.What is strange? I don't think there is a strange message there at all. The man has already meted out punishment to the robber - he smashed his head in. I don't think there is a requirement for any more punishment past brain damage. Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 I don't think there is a strange message there at all. The man has already meted out punishment to the robber - he smashed his head in. I don't think there is a requirement for any more punishment past brain damage. Do you? But then again you don't seem to think anything normal or lucid about much. Getting your head kicked in is, I would suggest, an occupational hazard if your a violent criminal with a 30 year history of offending. Generally if your caught the people who catch you are going to be just a touch pissed off on account of the fact that you tied them up and beat them and robbed them and stuff. The fact that the next house he robs will have to have a wheelchair ramp might deter him a bit next time he gets the urge? I have no sympathy for him really. He's clearly a nasty piece of work that after 30 years probably got something he was overdue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Normal? Well, probably not, thankfully. Maybe he did get something that was due, but received a punishment and it was carried out by guy who is now gaoled. And the guy who was gaoled 'took the law into his own hands'. That isn't allowed. While it isn't allowed, there is no strange message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 I see in the Times today that the guy is on suicide watch at prison because he can't come to terms with why he's been jailed and the robber has gone free. A strange message indeed.Poor decision by the judge for jailing him as this was his first time offence and could have conditionally discharged him over a set time period instead of jail. What is strange? I don't think there is a strange message there at all. The man has already meted out punishment to the robber - he smashed his head in. I don't think there is a requirement for any more punishment past brain damage. Do you? It could be argued that as the man received a jail sentence, then he has therefore done/doing his punishment, whilst the robber has got away scott free, albeit with a sore head, which doesn't now count as pay back, as the man got jailed and therefore I'd say that the robber is still 'one up' The man's fault was for letting him get outside. ps. I'm surprised robbers burgle places in the dark as it must be very dangerous, especially near the stairs, as accidents do happen and if they tripped, they might have a serious accidental injury! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 It could be argued that as the man received a jail sentence, then he has therefore done/doing his punishment, whilst the robber has got away scott free,albeit with a sore headBut he didn't get away scott free, he received punishment in something more than being given a sore head. which doesn't now count as pay back, as the man got jailed and therefore I'd say that the robber is still 'one up'Which is payback, because the man has exacted his revenge by beating him up, it matters not whether the homeowner is then punished by some other institution on judgement on his matters. The man's fault was for letting him get outside.It was thankful they could get outside, otherwise the robbers might have ended up dead or the robbers might have ended up killing members of that family. Once they got outside there was no threat to the family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 It could be argued that as the man received a jail sentence, then he has therefore done/doing his punishment, whilst the robber has got away scott free,albeit with a sore headBut he didn't get away scott free, he received punishment in something more than being given a sore head. which doesn't now count as pay back, as the man got jailed and therefore I'd say that the robber is still 'one up'Which is payback, because the man has exacted his revenge by beating him up, it matters not whether the homeowner is then punished by some other institution on judgement on his matters. The man's fault was for letting him get outside.It was thankful they could get outside, otherwise the robbers might have ended up dead or the robbers might have ended up killing members of that family. Once they got outside there was no threat to the family. The system is wrong when a burglar can enter a house and get off, regardless of injuries sustained. The burglar committed an offence which had serious threatening overtones to the owners family. This was a red card and on a sports field, he would have been sent off or in other words, punished for that offence. If another offence was committed after that, then this is a different offence and whoever committed THAT offence should be dealt with accordingly as a separate case. If however, the burglar didn't enter the man's premises in the first place, then two offences would not have been committed and the man would not be in prison now, thereby the offender was the burglar and should have been punished. There was an average break in for every two minutes in the UK and statistics reveal that unemployment is a key factor. If a burglar breaks into an occupied property you have to assume he's either stupid, desperate or possibly homicidal, all of which make him potentially dangerous. An individual can use such force as they honestly believe is reasonable to defend themselves, another person or their property. Reasonable force can also be used to prevent a crime being committed. If a householder is confronted by an intruder in their home they are entitled to use weapons and considerable force to protect themselves and their family. The government has repeatedly issued statements confirming that the law, as it stands, protects innocent householders. It is the Crown Prosecution Service’s stated intention that householders who find themselves in this position should not be threatened with prosecution unless their reaction was clearly disproportionate to the circumstances. For those who are burgled. The traumatic affect of having ones possessions rumbled through, torn apart and destroyed leaves an unhealthy state of mind to the victim especially to women, who feel cheapened, dirty and very angry. Whether the burglar accepts the risks to his life or not, then I do not know, but these people prey on the weak and vulnerable parts of society, which IMO, is initially similar to that of a paedophile and both worthy of being immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 IMO strictly an offence appears to have been committed in terms of 'such force as is reasonable to defend' themselves as the violence occurred after, not at the time of, the burglary. But in the circumstances the owner's state of mind, fear and anger are natural reactions to the extreme violent threats made to his family. That is why I would have gone for a suspended sentence - "you did wrong - but we sympathise with the reasons why you behaved as you did". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 He has, hasn't he, which means that any different government is going to be better, somehow. Ha! 10 / 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 If someone was to break into my house and i was to catch them, I would not really beat them to an inch off their life, but i would happily subdue them till the police arrived etc. As for extracting revenge... hard to say, i would like to think i would not, but until it actually happened you can't really say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 As far as I'm concerned if you wittingly encroach onto someone's personal property and, when caught in the act, threaten fatal physical violence then you can have no expectation of any protection in law against whatever may befall you: an 'outlaw' in the true sense of the word. The fact that the guy is still alive suggests that main mistake here was that Mr Hussain didn't beat him hard enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Roo Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 If someone was to break into my house and i was to catch them, I would not really beat them to an inch off their life, but i would happily subdue them till the police arrived etc. Easy for you to say unless you have been in that situation. If some stranger is in your home threatening you and your family i would imagine instictict would kick in and you would do anything to protect them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutley Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Eye for an eye well sorta kinda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.