wtf, victim of burglary got jailed, while THE BURGLAR got away!

damn, what's happening to upholding justice. nowdays, it seems that the law exists only for guilty people to find loopholes that leads to the victim to actually be punished. it seems the law is now all technicality.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235782/Millionaire-Munir-Hussain-fought-knife-wielding-burglar-jailed-intruder-let-off.html

lol score one for the good guys!

/sarcasm

epic phail :lol:

This world needs to end.

It was a revenge beating, that's how the law works. If your well being is not endangered, you don't have the right to beat someone, even if they have it coming.

It was a revenge beating, that's how the law works. If your well being is not endangered, you don't have the right to beat someone, even if they have it coming.

RearNakedChoke

Castle laws should be universal.

but cant you kill someone if they come onto your property? tormentor313

No, definitely not.

And in this case I think it's more important to focus on the victim being jailed instead of the criminal not being jailed. How do you throw someone with serious brain damage into prison? You just can't. He got his, and worse in some ways, so no need to fret about him roaming free.

I think we need a law that states that if someone ties you up and threatens to kill you, giving him brain damage should be legal. Chojuto

[QUOTE="Chojuto"]I think we need a law that states that if someone ties you up and threatens to kill you, giving him brain damage should be legal. cd_rom

I think it would have, had the victim not chased the burglar down.

[QUOTE="cd_rom"][QUOTE="Chojuto"]I think we need a law that states that if someone ties you up and threatens to kill you, giving him brain damage should be legal. binpink

I think it would have, had the victim not chased the burglar down.

He is in jail becuse the line between self defense and excessive force was crossed.

In Texas you can beat the living crap out of a person in self defense they will take you in but only to do some paperwork and then off you go free. My friend beat the crap out of some kid who attacked him and his parents at walmart he dented the guys skull with his fists and only had to do some paperwork and I think spend one night in jail since it was self defense.

By the time the defendant carried out the attack in question, the victim was in a very compromised state and posed no imminent threat to anyone. Given the circumstances, I can't exactly find the judge's ruling completely illogical. Beating a defenseless man with a metal pole and a cricket bat hard enough that they suffer a fractured skull and brain damage is not self-defense.

You either jail the victim or let the burglar go free, but to do both defeats the purpose of the other.

but cant you kill someone if they come onto your property? tormentor313

"Mr Hussain and his brother then beat Salem while he lay on the ground, using a cricket bat, a pole and a hockey stick - leaving him with a fractured skull and brain damage following the 'sustained' attack."

Yup, that'd explain it.

"Mr Hussain and his brother then beat Salem while he lay on the ground, using a cricket bat, a pole and a hockey stick - leaving him with a fractured skull and brain damage following the 'sustained' attack."

Yup, that'd explain it.

_BlueDuck_

My thoughts. Really even if they killed him in the house by some quick action I wouldn't mind but clearly they knew that the guy was damaged enough after perhaps a few whacks.

[QUOTE="tormentor313"]but cant you kill someone if they come onto your property? seabiscuit8686

And also what is unnecessary, apparently. :P

[QUOTE="tormentor313"]but cant you kill someone if they come onto your property? seabiscuit8686

[QUOTE="tormentor313"]but cant you kill someone if they come onto your property? seabiscuit8686

That's only true in a few states.

That judge is an idiot. I hope he dies in a fire.

so, ok, the victim did mess up, but then again, jail is too harsh, they should've been given psychological therapy or something, they attacked the burglar out of anger because he was victimised. i hate rules that are too technical, it's just there to be exploited by criminals. what is most ridiculous is that the actual criminal got away just like that. is that how you discourage crime? now criminals just have to put the victims in the situation where they will be found guilty, and they're set free to do whatever they like, without any consequences. in my country, when a woman's bag got snatched by a snatch thief, bystanders (though not at all times of course) are quick to stop that snatch thief, and once he falls off his bike, people will start beating him up like mad, and the next day they're a hero in the newspaper headlines. that's how you discourage criminals, not some through some bullshat technical-bounded rules. i almost have this principle that when you take someone's right away, your rights are automatically invalid, so in my view, the burglar took the rights of the victims, so in return he has no rights, therefore justice is not applicable to him.

so my question is: why am I studying in University for?, it seems likes its easier and safer to become a criminal

what a joke and shame to let criminals have the upper hand in a court of law, while the law abiding citizen is punished

Permanent brain injury isn't exactly getting off scott free.

damn, what's happening to upholding justice. nowdays, it seems that the law exists only for guilty people to find loopholes that leads to the victim to actually be punished. it seems the law is now all technicality.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235782/Millionaire-Munir-Hussain-fought-knife-wielding-burglar-jailed-intruder-let-off.html

Funny how the criminal got away actually. I mean I thought he would also get some time in jail for breaking into their house and threaten to kill them. Which last time I heard wasn't legal in UK. But as it is now, the law seems to be on the criminal's side when breaking into someone. horgen123