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

Sounds like b.s. to me. The burglars tied him up and threatened his family, a position that the law should not expect people to know how to respond to rationally.

It was partial anger I'm sure, but beating a man unconscious rather than risking losing him in an attempt to restrain him is a completely reasonable move in my opinion. Who knows what would have happened if the man got away. He could have come back later out of spite, and murdered the family. You just don't know. As childish as the 'he started it' excuse sounds, the fact is, he did start it, and the man who was originally the victim turned the tides and is now jailed for it, when he did what many others would do in the situation.

jamejame

I'm not sure how many people, seeing that the criminals in their home would leave if merely chased away, would feel the need to go as far as to beat the man into possible mental disability. They didn't just beat him unconscious, which likely wouldn't take much force. If they didn't want him to get away why not just break his leg? Why the head at all? And the ideas about the burglars coming back later and not knowing what they'd do next is complete speculation. The law cannot justify beating a man in the head because he MIGHT come back later. The guy was running away, thus eliminating the immediate threat to the family.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't want to see anyone who burgled my house and threatened my family get beat to within an inch of his life... but it's too risky a thing for me to do myself. :?

I'm not sure how many people, seeing that the criminals in their home would leave if merely chased away, would feel the need to go as far as to beat the man into possible mental disability. They didn't just beat him unconscious, which likely wouldn't take much force. If they didn't want him to get away why not just break his leg? Why the head at all? And the ideas about the burglars coming back later and not knowing what they'd do next is complete speculation. The law cannot justify beating a man in the head because he MIGHT come back later. The guy was running away, thus eliminating the immediate threat to the family.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't want to see anyone who burgled my house and threatened my family get beat to within an inch of his life... but it's too risky a thing for me to do myself. :?

Was going to post, but this summarized my thoughts. The law is clear...life > property
-you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect you life, not stuff (shotgun trap court case for example)rawsavon

Yep. I thought of that case too... at least I think it's the same one. Of course this whole incident was in the UK so I'm sure they do things a bit differently over there.

I am guessing (because it was a millionaire) that the men who tried to rob the house have some gang connections and blackmailed for freedom/prosecution...That's terrible though.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Was going to post, but this summarized my thoughts. The law is clear...life > property
-you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect you life, not stuff (shotgun trap court case for example)binpink

Yep. I thought of that case too... at least I think it's the same one. Of course this whole incident was in the UK so I'm sure they do things a bit differently over there.

[QUOTE="binpink"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Was going to post, but this summarized my thoughts. The law is clear...life > property
-you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect you life, not stuff (shotgun trap court case for example)Bluestorm-Kalas

Yep. I thought of that case too... at least I think it's the same one. Of course this whole incident was in the UK so I'm sure they do things a bit differently over there.

That's the way it should be...

[QUOTE="binpink"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Was going to post, but this summarized my thoughts. The law is clear...life > property
-you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect you life, not stuff (shotgun trap court case for example)Bluestorm-Kalas

Yep. I thought of that case too... at least I think it's the same one. Of course this whole incident was in the UK so I'm sure they do things a bit differently over there.

That is way different from a robber running away...I agree with cops in the case you mentioned

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Was going to post, but this summarized my thoughts. The law is clear...life > property
-you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect you life, not stuff (shotgun trap court case for example)binpink

Yep. I thought of that case too... at least I think it's the same one. Of course this whole incident was in the UK so I'm sure they do things a bit differently over there.

Ya, I was talking about US/State law

Case involved a house that was not the primary residence (inherited it)
-kept getting robbed while owners away
-they set up a shotgun trap in a room (open door = boom)
-robber lost a leg
-they go to jail Law says life and limb > stuff

I remember hearing about a case where a rapist kidnapped a woman and threw her in the trunk of his car, and she had her own gun, which she got ready for him, and when he stopped at and went to open the trunk, he met with the fate of a gun, and if I'm not mistaken, the cops let her off the hook for self-defense, and they basically thanked her for dealing with scum that they don't have to.Bluestorm-Kalas

Ya, I was talking about US/State law

Case involved a house that was not the primary residence (inherited it)
-kept getting robbed while owners away
-they set up a shotgun trap in a room (open door = boom)
-robber lost a leg
-they go to jail Law says life and limb > stuff

rawsavon

Yea that's the one! Some people scare me.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

Ya, I was talking about US/State law

Case involved a house that was not the primary residence (inherited it)
-kept getting robbed while owners away
-they set up a shotgun trap in a room (open door = boom)
-robber lost a leg
-they go to jail Law says life and limb > stuff

binpink

Yea that's the one! Some people scare me.

Yes...

What if some kids (age 12 or so) broke in for LULZ (like many boys do at that age)
-take out an adult leg = kid's torso

[QUOTE="Bluestorm-Kalas"]I remember hearing about a case where a rapist kidnapped a woman and threw her in the trunk of his car, and she had her own gun, which she got ready for him, and when he stopped at and went to open the trunk, he met with the fate of a gun, and if I'm not mistaken, the cops let her off the hook for self-defense, and they basically thanked her for dealing with scum that they don't have to.dave123321

Exactly...was not the case with the one given by the TC

What if some kids (age 12 or so) broke in for LULZ (like many boys do at that age)
-take out an adult leg = kid's torso

rawsavon

The intruder should definitely have been imprisoned; however, that does not mean that what this man did was justified. They were both in the wrong.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

What if some kids (age 12 or so) broke in for LULZ (like many boys do at that age)
-take out an adult leg = kid's torso

Jandurin

To be honest, I do know how old that case is.
Studied it in a Business Law Cla$$

The intruder should definitely have been imprisoned; however, that does not mean that what this man did was justified. They were both in the wrong.

Theokhoth

I was too lazy to read the article or whatever, but I know of a couple of cases where burglers have hurt themsevles after being pushed out of a window they were climbing into and suing the person for medical damages. If this is a case of that=gtfo. If it;s a case of using excessive force to stop a burgler... it's difficult to judge, but if the burgler was fleeing then I find it unacceptable. As far as I'm converned if you're breaking into someones house expect resisitance, but once you start to surrender/flee that scene the occupant is now becoming the attacker and BOTH parties should be charged.

In my opinion, that judge shouldn't be a judge...I read the article, I took in what he said..Even that said, it's still pathetic in every sense.

The judge must have forgot the burglar had his family at knife point and was threatening to kill them. That alone = getting hit, maybe not as badly as he did... But he should of got jail time at the very least. Let's forgot he was trying to steal all his goodies as well.

Wow. Just wow. I guess I'll just chalk this one up to it being the UK.

I know where I live you would not find a jury of 12 to convict. We had an incident some years back where two women were working in a liquor store. The older woman (60ish) was behind the counter and the middle aged gal (40ish) was in the back room. Three pieces of human debris came in with a ball bat, hit the older gal knocking her to the floor. They proceeded to try to figure out how to get in the register, then finally decided to just pick it up and run out the door. As they are running out the door, the gal comes out of the back room with a shotgun and the older gal comes up off the floor with her pistol in hand. These two women waste all 3 of these pieces of crap as they are running out the door.

Verdict: Not Guilty. Justice was done, in my opinion. In fact, if it were up to me these women would get a medal for public service. No doubt if they had let these scumbags get away they would have victimized more law abiding citizens.

If you commit violence against innocent citizens, you forfeit your expectation to survive the experience.

Wow. Just wow. I guess I'll just chalk this one up to it being the UK.

I know where I live you would not find a jury of 12 to convict. We had an incident some years back where two women were working in a liquor store. The older woman (60ish) was behind the counter and the middle aged gal (40ish) was in the back room. Three pieces of human debris came in with a ball bat, hit the older gal knocking her to the floor. They proceeded to try to figure out how to get in the register, then finally decided to just pick it up and run out the door. As they are running out the door, the gal comes out of the back room with a shotgun and the older gal comes up off the floor with her pistol in hand. These two women waste all 3 of these pieces of crap as they are running out the door.

Verdict: Not Guilty. Justice was done, in my opinion. In fact, if it were up to me these women would get a medal for public service. No doubt if they had let these scumbags get away they would have victimized more law abiding citizens.

If you commit violence against innocent citizens, you forfeit your expectation to survive the experience.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Wow. Just wow. I guess I'll just chalk this one up to it being the UK.

I know where I live you would not find a jury of 12 to convict. We had an incident some years back where two women were working in a liquor store. The older woman (60ish) was behind the counter and the middle aged gal (40ish) was in the back room. Three pieces of human debris came in with a ball bat, hit the older gal knocking her to the floor. They proceeded to try to figure out how to get in the register, then finally decided to just pick it up and run out the door. As they are running out the door, the gal comes out of the back room with a shotgun and the older gal comes up off the floor with her pistol in hand. These two women waste all 3 of these pieces of crap as they are running out the door.

Verdict: Not Guilty. Justice was done, in my opinion. In fact, if it were up to me these women would get a medal for public service. No doubt if they had let these scumbags get away they would have victimized more law abiding citizens.

If you commit violence against innocent citizens, you forfeit your expectation to survive the experience.

rawsavon

I do appreciate your legal knowledge and aknowledge that in a strictly legal sense, both the man in the OP and the ladies in my example "broke the law". Fortunately, thats why we have a jury system in the U.S.A. In my example, the jury looked at the facts, considered the circumstances and found that justice would best be served by sending these two women home.

Where do I draw the line? I guess the easy answer is "on a case by case basis". But to try to actually answer your question: Once violence has been perpetrated by the criminal the gloves come off. If the would-be victim gets the best of the criminal and the criminal winds up dead; pick up the flag, no foul on the play.

To further clarify, there is a time element involved as well. In the heat of the moment, the would-be victim gets a lot of lea way. I would not be able to justify the would-be victim catching up with the criminal an hour later and killing them. That would fall under the category of vigilante.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Wow. Just wow. I guess I'll just chalk this one up to it being the UK.

I know where I live you would not find a jury of 12 to convict. We had an incident some years back where two women were working in a liquor store. The older woman (60ish) was behind the counter and the middle aged gal (40ish) was in the back room. Three pieces of human debris came in with a ball bat, hit the older gal knocking her to the floor. They proceeded to try to figure out how to get in the register, then finally decided to just pick it up and run out the door. As they are running out the door, the gal comes out of the back room with a shotgun and the older gal comes up off the floor with her pistol in hand. These two women waste all 3 of these pieces of crap as they are running out the door.

Verdict: Not Guilty. Justice was done, in my opinion. In fact, if it were up to me these women would get a medal for public service. No doubt if they had let these scumbags get away they would have victimized more law abiding citizens.

If you commit violence against innocent citizens, you forfeit your expectation to survive the experience.

I do appreciate your legal knowledge and aknowledge that in a strictly legal sense, both the man in the OP and the ladies in my example "broke the law". Fortunately, thats why we have a jury system in the U.S.A. In my example, the jury looked at the facts, considered the circumstances and found that justice would best be served by sending these two women home.

Where do I draw the line? I guess the easy answer is "on a case by case basis". But to try to actually answer your question: Once violence has been perpetrated by the criminal the gloves come off. If the would-be victim gets the best of the criminal and the criminal winds up dead; pick up the flag, no foul on the play.

To further clarify, there is a time element involved as well. In the heat of the moment, the would-be victim gets a lot of lea way. I would not be able to justify the would-be victim catching up with the criminal an hour later and killing them. That would fall under the category of vigilante.

To further clarify, there is a time element involved as well. In the heat of the moment, the would-be victim gets a lot of lea way. I would not be able to justify the would-be victim catching up with the criminal an hour later and killing them. That would fall under the category of vigilante.

collegeboy64

Except this was clearly not a heat of the moment situation. The defendant in this case chased down the person who had already left his house, beat him until he was unconscious, and then kept beating him after he was unconscious. Like I said earlier, I don't see how beating an unconscious man with a metal pole and a cricket bat could possibly be considered reasonable self-defense.

At the very worst I can only imagine myself breaking the guy's legs just to prevent him from fleeing, but I am willing to file this under "the heat of the moment" incident.

Am I for Hussain to be jailed? Very hard to say especially this happened in UK, I would say the ruling could be different if this was to take place in the US or elsewhere. Personally I would be more concerned about arresting the other two assailants just to prevent them from taking revenge for beating up one of their buddies.

I see your point (used to share it in fact) -now I value life over property though -old age has a way of altering one's belief system...either I am more wise now or society just turned me into a mindless zombie...take your pickrawsavon

I too value life over property. I've always said if I caught someone breaking in to my car outside my house I would confront them (armed, of course), but if they turned and ran away I would let them go. Otherwise I would hold them at gunpoint till the police get there.

As for old age, I'm 45, but I still think once the criminal becomes violent, even if their original intent was just to steal, the rules of the game change.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] I see your point (used to share it in fact) -now I value life over property though -old age has a way of altering one's belief system...either I am more wise now or society just turned me into a mindless zombie...take your pickcollegeboy64

I too value life over property. I've always said if I caught someone breaking in to my car outside my house I would confront them (armed, of course), but if they turned and ran away I would let them go. Otherwise I would hold them at gunpoint till the police get there.

As for old age, I'm 45, but I still think once the criminal becomes violent, even if their original intent was just to steal, the rules of the game change.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

To further clarify, there is a time element involved as well. In the heat of the moment, the would-be victim gets a lot of lea way. I would not be able to justify the would-be victim catching up with the criminal an hour later and killing them. That would fall under the category of vigilante.

GabuEx

Except this was clearly not a heat of the moment situation. The defendant in this case chased down the person who had already left his house, beat him until he was unconscious, and then kept beating him after he was unconscious. Like I said earlier, I don't see how beating an unconscious man with a metal pole and a cricket bat could possibly be considered reasonable self-defense.

I never said anything about self defense. I'm talking about justice. As for the definition of "heat of the moment": If you've ever been in a violent confrontation like that, you'd know it takes a while for the adrenaline to dissapate in your blood. It doesn't sound to me like the victim in this situation had enough time to calm down and rationally assess the situation. He was operating on instinct.

-in all honesty though, I would act differently if they hurt someone I cared for...would not be right...but just being honestrawsavon

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

To further clarify, there is a time element involved as well. In the heat of the moment, the would-be victim gets a lot of lea way. I would not be able to justify the would-be victim catching up with the criminal an hour later and killing them. That would fall under the category of vigilante.

collegeboy64

Except this was clearly not a heat of the moment situation. The defendant in this case chased down the person who had already left his house, beat him until he was unconscious, and then kept beating him after he was unconscious. Like I said earlier, I don't see how beating an unconscious man with a metal pole and a cricket bat could possibly be considered reasonable self-defense.

I never said anything about self defense. I'm talking about justice. As for the definition of "heat of the moment": If you've ever been in a violent confrontation like that, you'd know it takes a while for the adrenaline to dissapate in your blood. It doesn't sound to me like the victim in this situation had enough time to calm down and rationally assess the situation. He was operating on instinct.

Justice is rational, not instinctual. Revenge is not rational. This wasn't justice at all.

45...wow...username is a misnomer :P I agree though that once violence occurs all bets are off...but that stops for me when they surrender/flee -in all honesty though, I would act differently if they hurt someone I cared for...would not be right...but just being honestrawsavon

Collegeboy is a nickname I picked up years ago. I started my adult working life as an electrician. When I went back to school to get my engineering degree, by electrician buddies took to calling me "The Collegeboy". A couple of those guys are still close friends of mine and they still call me that to this day.

Sorry for the confusion ;)

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

To further clarify, there is a time element involved as well. In the heat of the moment, the would-be victim gets a lot of lea way. I would not be able to justify the would-be victim catching up with the criminal an hour later and killing them. That would fall under the category of vigilante.

collegeboy64

Except this was clearly not a heat of the moment situation. The defendant in this case chased down the person who had already left his house, beat him until he was unconscious, and then kept beating him after he was unconscious. Like I said earlier, I don't see how beating an unconscious man with a metal pole and a cricket bat could possibly be considered reasonable self-defense.

I never said anything about self defense. I'm talking about justice. As for the definition of "heat of the moment": If you've ever been in a violent confrontation like that, you'd know it takes a while for the adrenaline to dissapate in your blood. It doesn't sound to me like the victim in this situation had enough time to calm down and rationally assess the situation. He was operating on instinct.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] 45...wow...username is a misnomer :P I agree though that once violence occurs all bets are off...but that stops for me when they surrender/flee -in all honesty though, I would act differently if they hurt someone I cared for...would not be right...but just being honestcollegeboy64

Collegeboy is a nickname I picked up years ago. I started my adult working life as an electrician. When I went back to school to get my engineering degree, by electrician buddies took to calling me "The Collegeboy". A couple of those guys are still close friends of mine and they still call me that to this day.

Sorry for the confusion ;)

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

I never said anything about self defense. I'm talking about justice. As for the definition of "heat of the moment": If you've ever been in a violent confrontation like that, you'd know it takes a while for the adrenaline to dissapate in your blood. It doesn't sound to me like the victim in this situation had enough time to calm down and rationally assess the situation. He was operating on instinct.

Theokhoth

Justice is rational, not instinctual. Revenge is not rational. This wasn't justice at all.

Agreed. Justice is rational. But I would not call what this man didrevenge, but rather reaction. Justice, being rational, must take in to account the circumstances and also the state of mind of the accused at that moment. It seems unjust and irrational to me to imprison an otherwise law abiding citizen for his instinctive reaction to a violent attack on his family.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]-in all honesty though, I would act differently if they hurt someone I cared for...would not be right...but just being honestJandurin

It seems unjust and irrational to me to imprison an otherwise law abiding citizen for his instinctive reaction to a violent attack on his family.

collegeboy64

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]-in all honesty though, I would act differently if they hurt someone I cared for...would not be right...but just being honestJandurin

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Was going to post, but this summarized my thoughts. The law is clear...life > property -you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect you life, not stuff (shotgun trap court case for example)Ontain

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

It seems unjust and irrational to me to imprison an otherwise law abiding citizen for his instinctive reaction to a violent attack on his family.

Jandurin

This kind of thing makes me long for future technology...where people could actually experience what the man went through...then see their own reaction -I would like to see what mine would berawsavon

His crime was a bit heinous. He deserves jail time....he could have easily killed the man. Is it instinct to react that violently?LJS9502_basic

epic phail :lol:

Solid_Link22

agreed:P

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]-in all honesty though, I would act differently if they hurt someone I cared for...would not be right...but just being honestJandurin

I have to re-read the piece just to make sure I got the facts straight. Although it is not apparent the burglars had any weapons with them, but the way they tied up the entire family and instructed them to get on the floor "if they did not want to be kill" had to make anyone feel at least a little bit threaten and it is reasonable to believe the burglars had weapons to make such claim. Also it wasn't clear in what manner did the Hussain brother subdue Salem and cause him to lay on the ground in the first place. Did Salem just willingly submit himself to the brothers and plea to them "I give up, spare me!", or he actually tried to fight back but was overpower by the two, who then subsequently proceed with the beating? Just saying that he was on the ground (note: the article fail to mention Salem was completely defenseless while in such position) also called into question the nature of this fact.

Again, I am not saying the Hussain's beating of Salem was completely justified. But I wouldn't completely downplay the threat (or the perceived threat, to be more precise) presented to the Hussain's family and its role in inducing such merciless act from the Hussains either.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="rawsavon"]-in all honesty though, I would act differently if they hurt someone I cared for...would not be right...but just being honestariz3260

I have to re-read the piece just to make sure I got the facts straight. Although it is not apparent the burglars had any weapons with them, but the way they tied up the entire family and instructed them to get on the floor "if they did not want to be kill" had to make anyone feel at least a little bit threaten and it is reasonable to believe the burglars had weapons to make such claim. Also it wasn't clear in what manner did the Hussain brother subdue Salem and cause him to lay on the ground in the first place. Did Salem just willingly submit himself to the brothers and plea to them "I give up, spare me!", or he actually tried to fight back but was overpower by the two, who then subsequently proceed with the beating? Just saying that he was on the ground (note: the article fail to mention Salem was completely defenseless while in such position) also called into question the nature of this fact.

Again, I am not saying the Hussain's beating of Salem was completely justified. But I wouldn't completely downplay the threat (or the perceived threat, to be more precise) presented to the Hussain's family and its role in inducing such merciless act from the Hussains either.

(note: the article fail to mention Salem was completely defenseless while in such position) also called into question the nature of this fact.

ariz3260

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