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

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]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 beJandurin

Not saying what I would have done...no way to tell unless your family is tied up -but once someone starts to flee as the robber did, the law no longer sees them as a threat...so you are no longer allowed lethal forcerawsavon

:? So technically, you could threaten people's lives, cause some bodily harm, take what you want, and book it...and because you're fleeing from the scene, no one can use "lethal force"(more like, where I live at least, ANY force...capturing and tying the criminal up would likely end with an unlawful detainment or something lie that)... I value life over stuff, but I also believe that if someone steals stuff, you're entitled to do try and get that stuff back, and are entitled to the return or compensation of that stuff, insurance or not.

[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

Because people should have to pay extra money in order to see who's stealing from them, resulting in most likely a crappy quality image of the thief getting sent to the police who won't do anything about it except say "We're working on it". I don't think shotguns are necessary at all, but remote locking doors so the thief can't escape the premises, or some trap to capture the person/people...that would work just fine IMHO.

[QUOTE="ariz3260"]

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

Jandurin

Once he's on the ground, yes I agree. Even if he had firearm laying on the ground is hardly the ideal position to do any good.

I'm only questioning how he got on the ground in the first place. Also I doubt the Hussains had the right frame of mind to access the situation rationally (the guy is down, he's defenseless) after going through such adrenaline rush (having the entire family tied up and threaten to be killed, then chasing down 3 criminals who perceived to have weapons).

It is always easier to access a situation with a calm and collect state of mind, but that was not the case for the Hussain. I agree they should let up once the burglars left the house and let the police take care of the rest. Unfortunately, they didn't and he has to go to jail for it.

The dude left. There was no longer a threat....

LJS9502_basic

I agree. Too bad the Hussains didn't see it that way...

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[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 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 ;)

No offense taken. You're not the first person on GS to question my username in light of my old age. In fact one person on here subtly accused me of trolling for young chicks :o

[QUOTE="Ontain"] only difference is that the man did threaten the lives of his family. if the guy merely broke into the victim's house and stole some stuff then sure this would be an over reaction. the fact that his family members where tied up and threatened could easily send a person off into a much more understandable edge. but i don't think that makes him a threat to the general public. (unless he has some kind of record of this)rawsavon

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Not saying what I would have done...no way to tell unless your family is tied up -but once someone starts to flee as the robber did, the law no longer sees them as a threat...so you are no longer allowed lethal forceLockedge

:? So technically, you could threaten people's lives, cause some bodily harm, take what you want, and book it...and because you're fleeing from the scene, no one can use "lethal force" You are correct...you can try to get your stuff, but not try to kill/severely injure them...
for comparison sake: okay (not legally, but morally) to fight someone that picks a fight with you BUT not okay to keep beating on them when they are down (hope that analogy makes sense) (more like, where I live at least, ANY force...capturing and tying the criminal up would likely end with an unlawful detainment or something lie that)... I value life over stuff, but I also believe that if someone steals stuff, you're entitled to do try and get that stuff back, and are entitled to the return or compensation of that stuff, insurance or not.

but I also believe that if someone steals stuff, you're entitled to do try and get that stuff back, and are entitled to the return or compensation of that stuff, insurance or not.

Lockedge

just goes to show how unjust our world is becoming...maybe 2012 isnt really the end of the world as a physicality but more of the end of the world order that we are used to? twas a thought.thedr00kenirish

Am I the only one who doesn't understand why, "self defense" beatings aside, the burglar didn't get jailed?Razor-Lazor

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.

collegeboy64

If his natural instinct was to go out of his way to chase the man down and beat him until he has brain damage, then I daresay that this sounds like a dangerous man. If it's a life and death situation, that would be one thing. This had, however, clearly stopped being a life and death situation at this point.

There are a number of cases where "instinct" is something that really should not be followed. I would say that this is solidly one of them. I cannot understand how it can possibly be justified to beat an unconscious man with a bat.

[QUOTE="thedr00kenirish"]just goes to show how unjust our world is becoming...maybe 2012 isnt really the end of the world as a physicality but more of the end of the world order that we are used to? twas a thought.Doctor-McNinja

which is where I call bs. If you break into a house, show a complete lack of respect for the rights of man by tying up a family and steal the possessions of a common business owner can you really expect to not have the living **** kicked out of you. The main point everyone is missing here is that this robber tied up a mans family. Im sorry but I dont see how any injustice was done to him. He engaged in tactics that could be described as designed to incite fear into an individual. The last time I checked we dont smile to kindly on those who prey on women and youth. You want justice? String the robber up by the neck and let him rot in the sun. That may seem harsh but look at the world we live in today. When a man can do such despicable crimes and get off with just a beating we really need to re-evaluate the society we live in. thedr00kenirish

Fortunately, we have the legal system, which is vastly superior than one single man at first determining whether or not a crime has been committed and then determining what punishment is appropriate. A society can scarcely be considered civilized if anyone who breaks the law is treated as though he is no longer a human being.

As for the robber, he didn't "get off with just a beating". He suffered likely irreparable brain damage to the point that he was mentally unfit to even enter a plea. Sending him to jail at that point would have been pointless.

[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.

LJS9502_basic

My point is not that the citizen exacted justice on the criminal. My point is this: Now that this situation has occured, society must decide what is justice for the citizen that beat the crap out of his attacker. In my not so humble opinion, 2-1/2 years in jail is not justice for the citizen. If I were on the jury it would be not guilty. At the most I think a suspended sentence and maybe some time on parole would be right.

Laws aren't made to distribute justice.. a common misconception many people seem to have here in America.EMOEVOLUTION

[QUOTE="Razor-Lazor"]Am I the only one who doesn't understand why, "self defense" beatings aside, the burglar didn't get jailed?Jandurin

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Laws aren't made to distribute justice.. a common misconception many people seem to have here in America.thedr00kenirish

At first I was like WTF!!!!!1111111, but yeah the fact that they pretty much got the guy on the ground and gave him a violent beating causing him serious injury is kind of justification for him getting put in prison. The thing is, if that guy never tried to rob him in the first place, he wouldn't have gotten beaten, it's his own fault and serves him right.

FAIL

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Not saying what I would have done...no way to tell unless your family is tied up -but once someone starts to flee as the robber did, the law no longer sees them as a threat...so you are no longer allowed lethal forcerawsavon

:? So technically, you could threaten people's lives, cause some bodily harm, take what you want, and book it...and because you're fleeing from the scene, no one can use "lethal force" You are correct...you can try to get your stuff, but not try to kill/severely injure them...
for comparison sake: okay (not legally, but morally) to fight someone that picks a fight with you BUT not okay to keep beating on them when they are down (hope that analogy makes sense) (more like, where I live at least, ANY force...capturing and tying the criminal up would likely end with an unlawful detainment or something lie that)... I value life over stuff, but I also believe that if someone steals stuff, you're entitled to do try and get that stuff back, and are entitled to the return or compensation of that stuff, insurance or not.

[QUOTE="thedr00kenirish"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Laws aren't made to distribute justice.. a common misconception many people seem to have here in America.EMOEVOLUTION

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Laws aren't made to distribute justice.. a common misconception many people seem to have here in America.thedr00kenirish

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]

but I also believe that if someone steals stuff, you're entitled to do try and get that stuff back, and are entitled to the return or compensation of that stuff, insurance or not.

Jandurin

I heard about it on Fluffeetalks... I wonder if he uses these boards :o

[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.

GabuEx

If his natural instinct was to go out of his way to chase the man down and beat him until he has brain damage, then I daresay that this sounds like a dangerous man. If it's a life and death situation, that would be one thing. This had, however, clearly stopped being a life and death situation at this point.

There are a number of cases where "instinct" is something that really should not be followed. I would say that this is solidly one of them. I cannot understand how it can possibly be justified to beat an unconscious man with a bat.

I know if some person attacks me and my family I am a very dangerous man to the attacker. Its been my experience, having been in a couple nasty violent confrontations that you don't choose to follow your instincts, you just do. I also know that rationality is a luxury you cannot afford when you think your life is threatened. And once the andrenaline starts flowing, its not like there is a switch you can throw to just turn it off.

I've stated this in response to another post here: Its not about if the beating was proper justice. Its about society deciding what is justice for the citizen who beat the crap out of the criminal. I don't think 2-1/2 years in jail is just. At most a suspended sentence and maybe some time on parole. If he keeps out of trouble for a couple years, expunge it off his record.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]

:? So technically, you could threaten people's lives, cause some bodily harm, take what you want, and book it...and because you're fleeing from the scene, no one can use "lethal force" You are correct...you can try to get your stuff, but not try to kill/severely injure them...
for comparison sake: okay (not legally, but morally) to fight someone that picks a fight with you BUT not okay to keep beating on them when they are down (hope that analogy makes sense) (more like, where I live at least, ANY force...capturing and tying the criminal up would likely end with an unlawful detainment or something lie that)... I value life over stuff, but I also believe that if someone steals stuff, you're entitled to do try and get that stuff back, and are entitled to the return or compensation of that stuff, insurance or not.

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

I know it sounds unfair, but if you read the story carefully, it sounds like the defendant here went berserk. I can sympathize, but that doesn't make his actions altogether right. His sentence seemed pretty stiff, though, under the circumstances. Elraptor

I know it sounds unfair, but if you read the story carefully, it sounds like the defendant here went berserk. I can sympathize, but that doesn't make his actions altogether right. His sentence seemed pretty stiff, though, under the circumstances. Elraptor

[QUOTE="Elraptor"]I know it sounds unfair, but if you read the story carefully, it sounds like the defendant here went berserk. I can sympathize, but that doesn't make his actions altogether right. His sentence seemed pretty stiff, though, under the circumstances. thedr00kenirish

[QUOTE="thedr00kenirish"][QUOTE="Elraptor"]I know it sounds unfair, but if you read the story carefully, it sounds like the defendant here went berserk. I can sympathize, but that doesn't make his actions altogether right. His sentence seemed pretty stiff, though, under the circumstances. T_P_O

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

Darkman2007

its called a "State"

He chased him out of the house, and fractured the guy's skull in the front yard, while he was on the ground...Dark__Link

yeah that's crossing the line. he could have left it up to the cops/other prisoners to do that for him.

[QUOTE="Elraptor"]I know it sounds unfair, but if you read the story carefully, it sounds like the defendant here went berserk. I can sympathize, but that doesn't make his actions altogether right. His sentence seemed pretty stiff, though, under the circumstances. Razor-Lazor

me too

Salem was left with a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces.