Too right that the guy who was being burgled is in jail. So please enlighten me, how is it not defense of ones home to chase down and demolish the man who assaulted your family IN your home and stole your hard earned possessions?Salem was left with a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces.
wtf, victim of burglary got jailed, while THE BURGLAR got away!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Too right that the guy who was being burgled is in jail. So please enlighten me, how is it not defense of ones home to chase down and demolish the man who assaulted your family IN your home and stole your hard earned possessions? Because then you're on the offensive, not on the defensive.Salem was left with a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces.
Too right that the guy who was being burgled is in jail. So please enlighten me, how is it not defense of ones home to chase down and demolish the man who assaulted your family IN your home and stole your hard earned possessions? Since when did defence become chasing someone down and causing permanent brain damage? That's a straight out attack.Salem was left with a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces.
[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. thedr00kenirishOnce again, his family was tied up...how would you feel? Wouldn't you go berserk at the man who bound your family in your own home? That's not how the rule of law works, which was the key factor in this case. The law cannot be made up as you go along; though judges in America do have far more give or take in their ability to 'interpret' the law; in other words, they can change and morph it to their will, within reason. In England the legal system is different; the justice system is based on the rule of law. Namely that the law applies to everyone the same, and cannot be changed based on one person or another. The law applies to everyone exactly as it is written. If there is a problem, the legislature changes the law. The law says that you cannot beat a man to the point of brain damage with a metal pole and a bat. That = assault and gets you thrown in jail. The law also says that you CAN beat a man, cause serious injury and even kill a man if it is in circumstances of self-defense. He brutally beat a person with a metal rod and a bat, and it wasn't in self defense. The judge therefore looks to the (very simple) law which says = you cannot do that. Therefore he is guilty and goes to jail. Justice served. Simple as that. Had he hit the man in self defense he would not be in trouble. He went way, way across that line though and ended up breaking the law. He did wrong, and the justice system punishes him for that. Simple.
He's already tackled the burglar... there was no reason to go and start bashing him with a metal pole... :?chessmaster1989I disagree. If anyone threatens to harm my family I'm going to more than likely attempt to rip their head off. I have no sympathy for criminal activity such as that. They don't deserve second chances, in fact they don't deserve life.
[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. Doctor-McNinjaOnce again, his family was tied up...how would you feel? Wouldn't you go berserk at the man who bound your family in your own home? That's not how the rule of law works, which was the key factor in this case. The law cannot be made up as you go along; though judges in America do have far more give or take in their ability to 'interpret' the law; in other words, they can change and morph it to their will, within reason. In England the legal system is different; the justice system is based on the rule of law. Namely that the law applies to everyone the same, and cannot be changed based on one person or another. The law applies to everyone exactly as it is written. If there is a problem, the legislature changes the law. The law says that you cannot beat a man to the point of brain damage with a metal pole and a bat. That = assault and gets you thrown in jail. The law also says that you CAN beat a man, cause serious injury and even kill a man if it is in circumstances of self-defense. He brutally beat a person with a metal rod and a bat, and it wasn't in self defense. The judge therefore looks to the (very simple) law which says = you cannot do that. Therefore he is guilty and goes to jail. Justice served. Simple as that. Had he hit the man in self defense he would not be in trouble. He went way, way across that line though and ended up breaking the law. He did wrong, and the justice system punishes him for that. Simple. Ok so well take this to a national level, which is simply a larger version of personal events. If one country invades another, steals a resource after brutal atrocities against the nations people is it wrong to go to war? I'm sorry but I fail to see the point in that and there is a rather large precedent supporting my case written into the Guardian's article. The ruling against the Hussain family is a travesty against the rights of man and the leniency shown to Salem is a declaration that it is ok to undertake a criminal act. You all continue to dodge my question. If a man binds your family and threatens to kill them are you going to let that man walk down the street and get away? I would hope that you would have the spine to stand up for your rights and those of your family.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]He's already tackled the burglar... there was no reason to go and start bashing him with a metal pole... :?Assassin1349I disagree. If anyone threatens to harm my family I'm going to more than likely attempt to rip their head off. I have no sympathy for criminal activity such as that. They don't deserve second chances, in fact they don't deserve life. But taking revenge on that person would most likely be a criminal act in itself.
wtf fail
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]He's already tackled the burglar... there was no reason to go and start bashing him with a metal pole... :?Assassin1349I disagree. If anyone threatens to harm my family I'm going to more than likely attempt to rip their head off. I have no sympathy for criminal activity such as that. They don't deserve second chances, in fact they don't deserve life. Agreed 100% thank you for indirectly answering the question that I posed to those attempting to overlook the fact that Salem is a criminal and was harmed during the undertaking of a criminal act.
Doesn't the law state that if you feel threatened to a point where you cannot keep your own safety, you are allowed to inflict bodily harm on the attacker if it appears the only way to protect yourself? Did they forget that law or... or what's goin' on here?Pyro767Did you read the story?
[QUOTE="Assassin1349"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]He's already tackled the burglar... there was no reason to go and start bashing him with a metal pole... :?thedr00kenirishI disagree. If anyone threatens to harm my family I'm going to more than likely attempt to rip their head off. I have no sympathy for criminal activity such as that. They don't deserve second chances, in fact they don't deserve life. Agreed 100% thank you for indirectly answering the question that I posed to those attempting to overlook the fact that Salem is a criminal and was harmed during the undertaking of a criminal act. He was not harmed in undertaking a criminal act. He was harmed running from a criminal act. There is a massive difference that you fail to comprehend. It was not self defence; it was an attack.
[QUOTE="Assassin1349"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]He's already tackled the burglar... there was no reason to go and start bashing him with a metal pole... :?T_P_OI disagree. If anyone threatens to harm my family I'm going to more than likely attempt to rip their head off. I have no sympathy for criminal activity such as that. They don't deserve second chances, in fact they don't deserve life. But taking revenge on that person would most likely be a criminal act in itself. Whats criminal is the fact that everyone seems to be too eager to overlook the fact that Salem tied up the Hussain family and threatened to KILL them. Put this all in perspective people and face the fact that Salem got what he deserved. I mean ffs he has 50, 50! previous convictions. Good riddance and I hope he never recovers.
[QUOTE="Assassin1349"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]He's already tackled the burglar... there was no reason to go and start bashing him with a metal pole... :?T_P_OI disagree. If anyone threatens to harm my family I'm going to more than likely attempt to rip their head off. I have no sympathy for criminal activity such as that. They don't deserve second chances, in fact they don't deserve life. But taking revenge on that person would most likely be a criminal act in itself.It is in the eyes of "morality" and our system. However, all of that is simply a bottleneck. I don't believe that being a criminal against a criminal is an act of crime but an act of purification of everything that is wrong in this world. One by one, kill each criminal. Better to be the lesser evil than to be stepped on by insects such as robbers and murderers. To me they are worthless abominations that don't deserve to walk this Earth. Pity morals and the law system permits for them to exist.
It is in the eyes of "morality" and our system. However, all of that is simply a bottleneck. I don't believe that being a criminal against a criminal is an act of crime but an act of purification of everything that is wrong in this world. One by one, kill each criminal. Better to be the lesser evil than to be stepped on by insects such as robbers and murderers. To me they are worthless abominations that don't deserve to walk this Earth. Pity morals and the law system permits for them to exist. Assassin1349This kind of thinking is basically Judge Dread - the police should be allowed to execute anyone for any crime, regardless of the circumstances, on the stop and without trial. This notion is of course a ridiculous one, and one typically put forward by people with no background of environments in which crime takes place. 90 % of crime is created by society, not the individual. The idea that the 'criminal' is an evil person who does not deserve to live is draconian.
Brain damage is in itself a light consequence for having bound and threatened a man's family before his eyes. If the legal system doesn't recognize the brutality of a mans crimes and take that into account whilst judging the man who laid justice upon him then, as is well known fact, the legal system is flawed.thedr00kenirish
There was no threat once the guy ran away. There has to be an imminent threat in order to protect yourself in such a way, and if the criminal has run away, the threat is removed. Thus the family was merely tied up and uninjured. How that justifies brain damage is beyond me, but clearly you think it's fair. I'm very glad you don't make or enforce the laws around here.
If the guy stayed and started injuring people, or even if he stayed and looked ready to injure people, what happened to him would've been justified. The fact that he didn't harm anyone and that his victims actively sought him out after he tried removing himself from the situation changes things completely.
BS a man can not defend his family.
[QUOTE="thedr00kenirish"] Brain damage is in itself a light consequence for having bound and threatened a man's family before his eyes. If the legal system doesn't recognize the brutality of a mans crimes and take that into account whilst judging the man who laid justice upon him then, as is well known fact, the legal system is flawed.binpink
There was no threat once the guy ran away. There has to be an imminent threat in order to protect yourself in such a way, and if the criminal has run away, the threat is removed. Thus the family was merely tied up and uninjured. How that justifies brain damage is beyond me, but clearly you think it's fair. I'm very glad you don't make or enforce the laws around here.
If the guy stayed and started injuring people, or even if he stayed and looked ready to injure people, what happened to him would've been justified. The fact that he didn't harm anyone and that his victims actively sought him out after he tried removing himself from the situation changes things completely.
He tried to remove himself from the situation because the elder son escaped and brought help. He was a coward and the fact that he threatend an entire familie's lives is justification enough.[QUOTE="Assassin1349"]It is in the eyes of "morality" and our system. However, all of that is simply a bottleneck. I don't believe that being a criminal against a criminal is an act of crime but an act of purification of everything that is wrong in this world. One by one, kill each criminal. Better to be the lesser evil than to be stepped on by insects such as robbers and murderers. To me they are worthless abominations that don't deserve to walk this Earth. Pity morals and the law system permits for them to exist. Doctor-McNinjaThis kind of thinking is basically Judge Dread - the police should be allowed to execute anyone for any crime, regardless of the circumstances, on the stop and without trial. This notion is of course a ridiculous one, and one typically put forward by people with no background of environments in which crime takes place. 90 % of crime is created by society, not the individual. The idea that the 'criminal' is an evil person who does not deserve to live is draconian. My view has nothing to do with the police, nor do I believe that you should be punished with death for all crimes. Only the crimes where you use a weapon and threaten to kill someone if they don't do what they want you to. I just believe that if your life is being threatened you have the right to do whatever you wish to your perpetrator, even if it means making him the victim. After all, would a good person do the heinous crime that a person like him would do in the first place? You know break into some place and threaten an innocent family. It's rather pathetic how people would defend people who live their life on the basis of crime. Had he not broke in and tried to start a mess, he wouldn't have been in this situation. I long for a world without violence, but I think that's not going to happen because there's always going to be dick heads who want to commit crimes. And you know why they do it? They feed on your weakness. Your lack of power to fight against them. That's what drives them. We permit too much in this world and it's the lack of REAL justice that's keeping it going. Vengeance is the key to ending the problems in this world.
[QUOTE="thedr00kenirish"] He tried to remove himself from the situation because the elder son escaped and brought help. He was a coward and the fact that he threatend an entire familie's lives is justification enough.Doctor-McNinjaOk, so the legal system should be amended how exactly according to you? The law should say that if you attempt to commit a crime, pull out and run away having caused no harm, the individual against whom you attempted to commit crime against has the legal right to hunt you down and murder you? Seriously, explain how the law should be changed so that murdering someone who has caused no harm or injury = justice. You're confusing vengeance with justice.
Exactly. And it's scary. Vengeance isn't commendable or brave, and I wouldn't want a family member of mine doing such a thing to a criminal who never harmed me. In fact I'd wonder why they didn't bother to come check on me right away, if they claim I'm so important.
[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"][QUOTE="Assassin1349"]It is in the eyes of "morality" and our system. However, all of that is simply a bottleneck. I don't believe that being a criminal against a criminal is an act of crime but an act of purification of everything that is wrong in this world. One by one, kill each criminal. Better to be the lesser evil than to be stepped on by insects such as robbers and murderers. To me they are worthless abominations that don't deserve to walk this Earth. Pity morals and the law system permits for them to exist. Assassin1349This kind of thinking is basically Judge Dread - the police should be allowed to execute anyone for any crime, regardless of the circumstances, on the stop and without trial. This notion is of course a ridiculous one, and one typically put forward by people with no background of environments in which crime takes place. 90 % of crime is created by society, not the individual. The idea that the 'criminal' is an evil person who does not deserve to live is draconian. My view has nothing to do with the police, nor do I believe that you should be punished with death for all crimes. Only the crimes where you use a weapon and threaten to kill someone if they don't do what they want you to. I just believe that if your life is being threatened you have the right to do whatever you wish to your perpetrator, even if it means making him the victim. After all, would a good person do the heinous crime that a person like him would do in the first place? You know break into some place and threaten an innocent family. It's rather pathetic how people would defend people who live their life on the basis of crime. Had he not broke in and tried to start a mess, he wouldn't have been in this situation. I long for a world without violence, but I think that's not going to happen because there's always going to be dick heads who want to commit crimes. And you know why they do it? They feed on your weakness. Your lack of power to fight against them. That's what drives them. We permit too much in this world and it's the lack of REAL justice that's keeping it going. Agreed completely sir. Its sad to think that people these days have lost their spines and show more compassion to the criminal than to the victim.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment