"Vigilante" Victim Freed
 

Whats are the chances that Labour gave a nudge to the judge behind the scenes? :Suspiciou


:luxhello: Munir Hussain :luxhello:

OMG OMG theres finally common sense in the country, what ever next?

Wrong. This guy went way over the top and not even on his property. So where do you draw the line?

Current rules are OK which seems to mean that you can kick the sh1t out of an intruder in your house but try not to kill him. "He came at me with a knife officer". But there has to be a limit.

dl

And His Bro is still locked up(for longer then this guy was originally)

I'd normally agree. If he'd discovered a burglar who then fled, chased him down the street and beaten him with a bat, you could say thats a bit extreme. In this case it appears that Munir along with his family were tied up and the burglars threatened to kill.
So put yourself in that position, if, as in Mr Hussain's case, you got the chance at retribution. I know for a fact that if I were in identical circumstances, the burglar(s) wouldn't just be injured, they'd be dead.
I firmly believe that you should be able to defend your property with whatever force is necessary, if an intruder has made the choice to enter your house illegally then you should have the choice to respond in whatever way you see fit.

Lets be fair about this, how are you going to exact revenge on a fleeing assailant? By chasing him. Then, when you catch him you do your best Andrew Flintoff impression on his bonce.
A fair result to a crazy case.

Then you would and should go to jail.

You can't take the law into your own hands. Simple reason for this is where do you draw the line?

I think letting him go under appeal was probably the right reason but this case needed highlighting to point out that although you can and should defend youself, there is a point where defence turns into revenge/punishment which should be frowned upon.

Yes he went over the top, I agree completely. But I thought the custodial sentence was too harsh given the circumstances. A suspended sentence should've been given in the first place.

freed on appeal -- as I predicted on the eariler thread re this topic

the law is perfectly sound as it stands and no need to give vigilanties a charter to kill

I think it is easy to say what you would and wouldn't do in a similar situation when you are calmly sitting at your keyboard.
People under extreme stress aren't always thinking rationally and once adrenaline kicks in they can act in ways they wouldn't normally dream of. Equally people who say they would kill someone who broke into their home might find they are just sitting there wetting their pants.

"Knife wielding"

Now, if I were chasing someone down the street and they had a knife and I wanted to subdue them, then I sure as heck would put a bit of 4x2 about their head - I'm not going to become a pincushion for some toe-rag.

That would be for the courts' to decide. However I would rather go to jail than see one of my family injured or killed. The issue for me is personal responsibility, any criminal, burglar, mugger etc has the ability to decide on their course of action. They have the choice of whether to be in/on my property. If that is the case I should have the ability to decide on what my course of action is without worrying about the outcome.

But, on the other hand, this guy managed in one night something the Criminal Justice system had blatantly failed to manage despite countless opportunities :thumb:

I am fairly sure that if I caught someone who had just raped my wife or daughter I would completely lose it and kill them or do them some serious damage in a wild rage.

Doesn't make it right though.

dl

Good news, maybe that will make a few scumbags think twice before entering somebody elses property and making threats to kill. :thumb:

We don't draw the line, the Government doesn't draw the line, the Criminal REMOVES all lines when he chooses to invade my property, threaten to kill me and my family and generally be extremely agressive .... for this action I will decide where I draw the line (even if that means that I administer just punishment!).

That's how it should be, in an ideal world.

A criminal loses ALL rights IMO .......

the burgler should have been killed/euthanised, he offers no value to society, he chooses to burglarise, he faces the consequences. extreme opinion i know but its how i feel. i worked hard for what i have, what right has some scummy wee cnut to come in to my house an steal it from me.

Victory for common sense ...
 

Amazing it happened in the :cuckoo: UK :)

TX.

Boo :razz:

TX.

I wonder if this will effect the judgement on the other guy who stabbed the lad and killed him after her burgled his mothers house.

Pete,

For one we are in complete agreement :)

The right to defend ones family and home should be absolute, irrespective of whether the party in question is entering, present, or leaving.

This is one area that I believe the Yanks have got it right.

I believe that he has been lucky. He has mitigating circumstances in his favour, but no defence.

When you remove the emotive 'if it was my house/family/children/property' element from this youre left with a man who tracked down and beat half to death, a burglar who had broken in to his house earlier.

Theres no element of self defence here, only revenge and support from people who are p*ssed off with the way that the country is going.

The trouble is that if this was allowed to pass and became the norm then we would all be f*cked. Surely thats obvious?

In the same situation I might have acted in a similar fashion, who knows? I do know that I wouldnt expect to get away with it though...

Edit for accuracy. Makes more sense of it, don't you think?

Hypothetically then:

Bloke has a car crash, hits a tree and his family are all trapped and badly injured.

He has no mobile phone and comes and knocks on your door, as it's the onlu house close by.

There's nobody in so he breaks in to use the telephone, as he's on his way back out you return home and kill him.

Justified?

Hypothetically, my dogs would have eaten him before he got to the phone :)

But running with your thought process (however unlikely it may be), its a completely different scenario to the one in question. Presumably bloke would have explained position and his predicament would be apparent. He wouldn't be running away from me, or acting with menace for a start.

For once, and on this occassion only ;) I agree with DD above ...... it will be quite clear that the gentleman was in dire need of a telephone, it will be clear what his motives are.

That is COMPLETLY different to a burglar, who looks you in the eye and says that he will kill you and your family unless he gets what you worked hard for!! You find him, you beat the sh1te out of him, job done - no need for police, judges, lawyers or cost!!

It should be law that a criminal loses all rights when committing a crime and for all time afterwards. We really need to stamp down on the assumption that criminals and scum have rights!!

Feck me - two sensible posts :thumb:

Not true Pete, don;t forget the Infraction wars :thumb:

We were united in the fight for freedom in the Infraction wars? ;)