A British man was jailed for 3 years today after his home was broken into by burglars who tied him and his family up and began to take his belongings. The man managed to escape from his tethers and attackd one of the robbers with a cricket bat. Because the man was judged to have used too much force he was jailed.
Really? Too much force? In Texas you have always had the right to use deadly force to prevent a felony or theft on your property at night! Now with the Castle doctrine it can be used during the day! Too much force, how do you people take anything seriously in that clown country?
The man used so much force that he gave the perpetrator permanent brain injuries, the cricket bat broke into three pieces. The 'British Man' was in fact one of three men, each of whom were hitting the burglar with weapons including the cricket bat and a metal pole.
It amuses me how people can be drawn into any debate on here without critically analysing the original topic. Three men hitting one man around the head with blunt objects, down the street from the robbery, is not self defence but is in fact a revenge attack akin to that of death squads in Brazil.
I have sympathy with the man jailed, but the picture you tried to paint is ridiculously inaccurate - although well suited to the spin merchants on this forum. Its good to see that you fit in so well.
We all know that there is a big difference between 'law' and 'justice', anybody that thinks otherwise is an idiot, there you go - my answer to your question. Hussain had lived in Britain since 1964, long enough to know that chasing somebody down the street and hitting them repeatedly with a cricket bat around the head is a serious criminal offence.
Im not sure what media source you have used Jimmy, but Hussain broke free after the robbers had already fled - with none of his family injured - and then subsequently alerted two other men. All three pursued the robbers, they caught one, at which point they battered him senseless. That is not what I call justice, I dont want that in my country, maybe you can have that in Scotland - one day you will have your independance.
There are two victims in this case, one was injured, although admittedly only one of the men was punished - the man which head injuries should not have escaped jail for armed robbery.
I would like to agree with you ryankett. I do agree with the law of reasonable force, without this law it is a slippery slope to the insanity in some American states. On the other hand, if I was that man with the family, I might have done the same. The legal system is not perfect, same as any system, same as any of us.
What I find more disturbing is that paedophiles are escaping long jail terms as a matter of course. Perhaps not the most serious of cases but I believe any case against a child should be of the most serious concern.
Things brings me accidentally back to this home invasion case. Is it true the man with the brain injury escaped jail time? That seems a little odd to me.
From what I learnt while living in England, home invasion is a scourge. If there is no real action by police, courts or government then vigilante violence will occur.
You are agreeing with somebody who doesnt know what he is talking about. The man knew that "him and his family would be kept alive" because the burgler had already fled the scene. There is a clear difference between self defence and revenge, one is a matter of life and death whilst the other should be dealt with through the proper channels.
I am glad that you said that, they probably couldn't read or write either. I have never in my life been beaten up, read into that what you wish - nobody can touch me. You would fit in well where I currently live, plenty of cavemen and thick right wingers. Strong in the arm and thick in the head, just like you.
What you really mean to say is "real men" Men do not like having their families tied up and they certainly will chase the bad guy down and kill them if thats whats called for, and if you do that to my family then its called for! I'm sure I wouldn't fit into any society run by ladies so its all yours!
I actually believe that the world would be a much better place if more females were involved in politics, so I guess that we should just agree to disagree. Gender equality is another thing that I advocate rather strongly, one day you will have your first female president - if you dont shoot her.
You are probably right about this, Ryan. I don't know about the UK. All I know is that I grew up in a country where those proper channels can't be trusted. And you know, no one is perfect, so it is probably not ok to be this quick to judge someone as in 'you fit in so well'.
That simply shows the Advanced Society America has as far as Rights of People are concerned. In America, his actions would legal. It also shows how limited Rights are in other Countries.
Sorry, to point this out, but it's the truth of the matter. Even, with America being as screwed up as it is, individual Life has more meaning and the freedom for individual protection isn't to be hindered. Other Countries RULE over citizens' rights and many simply accept it, as a part of life, without realizing freedom is more important.
I'm with Ryan on this one. In the UK "Any Person Powers" allow "any person" to use reasonable force to prevent harm to themselves or others, or damage to property. This includes detaining a person you have witnessed committing an arrestable offence.
Three people beating someone senseless with a cricket bat (which broke) as the person lay on the floor after trying to flee, is not considered reasonable force. Had the "heroes" used enough force simply to detain the man long enough for police to arrive, then there would have been no case to answer.
Having said that, I'm surprised that witnessing ones family being tied up and threatened didn't count as a mitigating circumstance for an the emotionally charged violent reaction on the part of at least one of the people. Perhaps it did. Maybe the sentence would have been longer without the mitigating factors.
Either way personally I think the any person powers are sensible. They balance the right of individuals to protect themselves and their property with the need to deter peope from using force as a means of punishment and revenge which is something even police officers cannot (officially) do.
My primary issue with statutes such as this is who decides what is "reasonable"? It is too subjective. The law should specify, as it does in US states that employ the Castle Doctrine, that any manner of self defense is reasonable within your home.
Of course, if Ryan's account is correct, then even US law or Castle Doctrine wouldn't have protected this person. (and yes, I know US law has no meaning here, just using it to compare)
That said, I have no sympathy for an individual who met with serious injury for committing a violent crime.
Under UK law he would have had more of a case if he had hit the man over the head with a cricket bat whilst he was entering his house, and whilst he was inside the house. The fact that he had already fled the scene, and exited the house without causing anybody injury, makes it an entirely different situation. I agree with the sentiment though, if you play with fire then you will get burnt. But allowing the public to take the law into their own hands is a dangerous game to play, anybody doubting this should see the Louis Theroux documentary about Johanesburg!
Let me see if I got this right...? You're at home in your house...and for reasons beyond your control...your forced to defend your family and yourself...and then you wind-up in jail...? Let me see...Huh? How'd that go again..?
That is (Expletive) Pathetic! I don't think "the victim" in this case used enough force...IMHO. Great...just what we need on the planet...another judge soft on the criminals...and ready to throw the book at the average everyday guy...just trying to get through life without any hassle. I bet that judge is real proud of himself, too.
That is a crock. Years ago some guys robbed a train yard and one of the robbers got his leg cut off by a moving train. He sued the train company and won a million bucks. Makes me sick. What is this world coming to. He got jail time but not much compared to the million he got.
The whole world has gone mad! It was the free will of the burglar to penetrate a private house, but not the free will of the resident!! If the burglar didnt burgle in the first place then he wouldnt have got hurt!!
How insane! What on earth does the legal system consider "reasonable force?" My family and I were talking about this very thing last night, and we pretty much all agreed that in the case of family torment, revenge is the proper course!
I doubt that he would have a gun, Britain is just not like California - which is why the intelligient British people (e.g. not Jimmythejock) cannot as a society condone brutal revenge attacks. Remember that this burglar did not have a gun, he had a knife, which he didnt use.
thanks for the insult Ryan i really appreciate it. I just heard the report my local radio station and said it as it was told on there, there was no mention in the report about the attack being after the men had fled the scene. but even so if my family had been tied up and threatened, i would be so angry that i would go into a rage that i could not control.......jimmy
Im neither, I have a bit of Irish in my family so my dad is a Celtic fan - I just like watching the Old Firm derby, some of the roughest games anybody could see! The only game in football where you win points for knee high challenges and elbows! If I had to choose a Scottish team to support it would be Arbroath, never been there and never seen them play - but bumped into their entire squad in a Tenerife bar once and have never seen a pub drunk dry so quickly
Here in Canada, the only limitation you have on defending your home and life is that you can not attack when the perpetrator is already fleeing. Aside from that, anything's fair game. If you are afraid for your life or your loved one's life, you have the right to kill the attacker in defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law"In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an...