News Justice is served

[Raven]

BBC News - Jailed businessman Munir Hussain freed by court

I have been following this case and think this is the right result, I think in the same situation I would probably do the same. While the people who broke in had fleed when they were caught the guy should not be punished so severely, he has just endured seeing his family tied up and robbed.

 

[Ch3tan]

I don't agree at all, I am all for protecting your home and family through force if necessary, but when they caught the guy they outnumbered him and could have simply called the police and held him. They could also have beaten him up without smashing a cricket bat over his head.

At the end of the day I agree with the ruling the first judge said about taking the law into your own hands.

It's hardly eye for an eye either is it? The punishment Munir and his brother handed out was not equal to the crime.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If i look at it from a POV of my own family being tied up, especially with the situation effecting judgement, i'd agree with Raven.

From the POV of unncecessary force, i'd agree with Ch3tan.

Seeing as i haven't followed the story and it's not really my place to say, i'll say this;

It's the courts job, their call.

 

[Raven]

I don't agree at all, I am all for protecting your home and family through force if necessary, but when they caught the guy they outnumbered him and could have simply called the police and held him. They could also have beaten him up without smashing a cricket bat over his head.

At the end of the day I agree with the ruling the first judge said about taking the law into your own hands.

It's hardly eye for an eye either is it? The punishment Munir and his brother handed out was not equal to the crime.

Quite, I don't mean that actual retaliation was justified but under the circumstances I doubt he was thinking clearly. A suspended sentence is much better in this case than a jail term.

 

[soze]

Should be in prison hitting someone in the head with a bat is assault. He was not defending his home he was seeking vigilante justice. If he had hit him in the head with the bat in his house imo it would be different. If it was my house once i chased them out of the door i would have gone back to check my family were ok rather than running them down and trying to kill them.

 

[Fafnir]

Should be in prison hitting someone in the head with a bat is assault. He was not defending his home he was seeking vigilante justice. If he had hit him in the head with the bat in his house imo it would be different. If it was my house once i chased them out of the door i would have gone back to check my family were ok rather than running them down and trying to kill them.

Agree. Think most countrys have laws saying you have the right to defend yourself/or help others with force if needed, but if you chase someone down you are no longer defending yourself. But then again there can be circumstances that put this guy out of his right mind.

Think some 20 years ago we had a guy in Sweden who was out on his lawn with his kid when a mental ill person attacked his kid with a knife, he grabbed the first thing in sight, a shovel, hit one time and the guy died, he was freed of all charges due to a clause in the law. (Eccess in swedish)

 

[Cozak]

This boils my piss the fact that they ever had to even take the bloke to court. 3 blokes in balaclavas who tie up your family.. stupid fucker who was caught got what was coming to him. If someone has your family tied up they could do anything, and if its your family they are your world.

The court heard Hussain and his wife and children returned from their local mosque to find intruders wearing balaclavas in their home.

They were tied up but the businessman escaped and enlisted his brother to help chase the offenders down the street, bringing one of them to the ground.

The pair left Salem with a permanent brain injury after hitting him with a cricket bat.

The force of the blow was so hard that it broke the bat into three pieces.

Lord Judge said: "This trial had nothing to do with the right of the householder to defend themselves or their families or their homes.

"The burglary was over and the burglars had gone. No one was in any further danger from them."

So the judge thinks that there was no danger when they returned home and there were 3 people in balaclavas still _inside_ the house and his family was tied up... I fail to see how no one is in danger there?? How was he to know they would not return with more people, instruments of torture etc..

What a fucked up country we live in...

 

[Fafnir]

"The burglary was over and the burglars had gone. No one was in any further danger from them."

Cozak read the last line. yes they where in danger while the burglars where still inside. But not when they chased one of them down.

And from bbc news. "They were tied up but the businessman escaped and enlisted his brother to help chase the offenders down the street, bringing one of them to the ground." here in my eyes they stopped being the victims and started being the offenders. Not even in USA are you allowed to chase a burglar down the street, sure some states you can shoot them while they are still on your property, but if they are running and outside the property line you are commiting a crime.

 

[soze]

This boils my piss the fact that they ever had to even take the bloke to court. 3 blokes in balaclavas who tie up your family.. stupid fucker who was caught got what was coming to him. If someone has your family tied up they could do anything, and if its your family they are your world.

So the judge thinks that there was no danger when they returned home and there were 3 people in balaclavas still _inside_ the house and his family was tied up... I fail to see how no one is in danger there?? How was he to know they would not return with more people, instruments of torture etc..

What a fucked up country we live in...

He chased them out of his house. So his family are no longer in danger, he could have locked the door and looked after his family but he chased them instead. He was no longer protecting his family he was chasing someone for revenge. Simple really what he did is assault not self defence.

What if the police had shown up while he had the bat felt threatened. He put the bat down and ran away but they chased and battered him would that be fair enough they were defending themselves?

 

[old.Tohtori]

How many of you would stop chasing at your front door if some guy had tied up your family etc etc?

Just pointing it out.

 

[Fafnir]

How many of you would stop chasing at your front door if some guy had tied up your family etc etc?

Just pointing it out.

I would chase him down, but would not crack a baseball bat in 3 pieces doin it. In Sweden if you see someone commit a crime that can lead to jail you can make a arrest as a civilian. You may even chase them down, but if you one time under the chase loose eye contact your arrest is void and you can be prosecuted yourself. You may also use force to avoid harm to your person, but not more force than the situation demands. And you must contact the police as soon as possible. I think this guy only applies to 1 of the criterias, he broke the law by using exesive force, thus being guilty of assault. But then again i dont know the law in England but i can imagine its somewhat the same.

But if you make a false arrest, or arrest someone who has commited a crime that do not give jail time you, yourself can be prosecuted for deprivation of liberty.

 

[soze]

How many of you would stop chasing at your front door if some guy had tied up your family etc etc?

Just pointing it out.

My wife and family are tied up and helpless I'm not gonna chase some random down the road leaving them alone. I would get the burglars out the front door then check my family.

 

[Zede]

adrenaline... testosterone....all well and good to pontificate here - but actually BEING in that situation ? Nobody here has the right to say "i wouldnt have done that"

if someone had threatened to kill family..tie them up...id' have tortured the fuckers, beating them up is tooo easy.

 

[Uara]

I presume the CPS/DPP are not appealing against this decision at the Supreme Court level as he's been released.
While I'm all for defending your home against intruders there is a limit and once the intruders have left your property chasing them down the street and hitting them over the head with a cricket bat is pretty unacceptable.

 

[old.Osy]

So basically, the message that you defenders of law are putting out there to criminals is:

"Listen, come into my house, i'll fuck you up, but we can have tea once you're out the front door. Cheers."

Nutters, the lot of you.

The guy had it coming, and Hussain was well into his rights to smack the guy about.

 

[soze]

No I'm saying that your right to call it self defence and or protecting your property ends when they leave the house and run away. As they are no longer a threat.

 

[old.Tohtori]

adrenaline... testosterone....all well and good to pontificate here - but actually BEING in that situation ? Nobody here has the right to say "i wouldnt have done that"

if someone had threatened to kill family..tie them up...id' have tortured the fuckers, beating them up is tooo easy.

This is what i was saying, i think the case here is that it's understandable enough and the wrongdoer put himself in that situation, basically by being a very very bad man to the wrong man.

Justice can't be black&white all the time, this is a gray one.

 

[Bugz]

In the eyes of the law though, justice almost always has to be black & white (at least till we get to the court stage) or the fabrics of society will brake down.

 

[old.Tohtori]

In the eyes of the law though, justice almost always has to be black & white (at least till we get to the court stage) or the fabrics of society will brake down.

Well, that would take some serious study to be shown one way or other.

Police for example, often look at the situation and consider points before simply throwing someone in jail.

There's always, in my opinion atleast, some degree of assessment by the enforcers of law.

 

[Bugz]

True, true - I was thinking mainly about public safety but indeed lots of situations do need consideration, esp. family disputes etc.

 

[tierk]

The man is clearly a legend.

I know if it was me i would do the same again and again and again and kudos to the man for standing up for himself and his family. I bet the arresting officers gave him a big pat on his back when they got to the scene.

If anyone wants to quote chapter and verse about the law all i can say is:

"If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass, a idiot!"

 

[Raven]

The scrote that attempted to rob him has been arrested on fresh charges to a new case, he can't be that bad if he is still out and about robbing people. They said due to his injuries he was unfit to stand on charges for robbery and false imprisonment.

 

[Ch3tan]

This boils my piss the fact that they ever had to even take the bloke to court. 3 blokes in balaclavas who tie up your family.. stupid fucker who was caught got what was coming to him. If someone has your family tied up they could do anything, and if its your family they are your world.




So the judge thinks that there was no danger when they returned home and there were 3 people in balaclavas still _inside_ the house and his family was tied up... I fail to see how no one is in danger there?? How was he to know they would not return with more people, instruments of torture etc..

What a fucked up country we live in...

Your blood is boiling because you have an inability to grasp the basic facts and have made up your own version of events.

 

[Ch3tan]

The scrote that attempted to rob him has been arrested on fresh charges to a new case, he can't be that bad if he is still out and about robbing people. They said due to his injuries he was unfit to stand on charges for robbery and false imprisonment.

And had the brothers managed to excercise some restraint and simply hold the guy, he would have been charged with the burglary and false imprisonment (I think) and the other two may have been caught as a consequence. But instead the guy has claimed brain damage and that he is unable to stand trial (when he probably is able), and his accomplices have got away scot free.

 

[tierk]

And had the brothers managed to excercise some restraint and simply hold the guy, he would have been charged with the burglary and false imprisonment (I think) and the other two may have been caught as a consequence. But instead the guy has claimed brain damage and that he is unable to stand trial (when he probably is able), and his accomplices have got away scot free.

LOL he wasn't well enough to be charged but he seems in fairly good nick, seeing as he was well enough to go and do some more robberies. I am curious to know what is your idea on the meaning of the word justice as this case has seen no justice whatsoever, for either of the brothers.

The slag doesn't get charged, the guys that gave him what he deserved get jailed and to top it all off the dirty little toe rag goes and commits another crime.

Oh yes i can see your point really justice has been served.... NOT!!

 

[Ch3tan]

LOL he wasn't well enough to be charged but he seems in fairly good nick, seeing as he was well enough to go and do some more robberies. I am curious to know what is your idea on the meaning of the word justice as this case has seen no justice whatsoever, for either of the brothers.

The slag doesn't get charged, the guys that gave him what he deserved and get jailed and to top it all off the dirty little toe rag goes and commits another crime.

Oh yes i can see your point really justice has been served.... NOT!!

You've completely missed my point infact. Justice was not served either way. The brothers should be charged for what amounts to assault, no matter the justification they felt. Their actions led directly to the burglar getting away with it because of his supposed injuries. It's also led to him not being charged and questioned over the incident because of those supposed injuries.

Do you understand yet? Protecting your home and family are different from chasing someone down the street with the intention to seriously harm them.

If the two brothers feel that what they did is right then fair enough, but all the have done is satisfied their immediate rage. The actual burglars get away without charge, because of the actions of the brothers.

 

[old.Osy]

Your version is far fetched, Chet. Regardless of what the brothers would have done, the cnut would still walk away, justice being perfect and all.

 

[The Special One]

The Chetan is right. There is a line between protecting your family and breaking the law.

Fantastic

 

[Mey]

I would chase him down, but would not crack a baseball bat in 3 pieces doin it. In Sweden if you see someone commit a crime that can lead to jail you can make a arrest as a civilian. You may even chase them down, but if you one time under the chase loose eye contact your arrest is void and you can be prosecuted yourself. You may also use force to avoid harm to your person, but not more force than the situation demands. And you must contact the police as soon as possible. I think this guy only applies to 1 of the criterias, he broke the law by using exesive force, thus being guilty of assault. But then again i dont know the law in England but i can imagine its somewhat the same.

But if you make a false arrest, or arrest someone who has commited a crime that do not give jail time you, yourself can be prosecuted for deprivation of liberty.

In the Uk you may make a citizens arrest for a crime that you have seen committed that is Indictable or trial-able either way (as long as its in the category of Indictable).

If you arrest someone in the UK using a citizen’s arrest you become responsible for their welfare and care.

Self-defence law works on the basis that there has to be an immediate threat of unlawful violence against you or another (e.g. a spouse, friend, child etc.) and as such you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself or that other person. This naturally does not mean you can chase someone once the threat of unlawful violence is no longer present.

Interestingly enough you are also allowed to pre-empt unlawful violence and act before said violence is used against you. (E.g. someone squaring up to head but you and you smack them one, it would still be self-defence if a reasonable person believed that said actions were necessary, proportionate and reasonable and that said actions from the offender could be seen as a threat of unlawful violence)

 

[Lamp]

I think the law does not need changing. We have a "reasonable force" provision which covers what is required. What needs changing is a more common sense approach by the judiciary as to how this provision is interpreted. ie if you're woken up at 3am by an intruder you have to fear the worst - that they're there to kill you or harm your family and IMO whacking them with a cricket bat at the time is reasonable to defend yourself and your loved ones, but tying them up and THEN caving their head in with a crow bar is not reasonable. You've gone too far. Where we draw the line is what the courts are there for.