Man jailed for fighting off knife-wielding attacker. Attacker goes free

[kibbles]

Yes they deserve a medal they removed a known and mostly unpunished thief from society.

IMO they have gotten the only "medal" they deserve. The thief should obviously get way more jail time; but, that doesn't take away from the wrong they did.

[Greenday]

And you know this how? I've managed to get away from 4 people holding me down before.

If he could have escaped, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have waited until they brought the baseball bats out. In fact, if he could have escaped from their grasp, I'm pretty sure he would have done so immediately. And even if he eventually could have, why was more than one swing necessary?

[Slytovhand]

Ok... firstly the FACTS of this case, as per the article:

Mr Hussain made a break for freedom by throwing a coffee table at his attackers. He and Tokeer chased the gang and brought Salem to the ground in a front garden.

Reading Crown Court heard how Mr Hussain and his brother then beat Salem while he lay on the ground, using a cricket bat, a pole and a hockey stick - leaving him with a fractured skull and brain damage following the 'sustained' attack.

Thus, intruder had a coffee table thrown at him. Thus, in the living room... cool! Whatever happened next, he managed to (now, get this kids - it's important) outside! So, he was chased outside, pinned to the ground, and then beaten with - a cricket bat, a pole and a hockey stick! This is not self-defence. It is not ensuring your family is safe. It is not heat of the moment. If it had've been done in the living room, I can see some possible mitigation.. but the guy was obviously fleeing!

DrF - that 'dude' who wrote down 'that law' wasn't a thousand years ago. It wasn't even a hundred years ago! From a brief search (not easy to track down, with my lack of google-fu), but it's been fairly recent that the right to use 'excessive' force was repealed (first dating I can find is 1957). You had those protections in place... Remember a thing called the Wild West? Yeah, those laws got changed.. because society determined that such excuses for murder were not conducive to an effective and safe environment...

And probably because someone also realised that robbers, burglars and other individuals still had rights. We've got that thread! I started it!! (there are other threads as well...) so criminals have rights? Well, yes they do! One of those rights is the right to life and to freedom.

If you're a law-abiding citizen - cool! Go to jail for breaking it when someone runs away from the fight they started and you kill them!

It wasn't 'a dude' who wrote the law - it was effectively a whole society... and quite a few of them, looking at the laws across various countries round the world! And contrary to various opinions no doubt arising, it hasn't destroyed society as we know it!

Once you've stopped chasing someone, in to grab a weapon to attack them with, you're no longer in the realms of self-defence! Especially if you've had to go an look for your weapon!

[Nyoibo]

Quick question, where are people getting that they went and got weapons after they had him on the ground?

[Slytovhand]

I'm not sure that anyone is... It might be the way it reads, though. But, they certainly got weapons at some stage between being tied up, and having him on the ground.

[jackfaire]

Simple logic really he threw a table at the intruder. The intruder fled.

Heat of the moment you chase him.

Not heat of the moment you stop grab a weapon then chase him.

If you just threw a table you used both hands to do it thus the action chasing had to be done empty handed for it to be a heat of the moment thing. Picking up another weapon while chasing isn't likely

[Nyoibo]

Flawed logic, one of the kids escaped then ran down the street and got his uncle who then came and both he and Hussein chased the attacker and beat him, I'd say it's still pretty much heat of the moment if you grab the cricket bat or hockey stick that's leaning next to the door as you're running out of it.

[Rapscallion]

It appears in England these boys would have got off with barely a slap on the wrist.

While I disagree with you on a number of points, I agree with you on this. it's certainly the perception (and probably the reality) that convicted felons over here are going to get off lighter than they really should. I'm all for allowing the police to take over justice and the legal system to apply sanctions, but the punishments involved are generally derisory. With more and more criminals around (if you believe the tabloids), there are fewer and fewer resources for applying to miscreants.

Want to act like a thug? The state should slap you right down.

Rapscallion

[linguist]

I think sometimes people need to take a big step back and realize that the law was not made to protect criminals.

actually, the law was made to protect everyone, including those who would break it, as any system of laws should if it's to maintain its integrity. otherwise you're left with a system of vigilante justice and horrendously disproportionate punishments.

Greenday perhaps when you've been in a hand to hand fight for your life or the life of another maybe you'll understand.

you're making the assumption he hasn't. greenday hasn't said one way or the other, but even if he hasn't, i have. and guess what? i still feel that these men deserve to go to jail. even in the heat of the moment i was still able to show appropriate restraint, using only enough force to stop my attacker and then calling the authorities to deal with him properly.

Yes I have and I'm fully prepared to face any consequences from my actions should I be caught, what's your point?

any consequences? including a disproportionate attack at the hands of a vigilante rather than punishment by the actual justice system?


and now i have to ask everyone who supports these men a question: do you support police officers who beat subdued and restrained prisoners? because that's essentially what this was.

[protege]

and now i have to ask everyone who supports these men a question: do you support police officers who beat subdued and restrained prisoners? because that's essentially what this was.

Even though I have *very* little tolerance for criminals...I try not to support officers who have beaten restrained prisoners. Locally though, it's difficult. Too many idiots hurt themselves while fleeing, and then claim they were "roughed up." Then there are the idiots who "won't hurt a flea," yet are shot by police after they fired first. That's why I try to get the facts sorted first

Also consider, how do we know if the burglar hadn't broken into that house before? It's not mentioned, but if the guy was a "career criminal," that sort tend to hit targets that they're familiar with. If he'd broken into that place before...maybe the owner recognized him, and decided he'd had enough?

[Fryk]

I agree what the Hussein brothers did was over the top, but come one! Two and a half years in prison for it? I've heard of people committing much worse crimes, and they didn't get punished as severely as this guy did. And his brother got even worse- totally shafted. (Insert prison "shafted" joke and giggle).

[Slytovhand]

Fryk - firstly, it'll probably come down on appeal. Secondly, his brother wasn't really a 'victim' of the invasion - wasn't tied, up, wasn't threatened.

Thirdly - yeah, the justice system isn't fair... we know that. In this case, 'guilty' was 'justice' done by the jury, but the sentencing may be unfair, and was given by the judge...

[Greenday]

Robbery <<< Assault causing brain damage

[Skelly]

While I disagree with you on a number of points, I agree with you on this. it's certainly the perception (and probably the reality) that convicted felons over here are going to get off lighter than they really should. I'm all for allowing the police to take over justice and the legal system to apply sanctions, but the punishments involved are generally derisory. With more and more criminals around (if you believe the tabloids), there are fewer and fewer resources for applying to miscreants.

Want to act like a thug? The state should slap you right down.

Rapscallion

The problem, as I see it, lies in that the state have taken it on them to defend and protect you in exchange for tax money (social contract). In return, you promise to behave. Now what is one supposed to do when the state suddenly don't keep their end of the bargain? From what I've read of the state of affairs over in the UK, a criminal has to be very unfortunate to even receive a slap on the wrist these days. The state is unable to keep the real criminals in check, but boy do they come down hard on otherwise law-abiding people, like the one mentioned, who are obviously a bit upset about having their home, the place that ought to be their sanctuary, violated by a vicious thug.

Now, if those who are supposed to enforce the laws won't do so, who else is supposed to do it then?

As for the criminal, he can spend the rest of his life in the gutter pissing himself for all I care. I hate criminals with a fiery passion.

[Rapscallion]

From what I've read of the state of affairs over in the UK, a criminal has to be very unfortunate to even receive a slap on the wrist these days.

While I agree that the punishments given out are generally too soft, the media is always looking for cases they can promote/distort to prove/support their particular agendas. Not quite open and shut as 'all criminals get it easy'.

I'd really like to see some figures for average sentence lengths for particular crimes over the last few decades.

Rapscallion