Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
It was quite a sustained attack.
I'm disgusted at this outcome.
and therefore acted in this way due to being placed in an unusual and extreme circumstance.
all this over a dvd.
We like to consider ourselves better than societies that stone women to death for adultery, so forth.
and I also think the guy should have got longer in prison for what he did. Now though that guy probably will never break into a house again and threaten children with death, whereas if he managed to get away he would have faced a prison sentence of a few years at most then gone out and done it again based on his track record.
I am all for rehabilitation and psychology programmes in prison and I'm sure with so many convictions previously they must have given it a go with him, but I guess with some people it just doesn't work.
I am just assuming here, perhaps his previous convictions were for stealing pic a mix or for inadvertent tax fraud, or has never spoken with a psychologist or anything like that.
that I would imagine were not dissimilar i.e. thefts/burglaries.
afterall, why shouldn't we be allowed to maim anyone that steps on our property?
or am I getting confused?
and tied them up, no? i'd be pretty fucking pissed, i'm not sure what to think about this overall.
the fact they hit the guy so hard the cricket bat broke is making me feel a bit sick. there's a limit to what constitutes self defence and that is not it.
I would view that as a death threat against my loved ones. In that situation, I would probably want to kill whoever did that. I am not saying this the right thing to do, just that it is understandable what happened.
I can totally see why it happened. But once you've got a guy incapacitated it's pretty barbaric to keep going. If they've hit him hard enough to give him permanent brain damage it's not like he was going to have been fighting back at the time, and apparently he was running away. I don't know :(
i'm glad i'm not a lawyer anyway "uhhh, i dunno"
The continued and sustained attack is at issue, not self-defence in general. I'd be more inclined to get the fucker out of my house, barricade the door and phone the police then see how my family was doing, not chase him down the street and murder him.
Obviously it isn't brilliant what he did to the burglars, but I could easily see myself doing the same thing in those circumstances. They didn't just break in, they threatened him and his family's life as well. It may sound a little Daily Mail, but I don't have any sympathy for the guy who got the beating.
it's not like the bloke went downstairs to find someone nicking his laptop and then beat him to within an inch of his life
i don't know anymore.
The important sentence being, "Crucially, they cannot attack a fleeing criminal or lie in wait to ambush them."
Have you ever had a battered burger? Absolutely disgusting.
consider this your opportunity
you're a cock
Vigilantism for one and all
In fact, I would exempt Boris from most laws, as long as he could scream JOHNSON'D after in any way pwning anyone.
and that we'd once more descended into Glasgow takeaway offences.
But if you're disgusted by battered burgers... this site is everything you need in life.
the home owner should have the burden of acting responsibly relieved from them. I know for a fact that when I'm startled or frightened for my life, I act unpredictably. I dread to think how I'd be if someone broke into my house in the middle of the night. I nearly punched my girlfriend when she jumped out on me, I'm an edgy sod, what can I say.
So if someone breaks in to my home and I freak out and paralyze them, fuck them. It's not like I went looking for it. I was probably asleep.
I know people have been prosecuted for attacking someone when they were fleeing, I think this is bollocks. If you're asleep, and you wake up because there's someone in your house who shouldn't be, you shouldn't be expected to act reasonably, it shouldn't be this way. I'm not saying it's a home-owner's right to kill gypsies, but nor should they be expected to think about what's lawful. Break into someone's house and accept the risk of a proper dicking. It's your choice.
Then the next time I want to murder someone I'll just set it up so I can claim they came into my home uninvited and then stab them to death with the kitchen knives.
The law requires reasonable force and it's not too hard to see the many, many reasons why it should.
If you're implying that it's a bad opinion because murderers might use the same logic for evil, then you've already got a weak line of argument. And you're asuming that the person you'd want to murder would be silly enough to come to your house.
My point is simple but appears to have been missed. If you're in your house and someone breaks in, you should not be in a position where you have to worry about the consequences of defending yourself. I'm not saying people should attempt to kill/maim/disable any intruders, but the onus should not be on the home owner to act reasonably, it should be on the intruder not to break in.
Can you honestly say you'd be confident of distinguishing between reasonable and unreasonable force in the heat of a break in? I want the right to protect myself from an intruder without having to worry about the consequences.
Reasonable force is all about context. Someone is stealing from your car in the middle of the day in a public place, I'd say the car owner's rights extend to shouting at the thief and calling the police. Someone breaks into your house while you and your kids are asleep, it's reasonable to attempt to render them unconscious.
I don't advocate chasing someone down the road with a brick, but I can understand how a person would feel, in the heat of the moment, that such action is reasonable.
and beating them and continuing to beat them when they're collapsed and foetal on the floor
might be illegal?
If you're treating it in isolation.
If they had just held my family hostage and threatened to kill my children I'd consider it as an option. You can't expect someone to act reasonably after going through that sort of trauma. Isn't that why there are 'mitigating circumstances'?
I'm genuinely not being gung-ho and American about this. The thought of that guy's head-cricket bat interface makes my stomach turn, but I'm convinved that it's wrong to except someone in a situation where their home has been breached to act reasonably.
The responsibility should lie with the intruder.
But essentially you're not really in that position. If you're in fear of your life you're already pretty much protected, it's just assumed that you'll think that maybe a baseball bat is a better choice than an axe if you're reaching for an item of defence.
In this case the problem was a sustained attack. It's all about what sort of people we should be. If you're a sane, normal human being, even if someone breaks into your home, you don't tend to read for an item that is good for murdering someone and you don't tend to do more than use enough force to subdue or scare off your intruder.
No one should enshrine in law the ability to murder someone in 'self-defence' because:
(a) The majority of people still wouldn't do it because they're decent human beings who don't believe in violence generally or killing at all.
(b) Those who would indulge in it are possibly of a more dubious persuasion in the first place and maybe need to be watched in turn.
But I know I act very strangely when I feel threatened. Like I said, I'm edgy at the best of times and the consequences of that shouldn't be used against me if I'm unlucky enough to have my home breached.
It just shouldn't be down to the home owner, minding their own business, to have to figure out what's reasonable in these situations. Your duty of care towards the intruder should be waived in legal terms the moment they break in.
I'm not going to be very popular after this.
People can react very suddenly if they feel threatened but that's quite different to chasing a burglar down and beating them to a pulp.
You were asking for the law to essentially condone that but the ripples through society for such a law would be immense.
the law to condone anything. I was saying the law should provide for the eventuality that a home owner might throw an intruder down the stairs because of blind panic. Or hit them too hard.
At the moment, killing someone would be seen as unreasonable, whether deliberate or not. I'd like it to be the case that if I'm in the kitchen washing up and some burglar walks up behind me, I don't want to have to move the knives out of the way to get a less dangerous self defence tool(whisk perhaps), for their benefit. I want full protection and the knowledge that if I stab this guy and he dies, it's his tough shit, not mine.
Granted, that's mildly far fetched, but the principal is there. Your only duty should be self defence, not worrying about the person who's broke in. If you can sort the situation with a can of raid and a bit of shouting, great, if you think he might need extra persuasion to leave, then that option should be open and you should be trusted, as a law abiding citizen, to make that judgement without being prosecuted for getting it wrong in the heat of the moment.
it is still murder though. and in a court of law so it should be treated
but in it is my explanation of why the original sentence wasn't unfair. Whether he "deserves" to be permenantly brain damaged is immaterial.
If I were him, I'd sue for A LOT.
that's really good and stuff, but bears nothing on whether that should carry a jail sentence, or even be a crime. If someone wrecked my life, I'd probably make a point of reciprocating that and take with it the consequences.
was just reading about best fish and chips in the uk in 2010. now i really want some from masters superfish.
I might go to fish house in victoria park this week. God, I want batter.
i'm like, 100 yards away right now.
but I also think it's only fair that his actions are considered in the appropriate context. What he did went beyond self-defence, but what he did was also the direct consequence of being put in a situation he had no power over. For me, his actions shouldn't be either condoned or condemned. The law has recognised he has done wrong (which he has) and the courts have recognised why he'd done wrong. Seems the right outcome to me.
Unless I'm massively misunderstanding the reports, he's been convicted of GBH and that conviction stands. I don't think that should ever have been in question. After all, he definitely committed GBH.
But if we agree that his mitigating circumstances mean the court was right to not hand him the standard punishment for GBH (which I believe is anything up to life imprisonment, but I might be wrong), how exactly are we (and I mean we as in the public) supposed to decide how long his sentence should be? What base and reasoning do we use? If the bat hadn't broken, should the original sentence have been less than 30 months? If he'd used a sturdier bat but, through lack of physical capability, hadn't caused such serious damage to his victim (inverted commas optional), what then?
It's a horrible situation and it seems to me the court is just trying to bring it to a close as quickly and with as little anguish as possible.
Prison's primary objective is rehabilitation. How do you rehabilitate a criminal of circumstance? What exactly could a prison sentence have acheived, both for this man and for society more generally? Is it acceptable to sentence a person to prison, be it for 30 months or 30 years, knowing that the only purpose it serves is punishment? I'm not so sure.
That said, I couldn't condone Hussain's actions and I certainly wouldn't make a hero of him.
you look at the severity of the attack and injuries caused away from the provocation - having worked in criminal law for a time (I realise I am not the 'public' as such), I would say that it was in the 6-8 year bracket, possibly more if you got a judge having a bad day.
He was not entitled to any credit for a guilty plea - a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity entitles you to up to one third discount on your sentence.
That given, I think 30 months was pretty fair and fully took into account the provocation.
There are a set of laws in place to address enormously difficult, contentious and emotive cases like this one.
This is a frightening precedent.
Watch for the knock-on copycats, vigilantiism and mright-wing nutter frothing free-for-all that will follow
"I broke his fingers cos he stole my stapler"