Millionaire who fought off a knife-wielding burglar is jailed (while the intruder is

Deadmanwalking_05 · 12-22-2009, 11:37 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-let-off.html

A millionaire businessman who fought back against a knife-wielding burglar was jailed for two-and-a-half years yesterday. But his attacker has been spared prison.

Munir Hussain, 53, and his family were tied up and told to lie on the floor by career criminal Waled Salem, who burst into his home with two other masked men.

Mr Hussain escaped and attacked Salem with a metal pole and a cricket bat. But yesterday it was the businessman who was starting a prison sentence for his 'very violent revenge'.
Munir Hussain

Munir Hussain, right, with his brother Tokeer, left, outside Reading Crown Court where he was jailed for attacking an intruder who had held his family hostage...

Still Jack · 12-22-2009, 11:55 AM

I heard about this. I think the law concerning intruders needs to be changed.

JCC · 12-22-2009, 11:58 AM

It clearly says in the article how the burglar was running away, when they beat him to the point of a fractured skull with a metal pole and a cricket bat. That is not home defense.

Still Jack · 12-22-2009, 12:07 PM

In this case not, but I still think that If someone's in your house stealing your shit and you kick their teeth in, that it should be counted as an occupational hazard, so to speak, and not be counted as assault.

Ben Lahnger · 12-22-2009, 12:09 PM

Yeah, I think the article makes the law (and the opinion of the judge) clear. The "victim" is going to jail because he use excessive force. The interpretation of the law is supposed to allow a reasonable defense of ones home, property and loved ones ... but does not and cannot sanction vigilantism or revenge. That would, as the judge stated, cause the collapse of the rule of law. Of course, if you want more leeway with regards to how harshly you can deal with intruders, you could move here to Texas!

I am puzzled that the perpetrator got no time though.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 12-22-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still Jack

I heard about this. I think the law concerning intruders needs to be changed.

I agree, if you mean homeowners should be able to defend themselves with the best tools available (No matter the "Social Class"),I also think that those individuals have the right to the same level of security outside their homes.

CptSternn · 12-22-2009, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC

It clearly says in the article how the burglar was running away, when they beat him to the point of a fractured skull with a metal pole and a cricket bat. That is not home defense.

Ditto. You have the legal right to stop an intruder and protect your family. You don't have the right to then beat him within an inch of his life once he is stopped, restrained, and disarmed.

This is nothing new - a few years ago a man shot an unarmed burglar that he scared off. Shot the burglar in the back as he was running away down the street, and he got time for it. That is not self defence.

Once the threat is removed, you no longer have any right to use such force.

JCC · 12-23-2009, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

I agree, if you mean homeowners should be able to defend themselves with the best tools available (No matter the "Social Class"),I also think that those individuals have the right to the same level of security outside their homes.

Yo, didn't you read my post? You're a dumbass.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 12-23-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC

Yo, didn't you read my post? You're a dumbass.

same question back at ya' clusterfuck,did you read the post I quoted from S.J. before reading my response?

On the above here are my words of wisdom on the subject.

"It is better to meet an uninvited guest at the front door with pistol in hand,than to meet said character at your night stand with nothing"

Ben Lahnger · 12-23-2009, 08:06 AM

No, as much as it pains me to say it, JCC is right: You are a dumbass.

Nobody here was saying that you couldn't defend your property, life or loved ones. In fact, everyone was clear on the means and circumstances in which that is defensible.

But you are arguing that it should be okay to chase people down after they are trying to leave and bludgeon them when they are no longer a threat, using excessive force.

This ain't the wild west, we don't round a posse up and lynch people without a trial for good reason. We are moving to a more civilized society, and as such you don't have the right to punish your attacker ... that's what the legal system is for.

You are a dumbass because you are advocating legalized revenge.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 12-23-2009, 09:31 AM

No I'm talking about legal defense of a persons life,inside their own home.

The "Equal Force" bullshit is a wild card at best.

Because home invaders don't call ahead of time and inform the victim of the TYPE of FORCE they're going to use and if the home owner will be murdered while begging for his/her life (or lives in the case of a couple/family) at the conclusion of their "Little Get-to-GATHER".

Deadmanwalking_05 · 12-23-2009, 09:39 AM

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.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0aXBxCrOP

By this nature they are still on the homeowners turf and as such the invaders deserve whatever they get.

JCC · 12-23-2009, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

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.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0aXBxCrOP

By this nature they are still on the homeowners turf and as such the invaders deserve whatever they get.

Are you serious? It's about the fact that he was running away when he was attacked, not how far he got before they beat in his skull with a metal pole. Had he taken an extra two steps and left their front garden to stand on the street, would you then concede that it was wrong to attack? You're a dick.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 12-23-2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC

Are you serious? It's about the fact that he was running away when he was attacked, not how far he got before they beat in his skull with a metal pole. Had he taken an extra two steps and left their front garden to stand on the street, would you then concede that it was wrong to attack? You're a dick.

Pretty much, yeah I'm saying if he had set both feet on public/city property he shouldn't have been attacked,if he had gotten clear of their property the goal would've been accomplished (as long as none of the family members were kidnapped or being held hostage by the home invader in question).

The Home invader paid the price for breaking into someones home and threatening them with bodily harm with a knife,and another fact that you're missing is that this was a Career Criminal that got his head plowed,meaning this wasn't his first time doing a H.I. /B&E.

Ben Lahnger · 12-23-2009, 12:32 PM

That's why you deserve the labels questioning your intelligence. The law doesn't measure whether the defender's force was acceptable based on the property line. You totally ignored my statement about just defense vs. revenge.

For instance, if I punch you and then run away and you catch me before I leave my property you have the right to restrain me and alert the authorities to come pick me up and prosecute me for assault. If you pursue me and catch me before I leave your property and proceed to attack me in any way beyond what is necessary to subdue me, you are guilty of the same crime I committed or worse and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

This is the way the law works and for good reason ... because in a civilized society we do not allow individuals to determine what kind of punishment should be doled out. We have a legal system for that because after millennia of progress we've determined it's the best way to insure we strive to give everyone equal treatment.

You don't get to decide you're above the law because your wounded, pissed and the perpetrator is still on your lawn. No way.

Now stop whining about how you should be able to have your angry vengeance if they don't escape and recognize that the law the way it is helps you in more ways than you've acknowledged or perceived.

PortraitOfSanity · 12-23-2009, 12:37 PM

Stupid Deadman is still stupid.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 12-23-2009, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

That's why you deserve the labels questioning your intelligence. The law doesn't measure whether the defender's force was acceptable based on the property line. You totally ignored my statement about just defense vs. revenge.

For instance, if I punch you and then run away and you catch me before I leave my property you have the right to restrain me and alert the authorities to come pick me up and prosecute me for assault. If you pursue me and catch me before I leave your property and proceed to attack me in any way beyond what is necessary to subdue me, you are guilty of the same crime I committed or worse and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

This is the way the law works and for good reason ... because in a civilized society we do not allow individuals to determine what kind of punishment should be doled out. We have a legal system for that because after millennia of progress we've determined it's the best way to insure we strive to give everyone equal treatment.

You don't get to decide you're above the law because your wounded, pissed and the perpetrator is still on your lawn. No way.

Now stop whining about how you should be able to have your angry vengeance if they don't escape and recognize that the law the way it is helps you in more ways than you've acknowledged or perceived.

What???

The first sentence of the second paragraph gets me... "For instance, if I punch you and then run away and you catch me before I leave my property"

If I were on YOUR property and you were to punch me I would leave and report you to the police for assault,because that is the extent of my legal abilities on YOUR property.

But if I'm standing in my yard and someone were to walk over and punch me I can there by kick their ass/asses off my property (Stopping only when they cross over my property line and back on their property/ Public street or sidewalk). if I so choose, but I wouldn't legally be able to give pursuit unless a family member is being abducted during the H.I.'s flight.

Ben Lahnger · 12-23-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

What???

But if I'm standing in my yard and someone were to walk over and punch me I can there by kick their ass/asses off my property (Stopping only when they cross over my property line and back on their property/ Public street or sidewalk). if I so choose, but I wouldn't legally be able to give pursuit unless a family member is being abducted during the H.I.'s flight.

No, you cannot use force equal to or greater than that which was used on you, unless in self defense. Once the person starts walking away, whether they are on your property or not, you can make efforts to subdue and restrain them so the law can come, but if you "kick their ass" you rightly will open yourself up to assault charges.

An eye for an eye may be biblical, but it's barbaric. You are not legally entitled to revenge.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 12-23-2009, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

No, you cannot use force equal to or greater than that which was used on you, unless in self defense. Once the person starts walking away, whether they are on your property or not, you can make efforts to subdue and restrain them so the law can come, but if you "kick their ass" you rightly will open yourself up to assault charges.

An eye for an eye may be biblical, but it's barbaric. You are not legally entitled to revenge.

It's not barbaric or biblical....it's how the world turns.

JCC · 12-23-2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

It's not barbaric or biblical....it's how the world turns.

Yes, our entire civilization is based upon fracturing people's skulls with metal poles as they are running away.

You're fucking crazy, man.

Ben Lahnger · 12-23-2009, 02:44 PM

No, douchebag. It's not how the world turns ... it's how you get arrested and get more legal punishment than the original criminal got.

You don't have to like it, but like gravity you have to accept that this is the way things are. Or not ... I would laugh if you got put in jail for behaving like this.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 12-23-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

No, douchebag. It's not how the world turns ... it's how you get arrested and get more legal punishment than the original criminal got.

You don't have to like it, but like gravity you have to accept that this is the way things are. Or not ... I would laugh if you got put in jail for behaving like this.

For defending myself on my own property?

Not in my state,and that's why I like living here,the laws are more forgiving to the homeowner than to the criminal.

Which is how it should be.

LakitaJackson · 12-23-2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

For defending myself on my own property?

Not in my state,and that's why I like living here,the laws are more forgiving to the homeowner than to the criminal.

Which is how it should be.

No. Believe it or not, even criminals have rights.

JCC · 12-23-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

For defending myself on my own property?

It's not defense if they're running away.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 12-23-2009, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LakitaJackson

No. Believe it or not, even criminals have rights.

Not if that criminal steps into my house and threatens my life with a weapon,they'll be dead before they hit the ground,that's a promise,or they'll have to kill me,either way somebody is going to the undertaker to be fitted for the last suit they'll ever wear complete with carrying case.