This is insane by anybody's standards.
This is a discussion on Jail time for beating intruder (Nanny State) within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Millionaire Munir Hussain who fought off a knife-wielding burglar is jailed (while the intruder is let off) | Mail Online A millionaire businessman who fought ...
Millionaire Munir Hussain who fought off a knife-wielding burglar is jailed (while the intruder is let off) | Mail Online
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'.
Jailing him, Judge John Reddihough said some members of the public would think that 56-year-old Salem 'deserved what happened to him' and that Mr Hussain 'should not have been prosecuted'.
But had he spared Mr Hussain jail, the judge said, the 'rule of law' would collapse.
He said: 'If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting the criminal justice system take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.'
Salem, who has previous convictions, has already been given a non-custodial sentence despite carrying out what the judge called a 'serious and wicked' attack.
Mr Hussain's nightmare began on September 3 last year when he, his wife, 18-year-old daughter and two sons aged 18 and 15 returned from their mosque during Ramadan to find three intruders in their home in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire.
This is insane by anybody's standards.
Sig 226, 228. Glock 19, 23. Smith Model 60,and 1911. XD45 Tactical. Mossberg 930 SPX.
How we behave as gun owners is important. Posturing and threatening does not serve us well in the public eye.
This took place in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire UK
a better article:
Jail for ‘courageous’ Munir Hussain who beat intruder with cricket bat - Times Online
Seeing as it is the UK, it is almost expected. Even in the USA chasing BG's down the street and beating them can land you in jail. If a BG is running away from you and away from your house, the imminent threat argument fails and one cannot justify self defense.The incident occurred when the Hussain family returned from their mosque during Ramadan to find three intruders wearing balaclavas in their home. Hussain was told that he would be killed. His family’s hands were tied behind their backs and they were forced to crawl from room to room.Hussain, 53, made an escape after throwing a coffee table and enlisted his brother Tokeer, 35, in chasing the offenders down the street in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, bringing one of them to the ground.
What followed was described in Reading Crown Court as self-defence that went too far. Walid Salem, one of the intruders, suffered a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces. Neighbours saw several men beating Salem with weapons, including a metal pole.
Everyone needs to know their local laws and keep their emotions in check. That is how you stay out of trouble...
"a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.
The liberal Brit political hacks need the votes of the violent criminals they coddle.
In most US jurisdictions, the right to use deadly force ceases the instant the threat ceases. If the perps were running away and the defendants chased them down and beat them, the defendants would (and obviously were, in this case) be liable for assault. While other cases in the Nanny State have yielded some peculiar results, this one doesn't seem at odds with what we should expect in the US, based on the limited facts in the article.
Oh, the beating was too severe. Pity. Off to jail for the victim and freedom for the perp. Makes no sense.
Don't let any of OUR liberal judges see this - it'll give THEM ideas....
For God, Family and Country!
There is no lawful right to "apprehend" by persons who are _not_ law enforcement officers, as in the UK.
Everyone in the UK knows this as fact.
It's well reported and cases like these go down seemingly every quarter now and almost always with convictions, stiff fines & sentences, as well as sternly worded verbal rebukes by their judicial membership.
This is nothing new, as in the UK.
Further if this had been in the US, as noted by Nutz followed by GMark this too would be an unlawful act as in much if not most every state among us.
Same principal and problem...There is no 'apprehension' of anyone for any given purpose but the narrowest of conditions as specifically related to _imminent_ and immediate potential of major injury and or death of a human being.
None of that was the case here as per the reports and subsequent court enforced charges.
Further even as when apprehension is lawful per state law _and_ specific legal consideration, you are not then enabled and allowed to apply gross and malicious wounding.
You don't get to beat a person as in any manner and to any degree you in the immediate feel is appropriate and as to apply punishment (father/direct victim) and/or retribution (brother) as to what ever degree and time length as it comforts you singularly.
That is street justice, and vigilantism.
Here in America we have very many judicial and social laws as against both such acts.
With a couple of notable exceptions such as Texas I struggle to imagine this case having had a better or even different judicial result in the US.
As stated by Nutz
And again by GMarkIf a BG is running away from you...the imminent threat argument fails and one cannot justify self defense.
One does not have to like or agree with the law.In most US jurisdictions, the right to use deadly force ceases the instant the threat ceases.
But until the law is changed to better match ones own sentiment, if you plan to live among the nation then you had better well act as according to the law.
Or as these gentleman have experienced, suffer the consequences of being and acting in a literal sense unlawfully.
To this point and type of situation singularly the UK is not all that different than that of the US, and vice versa as to the majority.
"Everyone needs to know their local laws and keep their emotions in check. That is how you stay out of trouble." - nutz4utwo
If, after having himself and his family assaulted as described he was merely trying to catch the fleeing felon and hold him for the LEs, that is not street justice.
Should it happen that in the above attempted apprehension the original perp got hurt, my take on it is too bad for the perp. Apparently the UK judge didn't see it that way, and that is the pity and the outrage.
I guess I can see where a jury might be needed to decide what actually, in a factual sense, occurred when fleeing felon and initial victim made contact.
Still, to call it "street justice" is a bit over the top.
Anyway, as to this being the norm in the UK and other places, that is true---- with the result that folks are not safe in their homes and home invasions are common place. They become a very safe crime.
Walk right in. Help yourself. No need to fear being punched or kicked or attacked (G-d forbid) with a knife. Expect the homeowner to retreat. And, btw, he dare not tackle you once you are out of the house so you are perfectly safe to make your getaway. And if you the perp. are tackled, and fight, he dare not smack you one.
Uh, this case illustrates a level of inhumane injustice to the original victim, not street justice.
If they had a bit more of Street Justice, over yonder, perhaps they wouldnt need to use it so much.
As re quoted again from what was provided above, this is street justice...
And once again as by _law_ apprehension of anyone is not lawful in the UK....What followed was described in Reading Crown Court as self-defence that went too far. Walid Salem, one of the intruders, suffered a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces. Neighbours saw several men beating Salem with weapons, including a metal pole.
...Munir Hussain is said to feel that he let down his wife, Shaheen Begum, sons Awais, 21, Samad, 15, and 18-year-old daughter Arooj, by failing to defend them against Salem and his gang.
...Munir and Tokeer Hussain, described as family men at the heart of the local community, were found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent this year. The prosecution alleged that two other men also took part in the “revenge attack”. Judge John Reddihough gave a 30-month sentence to Munir and jailed Tokeer for 39 months.
Source - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6956044.ece
So he and his family suffer, twice.
As a choice less victim and then again as being a active victimizer, as per and by view of the law to the letter never mind that of social or cultural mores, by choice.
Unfortunately, for the victims of the U.K. it would seem that the LAW is more vigorously applied to them than it it to those that commit the crimes.
it's cases like this that embolden criminals. I think there would be a whole lot less crime if the justice system would let things (like this case) play out. if criminals know there going to get there butts handed to them even if they run away, there would be less crime
Now it seems the only way to get justice AND stay out of jail is to follow the criminals home, and rob your stuff back
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Somehow though, I doubt Salem was mild mannered and willing to politely wait for the UK LE.
Now, in the article Janq posted there is a phrase "revenge attack" used. If the attack on Salem was truly a revenge attack and not an at the moment reaction to having just had his family terrorized, I would call it street justice too.