It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man gets jail for wounding burglar

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
This news is big in the UK just now. A man and his family were attacked and tied up in their home by 3 men. He got free and with his brother chased off and attacked the intruders, beating one of them about the head and giving him brain damage.
They have consequently been given a prison sentence.
news.bbc.co.uk...
The thing is, under UK law, the fact that he pursued him outside and beat him to a pulp means that it can't be considered self defence.
I would have thought though he would have had a case for being temporarily 'unbalanced' by what he had experienced. What do you think?

[edit on 15-12-2009 by unicorn1]




posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
From the link you posted:


Hilary Neville, prosecuting, said: "What started as reasonable self defence by Munir Hussain then turned into excessive force by virtue of a sustained attack by Munir, Tokeer and at least two others."


If the burglar is now out of your premises and fleeing the scene you and your mates can't beat the crap out of him. You have the right to detain the person with reasonable force, but no more.

Would it still be OK to get him if he ran a mile before you caught him ?
How about if you saw him on the street the next day ?

I agree with the Crown on this one, the key part being:
excessive force by virtue of a sustained attack



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Oh barf!

This completely grieves me. The article labeled it as a 'vengeance' attack. I could understand (slightly) if the victim hunted him down days later and some distance away. But not immediately following the attack once the victim broke loose from his bonds.

I'm sorry the criminal has brain damage but you don't break into people's homes and tie up their families. The victim might have been out of immediate danger but it is natural instinct when your chemicals are coursing through your veins to continue defense.

It disgusts me because stories like this castrate law abiding citizens and make us too paranoid to take action. The victim might not have been 100% justified according to the current Candyland court system but definitely not so wrong that it should merit jail time.

[edit on 12/15/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

leaving him with a permanent brain injury after he was hit with a . cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces


That's excessive in any ones book, they should of called the police in to deal with it - if we have a vigilante culture then beating people to a pulp will become the norm, mistakes will get made, people will go over the top and no good will come of it.

The pair armed them selves and hunted that guy down, it was no longer defence, it was an offensive action - sure the blood was pumping and they were seeing red but they acted without control. And I don't think this one can really be compared to the farmer who shot the bugler - in that case he was in his own property in the dark... I this case they chased him down and were out side, they should of been able to stop the beating and held him - is that worth 30 months? I don't know, that was for the courts to decide.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
That's why you simply kill the burglar and drag him back to your place....


He can't talk, and it's in your home. Silly victim....


That's excessive in any ones book, they should of called the police in to deal with it - if we have a vigilante culture then beating people to a pulp will become the norm, mistakes will get made, people will go over the top and no good will come of it.


Not at all, if someone tied up my family...they simply wouldn't even find the body... Robbing the home is one thing, but threatening my family's safety? No...the crook got what he got...too damn bad...should have thought about it before endangering the guy's family like that.

I realize the law can't turn a blind eye, but at the same time, it's not the same as a "vengeance" beating...the guy had every right to assume this guy posed a clear and present danger to his family's safety.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Gazrok]




top topics
 
0

log in

join