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.

 

Thug Walid Salem Boasts He Is Untouchable [As His Victim Is Jailed]

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Thug Walid Salem Boasts He Is Untouchable [As His Victim Is Jailed]


www.dailymail.co.uk

A career criminal who violated a man's home with two other knife-wielding thugs boasted that the law could not touch him.

Walid Salem, 57, was set free by a judge while Munir Hussain, the householder, was jailed for two-and-a-half years.

In court Munir's wife Shaheen, 49, who has recently suffered a stroke, described her ordeal.

After the raiders burst into their home, she said: 'They were hitting my husband. When I asked them to stop or looked up they started hitting him again.'
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.timesonline.co.uk
www.telegraph.co.uk




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
If this is not representative of a downright slanderous level of incompetence, as well as a gross miscarriage of justice, then I have absolutely no idea what could possibly construe such.

We have had enough problems with this sort of issue in the United States, but never have I before witnessed such a blatant and harrowing example of this sort of blasphemy to a system of alleged justice.

[The additional links provided here are older, but they describe the same story].

www.dailymail.co.uk (visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Well, he did nearly beat the guy to death. Just sayin.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
This is odd indeed. MAkes me think for whatever reason, the judge himself was in on the house raid too..sounds like it.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidLight
 


IMHO, they didn't beat the guy hard enough. Their assailants are a clear and present danger to the community at large, and the family specifically. You don't just let someone like that go, you put em in a position where all they can do is to push up the daisies. It's immoral to just let them go so they can perpetuate more criminal activity and terror on others.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
You'd think it's common knowledge that if you disturb a sleeping dog you might get bitten, and if you just walk on, it's all good...???

If these thugs hadn't "burst into the home", Mr. Salem wouldn't have his skull beaten with a cricket bat, simple really...

'A cat in a corner makes strange, desperate jumps' (as they say in Holland)...

Indeed, a "downright slanderous level of incompetence, as well as a gross miscarriage of justice..."

...to add to the list.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidLight
 


Well, the man did in fact say he was going to kill them both, "If you move I'll kill you.", whilst he was trespassing.

What's to stop him from coming back? Honestly, maybe they went a little too far but what if they didn't go far enough, and he Did come back and he Did kill the poor man's wife?

Also, the trespasser had 50 convictions since 1980. Fifty, convictions, since 1980. Not 50 suspected crimes, or 25 suspected crimes and 25 convictions. Fifty Convictions, since 1980. The longest sentence he ever received was for 42 months, and he served half. 21 months, just short of 2 years.. and the man whose home he broke into and whose occupants he threatened to kill... will be serving 2 and 1/2 years, just a little longer than the crook's longest sentence.

It seems like a deliberate mockery of the justice system.

Also, I would have done the same thing. Even if the man didn't come back, I'm not about to let him stroll around as he pleases without getting a severe beating or worse. Why? Well, if he's so desperate to break into My home, then what's to stop him from breaking into another home whose occupants are ill-prepared? What if he rapes a child, murders the family, etc.. ? I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing I could have put a stop to him before he did these things. Not to mention, I have the castle law, trespassing and self-defense laws to back me up. Not to mention the "common-sense" law.. but that's not so viable these days.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by SyphonX]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
This was briefly discussed on BTS a couple of weeks ago. I REALLY feel for the home owner and all UKers. From the article:


Salem has a shameful list of more than 50 convictions that stretch back to 1980.

Despite crimes including possessing a firearm, 22 fraud offences and 27 of theft, the longest sentence Salem ever received was 42 months, of which he would have had to serve only half.


That is INEXCUSABLE. I don't believe in vigilantism but I do believe citizens have a right to take action when an incompetent government REFUSES. Basically a homeowner who stands up to him does more time than a man himself who has over 50 convictions ever did.

I wish our friends across the pond would take their judicial system back.

[edit on 12/21/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by LiquidLight
 


Well, the man did in fact say he was going to kill them both, "If you move I'll kill you.", whilst he was trespassing.

What's to stop him from coming back? Honestly, maybe they went a little too far but what if they didn't go far enough, and he Did come back and he Did kill the poor man's wife?

Also, the trespasser had 50 convictions since 1980. Fifty, convictions, since 1980. Not 50 suspected crimes, or 25 suspected crimes and 25 convictions. Fifty Convictions, since 1980. The longest sentence he ever received was for 42 months, and he served half. 21 months, just short of 2 years.. and the man whose home he broke into and whose occupants he threatened to kill... will be serving 2 and 1/2 years, just a little longer than the crook's longest sentence.

It seems like a deliberate mockery of the justice system.


So, you're telling me two grown men couldn't detain another man without nearly beating him to death? I agree, the burglar got off easy, but that doesn't give the men the right to take the law into their own hands.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidLight
 




but that doesn't give the men the right to take the law into their own hands.


I disagree (with exception cases). We may not have the LEGAL right but we have a HUMAN right to defend ourselves when the law does/can/will not. If the law is WORTHLESS (which it clearly is in this case), then I do feel the citizens have every right to thumb their nose up at the courts and take action.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
In Islam it is lawful to beat or even kill an unbeliever or an apostate. Since Sharia law essentially holds in the UK now, don't be surprised by outcomes like this. It is commonplace in places like Pakistan to let criminals go free if the victim can be shown to not be 'islamic' enough.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidLight
 


I'm not going into a philosophical discussion over self-defense and justice with you. All I'm going to say is that the world isn't filled with roses and love. Law Enforcement has values and rules to live by, but I do not. All I have is the right to live, and protect myself and my neighbors.

Career criminals and some of the most disgusting people ever conceived freely walk the streets while police arrest folks for smoking a joint and holding "protests".

You think I, or anyone else, is going to care if "they have the right" to beat someone right after he breaks into their home, assaults them, and threatens to kill them? Some people just want to be safe, and remain safe, and if the law can't do that for them, they will do it themselves.

I don't even see this as a case of "vigilante justice". They didn't exactly hunt the man down in cold-blood, after the fact. No, it was instantly after he left the home. Probably still on their property as well. The only thing I could possibly imagine going through their mind when they justly kicked his ass was they were Still afraid for their safety and lives, and that they were concerned for their neighbor's lives, their neighbor's children as well, when could have just entered another home immediately after and "done a little more".


[edit on 21-12-2009 by SyphonX]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by LiquidLight
 


I'm not going into a philosophical discussion over self-defense and justice with you. All I'm going to say is that the world isn't filled with roses and love. Law Enforcement has values and rules to live by, but I do not. All I have is the right to live, and protect myself and my neighbors.

Career criminals and some of the most disgusting people ever conceived freely walk the streets while police arrest folks for smoking a joint and holding "protests".

You think I, or anyone else, is going to care if "they have the right" to beat someone right after he breaks into their home, assaults them, and threatens to kill them? Some people just want to be safe, and remain safe, and if the law can't do that for them, they will do it themselves.

I don't even see this as a case of "vigilante justice". They didn't exactly hunt the man down in cold-blood, after the fact. No, it was instantly after he left the home. Probably still on their property as well. The only thing I could possibly imagine going through their mind when they justly kicked his ass was they were Still afraid for their safety and lives, and that they were concerned for their neighbor's lives, their neighbor's children as well, when could have just entered another home immediately after and "done a little more".


[edit on 21-12-2009 by SyphonX]


I get what you're saying, really I do... But when citizens begin taking the law into their own hands, things can get out of hand fast. What if they had gotten the wrong guy? Chased this guy, lost track of him, then found someone else who looked like him and beat him? Obviously that didn't happen in this case, but it's always a possibility when citizens take the law into their own hands. The courts had no other choice but to hold him accountable, because if they didn't, everyone would start taking the law into their own hands, and chaos would ensue.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



Whats really to bad is that god doesnt exist. I mean this kind of stuff happens all the time..... children are raped and murdered everyday. There is no justice, and saddly i dont think ever will be.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Yes, mistaken identity happens, but we're not talking posses or mobs here. Just a couple of rattled individuals.

Cops on the other hand, do this quite often. People don't seem to care as much as they should when the police do the very thing that the people "might do" if things were to "get out of hand", and they do it all the time. Sometimes, it's quite insane.. but I digress.

I'm not calling for a rise in vigilante justice here, I'm talking about little proxy home-defense events.. nothing more really.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
Yes, mistaken identity happens, but we're not talking posses or mobs here. Just a couple of rattled individuals.

Cops on the other hand, do this quite often. People don't seem to care as much as they should when the police do the very thing that the people "might do" if things were to "get out of hand", and they do it all the time. Sometimes, it's quite insane.. but I digress.

I'm not calling for a rise in vigilante justice here, I'm talking about little proxy home-defense events.. nothing more really.


Sure, but look at it from the court's perspective. They couldn't NOT do anything. That would send the message that vigilante justice is acceptable.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 


Yes, the homeowner went OTT.
Yes, the thug should be locked up as he has TONS of priors.
BUT, the system in Britain is, day by day, neutering the public and making them helpless without the state/big brother.
It is no accident.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
No on is untouchable or invulnerable, you're living here with 6 billion people. There is is always a few that outsmart you, are stronger, are more wealthy and have more friends etcetc

Ego's are going to get humiliated anyway



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
It’s wrong but pretty simple. The State wants to be the absolute protector and arbiter of all things. They want people to be entirely dependent upon them even when that dependency would lead to their own loss of life and property. They want to condition citizens to always be compliant and never take matters into their own hands, to be meek sheep in every, and the truest sense of the word.

This is how they are attempting to affect that by punishing people who take matters into their own hands instead of waiting for the State to intervene and save them.

It’s wrong but ultimately as our governments become more autocratic, more authoritarian and more taxing the only thing that will ensure such despotism and tyranny survives is highly conditioned, brainwashed and meek citizens for it to rule over.

The so called Western Democracies are in high gear trying to stamp out any vestiges of freewill and common sense by an enforced atmosphere of political correctness where every thought, word and action is codified, monitored and punished accordingly if not properly adhered too.

The writing is on the wall people as plain as day. To be sheep or to be men, and sadly the truth is that you are a sheep if you live locally and allow this man to be transferred into the prison system. I think everyone knows what real men would do in a case like this.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join