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: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The UK always sides with criminals with either sucky length sentences and stupid laws protecting criminals.

I know if some one broke in to my home and attacted me i would of killed them, its easy they broke in to my home and they get whats coming to them.

if the law cant sort it maybe we need some one that can.




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
The British actually seem to prefer having a legal system that despises victims who fight back but has just a mild disdain for criminals.

I have absolutely no sympathy for them, I just thank god we have the castle doctrine and the Second Amendment here in the US.

The UK serves only one purpose, it acts as a warning to other nations.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
The next time somebody from the UK goes on a rant about the gun laws in the US, I'm going to give them a link to this post. The UK's BS gun laws are the main reason that this scum is still breathing. Considering that the majority of people voted the clowns who made laws like these, I have a real problem feeling any sympathy for Salem's victims. Between this and the man who got a 2-1/2 year sentance for turning in a shotgun that he found, I think the UK has some real problems. I hope that they fix their country's problems, instead of bitching about my country.

By the way, I would like to extend an invitation for Mr. Salem to visit the US in the near future.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
The next time somebody from the UK goes on a rant about the gun laws in the US, I'm going to give them a link to this post. The UK's BS gun laws are the main reason that this scum is still breathing. Considering that the majority of people voted the clowns who made laws like these, I have a real problem feeling any sympathy for Salem's victims. Between this and the man who got a 2-1/2 year sentance for turning in a shotgun that he found, I think the UK has some real problems. I hope that they fix their country's problems, instead of bitching about my country.

By the way, I would like to extend an invitation for Mr. Salem to visit the US in the near future.


I think the main reason that he's still breathing is the fact he got lucky, gun are not the only things that kill.

however your right about my place of birth have a problem with its laws. there is a reason we are called the nanny state.

I would like to invite him to my house first before he goes over to the USA to be shot. he will not make it over the the USA if he got caught at mine.

basically he got lucky.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
This is what happens when a nation disarms it citizens.

In my home, they would have been met with mr.12 gague shotgun.

Oh, yeah, dead, headless bodies don't make charges either.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


If they had attacked Salem in the house with implements at hand then they wouldn't have been jailed. The fact is they chased him out of the house and beat him when he was no longer an immediate threat. While this instinctual response would be taken by many, it is still wrong.

What they should have done under British law is called the police and waited for a few hours for them to arrive, which is after they have finished catching speeders and vehicle tax dodgers. The police may have caught Salem and as punishment he may have got a suspended jail sentence or similar. Angered by this Salem would have probably returned to the Hussai's and petrol bombed their house. We see this sort of thing time and time again.

Britain has generally the most sensible laws in the world. The problem is that the sentences given for crimes do not protect the victims. As the US has shown, three strikes and out can be very effective.



[edit on 22/12/2009 by LightFantastic]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
This is what happens when a nation disarms it citizens.
In my home, they would have been met with mr.12 gague shotgun.
Oh, yeah, dead, headless bodies don't make charges either.


We haven't been disarmed, we were never armed in the first place! We can still have shotguns and rifles though.

I'm sure that if you had chased him off your property in the US and shot him you would be facing jail as well?

PS A while ago someone was jailed for killing an intruder with a shotgun.

PPS In the UK you can be sued by an intruder who gets cut, for example, by broken glass or razor wire on top of your wall.

[edit on 22/12/2009 by LightFantastic]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Britain has generally the most sensible laws in the world.


I don't think that Sharia law is sensible at all, it's barbaric in point of fact.

That IS the law you people currently operate under isn't it?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

www.timesonline.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
England needs to pass a three strikes law like they have done in parts of the US>

In California, where they passed a three strikes law, violent crime is way down because the serious repeat offenders have been jailed for life.

Take the career criminals off the street and crime goes down. It's simple.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
I don't think that Sharia law is sensible at all, it's barbaric in point of fact.


Sharia courts are allowed to operate but do not override the law of the land. Sharia laws are not part of our legal system.

This may just be the start however...



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Perhaps slightly off topic..... this kind crime has become all too commonplace and I hope that we never get so emasculated that self defense is not an option.
This is a 911 call from an incident that happened Sunday night in the town I live in. Quite chilling.... Warning graphic language!!!!!!!!

911 fatal invasion(graphic language)



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
England needs to pass a three strikes law like they have done in parts of the US

In California, where they passed a three strikes law, violent crime is way down because the serious repeat offenders have been jailed for life.

Take the career criminals off the street and crime goes down. It's simple.


I totally agree. New York and I guess CA are much safer than London now.

We also need plenty of extra large, extra tough prisons like the ones in the US, preferably with lots of tattooed "muscle Mary's"


Personally I prefer the "three strikes and we grind you up for fertiliser" plan.


[edit on 22/12/2009 by LightFantastic]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Any violent attack is a sign that the person has run out of socially acceptable methods of dealing with a situation. I'd consider someone breaking into my home socially unacceptable, and therefore they'd be met with similar actions. This was a threat to a man's family, he should have been merciless and relentless in his defence. Sadly, it looks like the "politically correct" crowd has won out.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight

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.


Really, it seems to me that the law had the law in it's own hands around 50 times and failed to protect the countries citizens each time. Law is to serve and protect the innocent not the guilty.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by habfan1968
Really, it seems to me that the law had the law in it's own hands around 50 times and failed to protect the countries citizens each time. Law is to serve and protect the innocent not the guilty.


Chasing a guy down and beating him to within an inch of his life with a cricket bat is not a reasonable reaction to being burgled. Granted, the law let the burglar off easy, but one: the guys beating him didn't know that would be the case, and two: it's not their decision to take the law into their own hands. There are laws for a reason; the punishments may not be perfect, but the people of Britain need to work within the system to fix it, not meet out punishment on their own terms. That's just not reasonable.

If every Tom, Dick, and Harry decided that they would be judge, jury, and executioner, the world would be a scary place.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight

Originally posted by habfan1968
Really, it seems to me that the law had the law in it's own hands around 50 times and failed to protect the countries citizens each time. Law is to serve and protect the innocent not the guilty.


Chasing a guy down and beating him to within an inch of his life with a cricket bat is not a reasonable reaction to being burgled. Granted, the law let the burglar off easy, but one: the guys beating him didn't know that would be the case, and two: it's not their decision to take the law into their own hands. There are laws for a reason; the punishments may not be perfect, but the people of Britain need to work within the system to fix it, not meet out punishment on their own terms. That's just not reasonable.

If every Tom, Dick, and Harry decided that they would be judge, jury, and executioner, the world would be a scary place.



And just what IS considered reasonable action ? And who are the
ones determining what's reasonable ? What seems reasonable to
you may not even come close to being reasonable to another when
his family and property have been raped and invaded ? It IS their
decision . . to take action. It should be ! I wonder if some of you
mamby-pamby people would change your minds if it was your
family being tormented by the likes of this individual. No . . you'd
probably holler . . "Stop, oh please stop, this isn't right !"

But they don't stop. Do you cry like a pathetic fool or do you take
action ? "Go ahead . . make my day!"



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
If three armed assailants entered my home it would be a bullet they would be biting not a cricket bat.

This is injustice at its worst! Thank god I don't live in a country that doesn't let you defend your home, family, and property.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight
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.


In defense of the lives of your family, it's not only acceptable, it's expected.

Had this occurred in my home, here in CO USA, the authorities would have found the suspect, face down in a pool of blood and simply commented on the size of the hole left in his head. UK needs a Castle Law in the worst way. When it's illegal to defend your home and family against a violent intruder who has threatened your life, and those of your family, it's time to plot the fastest route out.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight

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.


But they didn't "get the wrong guy". They got the "right" guy. So your point is moot.

What many people fail to understand is that the police rarely prevent crimes. Most of the time they only investigate crimes that have already happened, and sadly there are often way too many crimes to investigate than there are investigators. Result is that many crimes go un-punished. This means that individuals often have no choice other than to try and defend themselves since an investigation will not save them.

BTW, in most place in the U.S. we have retained the right to defend ourselves and chaos has not ensued. Matter of fact, FBI stats show that violent crime decreases whenever an area passes a law to allow concealed carry of weapons.


CX

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
This is just another sad example of how our justice system works.


I see the Conservatives are trying to use this to attract voters, if they did indeed change the law, it would be great, hell i'd maybe even think about voting for them, but i fear it's just another case of saying what we want to hear, then once in power doing nothing about it.

Tories want to change the law to give homeowners mor rights to protect themselves

I can only see the laws being changed for the better, when a politician gets seriously beaten or worse by an intruder.

Personally, i have never been in trouble with the police, in fact i used to enforce the law for a few years, but i swear i'd end up doing time if i caught anyone breaking into my house and threatening my family.

I know the courts are useless these days, so maybe i'll call an ambulance afterwards, but not the police.

CX.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join