Edited to add, this is a reply to Zindodoone
I'm in agreement
Good post, good points, imo
You are being invaded in your abode! You and probably your family are at stake. The intentions of that intruder are unknown to you and to try
to second guess them is what get's you killed, your wife and daughters raped and murdered, or kidnapped
Completely foolish to even think of worrying about the criminals rights till they are stopped from continuing their folly!
It was Blueorder I think, who said earlier that had Hussein phoned the police, there was no certainty they'd apprehend the invaders
And as we know, the law is prone to lenient sentencing and early parole
So, Hussein was faced with the prospect that (a) the invaders would make a clean getaway and could return at any other time and (b) even if they were
jailed, there was every possibility they could return as a danger in relatively short duration, bent on revenge
All the points you've mentioned in your post are valid, imo. I mentioned similar scenarios in an earlier post, for example the perception of the
victim and the role it plays in what transpires. If you find someone half inside your daughter's bedroom, you don't know what their intentions are,
but obviously they aren't good. So the first priority is to remove the threat to your child. People untrained in how to go about this are
understandably prone to overdo it. They know they aren't going to get too many chances and if they fail/are taken out themselves, then their family
is directly in the firing line. So if possible they take a heavy-handed approach, 'to be sure'. Always to be remembered of course is that if the
criminal had decided to stay at home that night, then the criminal would not have been injured or killed.
With Mr. Hussein, the matter wasn't over when the invaders left his home. People's adrenaline is not deactivated when the criminal says so. And
that's the moral of this particular tale, I think. Some are claiming it was over when the criminals departed. So they're suggesting the criminals
get to make the call all the way through: criminals decides to invade and threaten .. criminals make the call. Criminals leave the house and assume
it's over --- again, allowing the criminals to make the call. With Hussein and his family relegated to passive victims at the mercy of the whims of
Obviously Mr. Hussein operates via a different set of rules and does not subscribe to the 'Criminals get to make all the calls' philosophy
He'd been invaded, terrorised, bound, emasculated, rendered ineffective before his family ... before himself ... by a bunch of thugs in his own home.
Obviously in Mr. Hussein's opinion, it wasn't over until it was over. He wanted the opportunity to regain his power, to teach the thugs not to see
him or his family as easy targets and not to return. In addition, he wanted to show the thugs what a man twice or more their age can do when he and
his family are not tied up
Criminals should not be encouraged to believe they decide when it's over.
After all, criminals assume the right to decide when it begins !
Only fair that the victim, if possible, decides when and how it ends
Similar situation occurred some months ago, interstate. Young mother's car was pelted with eggs as she drove along a suburban road. One of the eggs
hit her two year old directly in the eye. It shattered, causing the child, strapped into a capsule, to scream in pain and shock. This alone could
very easily have caused the mother's car to leave the road or hit another vehicle
After assessing the damage and briefly comforting her child, the mother gave chase. The offenders (a gang of louts) panicked and ran their vehicle
into a ditch. The mother called the police. The incident was reported in the local news
Many people were outraged about the mother giving chase. She was criticised and described as 'irresponsible'
Others supported the woman, remarking that if she hadn't given chase, the louts would have escaped scot-free, possibly to continue their dangerous
The mother told reporters she was glad the louts had been apprehended, even though the sentence handed down was a joke. And she asked if people would
be singing a different tune if her daughter or someone else had been blinded by the louts ? And old person at the wheel could have had a heart attack
or been killed in an accident as a result of the projectiles. As it was, it appeared the louts had suffered most: their car had been wrecked and
they'd been publicly identified. They received sympathy. The woman driver ... the victim ... was being vilified as 'irresponsible'
Maybe others in her situation would have pulled over and reported the lout's vehicle to police and left it at that. The louts of course could claim
innocence. The matter would be filed and forgotten
But this woman obeyed her instincts. She wanted justice. And in her own way, she achieved this. That's what her particular genes dictated.
Someone hurt her child, invaded if you like, her vehicle, imposed their idiotic will upon her and her child. She fought back. It's what she needed
to do at that moment. BUT --- if the louts had decided not to throw eggs into passing vehicles, if they'd instead considered the right of others to
drive on the road in safety, none of what eventuated would have happened
The louts started it. She finished it
The invaders started it. Mr. Hussein finished it
The louts and invaders imagined they could do as they liked and not suffer the consequences. That's not the way the world operates, like it or
Same with the high-ranking paedophiles who repeatedly raped the little four year old girl in Ukraine. Her father sought justice of the authorities
for over a year and was ignored by the law. So he shot the paedophiles. Suddenly, the law was outraged and began pursuit of the father who overnight
became a hero in the eyes of people worldwide, many of them offering assistance
Moral is: if you're not prepared to accept the consequences, don't do the crime because the consequences might be a lot more than you bargained
[edit on 20-1-2010 by Dock9]