It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Man who attacked intruder freed

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:59 AM

Originally posted by blueorder
The perversions of what the current state considers to be "right" and "wrong", would not enter consideration if some is in my home threatening to kill my wife and kids, the "state" and "jury" may not be impressed by me caving his head in, but screw them, that is not what I would be thinking.

I totally understand the human reaction to it, don't get me wrong. And as much as I would want to chase the guy down (he was outside the house,) I would be more concerned about going back inside to check on my family. Hopefully I, nor yourself, will ever be in a position to take any of these actions and we'll only argue them on ATS.

Our "state" has become perverted over the last 40 years

You're giving the "state" far far too much credit with only 40 years, imo.

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:02 AM
reply to post by niteboy82

hah, you may be true about the 40 years bit

The thing about leaving the guy once he is outside your house, the thing is your emotions would not suddenly switch off.

The added problem is this, I have little confidence that once the person who threatened to kill my family was safely out of the house that the police would be able to apprehend them, leaving me with the concern that

* A Person was inside my house threatening to kill my family
* I had a scrap with said person
* He managed to escape and will probably not be caught by the police

I would never feel safe leaving my family alone in the house again knowing that person was out there and could come back at any time

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:05 AM
He should have never been jailed in the first place.

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:19 AM
As an aside, does anyone know why these guys broke in, in the first place? Simple robbery? Some sort of gang/patch warfare? I find it strange that I have not seen anything about it.

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:35 AM

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
Do you think that a citizen is justified in using the "minumum force required" in order to protect his family and home from intruders?

It's not a matter of thinking, you have the legal right to.

The law says you can use "reasonable" force, which is seen as up to and equal to the force used by an attacker.

In this case, the guy clearly exceeded "reasonable" force by pursuing the man (with his brother he had called up to assist, so he obviously took some time to plan this) and beat the crap out of him.

It was excessive, hence the punishment.

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:38 AM
reply to post by stumason

Doesn't alter the fact that if the intruder had stayed in his OWN home that night or gone for a game of tennis instead of invading someone ELSE's home and traumatising the victims --- then he'd have an intact skull today

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:56 AM
reply to post by Dock9

Yes and I do have some sympathy with the Mr Hussain, however, what he SHOULD have done is restrain the guy and performed a citizens arrest, as is his right. Even a few punches here and there to "assist" the arrest would have been allowed. He DIDN'T have the right, however, to summon help from his brother and then chase down the man with a cricket bat and smash his skull in. That is why he was punished.

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:15 AM
Had that been my family that had been tied up I have no doubt I would have killed the attackers if I could have. I know, I would spend the rest of my life in prison but on the other hand no one would have to worry about being attacked by those thugs again.
A family I knew with 2 young daughters were tied up, robbed and had their throats slashed on new years day 3 years ago. Events like that will change your perspective on being held hostage.

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:22 AM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

Bit extreme, isn't it?

By all means, defend your family as I would too, but to go so far as killing someone just because you can? Doesn't make you any better than they.

why not just restrain them and wait for the Police? No jail time for you, thugs are behind bars, everyone is happy.

[edit on 20/1/10 by stumason]

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:33 AM
reply to post by stumason

Who said the victim didn't have the right ?

What are 'rights' anyway ?

Did the invaders have the right to invade and traumatise the victims ?

Did the victims invade the criminals' homes and tie them up ?

As I said in a previous post, when people decide to cross the line into criminality, all bets are off. Their rights end there and the rights of the victim take precedence

'Minimum force' is subjective. There's no sliding scale as in 'petty thievery .. slap in the face. Rape .. kick in the genitals. Invasion and monstering the victims ... kick in the backside '. It doesn't work that way

Man was walking the earth and defending his family and possessions against all comers long before Law was established. As result of man's willingness to defend his own, mankind survived. That's why we're here today. There ARE no descendants of those who lost

Within us we carry the genes of our ancestors. They can't be turned off and on to suit whichever half-baked law is in vogue

When you invade a man's home, traumatise his family ... you're making a big mistake because those atavistic genes, fuelled by adrenaline, kick in.

The invaders picked the wrong guy. It was their choice to invade, their mistake. One of them paid the price. He should have reconsidered his decision to invade someone else's home. No-one forced him to do it. He had no 'right' to do it. But he did.

If he had NOT invaded someone else's home, he'd still have his skull in one piece today

The invader might have thought that when things didn't go HIS way, that it was all over. Another mistake. Hussein was just getting started

Anyway, I have no sympathy for the invader. He brought it on himself. He's totally responsible for what happened

The invaders had NO respect for their victims' rights. It was at that point that the entire issue of 'rights' became null and void

The public roared. The law backed off. See how subject to change the law is ?

But one thing remains constant and that's the 'right' of a man (or woman, or child) to defend themselves and those they value and their property

Would we be having this discussion if the invaders had murdered Hussein or members of his family ? Doubt it. They'd be buried and the invaders would have received very probably a lenient sentence, parole and the opportunity to continue their lives

I'm not going to get upset because a criminal got the rough end of the stick and/or some street justice, because it could all have been so easily avoided if the criminal had respected the rights of others

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Dock9]

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:36 AM
reply to post by blueorder
Its really not about the current state, its common law thats been with us a long time. Since time immemorial violence would end up before a court. Its up to your barrister to convince the jury that what you did was justified. If you can demonstrate that you were in fear of your life, or someone else's, even if you've crippled someone or killed them, you'll get off. Thing is, having watched a lot of violent films & thus suspecting that any person who frightens you is hell bent on rape & murder is just not going to fly: the prosecutor would question you on exactly why you felt such fear. Quite rightly.
In the OP case, if they'd given the bloke a hiding in the house, whilst there was a threat to the tied up family, they may well have got off. It sounds like they gave him a prolonged hiding tho, so maybe not.
Fights happen quickly tho & the police know that. They'll not arrest you for giving someone a good slap if its obvious whats happened. Its happened to me twice.
Once a burglar got attacked by a woman I shared a house with. She screamed. I ran in. There was a fight. I won. The police took statements: I didn't even get arrested. 2nd time I interfered in a bad domestic at the flat below. I actually got a small stab wound & slapped the bloke daft. I did get arrested but they just put me in the car & let me go after they'd found out what happened. The bloke left in an ambulance.
It really isn't like the Daily Mail would have us believe. If you use a weapon tho, dont be thumping away at someone, just knock them down.

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:51 AM
The right to self defense of yourselves and your family or compatriots was a very important building block of British rights of citizenry for centuries. Many of our Castle Doctrine laws here in the US are based on this basic principal in British law. It's very shameful of the British government to circumvent this basic right of survival.
As far as using minimum force is concerned, how do you make that decision or prove in court that you used only minimum force to stop an intruder till the situation is remedied? In a fist fight, it's usually when one of the combatants is down and gives up or is unable to continue. Fights like this are also usually between individuals who have a dispute known before the incident takes place. In a home invasion, the home owner or his family have no idea exactly how far the perpetrators will go.
This incident shows that one takes care of business any way they see fit till the crime has been resolved in the homeowners favor.

Cheshire, Connecticut home invasion!


posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:53 AM
reply to post by Dock9

Buken has covered it pretty well, but I want to address some points.

Just because someone doesn't have the right to invade your home, that doesn't mean you have the right to do what you like, otherwise you are no better than they are. You have the right to defend yourself with "reasonable force", which is quite easy for any civilised person to understand.

This is a case of clear cut unreasonable force. They guy had the time to find a weapon, contact his brother and then hunt down the attacker in the street. Instead of apprehending him lawfully, they proceeded to beat the crap out of him and fractured his skull. Only after the beating did he contact the Police, not before.

Had they just used "reasonable" force and restrained him, the law could take it's course, but they took the law into their own hands and metted out mob justice.

This is the very reason we have Law, so people don't take it into their own hands, otherwise we'd have anarchy and only the strong would prevail whereas those who couldn't defend themselves would be at the mercy of those that could.

Bottom line is they exceeded what was right. I have performed a citizens arrest myself as I witnessed a mugging and stopped the guy as he tried to run off. A scuffle ensued and, after a swift headbutt and a punch to the knackers he went down. I sat on him until the Fuzz turned up and got a "well done" from them and the lady got her purse back.

Had I proceeded to stamp, kick and punch the guy after he was subdued, then that would be unreasonable and I would face charges, as would be right as I would have been no better than the thug committing the crime.

Some people seem to forget just why we have Laws. It is to maintain a civilised and ordered society. Without it, life becomes a free for all.

if you think mankind was better off before laws, then think again. The strong could abuse the weak and people had no rights other than that of might.

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:57 AM
reply to post by ZindoDoone

It's not minimum force, it's reasonable force.

A big difference.

It's not something you have to "decide" in the heat of the moment. If you see someone in your house, do what you feel is necessary. If he has a knife, get one yourself, cut him up! If he swings for you, swing back. As long as you don't blatantly over do it, you'll be fine..

This guy blatantly over did it.

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 09:06 AM

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by ZindoDoone

It's not minimum force, it's reasonable force.

A big difference.

It's not something you have to "decide" in the heat of the moment. If you see someone in your house, do what you feel is necessary. If he has a knife, get one yourself, cut him up! If he swings for you, swing back. As long as you don't blatantly over do it, you'll be fine..

This guy blatantly over did it.

What if your a 80 years old? You say get a knife and match the threat in some macho manner? That's patently ridiculous. You end the threat in ANY manner you can, regardless of the manner used. 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 and used like prostitutes till the criminals get tired of them!
Completely foolish to even think of worrying about the criminals rights till they are stopped from continuing their folly!


posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 09:12 AM
reply to post by ZindoDoone

You completely missed the point there...

It isn't minimum force, it is reasonable. Defined in law as whatever you feel is reasonable at the time and comparable to the threat you face.

For example, your 80 year old gets burgled and discovers two men with knives in mid act. She could bash them round the head with a door stop, killing them outright. This would be reasonable, considering her age and vulnerability.

Should she go and get a gun and shoot them in the back, with no warning, this would be unreasonable.

Conversely, two 20 something, male housemates could return from the pub and find a single male in their home. They proceed to beat him, stamp on him and hit him with cricket bats. This would be unreasonable.

If they came home, found the bloke and proceeded to tackle him, wrestle him to the ground and wait for the fuzz, this would be reasonable.

Do you see? Probably not, as I get the impression your a "pro-gun" kill 'em on site and let God sort them out kind of Yank.

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 09:40 AM
reply to post by Dock9
Few points:
1) Syntactical Error - to defend, you must be being attacked. Having pride affronted &/or feeling afraid does not constitute an attack. If you are attacked, the moment the attacker is subdued, if you carry on, you are the attacker. You chase someone, you're attacking them.
2) Rule of Law - civilisations have evolved codes of law because we are gregarious beings who do better living in groups. If it were the case that anyone who violates your rights was fair game, then you are fair game to anyone who feels wronged by you, even if they are mistaken. Its quite simple really, everyone has rights or nobody has them. Civilisations generally institute laws to protect themselves against those who attack others.
3) Fighting - in my experience, it is those who are full of atavistic genes & adrenalin who lose, whereas he who can be afraid & think clearly wins.

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:08 AM
reply to post by Bunken Drum

someone comes into my home and threatens to kill my family then I may pursue them if they managed to escape, emotions do not cease once the person who threatens murder on your kith and kin steps outside your garden, who knows if he would ever be pursued by the police and he may well come back for revenge

Cave him in as hard as possible- I would have to live with the consequences, naturally, and the consequences in an increasingly perverted state, but the state is not my loved one

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:13 AM
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 criminals

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 stunts

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 not

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 on

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Dock9]

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:16 AM
reply to post by Dock9

that is pretty much my take on it, I have no care about what a tiny elite in charge of the state think is reasonable- there is no "state" telling you what is reasonable when confronted with an intruder threatening death on your family in your own home, there is only your instincts and reaction, my reaction would be to remove the threat from my family in whatever manner I see fit at the time.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in