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: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:30 AM
It's more than likely that it broke into 3 pieces due to him hitting the ground, pavement or curb that the assailant was on. He probably smashed it on the side of his head a few times then wildly hit the ground around him either by accident or on purpose.

I doubt it cracked into the 3 pieces from striking his head, because it would have lacerated his whole head rather badly with all the splintering.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by SyphonX]

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by SyphonX

It's worth noting the intruder has no been left permanently brain damaged as a result of the attack and will forever be a burden on the State, more so than if he had been restrained and sentenced for his crime.

I'd also like to clarify I can sympathise with Mr Hussaind and I do understand why he did it. I also don't believe he should have had a jail term and the suspended sentence he now has is more fitting, as he still shouldn't have beat the guy so badly.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by findlesticks
In the UK it takes forever for the police to respond to anything, if at all! Our justice system is # and they know it, a slap on the wrist for burglars!!

No, it doesn't. For en emergency like a home invasion or an assault in progress, police response is typically less than a matter of minutes. Unless you live out in deepest, rural Somerset or Cumbria that is, in which case it may take them a little longer given the vastness of the area.

Originally posted by findlesticks
I was once told by a policeman a few years ago that if an intruder does get into your house and you do happen to beat the crap out of them, make damn sure you drag them upstairs, apparently charges may be dropped against you if the intruder has made it upstairs, or just say, they showed an "unhealthy interest in me (if you are female)/my wife/girlfriend" - not sure if this holds water, but it's worth trying!

That would be the common law defence of you taking action to prevent harm to your family. It is a valid defence and it is appllicable whether they make it upstairs or down, providing you can show you believed your family to be in danger, say if the suspects were armed.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:41 PM
reply to post by CRB86

Not only is the surface area larger and the wood tougher, if turned on its side it becomes much more dense.
In fact, I'm quite sure that if I were determined to, I could kill a man with a cricket bat with a single blow.
More evidence that the man wasn't thinking with a clear head. If he had been, the dude would be dead - plain and simple.

I agree with the guy that said the bat must have splintered because of how it was stored in the home. Guitars are notorious for screwing up if they are stored improperly. A guitar can separate at the neck's joint for having it in a bathroom while a hairdrier is running, for instance.

On a side note, that dude in your avatar is in serious need of medical attention!

[edit on 21-1-2010 by JayinAR]

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:00 PM
What I think is troubling is that "reasonable force" means one thing to the average man on the street, and another to the police. Youtube is full of videos of the police attacking people and using 'reasonable force.' They get suspended for a day, and then put back on the beat. If this intruder had got away, who's to say the police would have actively pursued him?

I just love the "suspect" label. They'll show video of someone committing a crime, but they're a 'suspect.'

If I ever discovered my family in the same situation, the "suspect" had better get on his knees and beg me not to rip his arm off and beat him to death with the soggy end. It won't help him, just give me something to think about philosophically while I'm beating him. Reasonable force will be determined by my mood.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:57 AM
I do not see the difference between chasing him into another room, or down the street.

Once he entered the house for illegal purposes he loses his rights and all bets are off. He was still dangerous because he could still move of his own free will.

He must be immobilized.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:47 PM

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by SyphonX

It's worth noting the intruder has no been left permanently brain damaged as a result of the attack and will forever be a burden on the State, more so than if he had been restrained and sentenced for his crime.

Then shoot the worthless piece of **** and be done with it! We don't need low-life, like him, in our community.

posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by stumason

I have to disagree with you that the police take a matter of minutes to respond, I used to live in a rough area in West Yorkshire and have experienced first hand of what the police do and do not bother with, I have seen somebody get beaten in the street to within an inch of his life and reported it to the police who were parked just in the next street - they didn't bother to move! I can go on with plenty of stories like this one.

posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:10 AM
reply to post by findlesticks

Anecdotal evidence which can be countered with more anecdotal evidence.

I've seen fights in Reading barely even start before 20 police have arrived and taken care of it.

I have made more than one 999 call myself and the Police are usually there before any ambulance shows up and they are quick as a flash anyway.

As I said in the exact post you selectively quoted, there is bound to be some regional variation, given geography etc, although I do seriously doubt that Police in the next street would sit by and let someone get kicked half to death.

If that was the case, then you should have taken their numbers and made a complaint.

You didn't though, did you?

Can't have been that bad then.

posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:21 AM
Oh I love THIS thread

(or maybe there was another about the same topic)

I can remember, a few weeks ago, saying in a post that the moment the criminal invades the property of another, then the criminal has negated any of what he might consider HIS rights

And you should have see the screaming responses !

Ha. And then, a couple of weeks later, MPs and law-makers in Britain were saying exactly the same as I had

Yes. I like it. Vindication. And it's a slap in the face to all those who screeched so self-righteously at the time

posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 02:59 PM
Firstly there was a case in the UK where a farmer shot & killed a burgler & wounded a second. Because his property had been broken into before, he had said that he would defend it if it happened again, and this was taken as premeditation.
He is still in prison now.

I personally think that Mr Hussain made a mistake in taking the fight out side his house, and should have done what he had to inside.

Yes it was over the top, but a lot of people in the uk are getting fed up with
seeing the victims being treated worse than the perpetrators.

posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 03:23 PM
I've been looking all over the net for what an "intruder freed" and a "man who" are, without success. Doing some more research on Google, I found out the man who attacked the intruder freed from prison. How did this man who manage to do it? I would think they should be looking for someone else, not a man who that was in prison at the time.

posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 09:52 PM
wrong thread haha

[edit on 6-2-2010 by slewage]

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in