If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
British Justice Does it again - jails the victim and free's the crimminal
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235782/Millionaire-Munir-Hussain-fought-knife-wielding-burglar-jailed-intruder-let-off.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6956044.ece
So what do you think?
The Criminal with over 50 convictions goes free - whilst his victim gets 30 months in jail.
Some people might say this is another example of why this country is going to the wall .. why on earth is someone with 50 convictions even allowed to walk amongst us.
Someone with that many convictions should be permanently tagged with a tracker at the very least so they can be watched 24/7
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6956044.ece
So what do you think?
The Criminal with over 50 convictions goes free - whilst his victim gets 30 months in jail.
Some people might say this is another example of why this country is going to the wall .. why on earth is someone with 50 convictions even allowed to walk amongst us.
Someone with that many convictions should be permanently tagged with a tracker at the very least so they can be watched 24/7
0
Comments
This man probably saved the lives of his entire family - if the criminal already had 50 convictions then why on earth was he not in prison?
The man's adrenaline must have been through the roof as the time this happened. He wasn't exactly sitting there planning his actions, all of this probably took place within the space of a few minutes.
If this was the USA the police would probably be giving the man a pat on the back not locking him up. It's not as if he's a danger to the rest of society - not like the guy that had 50 convictions to his name.
Even if people think he deserves some jail time 30 months is far too long - I'm sure the government are looking forward to an extra 9 people on the dole when the company he ran goes bust whilst he's in jail... This kind of sentencing benefits only the criminals. I'm sure the two that got away will be happy and encouraged to do this kind of thing again knowing the law protects them more then victims of crime.
Thank fuck this isn't the usa, and the fact he runs a company has fuck all to do with it. I think 30 months is quite fair considering his assault resulted in brain damage to the victim.
I do howver think the robbers should have got time.
Still, Mr Hussain's actions are completely understandable, and I'm not sure I'd react that differently if I was presented with an opportunity to twat the shit out of a guy who'd just been holding a knife to me and mine.
The immediate danger to their family was then past.
Having scared them off they chased them, caught one of them and the four of them then beat the criminal.
I have to ask however, how many of you? especially with families would not have twated the fucker to death after what he had done? is it unreasonable in the eyes of the law, yes, personally I'd probably do the same thing if someone did that to me, if not kill them. would I regret it no,
What is unreasonable in law and my eyes are totally different and whilst I agree the law is there for a reason and agree it this "shouldn't" happen it doesn't stop me thinking I'd act in a similar manner,
To me this is tony martin all over again,
I think he'll do his time but never regret a second of it, the scum who do these kind of things need punishment and it seems like prison and the law isn't detering them otherwise he wouldn't have 50convictions, however now he might think twice about robbing someone,
If I met him, I'd shake his hand.
It's completely understandable. Tying up a person's family and threatening to kill them is going to mess with anyone's head; how he acted after initially scaring them off has to be view in that context. I don't necessarily condone his actions, but I can completely understand why he reacted the way he did.
The beating he gave the guy wasn't in self-defence, but that's hardly contentious.
the law did the right thing otherwise it would set a president for others to go a head and do that. but as I said on a personal level I completely understand and agree..
I don't see what other word I can use; I understand his actions. They might not have been my actions, but his reaction is understandable, to me.
I apologies, I misquoted there,
I was suppose to say saying "it is not understandable" is perhaps the wrong word and it was aimed at the other posts, sorry.
Don't think they caught the others involved. My understanding is that because of the permanent brain injury caused by the repeated attacks he's unable to plead and was given a two year supervision order.
Reading what I've seen on the case the unwritten implication is that a prison wouldn't be able to provide the required medical care - especially if the brain damage is so severe that he can't even understand or say 'guilty' or 'not guilty'
The guardian report has a bit more detail
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/14/jail-brothers-burglar-cricket-bat
So you would go to prison for murder and leave your family to fend for themselves? As soon as the danger is past, the number 1 priority should be the family. This was the victim meting out his own justice which is certainly unlawful and unwarranted.
The only defence is bloodlust which doesn't seem to be a defence in this country.
well we can hardly trust the British legal system to make sure they get what they deserve these days. It is a joke.
He got away, then got (at least) three of his family/friends, then went after them. It's no longer heat of the moment. Those with him hadn't been through the ordeal, and should have been able to provide enough of a check to his actions to stop him acting through rage/instinct. So I can only see that he chose to do so - a choice made in anger true, but a choice none the less.
So if this guy had come home staggering half drunk from the pub or stoned out of his mind would you have given him less jail time because it was less of a choice?
Have you come home to find your family being held against their will, have you come home and in a few moments had to make a split decision which might determine if yourself and your family live or die?
It's all too easy to sit back in a court of law and spend weeks or even months analysing what people in an ideal world should or should not be doing.
If the man with 50 convictions already to his name had been in jail he'd be better off today and so would the rest of society.
What is this split second decision you're talking of? He hasn't gone to prison for making a split second spur of the moment decision, or acting in the heat of the moment.
He's gone to prison for getting a couple of mates together to go and beat the shit out of the guy. That took planning, and he had plenty of time to cool down and change his mind.
Well of course. But do you really think that gives any person on the street the right to enact their own brand of vigilante justice? What kind of a society would we be living in if that were the case?
The fact that our police and judicial system are less than perfect (and how could they ever be anything but?) does not entitle anyone, no matter how outraged or indignant or certain of their own rectitude they may be, to dish out violent punishments of their own.
The fact that the burglar got away with it is a disgrace. 1 judge did his job in applying the law fairly, he recognised that the man had gone way over the top and had gotten revenge, not defended himself.
the second judge needs his head examining.
It's a choice to get drunk, drunkenness is absolutely no defence.
Two burglars got away with it. I wouldn't want to say that the one who has been left so brain damaged that he is incapable of entering a plea has got away with it, really.
Funnily enough, no.
I have been called to come home because someone was trying to break into the house, with the stated intention of killing my partner, but that's no where near as dramatic as this.
My mistake, 2 burglars. No sympathy whatsoever for the one who was brained though.
All that's happened with this though is the lives of several families have been utterly ruined.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6958039.ece
Which paints another conflicting picture, but again isn't referenced anywhere else I can find that dates the time of the alleged offence. Though I'd be very surprised if someone was judged to be unfit to plead if it had occured after the attack, and it would change the fairness of the verdict against him.
Self-defence was not his defence.
He was charged with causing grevious bodily harm with intent, and pleaded not guilty on a matter of fact.
The defence being that he was not the person who committed the offence.
The jury after being presented with the evidence did not believe him.