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 ✨
"Jailed intruder attacker Munir Hussain freed by court "
Former Member
Posts: 1,875,648 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8469850.stm
madness, should never have been locked up in the first place...
madness, should never have been locked up in the first place...
0
Comments
It was no self defence. It was not justified. It was not proportional. It was revenge and vigilantism of the worst kind.
But never mind. Strike one for the forces of right wing and Daily Mail 'justice'. It's good to know our justice system is so sensitive to political pressure... :rolleyes:
It appears the appeal was against the sentence (and not about self defence).
{On a side note,I have not read transcripts so it is conjecture but he appears to be guilty of perjury.
At the original trial his defence was not guilty due to mistaken identity (i.e. he claimed it was not him who administered the beating).
It is being reported on the appeal that "Munir Hussain accepted that he had not used reasonable force and did not appeal against that".
If that report is true, it is an admission of lies at the original trial.}
As soon as he left the house with his "posse" and roundly battered the guy half to death with a cricket bat he was no better than the criminal. He wasn't defending himself or his family, he was getting revenge. If you want to live in a society like that then I suggest you move somewhere like Iran where people are allowed to take revenge.
I say thumbs down to compensation culture and thumbs up to self defence. But try not to brain damage anyone :-D
It wasn't self defence ...he went after the guy.
HOWEVER
The poor man and his wife and children were tied up. I think most men would seek revenge on somebody who terrifies their family.
Who was innocent in this? The man who broke into the house and tied up a family, or the men who beat another guy senseless?
I tend to agree with you. A red mist would come down on most men. The problem is though, that you still can't take the law into your own hands. Having said that, I'd happily do time for anyone that hurt my family.
maybe im a bit biased .. i was tied up and held hostage for 12 hours with a gun to my head a few years ago.. id have no problem seeing the people who did it brain dead :chin:
this prolly wasnt the best case to pick, jus caught my eye when browsing the bbc site, but defo think this country is fucked when it comes to situations like this!
I think the original sentence was about right tbh, presumably cut in half for good behaviour. It should be lenient given the circumstances (assuming he's got no prior convictions of a similar nature), but it's obviously still against the law and completely unacceptable. But the original fella should be put away for a long time.
You'd probably feel different if the same happened to you. Besides, the burglar later committed an offence or two afterwards I believe. Not to mention he was abusive to his ex-wife and has 100 previous convictions. He sort of had it coming to him
If your going out on the rob ...you lose your right to public protection as far as I'm concerned.
Your an outlaw ...outside the law.
Like it or not we live in a society that believes certain actions are appropriate and certain others are not. Beating a man half to death as an act of retribution some time and distance away from the original crime is certainly no act of self defence. Vigilantism doesn't belong in a civilised society.
When your veins are full of adrenalin through fear that some little shit has just put you through ...threatened your life and your childrens ...I don't think civilised is playing much part in it.
He could have beaten him half to death inside the house, at least then he would actually have been acting in self defence. Doing it outside after having the time to compose yourself and gather up the lynch mob? Moronic.
So it's okay for a group of people to beat someone senseless, provided they are a criminal?
If so, does that mean we can all go and beat these brothers senseless now that they have convictions? Surely they have it coming to them too?
I never said that. What I am saying is that if you were burgled and you and your family's lives threatened, you would want revenge as well. I think people should take that into consideration.
Richard Madeley put it brilliantly on Question Time on Thursday night. He said we should treat people in these cases with the utmost mercy. I agree. He said that very often, their minds are not working at full capacity, having only just woken up and heard an intruder in their home. I agree. I don't know if this is unusual, but I happen to think that a person should only be in a house with the consent of the owners of it. If they don't want that person in their house, that person does not enter the house. And if they dare to break in, I think they should be left at the mercy of the householders. Whatever the householders decide to do with the intruder is a matter for them, not the state.
The state, in this country, has no hesitation whatsoever in killing people whom it considers a threat to security. The police, in turn, will have no hesitation whatsoever in covering it up, lying endlessly and viciously smearing the person whom they killed in cold blood. Just ask Jean Charles De Menezes. Oh wait, you can't...
You really haven't got any idea of the circumstances surrounding this case do you, you've fallen for all the Mail tosh that the beleagured model citizen was acting purely in self defence.
Yes, somehow Hussain got free. Then once the burglar had run off he gathered up his posse and set about him with a cricket bat until he was half dead.
Now this is a simple question, at which point in this scenario was Hussain actually acting in self-defence? Was it the part where he had time to gather up his relatives (instead of calling the police), or the part where he valiently defended himself and his family whilst his relatives held the bloke down managing to break the cricket bat over the guy's head, or the part where he claimed he had never even been there.
No we shouldn't.
It's why we have a justice system instead of a call-your-family-and-beat-someone-around-the-head-until-they-are-brain-damaged system.
Well that's the police and bailiffs fucked then, eh?
Can you spot the difference between...
a) catching someone in your house and hitting them in self defence
b) calling your family after the person has left, chasing them, holding them down and breaking a cricket bat over their head...
You're getting into a disturbing habit of copying everything I'm writing. Well imiation is the sincerest form of flattery