what would you do?

i'd have tied the c*nt up and stuck him in the car before driving him across the country and dumping him somewhere in wales.

Well he clearly went beyond the bounds of "reasonable force"

If I was taken hostage and handcuffed by a criminal I'd feel fairly strongly that my life was in danger.

Seems that would've been a better approach. It should have been prison for thief and slap on the wrists for the victim of the original crime.

Although it *could* be argued that giving the scumbag a good shoeing was wrong, no-one knows what he had threatened to do to the guy's family. I'm pretty sure that if someone tied up my loved ones I'd be right pissed off and would probably hit first and think later.

Fantastic.

I think I need to know if he picked up the metal pole after the cricket bat broke, or was he battering him with both the cricket bat and metal pole simultaneously before I pass judgement 😉

Clearly he'd get bonus points for using both simultaneously!

The man's a star. It's an epic FAIL for sure.

Justice failed long before that incident, that serial scummer should never have been out on the streets.

That said, I it looks like Mr Hussain went a little way past protecting himself/family/possessions and tread on the toes of our nationalised justice industry.

I actually agree with a lawyer

The court was unable to sentence Walid Salem with sufficient harshness, or Munir and Tokeer Hussain with sufficient compassion.

"It's difficult to believe that this outcome reflects the thinking of the public, or the interests of justice

He did overstep the mark with the beating but many others would have as well. However breaking a cricket bat on his head and fracturing his skull is probably a bit harsh.

I dunno
You can use reasonable force + a bit if nobody [who matters] is looking but you need to draw a line somewhere

Should have used the old police defence 'He fell down both flights of steps in the bungalow while trying to escape M'Lord'

I dont doubt everyone feels that he went too far – but perhaps the measure of reasonable force or even an allowance for incitement should come into the calculation.

The sad fact is that the original crime incited someone with no prior criminal intent to carry out what was considered by the court to be an even greater crime. The escalation may be the householder's fault, but the initiation was the mugger's and that ought to be considered a defence not only of property defence but also, to some degree protection beyond "reasonable force".

I agree with the lawyer, if the scum knew that he was likely to get a kicking for his actions maybe he would have thought twice about tieing his family up.

Maybe he thought he was unlikely to get a kicking as the justice system will protect him; which is appears to have done.

Its wrong on every level the fact he used more than reasonable force is not in question.

Stoner – why should you be entitled to use more than "reasonable force"?

He has got a reasonably short sentence for an assault of that severity so I think the provocation ( not incitement) was taken into account. Indeed he could have been charged with attempted murder

However It does seem harsh on the surface – a tinge of racism perhaps? Maybe a suspended sentace could have been managed.

However we have professional judiciary and I trust them to make fair decisions based on the facts – which none of us know

This isn't going to stop anyone doing the same is it? I'll still fight back as well as I am able if I ever get in a similar situation and if my family has been threatened I'm liable to go in a little harder that is absolutely necessary. I'll worry about the court proceedings once I no longer feel under threat.

Like this chap, he's only dangerous to people who threaten his family with knives and tie them up, everyone else is perfectly safe. The severity of the scentence has done nothing but inflame the media and will no doubt simply victimise someone who is presumably normally a law abiding person.

I don't like the very light sentence for the armed robber, but I'm pretty sympathetic to the sentence for the cricket-bat-breaking-on-skull revenge attack.

It's hard to get the full context from the article, but it sounds as though he was beyond self-defence, nevermind being way beyond reasonable force. I don't like these sorts of stories. Every day, ordinary, decent people beat up thieves, muggers and those who dish out casual unprovoked violence. The overwhelming majority of them are not prosecuted. This guy appears to have gone completely beserk, nearly killed someone and was prosecuted. He is the exception, not the rule. 🙂

However we have professional judiciary and I trust them to make fair decisions based on the facts

Saving that one for the next time you talk about miscarriages of justice 😉

Is there not some way of using the newly redundant X factor phone system to check whether or not these cases reflect the thinking of the public? 😉

The thing is, if the "victim" was dealt with by the "justice system" he'd probably be out on the streets doing the same in no time, confident that he'd be unlikely to do time. The defendant went a bit too far but quite honestly, if you tie people's families up etc you deserve everything that is coming your way.

provocation ( not incitement)

Quite right. Brain stall this morning.

Im trying to emphasise the point that Samuri made a lot better than I managed. Namely that "wider" society is not at risk from the instantly provoked attack – even if it goes beyond reasonable defence along the way. Id almost suggest that the mugger doesnt deserve any defence in law from whatever the home owner dishes out (short of murder). Maybe have manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility as the highest available sanction 😉

Junkyard – Member

However we have professional judiciary and I trust them to make fair decisions based on the facts

Saving that one for the next time you talk about miscarriages of justice

Fail. amateur juries decide on guilt or innocence. Professional judiciary decide on sentence.

Not he same thing as a miscarriage of justice. This chaps guilt is not in doubt – its the amount of punishment he has received that is being questioned.

I'm sure that everybody on this forum would like to say that they would stay in "control" given the situation. But would they?????

There but for the grace of god eh.

Personally, I don't know that if I was in that position as too whether I could have used just enough force, or go too far

One cause of miscarriages can be misdirection of a jury by a judge during trial feel but can we stay OT?

A gang of men chased one man down the road and beat him with a cricket bat, metal pole and hockey stick until he was left with permanent brain damage. Whatever had happened before, thats not self defence or justified, its mob vigilantism.

Lots of papers seem to be focusing on the fact the robber didn't get a prison sentance, and missing the point that he couldn't be given one because of the injuries he recieved.

Makes us all a lot less safe if burglars think that they can't be harmed by the people they are burgling. Welcome to Britain.

I'm sure that everybody on this forum would like to say that they would stay in "control" given the situation. But would they?????

last time i checked 'not being in control' didn't get many perpetrators of violent crime off the hook

I don't like the very light sentence for the armed robber, but I'm pretty sympathetic to the sentence for the cricket-bat-breaking-on-skull revenge attack.

It's hard to get the full context from the article, but it sounds as though he was beyond self-defence, nevermind being way beyond reasonable force. I don't like these sorts of stories. Every day, ordinary, decent people beat up thieves, muggers and those who dish out casual unprovoked violence. The overwhelming majority of them are not prosecuted. This guy appears to have gone completely beserk, nearly killed someone and was prosecuted. He is the exception, not the rule.

+1 to this really, sounds like the threat had passed. Does seem to suck the intruder didn't get a sentence but not sure what to make of the "not fit to plead" bit of the article- if that's because of his injuries it muddies the waters a bit.

He should have called the plod first, and then given him a minor kicking, before getting a 'friend' to really do him over, later – so he wouldn't get the blame.

Although you have to wonder how he made his millions, and maybe there is something we don't know…

What he did was wrong but I don't think he should have got a custodial sentence.

Would we have been more accepting if he'd done it with a set of bombers?

When hitting someone with a cricket bat I imagine it's difficult to get a feel for reasonable force, you don't want them to get up and start hitting you back so make sure your first strike is effective. I imagine you just swing as hard as you can, pretty certain that's what I'd do.

I think you'd get an idea of how hard you were hitting the blokes head when the bat broke.. 🙂

Elevate the men to hero status! Got everything he deserved.

I'll worry about the court proceedings once I no longer feel under threat.

That's exactly how I feel to about the situation.

So you think a bit of vigilante justice is OK?

What about necklacing? Kneecapping?

TBH bashing him on the head is excessive, there are plenty of other parts of the body to aim at that would cause mucho pain/injury, ensure he wouldn't do it again and not get you sent away for breaking his skull. He must have twatted him pretty hard to break the bat in three.

There is a line to be drawn over which you can't step but if you have totally lost it how rational can you be?

Although you have to wonder how he made his millions, and maybe there is something we don't know…

er, maybe he was just a successful business man?!

what struck me is that the original criminal, the one who TIED UP A FAMILY AT KNIFE POINT was free to walk the streets with 50odd previous criminal convictions…!

WTF is someone who is CLEARLY a danger to society doing being allowed out free!?
i just don't get it.

perhaps the actions of his victim will now make him reconsider any future criminal activities.

imo someone with 50 criminal convictions has nothing AT ALL to add to society, and is a pretty worthless human being.

*awaits TJesq responses blaming society for a grown man's actions*

oh, and fair play to the victim for breaking a cricket bat!!
(but i do agree that a prison sentence is perhaps neccessary for the victim in this case, its only fair i guess)

imho the judge got it right. There is no comparison to the Tony Martin case since he lay a trap for the intruder(s). The guy was probably subdued and no longer of a threat and they just gave him some street justice.

Mind you, when the SAS took out the perpetrators of the Iranian embassy siege, they executed them (armed or unarmed) and even tried to take one back indoors for execution. It was only the news helicopter above that saved him.

Yeah, easy to condemn the bloke for going too far but hard to know how you'd react in reality.

My wife was held up at knife point a few years back. Considering he got caught and no one got hurt, we're both glad I wasn't there at the time. Not because I'm some hard nut psycho (ho ho, believe me I'm so not), but you never know how you're going to react in that situation. I'd have probably got a good stabbing for my efforts no doubt.

I'm pretty sure the fear and rage was still kicking at high volume when he was dealing out the pain and stopping to question "am I over doing this?" probably doesn't factor.

I'd have been in favour of a suspended sentence myself.

A few years back Duncan Ferguson, former Dundee United and Rangers (playing for Everton at the time IIRC) footballer and arch thug who had already served time for assault. surprised a burglar and gave him a bit of a slap, resulting in a trip to hospital. Drunken Duncan as he was known hereabouts was not prosecuted.
He is however, white.

hungry monkey – Premier Member

*awaits TJesq responses blaming society for a grown man's actions*

I have never said that thank you very much.

wait a minute, beyond reasonable force? **** that, someone holds you hostage in your own home (and i'm sure there would have been many a threat banded around) get some rough justice and he's the victim.

If you break into someones house then the owner hould have the right to defend themselves, f**kers lucky he's not kneecapped or dead.

Say what you like but the americans have got it right, someone breaks into your home and you can shoot them

May seem extreme, but i would get the first heavy object i could get my hands on and beat that scum until i got bored, and that takes a long time

BBSB

there is a difference between one person hitting someone with their hands and several people dishing out a sustained beating with weapons that leaves someone brain damaged

Got to laugh at this place. One day there is a thread about the supposed dangers of Sharia law ("they'll chop yer 'and off y'know"), and the next we're condoning vigilante mob beatings.

Would it have been okay if they had stoned him instead of using a cricket bat?

The guy clearly stepped quite a long way over a "reasonable and proportional use of force".