Does the law protect Criminals or victims?

daveyboy_1ie · 15-12-2009 08:43AM #1

A millionaire businessman who fought back against a knife-wielding burglar was jailed for two-and-a-half years yesterday. But his attacker has been spared prison.
Munir Hussain, 53, and his family were tied up and told to lie on the floor by career criminal Waled Salem, who burst into his home with two other masked men.
Mr Hussain escaped and attacked Salem with a metal pole and a cricket bat. But yesterday it was the businessman who was starting a prison sentence for his 'very violent revenge'.

Jailing him, Judge John Reddihough said some members of the public would think that 56-year-old Salem 'deserved what happened to him' and that Mr Hussain 'should not have been prosecuted'.
But had he spared Mr Hussain jail, the judge said, the 'rule of law' would collapse.
He said: 'If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting the criminal justice system take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.'

Salem, who has previous convictions, has already been given a non-custodial sentence despite carrying out what the judge called a 'serious and wicked' attack.

Mr Hussain's nightmare began on September 3 last year when he, his wife, 18-year-old daughter and two sons aged 18 and 15 returned from their mosque

They were tied up and told to get on the floor if they did not want to be killed. One of Mr Hussain's sons managed to escape and alerted Mr Hussain's younger brother Tokeer, 35, who lived a few doors away.

Mr Hussain made a break for freedom by throwing a coffee table at his attackers. He and Tokeer chased the gang and brought Salem to the ground in a front garden.

Reading Crown Court heard how Mr Hussain and his brother then beat Salem while he lay on the ground, using a cricket bat, a pole and a hockey stick - leaving him with a fractured skull and brain damage following the 'sustained' attack.

Salem's condition meant he was unable to enter a plea to false imprisonment. He was given a non-custodial sentence-in October.

Salem, of Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, did not give evidence at Mr Hussain's trial. Michael Wolkind, QC, representing Mr Hussain, who runs a soundproofing company, said his client's actions were 'taken in the agony of the moment' and that his 'calm judgment was not available'.
'If there was a call to arms it was down to the extreme moment of stress,' he said. Mr Wolkind said Mr Hussain, a devout Muslim, blamed himself for the attack and felt guilty for not protecting his family properly. 'It will take him a number of years to recover,' he said.
The court also heard from psychiatrist Dr Phillip Joseph who said Mr Hussain was a calm person who kept himself in control, but that his body had chosen the 'fight rather than flight' option.
During mitigation
The court heard that Mr Hussain's wife Shahwen has had a mini stroke since the attack.
Judge Reddihough sentenced Munir Hussain to 30 months in jail
The judge added: 'The prosecution rightly made it plain that there was no allegation against you, Munir Hussain, in respect of the force you used against Salem in defending your own home and family or of the force used by either of you in apprehending Salem.
'However, the attack which then occurred was totally unnecessary and amounted to a very violent revenge attack on a defenceless man.
'It may be that some members of the public or media commentators will assert that Salem deserved what happened to him, and that you should not have been prosecuted and need not be punished.

'The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable.'
Razi Shah, Mr Hussain's solicitor, said his family were devastated but hoped the conviction could be overturned at appeal.
Last night an MP condemned the decision to jail Mr Hussain as 'perverse'. Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, said: 'It's absolutely disgraceful. The public are sick to the back teeth of this kind of decision.
'Whatever the rights and wrongs, the starting point should be that this man's home was violated. He must have been absolutely petrified.
'A person who inflicts this kind of misery is free to go out and do it again somewhere. It's always the same, the real criminals get away scot free.' The 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act sets out the terms on which people might 'use no more force than absolutely necessary' against criminals. Victims or those who intervene to stop a criminal have the backing of the law if they act instinctively, if they fear for their safety and act accordingly, if they act to prevent a criminal escaping, or if their use of force is neither 'excessive nor disproportionate'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235782/Family-man-fought-armed-thugs-took-family-hostage-jailed.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo#ixzz0Zk1l3HRN

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235782/Family-man-fought-armed-thugs-took-family-hostage-jailed.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo#ixzz0Zk1hhrOg

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235782/Family-man-fought-armed-thugs-took-family-hostage-jailed.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo#ixzz0Zk1ej8Qj

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235782/Family-man-fought-armed-thugs-took-family-hostage-jailed.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo#ixzz0Zk1XkuL9

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235782/Family-man-fought-armed-thugs-took-family-hostage-jailed.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo#ixzz0Zk0Z2OTi

Lambsbread · 15-12-2009 08:48AM

Ah come on now. He chased him down and caved his head in with a cricket bat. While i have little sympathy for the burglar, i think this is a step too far when protecting your property.

Bandit12 · 15-12-2009 08:50AM

Lambsbread wrote: »

Ah come on now. He chased him down and caved his head in with a cricket bat. While i have little sympathy for the burglar, i think this is a step too far when protecting your property.

I don't think it is. The guy won't be coming back to rob his place again and any other criminal will think twice about doing likewise. Win win imo.

Smyth · 15-12-2009 08:54AM

Lambsbread wrote: »

Ah come on now. He chased him down and caved his head in with a cricket bat. While i have little sympathy for the burglar, i think this is a step too far when protecting your property.

he threatened to kill his ****ing family

Canard · 15-12-2009 08:56AM

He didn't just say 'I think I'll bash someone's head in today!', and he wouldn't have done wrong if not for the burglar, so the burglar deserved what he got imo. Why protect criminals, honestly? They're just pieces of shit.

Lambsbread · 15-12-2009 08:56AM

If i am going to be honest i would have no problem doing the same thing if the situation happened to me. However, that does not make it right. I think it is the role of the Gardaí (or Police) and the courts to dish out punishment, not the individual.

Bandit12 · 15-12-2009 08:59AM

Lambsbread wrote: »

If i am going to be honest i would have no problem doing the same thing if the situation happened to me. However, that does not make it right. I think it is the role of the Gardaí (or Police) and the courts to dish out punishment, not the individual.

Sure in an ideal world. In the real world the criminal walks free to do what they like. The guy got what was coming to him.

Lambsbread · 15-12-2009 09:03AM

Bandit12 wrote: »

Sure in an ideal world. In the real world the criminal walks free to do what they like. The guy got what was coming to him.

I think the judge summed it up correctly: "If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting the criminal justice system take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse."

daveyboy_1ie · 15-12-2009 09:04AM

Lambsbread wrote: »

If i am going to be honest i would have no problem doing the same thing if the situation happened to me. However, that does not make it right. I think it is the role of the Gardaí (or Police) and the courts to dish out punishment, not the individual.

While I agree with you, its hard to tell what I would do coming home for a family outing and being ambushed and imprisoned by three low lifes. Very easy to be resonable and calm on here, another thing entirely when your family has been threatened.

However my point of the original posting was the excuse the judge gave was if he let the victim/ offender off then society would collapse. However the guy who commited the original crime was given a non-custodial sentence. Wht could the family man be punished along similar lines? the law here in Ireland is the same, you are only able to exercise 'reasonable' force to protect your family and home.

There have been many cases here when people break into someones house, and beaten up by the homeowner and the ONLY person given a sentence was the homeowner, an old neighbour of mine done time for it. he might be considered a local hero in the estate I grew up in, but that does not take away from the fact his life was ruined as he was deemed a criminal and found it very difficult to find a job again.

So whats 'resonable' force? how long is a piece of string..............

davyjose · 15-12-2009 09:13AM

Lambsbread wrote: »

Ah come on now. He chased him down and caved his head in with a cricket bat. While i have little sympathy for the burglar, i think this is a step too far when protecting your property.

Fcuk him, he made his bed. Part of the reason he commited the crime is because he felt he could do so with impunity.

If someone tied up my own son and terrorised him like that, I'd bury him alive, with his balls shoved up his arse.

In fact, there's a lesson folks: if you ever find yourself in the same situation, finish the job and bury the cnut!!!

Lambsbread · 15-12-2009 09:16AM

The guy that committed the original crime was given a non-custodian sentence because he was brain damaged.

It must have been an incredibly stressful situation to be under and I cannot ever imagine what I would do in that situation. I think they just went a step too far. They chased him down the street and then beat him to within an inch of his life. It is hard to put that in the context of self defense.

I agree with one of your points though. The law is far too soft on burglars. If you break into someone's house and get hit around the head, you deserve it. But to to beat a man that is already unconscious (which I imagine Saleem was) is a step too far.

PoleStar · 15-12-2009 09:22AM

I think the judges statement of justice falling apart here is irrelevant as this attack took place in the defendants own home. He didnt go out into the street looking for trouble, trouble came and found him.

Surely "provocation" should count in this situation although maybe this doesnt apply in the UK. This is whereby an excessive attack is carried out by an otherwise normal individual when they have been placed in a situation which is outside the norm.

I think it is a natural reaction to "flip" a bit if someone is in your house and you feel your family are in danger.

Thankfully the lay reform comission are looking to give the public more power to defend themselves in Ireland.

davyjose · 15-12-2009 09:22AM

Lambsbread wrote: »

It must have been an incredibly stressful situation to be under and I cannot ever imagine what I would do in that situation. I think they just went a step too far. They chased him down the street and then beat him to within an inch of his life. It is hard to put that in the context of self defense.

I don't know if you have kids, but as a new parent, I can tell you that the burglar got off light. Because if he did that to my son I would have beaten him a couple of miles past his life. I can't stress enough, how fcuked up he'd be.

daveyboy_1ie · 15-12-2009 09:26AM

davyjose wrote: »

I don't know if you have kids, but as a new parent, I can tell you that the burglar got off light. Because if he did that to my son I would have beaten him a couple of miles past his life. I can't stress enough, how fcuked up he'd be.

This was my point, when it comes to protecting your family, how far can you go? If someone tied up and threatened my own whilst I was tied up, I think all reasonable thoughts would fly out the window. I would consider myself a calm enough person most of the time, however something like that would be enough to send me off the ropes.

I think the world has gone PC mad, and suddenly its almost fashionable to protect criminals with 'violations of their rights'. As far as am concerend, fcuk them, they know the risks and they should be willing to take the consequences.

davyjose · 15-12-2009 09:33AM

daveyboy_1ie wrote: »

they know the risks and they should be willing to take the consequences.

Or lack thereof. Maybe there wouldn't be so many scumbags out there if the scores were evened out a bit.

I would sleep easier if I knew every burglar had it in the back of his head that each time he breaks into a house it just might be the last thing he does.

AckwelFoley · 15-12-2009 09:34AM

Padraig Nally.

Legend.

Ticktactoe · 15-12-2009 10:08AM

Lambsbread wrote: »

Ah come on now. He chased him down and caved his head in with a cricket bat. While i have little sympathy for the burglar, i think this is a step too far when protecting your property.

If they set foot on my premises with malicious intentions they will leave on a stretcher. There is no step too far... if they think they have the right to enter and act the prcik on your premises, I believe I have the right to kick the crap out of them!

soups05 · 15-12-2009 10:47AM

I can speak from personal experiance here, I had a 15 yr old scumbag kick in my front door and attack me in my hall,in front of my kids.

He was the same size and stength as me and it was all i could do to pin him against the wall and hold him waiting for the cops.

In the end his mother called him (next door neighbbour) and when he was distracted I gave him an almighty knee to the groin and hauled him out to the front garden.

I went back in and braced the (broken) door and waited. Half an hour later the cops arrived and took statements.

now in fairness they were sympathetic but they warned me that i could go to jail if he pressed charges. one garda told me next time retreat upstairs and then anything you do is legal

not being funny he really winked.

I was barely able to control this kid and unlike some of the keyboard warriors here I know that a full grown man would be too much for me to handle. so in the future,if someones breaks in,he wont walk out.:mad: not if i get a chance.

the only way to teach these guys is to put the fear of ME into them so they go attack someone else. sorry for the rest of you but i look after my family frist.

ScumLord · 15-12-2009 10:53AM

I think it's a disgrace that this happened in a different country and has no baring on what happens here.

daveyboy_1ie · 15-12-2009 10:59AM

soups05 wrote: »

one garda told me next time retreat upstairs and then anything you do is legal

not being funny he really winked.

Yeah they probably see this type of thing a lot and know who the law favours, it certainly ain't the innocent. I bet your still suffering from the psycholigical stress that this incident had on you, but the law does not recognise this, you did not seek a confrontation out, someone trespassed on your property and threatened the well being of your family.

People react differently to situations, especially those who are not used to confrontations. This is why sometimes I think their reactions are more extreme when it comes to someone invading their safe place and threatening their family. Not saying its right to kill anyone or mentally or even physically impair someone, but the law needs to recognise the strain people can be under in that split second of decision making.

And then if burglars realise there are consequences for their actions, some might actually be deterred from breaking ito someones home.

Ickle Magoo · 15-12-2009 11:04AM

But this guy was running away, they chased him down & despite no longer being a threat this man or his family, they beat him to a pulp. I agree the law is an ass when it comes to some of the attacker/burglar stories we hear & the topsy-turvy justice that seems to apply but according to the law as it stands, deliberately getting a cricket bat & hockey stick, chasing down a fleeing man & beating him to that extent is also illegal - there is a fine line between mitigating circumstances and vigilantism.

soups05 · 15-12-2009 11:07AM

the point is ickle hat he wont be coming back anytime soon and nor will any other scumbag who thinks of attacking this man.

except of course that the home owner is in jail and his family are now unprotected.

wes · 15-12-2009 11:13AM

Little sympathy for the scum bags who broke into the guys home, while I know what he did was technically wrong, he and his family were tied up by the lousy scum bags, so I can see why he did what he did and I don't think he deserves jail time for what he did. Scum bags in general get away with too much crap imho.

Its also ridiculous that the guy who broke into there house got off with a non-custodial sentence, despite the fact he is a career criminal. I would have at least expected for him to be put away for a very long time, and the guy gets off really lightly.

Ickle Magoo · 15-12-2009 11:19AM

soups05 wrote: »

the point is ickle hat he wont be coming back anytime soon and nor will any other scumbag who thinks of attacking this man.

except of course that the home owner is in jail and his family are now unprotected.

I could argue that if the man hadn't been beaten to a pulp, he'd be in jail & the home owner at home with his family, non?

DOC09UNAM · 15-12-2009 11:19AM

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

That said, I'm sure any parent would have done the same thing to a madman wielding a knife towards your kids.

KerranJast · 15-12-2009 11:22AM

davyjose wrote: »

Or lack thereof. Maybe there wouldn't be so many scumbags out there if the scores were evened out a bit.

I would sleep easier if I knew every burglar had it in the back of his head that each time he breaks into a house it just might be the last thing he does.

The burglar in that case would just tool up further.

wes · 15-12-2009 11:24AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I could argue that if the man hadn't been beaten to a pulp, he'd be in jail & the home owner at home with his family, non?

The criminal got off with a non-custodial sentence, I fail to see how him getting the crap kicked out of him lessens his crime. Even if he wasn't beaten up, you can be sure he would have recieved the same sentence, for threatning to kill the victims family.

Ickle Magoo · 15-12-2009 11:32AM

wes wrote: »

The criminal got off with a non-custodial sentence, I fail to see how him getting the crap kicked out of him lessens his crime. Even if he wasn't beaten up, you can be sure he would have recieved the same sentence, for threatning to kill the victims family.

He didn't get a custodial sentence because the guy who kicked the crap out of him gave him brain damage and in civilised countries we do not jail people who are not in full possession of their faculties - I think you are failing to grasp that the only person who made sure justice could not be served was the guy who took the law into his own hands. Threatening to kill someone & actually nearly killing someone are two very different crimes.

wes · 15-12-2009 11:54AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

He didn't get a custodial sentence because the guy who kicked the crap out of him gave him brain damage and in civilised countries we do not jail people who are not in full possession of their faculties -

He was in control, when he commited his crime and the guy was a career criminal. This isn't a case of diminished responsibility, as he was fine when he commited the crime. I personally have little sympathy for the guy, and could care less about his brain damage after tieing up a family and threatning to kill them.

**EDIT**
If the criminal was mentally ill at the time of the crime, then fair enough that is a different story altogether, but that isn't the case here.
**END EDIT**

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think you are failing to grasp that the only person who made sure justice could not be served was the guy who took the law into his own hands. Threatening to kill someone & actually nearly killing someone are two very different crimes.

Sure its an easy distinction to make for me and you, but for the guy who was tied up and him and his being threatned with death it is a different story.

I know what they guy did was wrong who kicked the crap out of the criminal, but I personally don't think he deserved a jail sentence, the guy was probably in fear for his life and over reacted after some ass hole threatned to murder his family. I don't think the guy who handed out the beating would be a danger to the public, and considering the circumstances, he was the one who didn't deserve the custodial sentence.

monkeypants · 15-12-2009 12:03PM

The man deserved to be jailing for gathering a group, chasing the scumbag down outside and then beating him almost to death. He fractured his skull and then lied about it. I have no objection to this sentence as he was no longer defending himself and his family.

The real crime is that the original burglar then gets to walk free with a supervision order. Why isn't he doing at least five years in the big house?

daveyboy_1ie · 15-12-2009 12:14PM

I wonder what happened to the other two guys who took part in the original crime? Were their 'rights' violated too?

Does the law protect Criminals or victims?

Comments