Does the law protect Criminals or victims?

Ickle Magoo · 15-12-2009 12:20PM

wes wrote: »

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**

If someone isn't fit to stand trial, they aren't fit to stand trial - it's irrelevant what their condition was when the crime they are accused of was committed. If you think tying someone up & threatening them is on par with hunting someone down with weapons & beating them so severely that you give them permanent brain damage, then there is not a lot more to say. Clearly, I disagree.

wes wrote: »

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.

I would be sooooo mad & scared if anyone did that to me & I have no idea how I would react - I really hope it wouldn't be to beat the guy half to death as he tried to run away. There is reasonable force/mitigating circumstances in his defence but there were multiple assailants with weapons & a sustained attack - that's hardly reasonable anything. Why not just sit on the guy until the police arrive or knock him out? I'm sure if Mr Hussain & Mr Tokeer had exercised some restraint and only used reasonable force to restrain Mr Salem, there would have been a very different outcome to this story.

CrazyRabbit · 15-12-2009 12:30PM

A simply change in the law is required.

If you commit a crime against society, you forfiet the protection and rights afforded to you by that society.

Violent criminals, rapists etc should loose their right to life whilst commiting their crimes.

_Buck Rogers · 15-12-2009 12:33PM

No way he deserved to be jailed but. . . 30 months away in order to protect my family and exact revenge, i'd pay the price every time.

buckshotbrolan · 15-12-2009 12:34PM

The man should have been given a medal for his actions! But now is in prison with his burglars friends, droping the soap will be the least of his problems me thinks!:D

amacachi · 15-12-2009 12:36PM

Have to say I can't see based on that evidence how he was convicted let alone given a custodial sentence. He and his family were tied up ffs. Love the wording of the law that you can't use any more force than is necessary. Are ya meant to check after each blow if he's been knocked out? Or have him promise not to attack you when you stop?

Ah well, at least the ****er won't be breaking into too many more houses.

triple-M · 15-12-2009 12:36PM

the criminal played with fire and now he got burned for it

amacachi · 15-12-2009 12:39PM

_Buck Rogers wrote: »

No way he deserved to be jailed but. . . 30 months away in order to protect my family and exact revenge, i'd pay the price every time.

He'll probably be out in 10. Bloody lenient sentences and time off for "good behaviour".

wes · 15-12-2009 12:42PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If someone isn't fit to stand trial, they aren't fit to stand trial - it's irrelevant what their condition was when the crime they are accused of was committed. If you think tying someone up & threatening them is on par with hunting someone down with weapons & beating them so severely that you give them permanent brain damage, then there is not a lot more to say. Clearly, I disagree.

I never said the 2 were the same, but that after being tied up and having some bloody nutter threaten to kill someone and there family, that they might not be thinking straight. There is a context to the man who beat the crap out of the criminal actions, he didn't just randomly decide to engage in vigilantism. I think the stress of having some bloody nut job threaten to murder you, is a mitigating circumstance imho.

As for someone not being fit for trial, does that apply here? They criminal did recieve a non-custodial sentence, so there must have been some kind of trial for that.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would be sooooo mad & scared if anyone did that to me & I have no idea how I would react - I really hope it wouldn't be to beat the guy half to death as he tried to run away. There is reasonable force/mitigating circumstances in his defence but there were multiple assailants with weapons & a sustained attack - that's hardly reasonable anything. Why not just sit on the guy until the police arrive or knock him out? I'm sure if Mr Hussain & Mr Tokeer had exercised some restraint and only used reasonable force to restrain Mr Salem, there would have been a very different outcome to this story.

Again, you and me sitting here at a key board, can easily call for restraint, but its a different story when a bunch of criminals invade your home and threaten you with death. I don't think anyone in that position would react rationally, and that under normal circumstances they would react differently, but seeing that this is such a extreme situation and that the man who handed out the beating would be no threat to the public, he did not deserve to go the jail.

Ickle Magoo · 15-12-2009 12:43PM

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Violent criminals, rapists etc should loose their right to life whilst commiting their crimes.

So if the burglar had turned the bat on the home-owner & his brother & killed them then he'd be free to go because at that stage they would have been classed as violent criminals? That makes no sense either....

Liam Byrne · 15-12-2009 12:45PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you think tying someone up & threatening them is on par with hunting someone down with weapons & beating them so severely that you give them permanent brain damage, then there is not a lot more to say.

Well in actual fact there is a FAIR bit more to say, because the full scenario is as follows:

If you think tying someone up & threatening them unprovoked, and for your own criminal ends is on par with being threatened and provoked to the point that you end up hunting someone down with weapons & beating them so severely that you give them permanent brain damage

I'd argue that the scum already had some sort of "brain damage" anyway, if he thought tying up innocent people and threatening them was acceptable.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm sure if Mr Hussain & Mr Tokeer had exercised some restraint and only used reasonable force to restrain Mr Salem, there would have been a very different outcome to this story.

And I'm sure if Salem (no thug deserves the respect of the title "Mr") hadn't broken in and threatened the family, there would have been a very different outcome to this story.

In fact, there would have been no story.

cocoa · 15-12-2009 12:51PM

The law protects citizens. All of them, even those who have or are currently breaking the law. This nonsense that it was ok to beat someone's head in because they threatened you is crazy. You don't have all the details here. How do you know he wouldn't be a threat to society? From what I've read, I'd say he's a big threat, I'd be very worried he'd take inappropriate revenge at some other time, and someone else, someone people are more comfortable considering a victim, would be at the end of it.

chasing someone down and beating them to a pulp is not protecting, by that stage you have abandoned whatever you were supposedly protecting, to get the violent vengeance you crave.

Dragan · 15-12-2009 12:54PM

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.

Not really. The guy has your wife and family tied up, give me have a chance and i'd smash his head in too under those circumstances.

The judge can say what he likes, and i'm sure people will look down on , but violent repercussions ftw.

If you ever need to put someone down, ensure they stay down. Simple.

DOC09UNAM · 15-12-2009 12:54PM

Law defends the victims every time.

Its defining who is the victim and who is the criminal that seems to be the problem.

Ickle Magoo · 15-12-2009 01:00PM

wes wrote: »

I never said the 2 were the same, but that after being tied up and having some bloody nutter threaten to kill someone and there family, that they might not be thinking straight. There is a context to the man who beat the crap out of the criminal actions, he didn't just randomly decide to engage in vigilantism. I think the stress of having some bloody nut job threaten to murder you, is a mitigating circumstance imho.

Well, this is where those large grey areas of law come into play and why the events are played to a jury.

wes wrote: »

As for someone not being fit for trial, does that apply here? They criminal did recieve a non-custodial sentence, so there must have been some kind of trial for that.

I'm open to correction re Irish law but afaik, non-custodial sentences can be given without trial, or even without the defendant being present in court.

wes wrote: »

Again, you and me sitting here at a key board, can easily call for restraint, but its a different story when a bunch of criminals invade your home and threaten you with death. I don't think anyone in that position would react rationally, and that under normal circumstances they would react differently, but seeing that this is such a extreme situation and that the man who handed out the beating would be no threat to the public, he did not deserve to go the jail.

I agree with most of what you say but you are fighting the law. The courts have to follow the law & the jury are advised of the law. Presumably he argued all the above in his defence & the jury still found him guilty, why is that? This grey area of what is or is not reasonable force against a criminal is frustrating and often annoyingly on the side of the criminal. As things stand, it has to be determined by a jury if the force used against a criminal is in proportion to the crime committed.

On one hand, I think anyone engaging in criminal behaviour should have the full force of the law thrown at them and people should feel safe in their own homes but at the same time, you can't have people exacting their own justice whenever they feel they have been wronged.

Dragan · 15-12-2009 01:06PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

On one hand, I think anyone engaging in criminal behaviour should have the full force of the law thrown at them and people should feel safe in their own homes but at the same time, you can't have people exacting their own justice whenever they feel they have been wronged.

It would be fun though, even for a day, don't you think?:D

Ickle Magoo · 15-12-2009 01:10PM

Dragan wrote: »

It would be fun though, even for a day, don't you think?:D

Fun

...and probably much fairer in some cases, unfortunately. I think if people had more faith that justice would be served, they would be less inclined to take matters into their own hands.

SoWatchaWant · 15-12-2009 01:11PM

"Fought off" a burgaler? Typical Daily Mail.

At the end of the day, he chased the lad down with his brother and caved his head in while he was lying on the ground.

Jesus, you're only meant to give him a few slaps or kicks and call the Gardai!

Dragan · 15-12-2009 01:14PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Fun

...and probably much fairer in some cases, unfortunately. I think if people had more faith that justice would be served, they would be less inclined to take matters into their own hands.

That is largely the main issue. We deal with crime as numbers and statistics, but we experience crime as people....so, the one never adds up. The person who has had there home ransacked and there things destroyed or stolen, the person who has lost a loved one or who lives every day with the terrors inflicted on them by another....you can't equate that into a prison sentence and expect people to be happy with it.

Free rent + food + lots of mates in there with you is the common view of prison and largely people feel betrayed by the idea that the rights of the criminal are equal to those of the victim, when really, they shouldn't be.

So yeah, I understand what would be in your head when you are caving in some dudes skull in your driveway, I really can.

wes · 15-12-2009 01:23PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, this is where those large grey areas of law come into play and why the events are played to a jury.

In this case, I disagree with the juries and the judges decision.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm open to correction re Irish law but afaik, non-custodial sentences can be given without trial, or even without the defendant being present in court.

This happened in the UK, and we don't have any details on how bad the brain damage is.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say but you are fighting the law. The courts have to follow the law & the jury are advised of the law. Presumably he argued all the above in his defence & the jury still found him guilty, why is that? This grey area of what is or is not reasonable force against a criminal is frustrating and often annoyingly on the side of the criminal. As things stand, it has to be determined by a jury if the force used against a criminal is in proportion to the crime committed.

I understand that, but I think the Judge did have leeway to give a non-custodial sentence.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

On one hand, I think anyone engaging in criminal behaviour should have the full force of the law thrown at them and people should feel safe in their own homes but at the same time, you can't have people exacting their own justice whenever they feel they have been wronged.

I do agree with you here, but the case described here, is imho, a extreme situation. Its not like he went looking for him a week later and did this. It happened pretty much right away.

--Kaiser-- · 15-12-2009 01:24PM

I can recognise that, in a supposedly civilised society, chasing after the culprit and bashing his head in was probably not the right thing to do.

I can also recognise that I probably would have done the exact same thing.

aDeener · 15-12-2009 01:25PM

cocoa wrote: »

The law protects citizens. All of them, ecven those who hacve or are currently breaking the law. This nonsense that it was ok to beat someone's head in because they threatened you is crazy. You don't hacve all the details here. How do you know he wouldn't be a threat to society? From what I've read, I'd say he's a big threat, I'd be very worried he'd take inappropriate recvenge at some other time, and someone else, someone people are more comfortable considering a victim, would be at the end of it.

chasing someone down and beating them to a pulp is not protecting, by that stage you have abandoned whatever you were supposedly protecting, to get the violent vengeance you crave.

unfortunately it is this kind of mentality that is prevalent in our legal system and has criminals doing what they please as they know all they will be told is that they were naughty and their "rights":rolleyes: wont be touched.

the_syco · 15-12-2009 01:33PM

daveyboy_1ie wrote: »

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

Seems they got away scot free.

fizzynicenice · 15-12-2009 01:44PM

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.

1st of all, just cos you have a kid does not mean your right.

2nd, while I understand his actions, and could see myself reacting similarly in the same situation, blind rage and all that, this goes way beyond the parameters of self-defence. He was lucky not to kill him

LEGALLY speaking this was a serious assault, albeit an extremely provoked one, and cannot be seen as protecting his family, as there was no more danger to them at the time.

30 months seems a bit harsh given the circumstances, but in reality I doubt he'll do more than 10 or 12.

oppenheimer1 · 15-12-2009 02:01PM

daveyboy_1ie wrote: »

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..............

Many???? Name one please (in this country)... with a link

astrofool · 15-12-2009 02:22PM

If someone breaks into your home, and you catch them, and be a "jolly good sport" about it, by only say, defending yourself, and letting them away, said piece of scum will come back with a few of his mates and finish the job.

Leave the piece of scum with half a brain, and he might become a useful member of society.

I don't believe in this idea of "proportional response", it's like a kids tv show, let's not pull out the big gun, and finish it, but instead lets draw it out and put ourselves at risk. If someone attacks you, and you have the opportunity, you make sure your opponent can never attack anyone again.

aDeener · 15-12-2009 02:26PM

astrofool wrote: »

If someone breaks into your home, and you catch them, and be a "jolly good sport" about it, by only say, defending yourself, and letting them away, said piece of scum will come back with a few of his mates and finish the job.

Leave the piece of scum with half a brain, and he might become a useful member of society.

I don't believe in this idea of "proportional response", it's like a kids tv show, let's not pull out the big gun, and finish it, but instead lets draw it out and put ourselves at risk. If someone attacks you, and you have the opportunity, you make sure your opponent can never attack anyone again.

Why didnt goldfinger just bloody well shoot him?!

Ickle Magoo · 15-12-2009 03:06PM

wes wrote: »

...but the case described here, is imho, a extreme situation. Its not like he went looking for him a week later and did this. It happened pretty much right away.

I appreciate all of that but you have to look at the case subjectively and also look at why the home-owner was charged with anything. If vigilante retributions far out-weighing any kind of self-protection or protection of ones family/friends/property are acceptable, where do we draw the line of what is NOT acceptable? Or do we just have a free for all? Is it only when someone enters your property that you get carte blanche to attack them? Can I drag someone I don't like onto my property and then beat/kill them? How do you tell the difference? What if they threaten you on the street, can I attack them too? What if it is a child burglar, can we beat or kill them?

As deserving as a criminal may be, a lenient sentence for any kind of vigilantism sets a dangerous precedence and I think it would be much better to campaign for a change in the law and have a better defined system that victims of crime can work within, than to advocate exemptions from the current laws on a case by case basis.

hooradiation · 15-12-2009 03:10PM

astrofool wrote: »

If someone breaks into your home, and you catch them, and be a "jolly good sport" about it, by only say, defending yourself, and letting them away, said piece of scum will come back with a few of his mates and finish the job.

Leave the piece of scum with half a brain, and he might become a useful member of society.

I don't believe in this idea of "proportional response", it's like a kids tv show, let's not pull out the big gun, and finish it, but instead lets draw it out and put ourselves at risk. If someone attacks you, and you have the opportunity, you make sure your opponent can never attack anyone again.

Man i love keyboard warriors, it's funny as all hell seeing them champion this bizarre perversion they call 'justice' and honestly believing in it as well.

daveyboy_1ie · 15-12-2009 03:10PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Many???? Name one please (in this country)... with a link

Could name two I know of personally myself. But I would rather not draw their names into public, the incidents happened a long time ago and I am sure they would rather not have their names and sentences discussed on a public forum, if thats ok with you.

However I am a little confused. Are you suggesting that there are no cases of householders not being convicted of assault against people breaking into their homes when they fought back?

wes · 15-12-2009 03:23PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I appreciate all of that but you have to look at the case subjectively and also look at why the home-owner was charged with anything. If vigilante retributions far out-weighing any kind of self-protection or protection of ones family/friends/property are acceptable, where do we draw the line of what is NOT acceptable? Or do we just have a free for all? Is it only when someone enters your property that you get carte blanche to attack them? Can I drag someone I don't like onto my property and then beat/kill them? How do you tell the difference? What if they threaten you on the street, can I attack them too? What if it is a child burglar, can we beat or kill them?

Your going over board now. The situation described was an extreme one, and I think other situations need to be assessed on a case by case basis imho.

Dragging some random persons onto your property would be simple murder, and doesn't represent anykind of position expressed by anyone here. No one is calling for a free for all.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As deserving as a criminal may be, a lenient sentence for any kind of vigilantism sets a dangerous precedence and I think it would be much better to campaign for a change in the law and have a better defined system that victims of crime can work within, than to advocate exemptions from the current laws on a case by case basis.

I wasn't actually looking for a exemption, the judge could have taken into account the context and gave a non-custodial sentence, and this happens all the time btw. All kind of serious criminals get away with **** all the time. The guy in this case isn't one of them, and would present no danger to society if given a non-custodial sentence.

Does the law protect Criminals or victims?

Comments