Does the law protect Criminals or victims?

cocoa · 15-12-2009 03:25PM

aDeener wrote: »

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.

Yes, the reason why we have crime is that every criminal carefully weighs up the risks and assesses the situation, concluding that, because those crazy crazy lawmen think criminals shouldn't be violently attacked any more than any one else, theft, burglary and kidnapping are mighty fine ideas.

Did you even read what I said? If you're deriding my mentality then you've missed the mark, criminals should be properly dealt with, but doling out 'allowed to be brutally attacked' stamps to people is far from the way to do it...

15-12-2009 03:32PM

I think its a disgrace, robbers are out there just trying to feed their famlies during these hard times like everyone else and now we could get murdered for just trying to do our Jobs.

I may have to go on strike!

Pedro K · 15-12-2009 03:35PM

soups05 wrote: »

retreat upstairs and then anything you do is legal

not being funny he really winked.

That aint true.

Ickle Magoo · 15-12-2009 03:39PM

wes wrote: »

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.

That's my point, how do you tell which people that are beating up/killing other people are entitled to do so & which are not? How do you decide which circumstances are justified?

wes wrote: »

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.

So why didn't he? Why did the jury find him guilty & the judge think it warranted a custodial sentence? I'm guessing they have a greater knowledge of the minutiae of the case than we do. The fact there are times that justice is not served is something we are in agreement with, however, I don't believe vigilantism in lieu of an effective legal system is the way to go; I think that will only lead to greater miscarriages of justice by members of the public.

aDeener · 15-12-2009 03:44PM

cocoa wrote: »

Yes, the reason why we have crime is that every criminal carefully weighs up the risks and assesses the situation, concluding that, because those crazy crazy lawmen think criminals shouldn't be violently attacked any more than any one else, theft, burglary and kidnapping are mighty fine ideas.

Did you even read what I said? If you're deriding my mentality then you've missed the mark, criminals should be properly dealt with, but doling out 'allowed to be brutally attacked' stamps to people is far from the way to do it...

if criminals knew that it was likely that fire would be met with fire when breaking into someones house im sure they would think twice about burglary.
if someone breaks into your house, threatening you & yours they deserve the living shit kicked out of them, what are you going to do instead, wait around and see if they are going to carry out their threats?
and then afterwards they should be locked up, not the homeowner

cocoa · 15-12-2009 03:48PM

aDeener wrote: »

if criminals knew that it was likely that fire would be met with fire when breaking into someones house im sure they would think twice about burglary.
if someone breaks into your house, threatening you & yours they deserve the living shit kicked out of them, what are you going to do instead, wait around and see if they are going to carry out their threats?
and then afterwards they should be locked up, not the homeowner

deserve? Who are you or anyone else to decide what someone, an individual human being, deserves? IMO the courts are the closest we can come to getting that decision right. What you are talking about is vengeance, you even had to describe the situation from a personal point of view, in hopes that the reader would engage and anger, so agreeing with the idea.

Blind vengeance is not something I will ever endorse.

aDeener · 15-12-2009 03:55PM

cocoa wrote: »

deserve? Who are you or anyone else to decide what someone, an individual human being, deserves? IMO the courts are the closest we can come to getting that decision right. What you are talking about is vengeance, you even had to describe the situation from a personal point of view, in hopes that the reader would engage and anger, so agreeing with the idea.

Blind vengeance is not something I will ever endorse.

sure who is anyone to say anything? i feel thats what they deserve, padraig nally agrees and by gum is he a hero. people have lost faith in the courts, it needs a major overhaul - yon murphy rapist fcuker going to get out after 8 years, and you think thats the "closest we can come to getting the decision right" :rolleyes:

how else can one describe the situation, use unicorns or something? :rolleyes: burglaries etc are very personal and situations ought to be described as such

oh and defending your home and family is not blind vengeance, its the right thing to do

Keano · 15-12-2009 03:57PM

I'm all for giving some low life a hiding provided he is still on my property but if they manage to get away after the battering then I would leave it to the law to catch them.

wes · 15-12-2009 04:01PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's my point, how do you tell which people that are beating up/killing other people are entitled to do so & which are not? How do you decide which circumstances are justified?

Self defence is the obvious one. Extreme provocation such as the example in this thread is another, where I think a person isn't entirely responsible for there actions, due to the stress of the provocation **EDIT* e.g. I believe diminished responsiblity should apply in such instances. **END EDIT**

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So why didn't he? Why did the jury find him guilty & the judge think it warranted a custodial sentence? I'm guessing they have a greater knowledge of the minutiae of the case than we do. The fact there are times that justice is not served is something we are in agreement with, however, I don't believe vigilantism in lieu of an effective legal system is the way to go; I think that will only lead to greater miscarriages of justice by members of the public.

I am not advocating full on vigilantism, but that in this particular cases, there was extreme provocation, which clearly stressed out the victims (guy has a minor stroke for example) and imho resulted in the attack on the fleeing criminal. As I said before I disagree with the judge and jury, and while its true I don't have all the evidence avaliable, I am however basing my opinion on the avaliable information.

As for the why of the judge and juries opinion, damned if I know and I certainly can't get that information.

Ickle Magoo · 15-12-2009 04:09PM

aDeener wrote: »

oh and defending your home and family is not blind vengeance, its the right thing to do

There is nothing wrong with defending your home or family, I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. If the two men had chased the guy off with the cricket bat/hockey stick - even giving him a couple of good clouts on the way out - that would be a simple case of self-defense. Using said cricket bat/hockey stick to beat him to within an inch of his life when neither your family nor property is actually still under threat is vengeance, not self-defense.

Ickle Magoo · 15-12-2009 04:44PM

wes wrote: »

...and while its true I don't have all the evidence avaliable, I am however basing my opinion on the avaliable information.

As for the why of the judge and juries opinion, damned if I know and I certainly can't get that information.

But they are still wrong?

I don't understand how you can make that assumption without seeing the evidence they saw.

Gmol · 15-12-2009 04:53PM

Lambsbread wrote: »

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."

Yeah the justice system would have given the criminal a one month suspended sentance or some really strong deterrant like that:rolleyes::rolleyes:

cocoa · 15-12-2009 05:05PM

aDeener wrote: »

sure who is anyone to say anything? i feel thats what they deserve, padraig nally agrees and by gum is he a hero. people have lost faith in the courts, it needs a major overhaul - yon murphy rapist fcuker going to get out after 8 years, and you think thats the "closest we can come to getting the decision right" :rolleyes:

You're suggesting we abandon law entirely and let individuals decide what revenge (yes, it is revenge we're talking about) should be. I disagree but you're free to your own opinion.

aDeener wrote: »

how else can one describe the situation, use unicorns or something? :rolleyes: burglaries etc are very personal and situations ought to be described as such

Actually, the third person would be the most common approach but if you feel the story needs fabrication to make the response appropriate then I can't help but agree.

Burglaries are personal, how we deal with them as a society is not. It is important to treat them in a way that is the best for the entire society, not just that makes the victim feel better.

aDeener wrote: »

oh and defending your home and family is not blind vengeance, its the right thing to do

Chasing after someone after they have left your home and family is not defense, it is revenge.

oppenheimer1 · 15-12-2009 05:10PM

daveyboy_1ie wrote: »

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?

What I am suggesting is that is in fact quite rare for a homeowner to be prosecuted for defending themselves. You said you know of two cases, however I have yet to hear of one either anecdotially or in the papers. If it was common, it would be reported.

The judge and jury system is the fairest thing we have. You are judged by your peers to have committed a crime. Therefore the problem is with the mentality of society rather than the law.

wes · 15-12-2009 05:23PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But they are still wrong? I don't understand how you can make that assumption without seeing the evidence they saw.

I have yet to see any information to suggest the information I currently have avaliable is factually incorrrect. Now to be fair the story is from the Daily Mail, but then if they are wrong, I am sure someone would have posted correct information from another source.

Ickle Magoo · 15-12-2009 05:49PM

wes wrote: »

I have yet to see any information to suggest the information I currently have avaliable is factually incorrrect. Now to be fair the story is from the Daily Mail, but then if they are wrong, I am sure someone would have posted correct information from another source.

Well, the Telegraph claim he was beaten with a bat and a metal pipe - rather than a hockey stick - & hit so hard that the bat broke...

The National Post say there were 4 men beating the bugler...

...to name but two inconsistencies, I'm sure there are others.

wes · 15-12-2009 05:57PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, the Telegraph claim he was beaten with a bat and a metal pipe - rather than a hockey stick - & hit so hard that the bat broke...

The National Post say there were 4 men beating the bugler...

...to name but two inconsistencies, I'm sure there are others.

Why didn't you mention the inconsistencies earlier then?!? Also, why no links?

Ickle Magoo · 15-12-2009 06:09PM

wes wrote: »

Why didn't you mention the inconsistencies earlier then?!? Also, why no links?

I thought you probably had Google at your disposal & could look them up the same way I did.

Just because there are inconsistencies in the stories between newspapers doesn't change my fundamental argument that unless you have read the court transcripts or witnessed the court case in person, you can't possibly know why the judge or jury reached the decision that they did. Newspapers are written with sales in mind, not to get the absolute truth afterall.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6811239/Businessman-jailed-for-attacking-intruder---who-goes-free.html

Hussain set upon him with a metal pole and a cricket bat, the court heard.

He was struck so hard that the bat broke and he suffered a fractured skull. He was later deemed not fit to plead to charges of false imprisonment and given a supervision order.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2340002

Hilary Neville, for the prosecution, said, "What started as reasonable self defence by Munir Hussain then turned into excessive force by virtue of a sustained attack by Munir, Tokeer and at least two others."

wes · 15-12-2009 06:16PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I thought you probably had Google at your disposal & could look them up the same way I did.

I could have very easily, but your the one using the stories to back up your points and its just polite to provide links for your sources. Personally, I can't be bothered to go find out where a article comes from if the person posting it doesn't provide a link.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Just because there are inconsistencies in the stories between newspapers doesn't change my fundamental argument that unless you have read the court transcripts or witnessed the court case in person, you can't possibly know why the judge or jury reached the decision that they did. Newspapers are written with sales in mind, not to get the absolute truth afterall.

Fair enough, where do I get the court transcript then? I take you have read it and formed your opinion on the court transcript as well then, or are you just trusting the judge and jury blindly then?!?

**EDIT**
So basically, if my opinion on the case is invalid due to not have extensive knowledge of the case, then so is yours, unless of course you do have extensive knowledge of the case.
**END EDIT**

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6811239/Businessman-jailed-for-attacking-intruder---who-goes-free.html

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2340002

Thanks for the links!

Ickle Magoo · 15-12-2009 07:11PM

wes wrote: »

Fair enough, where do I get the court transcript then? I take you have read it and formed your opinion on the court transcript as well then, or are you just trusting the judge and jury blindly then?!?

**EDIT**
So basically, if my opinion on the case is invalid due to not have extensive knowledge of the case, then so is yours, unless of course you do have extensive knowledge of the case.
**END EDIT**

I don't have any more knowledge of the case than couple of internet articles I've read - which is why I wasn't the one proclaiming judge & jury to be absolutely in the wrong. I just suggested that bearing in mind he was A) prosecuted and then

found guilty, there was probably more to the story.

wes · 15-12-2009 09:10PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't have any more knowledge of the case than couple of internet articles I've read - which is why I wasn't the one proclaiming judge & jury to be absolutely in the wrong. I just suggested that bearing in mind he was A) prosecuted and then found guilty, there was probably more to the story.

I can disagree with a judge and jury if I want too. I also stated several times, that my opinion was based on the information available to me, so I think your exaggerating, when you say I think there absolutely in the wrong. If we were to have this standard, then we couldn't articulate any kind of opinion on any trials.

Mike 1972 · 15-12-2009 09:15PM

cocoa wrote: »

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, .

The law is concerned with what one has done not with what one might do. If they were to lock people up for what they might it would probably be necessary to lock up everybody really.

Lambsbread wrote: »

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."

Not to mention the threatening the collective ego of the judiciary :rolleyes:

soups05 wrote: »

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

What is the law in relation to single storey dwellings ?

cocoa · 16-12-2009 12:04AM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

The law is concerned with what one has done not with what one might do. If they were to lock people up for what they might it would probably be necessary to lock up everybody really.

I was merely pointing out that saying he is 'of no threat to society' is not really a defence. If the law is only concerned with what one has done then there's still plenty of rope there...

the_syco · 16-12-2009 03:23PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If the two men had chased the guy off with the cricket bat/hockey stick - even giving him a couple of good clouts on the way out - that would be a simple case of self-defense.

So that he and his two buddies (who got away, and thus were not charged) could come back again? When was the last time you saw a burgular getting serious (if any) jail times?

Ickle Magoo · 16-12-2009 03:43PM

the_syco wrote: »

So that he and his two buddies (who got away, and thus were not charged) could come back again? When was the last time you saw a burgular getting serious (if any) jail times?

I've stated several times now that I don't think the current judicial system is always right - even often right - that doesn't mean I think people should be free to exact their own revenge as they see fit. The other burglars got away anyway - and may come back again regardless, probably better armed and possibly with vengeance of their own now, so that instead of stealing money & property, they only want to hurt the home-owner. Do you really think in a world where knives and guns are so readily available that giving someone a kick-in is somehow teaching the ultimate in lessons or making your life any safer?

Dublinman12 · 17-12-2009 01:21PM

You are in bed and your back door is smashed in......do you really think you are going to be thinking rationally at that stage....the burglar has no conscience and is probably carrying a knife.....you are in bed with your wife and might have kids....Rational thinking is out of the window.....

As was mentioned on here its very easy to type away on your keyboard and recite the law...until it actually happens to you ...people have no idea what its like and what the after effects are.....Burglary should be against the law in my opinion...:rolleyes:

actuallylike · 20-01-2010 01:00PM

HE'S OUT!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244668/Millionaire-businessman-Munir-Hussain-walks-free-court-jail-sentence-attacking-knife-wielding-burglar-overturned.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo

GrizzlyMan · 20-01-2010 01:32PM

Happy days! he shouldnt have been sentenced to begin with!

orourkeda · 20-01-2010 01:41PM

I've learned from experience that if you're going to batter someone who tries to mug you then you have to do it properly. You have to give them such a kicking that they will be terrified to press charges.

orourkeda · 20-01-2010 01:49PM

Dublinman12 wrote: »

You are in bed and your back door is smashed in......do you really think you are going to be thinking rationally at that stage....the burglar has no conscience and is probably carrying a knife.....you are in bed with your wife and might have kids....Rational thinking is out of the window.....

As was mentioned on here its very easy to type away on your keyboard and recite the law...until it actually happens to you ...people have no idea what its like and what the after effects are.....Burglary should be against the law in my opinion...:rolleyes:

Thats the whole point. The law is both impractical and purely theoretical. It doesnt allow for emotion or any kind. Luckily i've never been burgled but have had someone try to mug me and I reacted in a way that I would have imagined before it happened.

As you mention it's easy to pontificate until something like this happens to you and then any idea about acting in a law abiding fashion goes out the window.

The only alternatives you have are to let the thieves do as they may and then rely on the criminal justice system to correct it or stand up for yourself and at least put up a fight. At least you'll get some semblance of satisfaction by fighting back. This is more than can be said for the Justice system

Does the law protect Criminals or victims?

Comments