Man jailed for fighting off knife-wielding attacker. Attacker goes free

[Nyoibo]

This might have been some particularly dry humour, so apologies if I'm preaching to the choir here:

When you say those places are the only habitable ones, you're basically indicating your preference for the social contract. The places we live are habitable because of the social contract. The infrastructure that makes our lives comfortable is only possible in a society governed by laws.

I think what Nyoibo meant is that all the habitable land on Earth is taken up by societies with social contracts, save Antarctica. In keeping with the dry humor.

Partly humour partly Fryk is right, especially in Australia.

[crashhelmet]

Am I misunderstanding things here, or are people saying that it would be perfectly within my right to restrain an attempted robber/criminal and then beat and/or torture them until I finally decided to call the police? If I called them at all?

CH

[jackfaire]

Still, the beating stopped him more effectively than any previous punishment did. Just sayin'...

Then we should just execute every criminal as that would stop them more effectivly than anything else.

We can't live like that. We have to punish each individual crime try re hab and hope for the best.

[Shangri-laschild]

You made it. You made my point. You are willing to face the consequences of your actions and that is good. However many of the people that say, "The guy was a criminal he deserved what he got" will be calling for the death penalty for the driver that ran over a bicyclist who broke the law and road out in front of a moving truck.

Exactly. Well put. They broke the law. They have to accept the consequenses.

Also consider, how do we know if the burglar hadn't broken into that house before? It's not mentioned, but if the guy was a "career criminal," that sort tend to hit targets that they're familiar with. If he'd broken into that place before...maybe the owner recognized him, and decided he'd had enough?

If that was their reason for beating the person beyond necessary, then that would fall under taking the law into their own hands, not self defense. Self defense covers the imediat threat, not future or past ones.

I agree what the Hussein brothers did was over the top, but come one! Two and a half years in prison for it? I've heard of people committing much worse crimes, and they didn't get punished as severely as this guy did. And his brother got even worse- totally shafted. (Insert prison "shafted" joke and giggle).

Lets say person A and person B commit the same crime. A gets too little punishment, B doesn't. That doesn't mean that B shouldn't be punished as much, it means A should be punished appropriately. We get so many people here who are trying to argue their parking tickets by saying "well, the person next to me was parked wrong and didn't get a ticket!" That's fine but you still parked illegally. Just because we didn't see the other person at the time, or maybe they weren't there when we were, doesn't mean you get out of being punished for what you did.

And if the robber was making an honest living he wouldn't have been in that position.

And if a guy hadn't been walking down that street at that time, he wouldn't have been shot in a drive-by. And if a girl hadn't been wearing that short of a skirt, she wouldn't have been assaulted. Yes, these two examples might not have been criminals, but it still is the exact same logic. "Well they deserve it because of what they chose to do. No, the criminal should not have been doing what he was doing and he should be punished for that. But all those men legally were allowed to do was fight till there was no longer a threat. This goes beyond that. Whether you can sympathise or see yourself doing the same thing doesn't change that it was illegal.

[Tanasi]

Am I misunderstanding things here, or are people saying that it would be perfectly within my right to restrain an attempted robber/criminal and then beat and/or torture them until I finally decided to call the police? If I called them at all?

CH

In my thinking if you've got the robber hog tied and he can't resist then you really shouldn't beat him into unconsciousness or great bodily harm. If on the other hand you're still grappling with the robber then all bets are off and use whatever is at hand.

And if a guy hadn't been walking down that street at that time, he wouldn't have been shot in a drive-by. And if a girl hadn't been wearing that short of a skirt, she wouldn't have been assaulted. Yes, these two examples might not have been criminals, but it still is the exact same logic. "Well they deserve it because of what they chose to do. No, the criminal should not have been doing what he was doing and he should be punished for that. But all those men legally were allowed to do was fight till there was no longer a threat. This goes beyond that. Whether you can sympathise or see yourself doing the same thing doesn't change that it was illegal.

There's a big difference the walker and the girl in your decription have done nothing wrong nor broke any laws. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time or bad luck. The robber on the other hand purposely put himself in those folks home to rob them of their things. He was breaking the law on purpose he's a "criminal". Now if the robbies had this fellow hog-tied on the ground and then smacked him in the noggin with the cricket bat then yes they should face some sort of community service but certainly not jail time.

[Skelly]

Then we should just execute every criminal as that would stop them more effectivly than anything else.

We can't live like that. We have to punish each individual crime try re hab and hope for the best.

Why not? Why not shoot habitual criminals? They, by their own choice, contribute jack shit to society, cause general suffering and frankly, are a nuisance on par with rats or cockroaches or rabid dogs, with the only difference being that the latter three don't know better. So yes, thinking about it, I do think society ought to put a bullet into the head of of Harry the house-burglaring heroinist. For a variety of reasons, I'm sick of criminals who assault, rape, burglarize, kill, steal etc. So sick of them that I want them dead, and don't mind if a house-owner does the deed.

[Greenday]

Why not? Why not shoot habitual criminals? They, by their own choice, contribute jack shit to society, cause general suffering and frankly, are a nuisance on par with rats or cockroaches or rabid dogs, with the only difference being that the latter three don't know better. So yes, thinking about it, I do think society ought to put a bullet into the head of of Harry the house-burglaring heroinist. For a variety of reasons, I'm sick of criminals who assault, rape, burglarize, kill, steal etc. So sick of them that I want them dead, and don't mind if a house-owner does the deed.

So then it looks like we should just wipe out humanity cause everyone commits crime at one point or another.

[jackfaire]

For a variety of reasons, I'm sick of criminals who assault, rape, burglarize, kill, steal etc. So sick of them that I want them dead, and don't mind if a house-owner does the deed.

Meh I don't trust them to have the data needed to make that judgment call.

[Skelly]

Meh I don't trust them to have the data needed to make that judgment call.

This fellow apparently had quite a long history of convictions for violent crimes. Sometimes, there are sufficient reason to remove someone's priveliege of breathing. Sucks for him to end up on the chopping block, but he choose that path.

[jackfaire]

This fellow apparently had quite a long history of convictions for violent crimes. Sometimes, there are sufficient reason to remove someone's priveliege of breathing. Sucks for him to end up on the chopping block, but he choose that path.

And yet the home owner did not know this fact. For all he knew it was a first time offender trying desperatly to feed his family.

[Slytovhand]

Using the same awesome amounts of logic already shown here, it would be perfectly alright for the following:

A prostitute working a corner in a place where prostitution is illegal - anyone who kills her can be let off scott-free because she "shouldn't be there" (let alone any other crime she may fall victim to).

A drug-dealer or user gets killed because they're on the wrong turf - it can never be murder, because they shouldn't be doing anything illegal either.

It's perfectly ok to beat to death the suspected child-molester because he looked sideways at your kids while they were in a park...

And the psychotic who is robbing your house to pay for her medication because the 'system' doesn't give her any other 'real' choices.. it's ok to just bludgeon her to death....


Am I being ridiculous? Perhaps. But it's these sort of things that we have, you know... laws and a system of judiciary - not random vigilante-ism!

(I will own to being patronising, though )

[Fryk]

I suppose I phrased what I was trying to say wrong. I admit that putting that part in about his brother was stupid. Reading the article again, it does seem like he should have gotten a harsher penatly. But, I still maintain that while, yes, Mr. Hussein should have gotten punished for what he did, I think he got a pretty raw deal in the severity of his sentence. I've heard of people getting in bar fights and doing that much damage that didn't get 2 1/2 years in prison.

[Slytovhand]

Well, a bar-fight is a different kettle of fish.

It's a fight, where potentially you are fighting for your life in that instance. So it's a 'valid' reason... but not valid enough to get away scott-free.. cos, well, you shouldn't have been in a bar-fight in the first place... (yeah, I know.... but you get what I'm getting at)

[Fryk]

I get it, but I KINDA disagree... in most cases, I wouldn't think that a bar fight would be TO THE DEATH! or even TO THE PAIN! When someone breaks into your house, I would think it more likely that your life is in danger. That being said (and this is the "kinda" part) I do realize that Herr Hussein was no longer being held up, so it was perhaps less likely that his life was in danger. I think what happened was that he just lost it on the burglar because he had put his family's life in jeopardy, and lashed out disproporiantely as a result.

Slef defense? No way, not even a little. But I do think that the circumstances should have mitigated his sentence somewhat.

[XiaoTortuga]

"Cricket? Nobody understands cricket. You gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket."

Cookie for the reference.

If I recall correctly, that would be Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the original movie.


One note of clarification, this was a burglary, not a robbery. Semantics yes, but in the eyes of the law which arose in light of society's feelings, there is a huge difference.

A burglary is much more serious than a robbery, because it is occurs in your home, where you are not on guard, and historically in the night time, when you are sleeping and defenseless.

That is why you are free to kill a burglar in your home, the threat they pose to you is seen as being enough to warrant defense with deadly force.

The law says once they are fleeing, deadly force is not allowed. You can try to get your stuff back, but your property is not important enough for you to assault the person.

How would I react if I had been tied up? I don't know. It is possible I would have felt sufficiently threatened that I would not think about consequences, not think logically.

The law is very imperfect. There is a need to draw the line somewhere. The argument about they might come back... I don't think most burglars who are just out to rob a house will come back. Criminals are generally lazy. But regardless. How long can you pursue them? Maybe they will take a few days and gather guns and buddies to do it right. Should you hunt them down two days later and beat them and hold them for the police? The law says no. You are only allowed to defend your home, once they are fleeing, you are not in danger and you call the police.

And these laws were not drawn up with a bunch of dudes sitting at a table. They have evolved through hundreds of years. And rest on the foundation that police/justice system will catch and punish criminals because they are the only ones in the position to do so. They will be assessing the situation and events in a non-emotional way, looking at the entirety of the event.

Self-defense is allowed because the cops aren't always there. One you are in no immediate danger of imminent harm, you have to back off. Sure, chase after him, tackle him and hold him until the cops arrive. That would be reasonable and not even self-defense. Beating the shit out of him, unreasonable. (Given what I know of the situation.)

Maybe you think that makes you a wuss, or doesn't satisfy your personal need for justice, but our system is not based on personal justice, it is based on justice for society. Because personal justice didn't work out so well. If it did, we would have kept that system.