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

[LadyBarbossa]

What the ever living? This makes me livid. I guess he should have waited for the attacker to hurt or maim his family and then press charges!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-let-off.html

Judge quoted as saying '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.'

Civilized society is collapsing because of absurd rulings like this, IMO.

[jackfaire]

I don't think it's absurd. He wasn't jailed for defending himself or his family he was jailed for after getting free, after having the criminal on the ground where he could have been detained for the police then beating the ever living daylights out of him.

If a cop had done that we would be crying police brutality and saying how horrible it is that the cops get away with using excessive force.

[BlaqueKatt]

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(who was not even there) 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.

I kinda doubt they were carrying those while running

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0ZniTz6HO

the attackers were fleeing-nowhere on this planet is it legal to attack someone that is running from you-at that point it is no longer self defense, but revenge.

you break into my house -I will defend myself with force-you try to escape...once you're outside my dwelling the law is not on my side, I can no longer use force against you. And if I use force within my home you can bet I will render aid after the fact until the proper authorities arrive.

[kibbles]

I agree with this article. The attacker shouldn't go free; but, what he and his brother did cannot be considered self defence. IMO.

[Nyoibo]

And this is the reason no home invader in my house would survive.

Oh and someone running away is still a threat, they could be going for a mate or to get a weapon and then return, the only time someone is no longer a threat is when they are physically incapable of being a threat.

[jackfaire]

Oh and someone running away is still a threat, they could be going for a mate or to get a weapon and then return, the only time someone is no longer a threat is when they are physically incapable of being a threat.

He was they had him down on the ground before they attacked him.

Also another thing with the damage the guy sustained is he even capable of standing trial yet? If he is still in a hospital usually they wait.

[powerboy]

If someone forces themselves into my home with the intent of robbing or killing. They would not make it out without getting hurt. I will take a ken-do stick to them

[Greenday]

The law on this is clear and sensible. You can do whatever it takes to DEFEND yourself, your family, your home, etc. But once the person gives up and tries to flee, further beating of them is assault and should be treated as such. There is no reason why the three of them couldn't just hold him down until police arrived. They assaulted with deadly force against a now helpless victim.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

And this is the reason no home invader in my house would survive.

Oh and someone running away is still a threat, they could be going for a mate or to get a weapon and then return, the only time someone is no longer a threat is when they are physically incapable of being a threat.

This right here.

Jury trial. Be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Slytovhand]

Going with consensus on this... (gasp!)

If said burglar had've died (instead of just a fractured skull), then would people still say he should be let off?

Now, I certainly believe in getting your own back - but the law doesn't quite see it that way, and for precisely the reason such laws came into being in the first place - blood feuds. We no longer have them, because they are 'uncivilised'... they do break down the society we live in.

Of course, the burg needs to spend time behind bars as well... and for some pretty harsh time, too!

[LadyBarbossa]

I get what most of you are saying, but my main problem with how this was handled, I guess, is that I fear this kind of thing will encourage criminals even more, if that makes sense. It probably wouldn't have bothered me if the attacker was at least given jail time or some sort of punishment. Just because the tables were turned on him and he ended up becoming the victim doesn't mean that what he did was OK.

[Greenday]

I get what most of you are saying, but my main problem with how this was handled, I guess, is that I fear this kind of thing will encourage criminals even more, if that makes sense. It probably wouldn't have bothered me if the attacker was at least given jail time or some sort of punishment. Just because the tables were turned on him and he ended up becoming the victim doesn't mean that what he did was OK.

The robber has a fractured skull and brain damage. I'm sure this will DEFINITELY make people bolder in attempting robbery.

[protege]

Some of you might remember how I handled a possible burglar at my grandmother's house. Simply put, whoever it was read her auto accident notice in the newspaper, and knew she wasn't going to be home. Her injuries kept her in the hospital for almost a year. I was living there at the time, since I was taking summer classes while in college.

Several days after the accident, someone tried to break in. Apparently, they didn't know that I'd put the car in the garage, and thought it was an easy score. Sadly, I proved them wrong. As I heard the front door being forced open...I turned on the porch lights. Whoever it was, took off across the yard towards the highway.

Already pissed because of the accident, I decided that I wasn't going to be a victim. I grabbed the pitchfork off the kitchen porch, and went after the son of a bitch. Whoever it was, apparently kept on running...or shit their pants in the shadows. I literally ran the bastard off the property. Needless to say, I never had that problem again.

Sorry folks, but I have *very* little tolerance for criminals. And yes, I live out in the 'burbs. Unfortunately, there have been a couple of break-ins on my block. One was just a few doors away

[Depot Denizen]

Call me a monster, but I probably would have done the same thing the homeowner did. There's no telling if the punk and his buddies might have come back with something heavier than knives. A bit much? Yeah. But I probably would have done the same thing if my family was in danger.

[crashhelmet]

While British law is different from US law, I can relate to this.

I've trained in martial arts since I was 6 years old. I was arrested for assault 3 times before my 14th birthday. Never convicted. The first 2 were self defense and the third was acting in defense of another.

I'll admit that I was violent in all three instances. In the third, I went overboard and should've been convicted but wasn't. Luckily for me, the person I was defending was a cop's daughter and things were swept under the rug, so to speak.

The level of violence at which you're allowed to defend yourself varies from state to state and is based off the level of threat you perceive at that time. While this guy might've been in danger in the future, it didn't warrant the beating he gave the attacker. Once he had him subdued, he should've held him for the police. If the guy tried anything, he could've hit him again, but continuing to beat him when he's down is wrong.

CH