Do We Have The Right To Defend Ourselves , In Our Own Homes

[balli hi]

Some of you may have heard and read this news story that was being discussed in the media yesterday , my view is , good on the home owner for dishing out some proper justice , i am sick and tired of the politically correct way , our society / judicial system has become , whereby someone can come into your home tie your family up threaten them with knives , yet the moment you inflict harm on the intruder , your more than likely to face a substantial custodial sentence , i don't care about the circumstances in this case , the burglar got what he deserved , in certain states of America , if someone comes into your home you can use whatever force necessary including shooting them , as far as i'm concerned if someones in your home uninvited with bad intent , their human rights are forfit , end of .

The burglar Walid Salem , by the way , has 50 convictions already , and is also awaiting trial for credit card fraud , it was said yesterday by a serving police officer , that if he has been caught and convicted 50 times already , he would have had to have committed around 500 offences to have been caught 50 times unless he was incredibly stupid enough to have been caught every time ..... So British Justice , has delivered 30 months for the homeowner and a 2 year supervision order for a convicted burglar with 50 previous convictions , Justice my arxx

( Full story , from yesterdays independent )

By Lauren Turner, Press Association

Homeowner jailed for tackling burglar

Tuesday, 15 December 2009

A businessman who fought off knife-wielding thugs threatening to kill his family was jailed for 30 months yesterday.

Munir Hussain and his wife and children returned from their local mosque during Ramadan to find three intruders, wearing balaclavas, in their home.

He feared for their lives as their hands were tied behind their backs and they were forced to crawl from room to room.

The 53-year-old made his escape after throwing a coffee table and enlisted his brother Tokeer in chasing the offenders down the street in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, bringing one of them to the ground.

What followed was described in Reading Crown Court as self-defence that went too far, leaving intruder Walid Salem with a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces.

Salem was the only intruder caught after the incident on September 3 2008, but his injuries meant he was not fit to plead after being charged with false imprisonment.

Salem, who has a string of 50 past convictions, was given a two-year supervision order at a court hearing in September this year. He is currently in custody awaiting trial for an alleged credit card fraud.

The brothers, described as family men at the heart of the local community, were found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent after a trial earlier this year. The prosecution alleged two other men took part in the so-called "revenge attack" with them.

Tokeer Hussain was given a 39-month sentence because Judge John Reddihough decided he had not been subject to as much provocation as his brother.

Judge Reddihough said Munir Hussain's family had been subject to a "serious and wicked offence" and praised the bravery of his teenage son who escaped to raise the alarm.

He also noted the "courage" of Munir Hussain, but said he carried out a "dreadful, violent attack" on Salem as he lay defenceless.

The judge told them: "It may be that some members of the public, or media commentators, will assert that the man Salem deserved what happened to him at the hands of you and the two others involved, and that you should not have been prosecuted and need not be punished.

"However, 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 justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse."

Sentencing the brothers, whose mother had died just before the incident, the judge added: "This case is a tragedy for you and your families.

"Sadly, I have no doubt that my public duty requires me to impose immediate prison sentences of some length upon you.

"This is in order to reflect the serious consequences of your violent acts and intent and to make it absolutely clear that, whatever the circumstances, persons cannot take the law into their own hands, or carry out revenge attacks upon a person who has offended them."

The brothers, who live near each other in Desborough Road, High Wycombe, did not react as they were sentenced, but members of their family watching from the public gallery tearfully shook their heads.

Michael Wolkind, defending, argued that his client, who has been prescribed anti-depressants, was the "real victim" in the case.

Mr Wolkind said the case had similarities to that of farmer Tony Martin, who shot a teenage intruder, noting there was public support in both cases.

He told the court: "The public surely do not want Munir Hussain to receive imprisonment.

"I don't seek a medal, I seek justice for him."

Munir Hussain, usually a controlled man, had simply acted in the heat of the moment in "extreme circumstances of stress", he said.

The prosecution said the Hussains were not being convicted for apprehending Salem, but for the "excessive force" they used on him.

Hilary Neville, prosecuting, 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."

The court heard sentencing would have an impact on the local economy, with 10 members of staff losing their jobs at Soundsorba, the company run by Munir Hussain, who employs his brother as a technical director. The firm, which produces sound-absorbing material, has an annual turnover of £2.5m.

Munir Hussain feels he let down his wife Shaheen Begum and sons Awais, 21, Samad, 15, and 18-year-old daughter Arooj, by failing to defend them against Salem and his gang. His wife had suffered a stroke prior to the incident, and had since had a mini stroke.

There were now fears for his mental health, a psychiatrist who assessed him told the judge.

Dr Philip Joseph said Munir Hussain could even attempt suicide if his depression reached that stage, saying: "He would be in his cell, worrying about his family, thinking about the many losses he has suffered as a result of this incident.

"I would have concerns he would make a serious bid to harm himself."

Before yesterday's sentencing, a senior police officer had told Munir Hussain, who previously won an Asian businessman of the year award and is head of the Race Equality Council for High Wycombe, that he had sympathy for him.

The court heard Chief Inspector Colin Seaton of Thames Valley Police, the senior officer in the case, approached Munir Hussain after a community meeting, asking if there was anything he could do to help.

"He stated that whatever happened that night in the heat of the moment, he was still sad to see Munir Hussain and Tokeer Hussain convicted," Mr Wolkind added.

"He said they were outstanding members of the community and they had done a great deal of work in the community, both before this incident and afterwards."

Chief Insp Seaton stressed that he did not wish to see either brother go to jail.

The brothers will serve up to half their sentences in custody. Under normal sentencing guidelines they would each be starting sentences of at least seven years, the judge added.

Speaking outside court, Mr Wolkind said: "The criminal justice system has failed twice.

"The court was unable to sentence Walid Salem with sufficient harshness, or Munir and Tokeer Hussain with sufficient compassion.

"It's difficult to believe that this outcome reflects the thinking of the public, or the interests of justice."

He said he intended to appeal against the sentence on his client's behalf.

[Sagitar]

Some of you may have heard and read this news story that was being discussed in the media yesterday , my view is , good on the home owner for dishing out some proper justice , i am sick and tired of the politically correct way , our society / judicial system has become , whereby someone can come into your home tie your family up threaten them with knives , yet the moment you inflict harm on the intruder , your more than likely to face a substantial custodial sentence , i don't care about the circumstances in this case , the burglar got what he deserved , in certain states of America , if someone comes into your home you can use whatever force necessary including shooting them , as far as i'm concerned if someones in your home uninvited with bad intent , their human rights are forfit , end of .

The burglar Walid Salem , by the way , has 50 convictions already , and is also awaiting trial for credit card fraud , it was said yesterday by a serving police officer , that if he has been caught and convicted 50 times already , he would have had to have committed around 500 offences to have been caught 50 times unless he was incredibly stupid enough to have been caught every time ..... So British Justice , has delivered 30 months for the homeowner and a 2 year supervision order for a convicted burglar with 50 previous convictions , Justice my arxx

I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the brothers and if I had been in their situation I might well have done exactly the same thing.

But the judge was in a very difficult position. The way I read it, the two brothers brought down the burglar in the street, where he lay helpless. They then continued to beat him about the head with a cricket bat to the point where his skull was fractured and his brain damaged. I guess the judge would have decided that they were not at that point defending themselves or their family, but inflicting retribution - and that is not allowed under the law.

Unless I have missed it, I see no mention of a jury. Was the case tried by a jury and did the jury find the brothers guilty? It is very difficult, if you are not in court during a case, to take account of all that is revealed during a trial.

[reece]

The problem was that he wasn’t in his home when he beat the burglar senseless, he chassed him down the street with weapons.

If he had just restrained the burglar while still in his house without harming him (too much) it would have finished differently.

We can’t have members of the public being judge jury and executioner otherwise we end up like some third world cesspit of a country

[balli hi]

People like walid Salem have no place in society , lets not forget that Manir Hussein & his family had their hands bound and were forced to crawl from room to room , all the time with knives pointed at them and threatened that they would be killed, its no wonder that Mr Hussein did what he did , why is there sympathy for a scumbag such as Salem , why can't we have the electric chair or something for people like him , instead of sympathy and a 2 year supervision order , that'll stop him won't it !

[Norfolk n Chance]

Maybe he doesn't have a place in society... but condoning the act of beating him sensless after he had left the property would lead to vigilanties doing the same all over the country...

Using force against someone in your own home i agree with... chasing someone who has left your home and beating them with a cricket bat after they had been knocked to the floor i don't...

[Karma Supra]

And this is the same week where the teenagers that beat a fawn to death and kicked it's ribs in "for a laugh" get let off.

As far as I am concerned once someone breaks and enters, they are outside the law, and should expect to work both ways.

[Phoenix999]

Tony.... I can see where you are coming from on this but the prison sentence was, in my mind, a fair one. If the injuries had been inflicted inside the house then the homeowner could have claimed that he was using fair and reasonable force to protect both his family and himself but such cannot be claimed when down the street.

Sadly a man has to lose his liberty in this case but thankfully a scumbag is now no longer able to commit crimes

[Rolla_SR]

There are simply too many 'ifs' and 'buts'... I read about this the other day and it makes me sick to think someone can brake into your house threaten not just your life, but you families... Its human instinct to want to get back at him... Yes he may of been wrong to have chased him down and beat him to a pulp, but please put yourselves in his position and think about what you would do, regardless of the law... Who's to say if he let the man get away he wouldn't come back at a future date and harm his family or himself?

[Insanity-74]

Maybe we need some vigilante actions in this country...after all the police/law does fack all to defend the hard working honest people in this country...maybe criminals would think twice about breaking into someones house if they knew that the occupant could defend his home and family by any means and beat them to death if needs be......if you dont want to get beaten up....dont break into peoples homes...simple. I`m all for defending my home by any means...like I said the police wont do a thing, they are worse than useless at the moment.

[cfc1]

I don't think anyone is (or will) disagree that you can't protect you and your family in your own home, I agree that as soon as a burglar breaks into your home with bad intent then the leave their human rights at the door and if they end up on the receiving end of a severe beating then it should be classed as a "hazzrd of the job", but as soon as they leave then you cannot claim self defence as it will be viewed that they are running away from you. (it's the same in America afaik)

If we allowed people to chase people down and inflict retribution the streets would be full of people hunting down the burgler who done their house years ago, people would be waiting outside prisons to get the person when they came out, the streets would be a far more dangerous place than they are now so boundaries need to be made, if we break those boundaries then we too should be prepared for the consequences that go with it.... no matter how unjust it may seem.

[Jamesbelfast]

In this situation inappropriate force was used and the judge could not ignore that aspect although he may have been a bit more lenient with the sentence but then he himself may have been bound by the rule of law.

Even under the American constitution force used in defence of life or property must be appropriate to the circumstances and if you are going use a gun you must give a warning if the situation allows.

Does the person who takes the law into his own hands not become as bad and as pitiful as the criminal who acts against him. Vigilantees have been tried in various forms over history in different countries but they usually end up acting out side the law and must be made ameniable to the law. A force that is responsible to its citizens and government usually is called the police.

Personally I have seen so-called vigilantees in action and all they actually want is control not justice and believe you me it is not a pretty sight or good for any commmunity.

I think it was Mahatma Ghandi who said - If we are to believe that taking an eye for an eye is justice then the whole world would be blind.:)

[Rolla_SR]

I think the the most upsetting thing of this whole episode is that the person breaking into his house got away with slap wrists and nothing more...

[Sagitar]

I think the the most upsetting thing of this whole episode is that the person breaking into his house got away with slap wrists and nothing more...

Didn't I read that he wasn't fit to enter a plea - fractured skull and brain damage? I am not sure what a judge is supposed to do when the accused is in no position to present a defence?

Is there someone properly qualified to comment who could fill in the gaps in the reporting etc. Wouldn't you expect the trial to be delayed if someone is too ill to plead? All else being equal, the sentence does look very lenient. Are we now likely to see a civil case, where the burglar sues the bloke who injured him?

[Rolla_SR]

I think the the most upsetting thing of this whole episode is that the person breaking into his house got away with slap wrists and nothing more...

Didn't I read that he wasn't fit to enter a plea - fractured skull and brain damage? I am not sure what a judge is supposed to do when the accused is in no position to present a defence?

Is there someone properly qualified to comment who could fill in the gaps in the reporting etc. Wouldn't you expect the trial to be delayed if someone is too ill to plead? All else being equal, the sentence does look very lenient. Are we now likely to see a civil case, where the burglar sues the bloke who injured him?

Thats right, and I really wouldnt be suprised if he ended up sueing the bloke for the injuries he sustained

[Blue84]

I think the the most upsetting thing of this whole episode is that the person breaking into his house got away with slap wrists and nothing more...

Yeah, if they hadn't chosen to break-in then this whole episode wouldn't have happened.

[Sagitar]

This is where it can go.

Lynching

[Norfolk n Chance]

I think the the most upsetting thing of this whole episode is that the person breaking into his house got away with slap wrists and nothing more...

Is "slapped wrists" a slang term for "brain damage"?

[KPARRIS-JONES]

Burglar shouldn't have been in the house trying to steal in the first place. If you're prepared to uproot people by taking their worldly possessions then be prepared for them to fight back!

Shouldn't have tried, then he'd have his mind in good working order.....

[Norfolk n Chance]

Burglar shouldn't have been in the house trying to steal in the first place. If you're prepared to uproot people by taking their worldly possessions then be prepared for them to fight back!

Shouldn't have tried, then he'd have his mind in good working order.....

IF the punishment had been dished out in the house i would agree with you.....

[KPARRIS-JONES]

Burglar shouldn't have been in the house trying to steal in the first place. If you're prepared to uproot people by taking their worldly possessions then be prepared for them to fight back!

Shouldn't have tried, then he'd have his mind in good working order.....

IF the punishment had been dished out in the house i would agree with you.....

I see your point but the home owner may not have felt that his family was safe unless he dished out his own punishment.

[balli hi]

HI guys

I have'nt had much time to comment on oppinions recieved thus far , as i have been busy ..... So , it would seem that the general consensus falls on the use of ( restraint ) side of the fence , and that the home owner acted outside of the law in that he with others chased the miscreant into the street caught him and then beat him to a pulp , fair play say i , i do not disagree that this was outside of the law , it was , however we don't know if Salem was still carrying a knife and attempting to use it on his assailants whilst they were trying to bring him to the ground , hence the effective use of the cricket bat to the swede ( head ) , i also see that people feel that if people were aloud to continue in this manner in that excessive force was used , also that it took place outside of the home , that the law is correct in that the homeowner has been handed down a custodial sentance , so as to detract others from acting in the same manner , because if it were allowed to continue we would have vigilantees roming the streets seeking retribution , anarchy ect , i'm sorry but i can't see it , cast your minds back 20 or 30 years or so , when back in the day a burglar was caught on the premises by a homeowner , in some cases the burglar would have been given a good hiding , i can recall a couple of cases when i was growing up , the homeowner was not charged with assault , and arrested into the bargain , but praised for their bravery in tackling the burglar , the burglar had no rights of redress because the general consensus in those days was , !Removed! serves him right ..... Yes but we live in a much more civilised society today , i hear you say , do we ? , you can't look at a criminal the wrong way these days without the fear of prosecution from the authorites , the law i feel falls totally on the side of the criminal these days , it would seem that they have more rights than the victim , and all because of a politically correct over-reaction that we can't allow people to take the law into their own hands , it did'nt happen back in the day and it won't happen now .

[Mat-O]

Well have to say I'd struggle to not do the same in his position, but giving him a severe kicking and holding him for the police to sentence him would have been the thing to do, not smash him skull in with a bat.

It's difficult, but to be honest the bugler is lucky to be alive, you can't be judge jury and executioner. I can see where you're coming from certainly, and like I say most of us would do the same thing if our families were threatened. I guess it's because the danger was over and he was running away.

[Rolla_SR]

I think the the most upsetting thing of this whole episode is that the person breaking into his house got away with slap wrists and nothing more...

Is "slapped wrists" a slang term for "brain damage"?

I didn't mean physically, I was reffering to the law. He will end up going unpunished. I think the beating was justified, I'm no expert, but if anyone threatened the life of my family with a knife I wouldn't rest until they stop breathing. Simple reason being (as previously highlighted) the law is on the wrong side of the fence and it protects the defendants more than its victims. This is simply wrong!

You can go to most other countries that have not gone PC crazy and I'm sure the man breaking and entering would of got a good beating from the old bill!

[Bizarra]

"Justice belongs to those who claim it, but let the claimant beware lest he create new injustice by his claim and thus set the bloody pendulum of revenge into its inexorable motion"

From The Dosadi Experiment, by Frank Herbert, Author of the Dune series

[Bizarra]

I am aware that the case under discussion took place outside & after the crime, which leaves it a bit "Iffy" but understandable.

The whole position of the Homeowner is under review here in Ireland, at present, & below is a summary of the state of affairs. [ Not yet passed into law]

Call for clarity on crime victims defending themselves

14/12/2009 - 07:12:58

Victims of crime should have the right to use force to defend themselves in their home, legal experts told the Government today.

A report to be handed to Justice Minister Dermot Ahern said people should be allowed to protect themselves, their family and their homes from attack.

Professor Finbarr McCauley, Law Reform Commission (LRC), said the review found that self-defence should be renamed legitimate defence.

“The law as it currently stands, I would not say it’s unsatisfactory but it is a bit vague,” the University College Dublin academic said.

The Commission said homeowners facing down burglars would not have to back-off from an attacker before launching a defence.

The Government rejected a Fine Gael bill in September that would have protected householders who attack burglars in their home.

The party’s justice spokesman Charlie Flanagan said: “I believe that the law should clearly entitle a homeowner or occupier to defend themselves and their family.

“I’m not advocating a licence to kill but what I’m doing is promoting a redress of the balance of law.”

The LRC review followed high-profile cases involving attacks on people’s homes.

The most notorious saw elderly Mayo farmer Padraig Nally shoot traveller John ’Frog’ Ward in the back after he entered his farmyard.

Mr Nally had been living in terror for months, intimidated after break-ins at his rural home.

Television magician Keith Barry has also joined growing calls for the Government to toughen rules against burglars, in particular criminals who target pensioners. His grandfather Paddy died days after a break-in at his Waterford home.

The Commission said legitimate defence should be allowed if a victim suffers a lethal attack, the defence is immediate, necessary and proportionate.

Prof McAuley added: “At present, it seems to be the case that a person is entitled to use force that is as reasonable as he or she deems it to be.

“That seemed to us to be too vague.

“We wanted to be very specific as to when you could use force and particularly in the context of the defence of the home.”

The paper will be launched by Minister Ahern today.

Among the 46 recommendations the experts said only gardaí and prison officers should have powers to use lethal force for arrest, serious public disorder, riot or prison escapes if and when it is necessary.

The Commission said the defence should also be offered if someone who suffered a long period of sustained attacks hit back, for example a victim of domestic violence.

The paper also includes a draft Criminal Law (Defences) Bill 2009 to implement these recommendations.