Let's not get too Frank Miller here, guys. Just sayin'.
I AM a Frank Miller character....
MUhAUAUAUAUAUUAHA!
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
An immediate threat.
He could come back tomorrow night.
Or the next night.
Or, the night after that.
That's nice. Thinking someone could be a future threat doesn't give you the right to attempt to murder them.
I'm disturbed at how many bloodthirsty folks are on this thread. You pretty much don't deserve to be beaten after you're already helpless. Ever. Even if someone "deserves*" the death penalty (I'd say they never deserve brain damage as a punishment), it shouldn't be by bludgeoning.
Sorry the guy went to prison because a crime was committed against him. But the original crime doesn't excuse his own.
* in my mind, the only rational reason to execute is if you think the person can't possibly ever be let free again, not for punishment, so "deserves" is questionable, more like "it is our last resort"
The moral of this story is: always make certain that the intruder doesn't make it out of the house alive. It simplifies things for everybody involved.
The moral of this story is: always make certain that the intruder doesn't make it out of the house alive. It simplifies things for everybody involved.
There is a great deal of truth to this.
|
|
Back in oh '74 or so my uncle and a couple of his buddies were going home from a bar one evening. Now I have to explain something. These guys were just out of highschool. Not one of them are under 6 ft tall. All of them played football. All of them took martial arts together. My uncle in fact tried out for, but did not make, the Dallas Cowboys. So anyway they found this couple in the back alley around from the bar.
Where this guy was raping this lady. they didnt stop to think about whether it was legal or if it was in thier front room. Someoen was in trouble and this boy picked the wrong night to try and take what he wanted. She was black and blue and senseless from his attack. They left him the same way. They didnt go to jail. The cops patted them on the back and said thank you. They made sure he was hurt enough to never forget what happened and then called the cops. If they had a baseball bat with them at the time they would most likely had used it. They did not but then again they didn't need one.
An immediate threat. He could come back tomorrow night. Or the next night. Or, the night after that.
"That Heathansson sounds like a bloodthirsty dude. I ought to track him down with some of my friends and crack his skull for him before he becomes a danger." Just kidding, Heath. Seriously, I can see both sides of the issue.
But what REALLY gets me is that the guy didn't stand up and say, "Yeah, I beat him down -- he threatened my family!" I'd have a LOT more respect for him if he did. Instead, he tries to weasel out of the consequences, with things like "I wasn't involved." If you think you're justified, good deal. Then do it, and stand up and admit it like a man, look the judge in the eye, and take what's coming.
|
The right verdict, really. This wasn't done in the home, the burglar was no longer a threat and was cornered and unarmed when the pair brutally beat him half to death with a cricket bat. That's no longer self defence, that's attempted murder.
Shame that Heathansson's argument leads to the logical conclusion of killing anyone you think might be threatening you. Anyone could come and break into your house! So best to remove them before they do.
|
Back in oh '74 or so my uncle and a couple of his buddies were going home from a bar one evening. Now I have to explain something. These guys were just out of highschool. Not one of them are under 6 ft tall. All of them played football. All of them took martial arts together. My uncle in fact tried out for, but did not make, the Dallas Cowboys. So anyway they found this couple in the back alley around from the bar.
Where this guy was raping this lady. they didnt stop to think about whether it was legal or if it was in thier front room. Someoen was in trouble and this boy picked the wrong night to try and take what he wanted. She was black and blue and senseless from his attack. They left him the same way. They didnt go to jail. The cops patted them on the back and said thank you. They made sure he was hurt enough to never forget what happened and then called the cops. If they had a baseball bat with them at the time they would most likely had used it. They did not but then again they didn't need one.
Jester,
And if he'd escaped, they'd chased him down and THEN beaten him to a pulp, it would be similar to this case. As it is, you're allowed a lot of leeway in using force to defend yourself or others, but once the other guy is running away, they stop being a threat and your ability to use force diminishes greatly. When they're unconscious on the floor and you smash a cricket bat onto them so hard it breaks into three pieces, well, good luck with describing that as 'reasonable force in the situation'.
Shame that Heathansson's argument leads to the logical conclusion of killing anyone you think might be threatening you. Anyone could come and break into your house! So best to remove them before they do.
Bingo.
Had this happened in the U.S., no doubt we'd be inundated with "this would have never happened 30 years ago, before our our tragic moral decline" posts, too.
*sigh*
You don't threaten children. Ever.
No argument there.
The thieves should be in jail, not the victim.
One might wonder to which victim you intended to refer: The victim of the attempted burglary, or the victim of the vicious battery?
Edit: If it were up to me, both parties would probably be going to jail.
Reminds of the burglar who feel through a skylight above a kitchen, vut his leg badly on a steak knife, and sued the lady because he'd been cut. I believe he won.
Terrible analogy.
You don't threaten children. Ever. The thieves should be in jail, not the victim.
Reminds of the burglar who feel through a skylight above a kitchen, vut his leg badly on a steak knife, and sued the lady because he'd been cut. I believe he won.
...Wasn't that story from Liar Liar?
"this would have never happened 30 years ago, before liberal judges inundated our courtroom.
Fixed it for ya Bugleyman. ;)
"this would have never happened 30 years ago, before liberal judges inundated our courtroom.
Fixed it for ya Bugleyman. ;)
ZING! Two points for Gary.
;)
I agree with bugleyman on this one- they should both be in jail. I'm all for self defense and although I'm terribly out of shape and practice but I will still gladly defend myself or anyone else if they are in physical danger. However, the beating described goes above and beyond what's necessary. If the dude is off your property and unconscious, then all battery should stop, otherwise you're going in the direction of attempted murder. Moreover, own up to what you did- stating that you weren't involved when you very clearly were is a crime, and you can and should be jailed on that alone. That said, I'm all for ensuring someone who breaks into your house and threatens you and your family never escapes to threaten them again.
Also, regarding the above post with the guy who got into a fight and smiled at you when you saw him afterwards- what is UP with that?!?!?
"this would have never happened 30 years ago, before liberal judges inundated our courtroom.
Fixed it for ya Bugleyman. ;)
ZING! Two points for Gary.
;)
YAY two points for me! :-D
Shame that Heathansson's argument leads to the logical conclusion of killing anyone you think might be threatening you. Anyone could come and break into your house! So best to remove them before they do.
Actually I think the logical conclusion is to kill anyone who has already broken into your house and threatened your family with violence. I don't think he was trying to suggest killing some dude because he looked at you funny.
For the record even though I agree he was excessive I’m with the victim of the robbery (the robee?) You threaten to kill my family and I’m going to do my best to see you die for it. Period. He started to run away, so what? I should let him go because he’s brave enough to threaten to kill a tied up 18 year old girl, but not a man wielding a bat? Hell with that. The only mistake I can see is he let the guy make it out the front door.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yeah, if you come after my family, you come into my house, you're not making it out.
And back when I lived in the country, our county sherrif would have gone, "Damn, Matt, you can't beat him to a pulp in your front yard. I'll help you drag 'im inside."
Yes, I am violent and blood thirsty. I felt bad today about kicking a feral cat that was attacking my roommate's Chiuahuahua. The cat's running on instinct, so I felt bad.
Beating/maiming/killing a human who attacks me and mine? No remorse.
|
Yeah, if you come after my family, you come into my house, you're not making it out.
And back when I lived in the country, our county sherrif would have gone, "Damn, Matt, you can't beat him to a pulp in your front yard. I'll help you drag 'im inside."
Yes, I am violent and blood thirsty. I felt bad today about kicking a feral cat that was attacking my roommate's Chiuahuahua. The cat's running on instinct, so I felt bad.
Beating/maiming/killing a human who attacks me and mine? No remorse.
+1
Did Mr. Hussain himself have a past criminal record? The article doesn't mention it. If the man has no criminal record and is not a danger to the public, how does he deserve to go to prison with real hardened criminals? I'm not saying he should not be punished but is it worth taking him away from his family for a couple of years? This is a situation in which any of us could have snapped and gone too far.
|
|
Did Mr. Hussain himself have a past criminal record? The article doesn't mention it. If the man has no criminal record and is not a danger to the public, how does he deserve to go to prison with real hardened criminals? I'm not saying he should not be punished but is it worth taking him away from his family for a couple of years? This is a situation in which any of us could have snapped and gone too far.
Because he's a real criminal? Or do you think that someone who beats a defenceless and non-threatening man half to death with a cricket bat isn't a criminal?
Did Mr. Hussain himself have a past criminal record? The article doesn't mention it. If the man has no criminal record and is not a danger to the public, how does he deserve to go to prison with real hardened criminals? I'm not saying he should not be punished but is it worth taking him away from his family for a couple of years? This is a situation in which any of us could have snapped and gone too far.Because he's a real criminal? Or do you think that someone who beats a defenceless and non-threatening man half to death with a cricket bat isn't a criminal?
No, he isn't a real criminal. The man is not a danger to society. Do you believe him to be the same type of individual that tried to harm him and his family?
Yeah, if you come after my family, you come into my house, you're not making it out. And back when I lived in the country, our county sherrif would have gone, "Damn, Matt, you can't beat him to a pulp in your front yard. I'll help you drag 'im inside."
And then does he tell you, "Ya know, Matt, now that I've helped you do that, we're gonna deny it and maybe flee extradition to Mex-ee-co, 'stead of admitting what we done, 'cause we a coupla conniving weasels!"
I've made that point before, I think, but everyone is so busy having man-gasms over "Bruce Willis" Hussain they seem to be happy to overlook it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yeah, if you come after my family, you come into my house, you're not making it out. And back when I lived in the country, our county sherrif would have gone, "Damn, Matt, you can't beat him to a pulp in your front yard. I'll help you drag 'im inside."And then does he tell you, "Ya know, Matt, now that I've helped you do that, we're gonna deny it and maybe flee extradition to Mex-ee-co, 'stead of admitting what we done, 'cause we a coupla conniving weasels!"
I've made that point before, I think, but everyone is so busy having man-gasms over "Bruce Willis" Hussain they seem to be happy to overlook it.
Ok, so you made a very nice sarcasitc post that makes no sense. Good for you.
Ok, so you made a very nice sarcasitc post that makes no sense. Good for you.
OK, maybe the sarcasm was excessive, but does it really make no sense to you? Please bear with me for just a moment then, and I'll try again, without the sarcasm. If what was done was was indeed a noble, virtuous act, and the best possible response, then the person doing it should be able to stand up and say, "yes, I did what needed doing." But instead, he smirked and claimed he had "nothing to do with it" -- a response in which I personally am unable to attach much virtue.
Does taking responsibility for one's own actions "make no sense"?
Did Mr. Hussain himself have a past criminal record? The article doesn't mention it. If the man has no criminal record and is not a danger to the public, how does he deserve to go to prison with real hardened criminals? I'm not saying he should not be punished but is it worth taking him away from his family for a couple of years? This is a situation in which any of us could have snapped and gone too far.Because he's a real criminal? Or do you think that someone who beats a defenceless and non-threatening man half to death with a cricket bat isn't a criminal?
If 5 minutes prior that 'defenceless and non-threatening man' was threatening to murder his entire family with a knife unless they all lay on the floor and let him rob them. Then no, I do not.
Ok, so you made a very nice sarcasitc post that makes no sense. Good for you.OK, maybe the sarcasm was excessive, but does it really make no sense to you? Please bear with me for just a moment then, and I'll try again, without the sarcasm. If what was done was was indeed a noble, virtuous act, and the best possible response, then the person doing it should be able to stand up and say, "yes, I did what needed doing." But instead, he smirked and claimed he had "nothing to do with it" -- a response in which I personally am unable to attach much virtue.
Does taking responsibility for one's own actions "make no sense"?
I agree with you on this point Kirth. He really should have stuck by his actions.
Did Mr. Hussain himself have a past criminal record? The article doesn't mention it. If the man has no criminal record and is not a danger to the public, how does he deserve to go to prison with real hardened criminals? I'm not saying he should not be punished but is it worth taking him away from his family for a couple of years? This is a situation in which any of us could have snapped and gone too far.
I don't think non-violent drug offenders should go to prison with "real hardened criminals," but they often do. The point is that "danger to the public" hardly seems to be the only criteria we use to lock people up.
That said, I could easily see myself in this guy's shoes. Does the article mention the security level of the facility to which he is being sentenced? I certainly don't see why he would be put in a high-security facility. Weekend furloughs for good behavior may not even be out of the question. But I do think he should do some time, and two and half years (probably getting out in half that time) sounds about right to me.
As for the failed burglar -- he should face a significantly stiffer sentence whenever he does recover.
|
While I do have sympathy for Mr Hussein I do believe the right verdict was reached in this case. Keep in mind the fact that he was provoked is why he got a much shorter sentence than what normally would have been in the case
As a side note all we know about the burglar is that he was not fit for sentencing due to severity of head injuries that could mean anything from minor brain damage all the way to being permanently hospitalised If it is the latter then there isen't really much point sentencing him since he is not going anywhere anyway.
No, he isn't a real criminal. The man is not a danger to society. Do you believe him to be the same type of individual that tried to harm him and his family?
No, given the limited information I have, I do not. However, what constitutes a "real" criminal is a bit unclear to me. If the test is truly whether one is a danger to society, I'd submit we routinely incarcerate people who aren't "real" criminals, often for very long periods of time.
Is Bernie Madoff a danger to society?
|
|
I'm quite glad at this point I live in a society that thinks that reckless acts of vigilante violence using cricket bats that give a defenceless man a skull fracture and permanent brain damage aren't something to be applauded, and that the people who undertake such acts are rightly locked up, rather then applauded. To quote the Times
The law decided that it is one thing to strike when you are being struck; it is quite another to chase your attacker down the street and beat him senseless. Morally, as well as legally, the distinction looks clear. Hussein’s family were no longer in danger, and neither was he, when the cricket bat came down on Salem’s head. Justice must be measured by the thump of a gavel, not by the thwack of willow on skull.
The law in the UK is rather clear on what is and isn't allowed in self defence. Again, quoting the Times.
But they should also be acting instinctively, have feared for their safety or that of others, or acted to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of someone who was lawfully detained. Crucially, they could not attack a fleeing criminal or lie in wait to ambush them.
Chasing the thief down the street, cornering him in a front garden and then proceeding to brutally batter his skull with a cricket bat crosses that line, both legally and morally. Mr Hussein was no longer in danger, nor was his family. It was an act of revenge, in my opinion, and for that Mr Hussein was jailed. Obviously, his mental situation at the time was taken into account with the judgement, hence him being jailed for 30 months, rather then the many years one could expect for such a crime.
Make no mistake, Mr Hussein committed a serious criminal act, and for that he was rightly punished.
While I do have sympathy for Mr Hussein I do believe the right verdict was reached in this case. Keep in mind the fact that he was provoked is why he got a much shorter sentence than what normally would have been in the case
Agreed.
No, he isn't a real criminal. The man is not a danger to society. Do you believe him to be the same type of individual that tried to harm him and his family?No, given the limited information I have, I do not. However, what constitutes a "real" criminal is a bit unclear to me. If the test is truly whether one is a danger to society, I'd submit we routinely incarcerate people who aren't "real" criminals, often for very long periods of time.
Is Bernie Madoff a danger to society?
Madoff is a clear danger to society. Not a physical one but he is a crook that will steal you blind. I'll agree with you that we do incarcerate people that don't belong in prison, especially drug addicts who need treatment(if they're not stealing or harming others for their habit). Putting the harmless drug addict in prison really doesn't protect society, and neither does putting Mr. Hussain in the joint do anything either.
Keep in mind the fact that he was provoked is why he got a much shorter sentence than what normally would have been in the case
I actually suspect his sentence might have been commuted altogether (by someone higher than the judge) -- or at least reduced even further -- if he'd have just stood up and said, "I did this thing because I honestly felt that there was no reasonable alternative." But by trying to deny his involvement, he paints himself with the "sure as hell guilty of something" brush.
. Obviously, his mental situation at the time was taken into account with the judgement, hence him being jailed for 30 months, rather then the many years one could expect for such a crime.
I think if his mental situation was truly taken in consideration, probation(or whatever the British equivalent is) would be more appropriate.
Putting the harmless drug addict in prison really doesn't protect society.
Depends; I have yet to meet a heroin addict who isn't a massive danger to himself and especially to everyone around him. But a dude caught with a joint? He's not even an addict, he's a danger to nothing but a bag of Cheetos, and they still lock him away.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, so you made a very nice sarcasitc post that makes no sense. Good for you.OK, maybe the sarcasm was excessive, but does it really make no sense to you? Please bear with me for just a moment then, and I'll try again, without the sarcasm. If what was done was was indeed a noble, virtuous act, and the best possible response, then the person doing it should be able to stand up and say, "yes, I did what needed doing." But instead, he smirked and claimed he had "nothing to do with it" -- a response in which I personally am unable to attach much virtue.
Does taking responsibility for one's own actions "make no sense"?
Oh I agree on that. Damn straight I'd say "He threatened me and mine. I made sure that was the last action he'd take."
Oh I agree on that. Damn straight I'd say "He threatened me and mine. I made sure that was the last action he'd take."
Bingo! That's for damn sure what you or I would do. But that's not what this guy did -- he tried to weasel out of it, which tells me he didn't think it was the right thing to do, but he went ahead and did it anyway... Which strongly suggests to me that he's liable to do things he knows are wrong, as long as he thinks he can get away with them. And I've got little use for that kind of guy.
Bingo! That's for damn sure what you or I would do. But that's not what this guy did -- he tried to weasel out of it, which tells me he didn't think it was the right thing to do, but he went ahead and did it anyway... Which strongly suggests to me that he's liable to do things he knows are wrong, as long as he thinks he can get away with them. And I've got little use for that kind of guy.Oh I agree on that. Damn straight I'd say "He threatened me and mine. I made sure that was the last action he'd take."
A fine point.
|
|
Did Mr. Hussain himself have a past criminal record? The article doesn't mention it. If the man has no criminal record and is not a danger to the public, how does he deserve to go to prison with real hardened criminals? I'm not saying he should not be punished but is it worth taking him away from his family for a couple of years? This is a situation in which any of us could have snapped and gone too far.Because he's a real criminal? Or do you think that someone who beats a defenceless and non-threatening man half to death with a cricket bat isn't a criminal?
Hmm came at the man with a knife and tied up his family??
~thoughtful look~ I am Mr. Nice Guy, but if someone threatened my family, then they should fear for their life. I REFUSE to alow that to happen. The Government is there to protect me, not the law breakers. If they do not protect me, then what use is the Government? Thus, it then falls into my hands on how ***I*** deal with the offenders since the Government would have lost that right.
Besides, if someone does this kind of thing, then it is more than likely that they have done other things before and will continue to do other criminal offenses again in the future. These kind of people are a threat to me and all innocent people. I would deal with them as I would a Rabid dog.
|
|
Besides, if someone does this kind of thing, then it is more than likely that they have done other things before and will continue to do other criminal offenses again in the future. These kind of people are a threat to me and all innocent people. I would deal with them as I would a Rabid dog.
I agree. Brutal thugs who beat people near to death should be punished harshly. Oh, wait, that wasn't what you meant. Never mind.
Besides, if someone does this kind of thing, then it is more than likely that they have done other things before and will continue to do other criminal offenses again in the future. These kind of people are a threat to me and all innocent people. I would deal with them as I would a Rabid dog.I agree. Brutal thugs who beat people near to death should be punished harshly. Oh, wait, that wasn't what you meant. Never mind.
~grim smile~ Actually, that is the least of what I meant. I do not like capital punishment or corpial punishment, but sometimes they are needed.
Besides, if someone does this kind of thing, then it is more than likely that they have done other things before and will continue to do other criminal offenses again in the future. These kind of people are a threat to me and all innocent people. I would deal with them as I would a Rabid dog.I agree. Brutal thugs who beat people near to death should be punished harshly. Oh, wait, that wasn't what you meant. Never mind.
I was refering to the CRIMINAL, not the man defending his family. Sometime you have to put the fear of God into some people to get them to back off. Some people do not understand anything except that.
Edited to fix a spelling issue.
I was refering to the CRIMAL.
I just hope your logic is better than your spelling. As near as I can tell we've got two criminals here: one habitual, and one who saw an opening and took it.
I was refering to the CRIMAL.I just hope your logic is better than your spelling. As near as I can tell we've got two criminals here: one habitual, and one who saw an opening and took it.
~winces~ OOPS!!! Dratted spelling issues!
Edit - And on that note, I am leaving this thread before I cause any more issues. Have fun you all!