Thanks for seeing the attempt at humor there, Sharoth -- no offense was intended. Talk to you later!
Ghost Post.
Edit - Please just remember that all of my stated opinions are just that, opinions. Thanks for the good argument everyone! ~smile~
Thanks for seeing the attempt at humor there, Sharoth -- no offense was intended. Talk to you later!
None taken. Besides, Eye ares a gud spaller!
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.
My point is: I don't know what you mean when you say "real criminal." Please believe me when I say that I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I ask because this seems to be a binary issue for you, I can't figure out what objective criteria you're applying.
Do you possibly mean something akin to "likely to prey on others without being provoked or put under duress?"
Ghost Post # 2!!!
Do you possibly mean something akin to "likely to prey on others without being provoked or put under duress?"
Exactly! I think you just said it better than I could.
No, he isn't a real criminal.
The thing is, you and I have both been in rough bars I daresay, and we both know that there's a very fine line between a drunk and a murderer.
If some dude gets lit and thinks this is gonna be hilarious and shoves a pistol in my face*, whether or not he's a career criminal or just a hard-workin' good-ol' boy who's being stupid is already accounted for in the legal system, in the event that he gets a reduced sentence for a first-time offense. But that's all the leeway he gets, legally-speaking. There's no "free pass" for a first-time offender; the trick is to slap 'em down hard enough that they think twice before doing it a second time. Is he likely to prey on others? Well, maybe he never did before, but just never happened to be packing while he was lit, either. See what I'm saying?
In this case, it looks to me exactly like the guy saw his chance to commit a heinous crime scott-free ("who could blame me?"), and he took it.
*
No, he isn't a real criminal.The thing is, you and I have both been in rough bars I daresay, and we both know that there's a very fine line between a drunk and a murderer.
If some dude gets lit and thinks this is gonna be hilarious and shoves a pistol in my face*, whether or not he's a career criminal or just a hard-workin' good-ol' boy who's being stupid is already accounted for in the legal system, in the event that he gets a reduced sentence for a first-time offense. But that's all the leeway he gets, legally-speaking. There's no "free pass" for a first-time offender; the trick is to slap 'em down hard enough that they think twice before doing it a second time. Is he likely to prey on others? Well, maybe he never did before, but just never happened to be packing while he was lit, either. See what I'm saying?
In this case, it looks to me exactly like the guy saw his chance to commit a heinous crime scott-free ("who could blame me?"), and he took it.
*** spoiler omitted **
I see your point but I still have to disagree when it comes to this case. Also, I really don't see a guy that looked for an opportunity to commit a crime. I saw an outraged father and husband who went berserk. I think he deserved more leniency from the court.
|
I see your point but I still have to disagree when it comes to this case. Also, I really don't see a guy that looked for an opportunity to commit a crime. I saw an outraged father and husband who went berserk. I think he deserved more leniency from the court.No, he isn't a real criminal.The thing is, you and I have both been in rough bars I daresay, and we both know that there's a very fine line between a drunk and a murderer.
If some dude gets lit and thinks this is gonna be hilarious and shoves a pistol in my face*, whether or not he's a career criminal or just a hard-workin' good-ol' boy who's being stupid is already accounted for in the legal system, in the event that he gets a reduced sentence for a first-time offense. But that's all the leeway he gets, legally-speaking. There's no "free pass" for a first-time offender; the trick is to slap 'em down hard enough that they think twice before doing it a second time. Is he likely to prey on others? Well, maybe he never did before, but just never happened to be packing while he was lit, either. See what I'm saying?
In this case, it looks to me exactly like the guy saw his chance to commit a heinous crime scott-free ("who could blame me?"), and he took it.
*** spoiler omitted **
The minimum sentence usually allowed for the crime he was convicted of (grievous bodily harm with intent) is 3 years, so at 30 months he's been let off leniently already. The recommended sentence for causing severe injuries with a weapon brought to the scene is between 7 and 16 years. He was sentenced to less than the bare minimum sentence for the crime he was found guilty of by a jury of 12, and less than half the recommended sentence. How much more ****ing lenient do you want?
|
Whether it's right or wrong I will say this, if I came home and found some guy had threatened my family, held them at knifepoint, but was already fleeing the scene, that would not save him. I would chase him to the ends of the earth. And I would end him. I would beat him, shoot him, whatever I had at hand I would use. As I said I do not claim to be right, but I am who I am. Would I expect to be jailed if caught.... yes. Would I argue I was faultless, no.
How much more ****ing lenient do you want?
As I said before, no prison time. There is no way in hell this guy deserves to go to prison.
I don't think him deserving to go to the slammer or not is the issue. I believe what the judge said was:
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 run its course, then the rule of law which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse. The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable.
This is, the way I see it, the judge is saying "This dude may well have deserved it, but the point is moot. If guys can run around extracting revenge our legal system if hooped." But that point came up on the first page and stuff has moved on and back again.
I think most people agree that Salem deserved a crap kicking.
|
Sure, Mr Hussain deserved no prison time.. Except for the whole brutal beating of an unarmed and non-threatening man, after all.
Question, what would you say is the limit then to what a homeowner can do with a burglar (or anyone) on his property? Assault them with weapons? Tie them up, throw them in a pit and set them alight? Tie them up and rape them repeatedly over a few days? Do you want a limit?
Sure, Mr Hussain deserved no prison time.. Except for the whole brutal beating of an unarmed and non-threatening man, after all.
Question, what would you say is the limit then to what a homeowner can do with a burglar (or anyone) on his property? Assault them with weapons? Tie them up, throw them in a pit and set them alight? Tie them up and rape them repeatedly over a few days? Do you want a limit?
Let's be fair and admit that he was NOT "non-threatening".
Technically speaking he was "no-longer-visibly-threatening" and that's different.
Non-threatening is a beggar who picks my pocket and gets caught. This is different.
Now I do stand on the side of Hussein getting time, and he was granted significant leniency, he'll probably serve 15 months as the judge stated, but I think we need to be fair in what happened here.
Salem may still have had a knife or gun on him concealed, and if Hussein has just sat on him he might have taken a round in the ass. And Hussein it seems anyway was enraged and failed his will roll to stop it.
EDIT: This is a dirty thing. It shouldn't all fall on Hussein and his relative.
|
|
No, he was non-threatening at the time when Mr Hussain and his brother had him cornered in a front garden. He was no longer a threat to them, Mr Hussain's family or anyone else. Mr Hussain and his brother responded to this non-threatening man (at that moment in time) by beating him around the head with a cricket bat so hard that it split in three and gave Salem a fractured skull and brain damage. Certainly, Salem had just been highly threatening, but that doesn't excuse actions taken after the danger is past.
As an aside, British criminals rarely have guns, so it's silly to suggest that 'Salem may have had one concealed'
I'm not being silly. I'm not being obtuse. Check yourself.
Someone who is cornered is never 'non-threatening'. Don't argue it with me, go find a constable and have them explain it. (EDIT 2: was Hussein 'non-threatening' when he was on the floor more or less cornered in his own home?)
EDIT: And check my posts, i've already acknowledged the damage done to Salem. I'm not excusing it.
|
|
Treason: Any act that is deemed an assault on the state is an act of Treason. Thus All crime being an assault on the state being an act of treason – it carries a death sentence for resisting arrest. Therefore by the logic of law – it is lawful to kill an intruder on the grounds that they are resisting arrest under charge of Treason – the same goes for any officer of the government who thinks otherwise, Because to think otherwise is to be a participant in conspiracy to Treason.
*Fires a few rounds at the yellowdingo*
|
|
So when was he sufficiently subdued? After the first smack round the head with the cricket bat? Or after they fractured his skull and moved onto using a metal pipe on him?
That's certainly not a sign of subduing him, by the way. That's a sign of GBH with Intent, if not assault with a deadly weapon (which a cricket bat certainly can be. Try being hit with one sometime.) When Salem was captured, the threat was over. Mr Hussain's family were out of danger, and there was no danger to anyone else. British Law is quite clear on that point, that once the threat has passed, which it certainly had done in this situation, it's no longer legal to attack someone in 'self defence'
This is why you need a house in the boonies with ample surrounding acreage like mine. Makes it easier to avoid messy legal complications.
I didn't read the particulars of this case, but it's always fun to opine blindly. If someone enters my home with a knife I promise you that they will miss their high school reunion. They forfeited seeing the next dawn the very moment they crossed the threshold with a weapon and they very well knew it. If that sounds excessive to some, to me it sounds like the natural course of action, jungle rules as it is. We can agree to disagree over the matter, just don't sneak into my home with a knife to disagree or I will put you on the wrong side of the lawn and then stop to pee there regularly. I know I could just restrain the guy and all, but then where would I pee?
If you see a kid running off with your VCR... that's a whole different thing. Call the cops and get out of their way. When I was 19, sleeping in with a sprained knee after a kickboxing match, I heard my doorbell ring a few times but tried to doze through it. Then I heard the wiggling of a lock pick in the lock of my front door. I snuck up to the door and looked through the finder. The burglar was about 50. I should have just called the cops, but instead I dramatically threw open the door and laughed like the crypt keeper. Man was that guy surprisingly fast, all ass and elbows down the apartment building hallway. I trotted after him yelling, "You better run!" which, yeah, that was so damn cliche, but that's what I shouted. Then I spent the afternoon with the police going over mug shots and giving them my fingerprints so they could distinguish them from any they would find on the doorway.
When was he sufficiently subdued?
I don't know Uzzy. Why are you asking? None of us were there. As I said on page one, I don't think beating a guy on the head with a cricket bat is ever necessary, but I do know how to restrain people so that's just me.
Anyway, I was just pointing out that we need to be careful about the words we use to discuss both parties in this issue.
Chill.
...once the threat has passed...
Again. Go ask a constable.
Sure, Mr Hussain deserved no prison time.. Except for the whole brutal beating of an unarmed and non-threatening man, after all.
Question, what would you say is the limit then to what a homeowner can do with a burglar (or anyone) on his property? Assault them with weapons? Tie them up, throw them in a pit and set them alight? Tie them up and rape them repeatedly over a few days? Do you want a limit?
Legally lethal force is a reasonable response to any intruder in your home and (generally) on your property.
|
|
I couldn't give a shit about the burglary frankly. It's the threat to the lives of the kids.
My idea would be the limit would be this: the guy that threatened my children should be altered to such a state which makes his threat impossible to carry out.
If I actually thought the legal system would deal with this i.e. lock him up for a long long time, that might make me think that I should just kinda apprehend him. However, I have found that that simply isn't the case.
Now.
Two scenarios come to mind:
1) I beat the shit out of this guy to the point that he's not coming back to my house.
2) I spend the rest of my life waiting for him to try it again, so at least I don't hurt the sensibilities of the bleeding hearts of the world, and I can fight him "fair and f*@$ing square." Who knows; maybe he'll get the drop on me then proffer sabers out of some sense of noblesse oblige?
Each has it's positives, and negatives; I fully would expect to go to prison. However, I would die for my kids, so prison doesn't seem like that big of a sacrifice.
...as long as the force was proportionate....
What I already argued. Yes.
|
|
I couldn't give a s@%& about the burglary frankly. It's the threat to the lives of the kids.
My idea would be the limit would be this: the guy that threatened my children should be altered to such a state which makes his threat impossible to carry out.
If I actually thought the legal system would deal with this i.e. lock him up for a long long time, that might make me think that I should just kinda apprehend him. However, I have found that that simply isn't the case.
Now.
Two scenarios come to mind:
1) I beat the s@%& out of this guy to the point that he's not coming back to my house.2) I spend the rest of my life waiting for him to try it again, so at least I don't hurt the sensibilities of the bleeding hearts of the world, and I can fight him "fair and f~*~ing square." Who knows; maybe he'll get the drop on me then proffer sabers out of some sense of noblesse oblige?
Each has it's positives, and negatives; I fully would expect to go to prison. However, I would die for my kids, so prison doesn't seem like that big of a sacrifice.
Just remember the silencer - you wouldn’t want to wake the neighbours.
Each has it's positives, and negatives; I fully would expect to go to prison. However, I would die for my kids, so prison doesn't seem like that big of a sacrifice.
I grok that. Very deeply.
Speaking in general terms:
I think, on paper you can't really get a read on the reality a fight situation.
Sometimes the guy who lands first is innocent because he knew the other party was about to launch. You get a sense for these kinds of things. Back in high school, a footballer named Steven was looking at me while his friend talked. I mused, "Steve, you're imagining what it would feel like to punch me in the chest, aren't you?"
"Yes! How could you possibly know that?!"
A person holding a knife can mean a lot of different things depending on their demeanor and the tiniest and most varied specifics of a situation. Sometimes you get the sense that you can just fist fight to conclusion or sidestep an altercation altogether... other times, you know it's for all the marbles and that a critical reaction attack is what's necessary. Properly reading the other guys disposition is the entire game. So the tweaked but conflicted guy who's crying with an anemic grip on his weapon is a far different kind of threat than the glowering iceman gripping his dagger behind him.
I can never pretend to know what white hot fires a defender may have spotted in their assaulter's eyes.
|
|
Legally lethal force is a reasonable response to any intruder in your home and (generally) on your property.Sure, Mr Hussain deserved no prison time.. Except for the whole brutal beating of an unarmed and non-threatening man, after all.
Question, what would you say is the limit then to what a homeowner can do with a burglar (or anyone) on his property? Assault them with weapons? Tie them up, throw them in a pit and set them alight? Tie them up and rape them repeatedly over a few days? Do you want a limit?
In the US perhaps, but we Brits have a different legal system. Lethal force is allowed if it's proportionate, and if needed. So if it's some kid stealing your TV, it's certainly not allowed, and absolutely not allowed if he's running down the street with it. But if someone's threatening you or your wife with a knife in your home, it's allowed.
However, these are complex matters, and left up to the police and CPS to decide upon afterwards. Proportionality is a hard area to define, especially with lethal force. After all, you're only usually left with one witness.
As an aside Krulaid, I'm arguing generally, not just with you. ;) I know you mentioned that hitting someone with a cricket bat isn't something that's usually needed. And yes, you're right, we weren't there, and we don't know if he was sufficiently subdued. But the police, the CPS, 12 of Mr Hussain's peers and the Judge in this case felt that Mr Hussain's actions crossed the line from self defence to GBH. So they would have felt that when Mr Salem was sitting in someone's front garden, with Mr Hussain and his brother standing over him with a cricket bat and metal pipe, that he was, at that point, subdued, and that the danger was over.
Speaking in general terms:...
I can grok that one too, Jade.
And as an aside, with what I hear from my Texan friends, I don't get why you guys have such a high rate of burglary.
... So they would have felt that when Mr Salem was sitting in someone's front garden, with Mr Hussain and his brother standing over him with a cricket bat and metal pipe, that he was, at that point, subdued, and that the danger was over.
And I agree. Also, wasn't it a hockey stick and a cricket bat? May just be me. I'm Canadian.
So is disturbing the Peace… what are you gonna do? Traumatise the kids with the sound of a gunshot?Just remember the silencer - you wouldn’t want to wake the neighbours.Those are illegal.
Light a spliff?
Texan burglars must have serious balls.
Light a spliff?So is disturbing the Peace… what are you gonna do? Traumatise the kids with the sound of a gunshot?Just remember the silencer - you wouldn’t want to wake the neighbours.Those are illegal.
You've inspired me.
I'd like to give the world a spliff...
To keep the harmony
I'd like the creeps to take a whiff...
And shed violent tendencies
Director of Narrative
|
Only kinda related...
A few years ago, someone tried to break into our house while my lady was still home and still in bed. I'd just left for work and I'm guessing someone saw me leave the house and thought they'd take the opportunity to let themselves in. Hearing someone trying to pry one of our windows open, my lady gets up and throws a robe on and goes to the door. More pissed than scared, she throws open the front door and surprises this guy who's halfway in the window by that point. He immediately pulls himself out of the window and turns his back to her so she can't see his face. He even pulls his arms in front, drops his head and starts quickly walking away from the house towards the street.
She yells at him, "What the f%@@ are you doing? It's not like we even have anything for you to take, a$**%*&." She then calls me, right as I was pulling into the parking lot at work. By the time I got back home, she was a little shaken up after the adrenaline wore off.
Whih is why the only aceptable fire arm should be a fifty pound Recoilless rifle...That way you do know.Texan burglars must have serious balls.And I don't want to get into specifics, but......
you NEVER, I mean NEVER. KNOW. WHO'S. CARRYING. HERE.
Takes dingo out at 2000 meters.
BTW, you Aussies have some scary crime statistics. What gives?
|
|
Whih is why the only aceptable fire arm should be a fifty pound Recoilless rifle...That way you do know.Texan burglars must have serious balls.And I don't want to get into specifics, but......
you NEVER, I mean NEVER. KNOW. WHO'S. CARRYING. HERE.
I want an m-60. You can start forest fires with that.
Only kinda related......
LOL
|
|
Only kinda related...
A few years ago, someone tried to break into our house while my lady was still home and still in bed. I'd just left for work and I'm guessing someone saw me leave the house and thought they'd take the opportunity to let themselves in. Hearing someone trying to pry one of our windows open, my lady gets up and throws a robe on and goes to the door. More pissed than scared, she throws open the front door and surprises this guy who's halfway in the window by that point. He immediately pulls himself out of the window and turns his back to her so she can't see his face. He even pulls his arms in front, drops his head and starts quickly walking away from the house towards the street.
She yells at him, "What the f@%~ are you doing? It's not like we even have anything for you to take, a*&*@%~." She then calls me, right as I was pulling into the parking lot at work. By the time I got back home, she was a little shaken up after the adrenaline wore off.
I just wish people would leave other people alone.
Only kinda related...
Dude, if I had know that was your house I never...