Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Hannah Judes Dad on 20 January 2010, 11:15:40
-
Just heard on the news that Mr Hussein has had his sentance reduced from two and a half years to two years suspended meaning he will walk out of prison.
WTF? He shouldn't be in prison in the first place,he defended himself and his family from attackers,he gave chase and one of them got injured,I'm sorry but that is the risk you take for breaking the law.If the intruders weren't there they wouldn't have been injured would they.I know if I was in the same position I would mhave done the same.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6994458.ece
-
Just heard on the news that Mr Hussein has had his sentance reduced from two and a half years to two years suspended meaning he will walk out of prison.
WTF? He shouldn't be in prison in the first place,he defended himself and his family from attackers,he gave chase and one of them got injured,I'm sorry but that is the risk you take for breaking the law.If the intruders weren't there they wouldn't have been injured would they.I know if I was in the same position I would mhave done the same.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6994458.ece
Not strictly true ....
He gave chase, with 2 others, knocked the guy to the ground, then beat him around the head with a cricket bat, so hard the bat broke in 3 places, sufficient to give him permanent brain damage.
The reason he was jailed is that such action was "disproprtionate"
He was NOT protecting his family at that point, he was a thug exacting revenge.
This is what the trial judge said ..
The trial judge, Judge John Reddihough, said Munir Hussain’s family had been subject to a "serious and wicked offence", but that he had 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.
"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."
-
Don't know much about this case, but i'd say that the thief was retreating, thefeore no longer a threat, so the courts wouldn't look at it as reasonable force, but assault.
-
Not strictly true ....
He gave chase, with 2 others, knocked the guy to the ground, then beat him around the head with a cricket bat, so hard the bat broke in 3 places, sufficient to give him permanent brain damage.
The reason he was jailed is that such action was "disproprtionate"
He was NOT protecting his family at that point, he was a thug exacting revenge.
This is what the trial judge said ..
The trial judge, Judge John Reddihough, said Munir Hussain’s family had been subject to a "serious and wicked offence", but that he had 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.
"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."
Agreed E, there was little other the trial judge could do. A sound, well reasoned and legally correct decision.
-
Speaking personally, I dont see anything wrong with the defending bit in his own home. As for chasing them down the street, yeh, in his position, if I knew my family were ok, I would probably do the same. To what end? Well I think he was totally over the top in taking out his revenge.But seriously folks, youre telling me that you'd just try for a "citizens arrest" and call the police?These guys were armed and threatened your family and property and you wouldnt like to take out at least some retribution? I dont condone what this feller did but I understand why he would want to take some measure of revenge (especially when the law in this country seems all to lenient on offenders)
-
correct decision - the guy should never have done any time, now free his brother too
-
Just heard on the news that Mr Hussein has had his sentance reduced from two and a half years to two years suspended meaning he will walk out of prison.
WTF? He shouldn't be in prison in the first place,he defended himself and his family from attackers,he gave chase and one of them got injured,I'm sorry but that is the risk you take for breaking the law.If the intruders weren't there they wouldn't have been injured would they.I know if I was in the same position I would mhave done the same.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6994458.ece
Not strictly true ....
He gave chase, with 2 others, knocked the guy to the ground, then beat him around the head with a cricket bat, so hard the bat broke in 3 places, sufficient to give him permanent brain damage.The reason he was jailed is that such action was "disproprtionate"
He was NOT protecting his family at that point, he was a thug exacting revenge.
This is what the trial judge said ..
The trial judge, Judge John Reddihough, said Munir Hussain’s family had been subject to a "serious and wicked offence", but that he had 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.
"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."
just a shame the bstrd never died.
ive had a massive row with the police this morning. that rather bstrd whos been attacking my sons has had his charges dropped by the crown prosecution service yet again. not only that he threatened him in tescos last week directly under the cameras and when the police were informed they basically said they are not interested. we have gone the right way about it for too long now, hasnt worked. now we play by our rules. the law in this country is rather useless. >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
I laughed when his QC read a statement out on the steps of the Courthouse and said that the victim
" had seemingly overcome his brain damage and resumed his criminal career " ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I thought our 'system of Criminal Justice' had already collapsed? :o
-
He gave chase, with 2 others, knocked the guy to the ground, then beat him around the head with a cricket bat, so hard the bat broke in 3 places, sufficient to give him permanent brain damage.
The thieving bastard wants to consider himself lucky, because if I had been Mr Hussein then the toerag would have been beaten, thrown in to the boot of a car, taken to a nice quiet location, fed heroin (intravenously) for a good 30 days plus, starved of what he craves for 48 hours, given another beating, then dumped in a phonebox somewhere clucking like a bitch, and finally handed a premixed syringe of a dose so neat he would die before he got the plunger fully home.
Mr Husseins mistake was thinking the old bill were gonna help him, but I'll bet he won't make that mistake twice.
-
He gave chase, with 2 others, knocked the guy to the ground, then beat him around the head with a cricket bat, so hard the bat broke in 3 places, sufficient to give him permanent brain damage.
The thieving bastard wants to consider himself lucky, because if I had been Mr Hussein then the toerag would have been beaten, thrown in to the boot of a car, taken to a nice quiet location, fed heroin (intravenously) for a good 30 days plus, starved of what he craves for 48 hours, given another beating, then dumped in a phonebox somewhere clucking like a bitch, and finally handed a premixed syringe of a dose so neat he would die before he got the plunger fully home.
Mr Husseins mistake was thinking the old bill were gonna help him, but I'll bet he won't make that mistake twice.
;) That's all we need ,another bleeding heart social worker ;D
-
He gave chase, with 2 others, knocked the guy to the ground, then beat him around the head with a cricket bat, so hard the bat broke in 3 places, sufficient to give him permanent brain damage.
The thieving bastard wants to consider himself lucky, because if I had been Mr Hussein then the toerag would have been beaten, thrown in to the boot of a car, taken to a nice quiet location, fed heroin (intravenously) for a good 30 days plus, starved of what he craves for 48 hours, given another beating, then dumped in a phonebox somewhere clucking like a bitch, and finally handed a premixed syringe of a dose so neat he would die before he got the plunger fully home.
Mr Husseins mistake was thinking the old bill were gonna help him, but I'll bet he won't make that mistake twice.
Sometimes you are just so full of crap it is pitiful.
You must have the biggest mouth, and the smallest brain on OOF.
Just for once try using the latter before the former.
-
Sometimes you are just so full of crap it is pitiful.
You must have the biggest mouth, and the smallest brain on OOF.
Just for once try using the latter before the former.
If you truly believe I am not capable of something like that (or that I wouldn't actually do it), feel free to attempt to burgle my house and try to prove yourself right.
If I truly had the "smallest" brain on OOF, I would have come out with some crap like I'd shoot them.
But then everybody knows if you use a gun then you get life, but when a smackhead OD's, no-one looks twice.
What was that about brain capacity again?
-
Sometimes you are just so full of crap it is pitiful.
You must have the biggest mouth, and the smallest brain on OOF.
Just for once try using the latter before the former.
If you truly believe I am not capable of something like that (or that I wouldn't actually do it), feel free to attempt to burgle my house and try to prove yourself right.
If you actually believe your own press you are even more stupid than the loud mouthed, foul mouthed, bully image you usually present.
-
There was of course the case of Tony Martin, who shot and killed an intruder, but very different in many ways, mainly, the intruders were actually inside his home when he shot them, from my memory, i think he ended up with 3 or 5 years for manslaughter.
-
If you actually believe your own press you are even more stupid than the loud mouthed, foul mouthed, bully image you usually present.
Loud mouthed?...possibly
Foul mouthed?...all depends on your interpretation of the english language I guess
Bully?....pfft, far from it.
However, the very second that anybody presents any kind of danger to my missus, kids, or even myself.....then you better believe that I make absolutely sure they never come back for seconds.
Don't tell me that you wouldn't be the same, because we both know full well that is how any NORMAL person would react.
The only difference between you & me (if there is one), is that I am capable of switching my emotions off and doing what needs to be done.
-
He gave chase, with 2 others, knocked the guy to the ground, then beat him around the head with a cricket bat, so hard the bat broke in 3 places, sufficient to give him permanent brain damage.
The thieving bastard wants to consider himself lucky, because if I had been Mr Hussein then the toerag would have been beaten, thrown in to the boot of a car, taken to a nice quiet location, fed heroin (intravenously) for a good 30 days plus, starved of what he craves for 48 hours, given another beating, then dumped in a phonebox somewhere clucking like a bitch, and finally handed a premixed syringe of a dose so neat he would die before he got the plunger fully home.
Mr Husseins mistake was thinking the old bill were gonna help him, but I'll bet he won't make that mistake twice.
I can't really agree with that M :( I've been witness to, and have been obliged to deal with, the effects of similar sentiments during the worst years of my time in Ulster - in the main it does no good other than to give closure and salve the conscience of the victims of such violence (perpetrated by others) and their loved ones.
The nett result of taking these measures is a decline into civil anarchy where the only losers are invariably those individuals who are least able to defend themselves.
-
hear what you and MrE are saying Zulu, but I think a lot of our feelings here are due to the great loss of faith many of us have in our criminal justice system, let alone a society where there is an ever increasing errosion of people not taking accountability for their actions. Violence does-ultimately-beget violence. That is one of the things the law and its enforcers are supposed to protect us from :-/
-
hear what you and MrE are saying Zulu, but I think a lot of our feelings here are due to the great loss of faith many of us have in our criminal justice system, let alone a society where there is an ever increasing errosion of people not taking accountability for their actions. Violence does-ultimately-beget violence. That is one of the things the law and its enforcers are supposed to protect us from :-/
I think that is quite understandable J and I do recognise the obvious decline in confidence.
It won't be an easy task to address but the police, as a body, need to be more active in preventing these incidents occurring by being out on the ground and acting firmly and professionally to address them when they do occur.
The general public also have a role in this to help the police by providing intelligence on such issues and lastly, the government must allow the 'police force' to do the job it was constituted to do and desist from interfering with it in the political desire to assist in party political matters.
-
hear what you and MrE are saying Zulu, but I think a lot of our feelings here are due to the great loss of faith many of us have in our criminal justice system, let alone a society where there is an ever increasing errosion of people not taking accountability for their actions. Violence does-ultimately-beget violence. That is one of the things the law and its enforcers are supposed to protect us from :-/
I think that is quite understandable J and I do recognise the obvious decline in confidence.
It won't be an easy task to address but the police, as a body, need to be more active in preventing these incidents occurring by being out on the ground and acting firmly and professionally to address them when they do occur.
The general public also have a role in this to help the police by providing intelligence on such issues and lastly, the government must allow the 'police force' to do the job it was constituted to do and desist from interfering with it in the political desire to assist in party political matters.
Most of them have been renamed "police services" in recent times uncle Z, and it appears that they often "serve" whichever minority interest currently has the most effective pressure groups or lobbyists acting on their behalf.
In a perfect world we shouldnt condone vigilantes but if the treatment dealt out to this thug by Mr. Hussien was a more common occurence it might make these people think twice before terrorising families in their own homes. ;)
-
hear what you and MrE are saying Zulu, but I think a lot of our feelings here are due to the great loss of faith many of us have in our criminal justice system, let alone a society where there is an ever increasing errosion of people not taking accountability for their actions. Violence does-ultimately-beget violence. That is one of the things the law and its enforcers are supposed to protect us from :-/
I think that is quite understandable J and I do recognise the obvious decline in confidence.
It won't be an easy task to address but the police, as a body, need to be more active in preventing these incidents occurring by being out on the ground and acting firmly and professionally to address them when they do occur.
The general public also have a role in this to help the police by providing intelligence on such issues and lastly, the government must allow the 'police force' to do the job it was constituted to do and desist from interfering with it in the political desire to assist in party political matters.
Most of them have been renamed "police services" in recent times uncle Z, and it appears that they often "serve" whichever minority interest currently has the most effective pressure groups or lobbyists acting on their behalf.
In a perfect world we shouldnt condone vigilantes but if the treatment dealt out to this thug by Mr. Hussien was a more common occurence it might make these people think twice before terrorising families in their own homes. ;)
I know what you're saying, my wise nephew from the east, but you're also bound to know that it never really solved the issue over there :(
-
You are correct of course, but it did get somewhat out of hand (shankill butchers spring to mind) but the same applies,in the early 70,s the law abiding were crying out for a harder line to be taken by the law enforcers to put an end to it but the politicians didnt have the spine for it and the rest, as they say, is history. ;)
-
For once i'm going to attempt to be the voice of reason! No really i am! Ok, joking aside i understand the argument between KW & Entwood. KW is diving straight in, sleeves up , gloves off & want's to break the intruder up bigstyle. I understand this. I'd like to hang the so & so from the workshop roof by his wrists &...let's say make him feel very uncomfortable for some time. I'm sick enough to do this but in real terms i'd never get away with it so it's nothing but a nice thought. Entwood as is his vein has a more calming & thought out practical approach to such situations.
There are several arguments to each side of the coin. Legally speaking you mus'nt take the law into your own hands & in this case the intruder was retreating so no longer a threat. He was chased, attacked & badly beaten. The other side of the legal coin is beginning to recognise that sometimes the law is "a" ass & held back by the CPS, numerous do gooders etc. & folk have a constitutional right to protect their loved ones, properties & contents they have worked hard for. Being left a crime no. isn't much help. In my mind if anyone enters your property uninvited & with ill intent then they do so at their own risk if no workable laws are in place to protect us we have to protect ourselves.
In a nutshell, when you get shot of the laws, opinions, do gooders & all the rest of the old flannel you are left with one FACT...
AS with the Tony Martin case & this one....
If the miscreants hadn't have been there in the first place none of this would've happened. Simple as.
-
I can't really agree with that M :( I've been witness to, and have been obliged to deal with, the effects of similar sentiments during the worst years of my time in Ulster - in the main it does no good other than to give closure and salve the conscience of the victims of such violence (perpetrated by others) and their loved ones.
The nett result of taking these measures is a decline into civil anarchy where the only losers are invariably those individuals who are least able to defend themselves.
I understand exactly what you are saying Z.
Unfortuantely, the law as it stands doesn't punish the perps for the actual crime...let alone take in to account the true (psychological) damage caused to people who are victims of crimes such as aggravated burglary.
I am already aware that 2 wrongs don't make a right, but something such as an aggravated burglary would be more than enough to convince me that there are no rules when the warfare drops to that level...and the only option left is summary justice.
Entwood was more than entitled to his opinion and I have no problem with that in itself, it's just a shame that Entwood doesn't have the ability to realise that we are all different....and that some of us will have reactions to certain scenario's that are way different from others.
Then again, maybe the only thing that upset Entwood was that I have the ability to actively plan the justice I consider approppiate....and in doing so I am also ensuring I cover my tracks (aka, thinking like a psychopath).
-
I can't really agree with that M :( I've been witness to, and have been obliged to deal with, the effects of similar sentiments during the worst years of my time in Ulster - in the main it does no good other than to give closure and salve the conscience of the victims of such violence (perpetrated by others) and their loved ones.
The nett result of taking these measures is a decline into civil anarchy where the only losers are invariably those individuals who are least able to defend themselves.
I understand exactly what you are saying Z.
Unfortuantely, the law as it stands doesn't punish the perps for the actual crime...let alone take in to account the true (psychological) damage caused to people who are victims of crimes such as aggravated burglary.
I am already aware that 2 wrongs don't make a right, but something such as an aggravated burglary would be more than enough to convince me that there are no rules when the warfare drops to that level...and the only option left is summary justice.
Entwood was more than entitled to his opinion and I have no problem with that in itself, it's just a shame that Entwood doesn't have the ability to realise that we are all different....and that some of us will have reactions to certain scenario's that are way different from others.
Then again, maybe the only thing that upset Entwood was that I have the ability to actively plan the justice I consider approppiate....and in doing so I am also ensuring I cover my tracks (aka, thinking like a psychopath).
Not sure if a psychopath or follows a reasonable train of thought. However there is one other factor to consider. MANY years ago a couple of mates & i were going to do away with someone who'd been battering a lady friend in front of her child. All parties were known to eachother, feelings were running high & the two friends were & still are out of my league & folk you'd want onside. I was going out with the girl at the time (still in touch) but fortunately her father who could be quite a handful himself asked us to leave it out as he'd be the first suspect. One of the options considered was the overdose but it's since become apparent this is nothing new to the police. The other more recent factor to consider is DNA. Folk are getting caught & put away for naughties they did years ago.
So it seems only in defence of your property & loved ones. If you exact revenge you will be caught & charged. :(