Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank0 min ago
I am so pleased this man has been freed
Munir Hussain released today, he was protecting his home and family, while I don't agree with vigilante groups taking the law into their own hands, this guy was pushed to the limit, yes what he did was wrong but it wasn't premeditated either.
So many times have we heard of giving people the right to protect their homes but no politician puts his money where his mouth is. Now the perpetrator of the crime is also launching a campaign to be released, or his lawyers are because of brain damage he suffers from after being attacked by Mr Hussein, the law needs to be made clearer and help the victim more than it does.
Bobbi ♥
So many times have we heard of giving people the right to protect their homes but no politician puts his money where his mouth is. Now the perpetrator of the crime is also launching a campaign to be released, or his lawyers are because of brain damage he suffers from after being attacked by Mr Hussein, the law needs to be made clearer and help the victim more than it does.
Bobbi ♥
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Munir Hussain broke the law and should have been punished as a result. If you take the opposite view then it becomes a free for all for vigilantes and mob justice.
Having said that I think his two year sentence was excessive bearing in mind the provocation he received. I would have thought something like two weeks inside or 6 months community service would have been more appropriate.
Having said that I think his two year sentence was excessive bearing in mind the provocation he received. I would have thought something like two weeks inside or 6 months community service would have been more appropriate.
Lets look at three scenarios:
1) A guy is in your house threatening your family. You pick up the nearest object and batter him with it.
2) A guy WAS in your house threatening your family, but has now left and is half a mile away getting into his car, you chase him down the street with a cricket bat, hitting him about the head.
3) A guy WAS in your house threating your family. Two days later you are in a supermarket car park and see him again. You get a cricket bat out your car boot and begin hitting him round the head.
In scenario 1 you would probably get off, in scenario 2 you would probably get arrested (as this guy was), in scenario 3 you would DEFINATELY get arrested.
That was the problem in this case, when does defending yourself become revenge.
Not easy to define.
1) A guy is in your house threatening your family. You pick up the nearest object and batter him with it.
2) A guy WAS in your house threatening your family, but has now left and is half a mile away getting into his car, you chase him down the street with a cricket bat, hitting him about the head.
3) A guy WAS in your house threating your family. Two days later you are in a supermarket car park and see him again. You get a cricket bat out your car boot and begin hitting him round the head.
In scenario 1 you would probably get off, in scenario 2 you would probably get arrested (as this guy was), in scenario 3 you would DEFINATELY get arrested.
That was the problem in this case, when does defending yourself become revenge.
Not easy to define.
Your inclusion of Scenario 3, VHG, is a little disingenuous. That was never the case here.
That aside, there is a deal between the State and the people in that the people will not extract their own justice when they are victims of crime. The State undertakes to do that for them. It is not always successful in doing so as there are multifarious problems that exist in the detection of those responsible, their apprehension and conviction. The people have to accept that as part of the deal.
However, this deal is being routinely broken at the first hurdle. People know that it is unlikely that they will get a rapid and effective response to their calls for help in circumstances such as those the unfortunate Mr Hussain found himself. There is thus a much reduced chance of the deal being completed.
As a result people will begin to extract their own justice in increasing numbers and cases such as this will become more commonplace.
That aside, there is a deal between the State and the people in that the people will not extract their own justice when they are victims of crime. The State undertakes to do that for them. It is not always successful in doing so as there are multifarious problems that exist in the detection of those responsible, their apprehension and conviction. The people have to accept that as part of the deal.
However, this deal is being routinely broken at the first hurdle. People know that it is unlikely that they will get a rapid and effective response to their calls for help in circumstances such as those the unfortunate Mr Hussain found himself. There is thus a much reduced chance of the deal being completed.
As a result people will begin to extract their own justice in increasing numbers and cases such as this will become more commonplace.
Setting all emotions aside, what the criminals did was wrong, and they deserved what they got, but also what the victim of the crime did was also wrong, one cannot take the law into one's hands.
If they allow this sort of action to take place, it leaves it wide open for victims of crime to wait outside courts, and then when the criminal comes out of court with a smug grin on their face, because all they got was a slapped wrist, then for their victim to go up to them and bash hell out of the criminal.
No doubt very satisfying if one could get away with it.
If they allow this sort of action to take place, it leaves it wide open for victims of crime to wait outside courts, and then when the criminal comes out of court with a smug grin on their face, because all they got was a slapped wrist, then for their victim to go up to them and bash hell out of the criminal.
No doubt very satisfying if one could get away with it.
-- answer removed --
We rely upon the common sense of juries.They decide where to 'draw the line'.If the have a real doubt about guilt (or ten of the twelve do),they acquit.Juries have the problem of deciding what is reasonable all the time.It arises in nearly every case of assault from actual bodily harm to murder where self-defence is put forward and that means in nearly all cases of assault which they try.They decide whether the force was reasonable, whether it was in self-defence or not, whether it was no longer in defence but in revenge and so on
The law has been the same for hundreds of years.You can't legislate to provide some definition of self-defence that does any more than is now given by judges.It gets put in different words to suit modern vocabulary but it's the same as it has 'always' been.
There's no fundamental rule, after all, that you can't kill a burglar or robber in your premises (there have been such cases, in one the shop assistant of a gun shop was not even charged when he shot dead an armed robber in his shop) but the force has to be such as the jury thinks not unreasonable.
The law has been the same for hundreds of years.You can't legislate to provide some definition of self-defence that does any more than is now given by judges.It gets put in different words to suit modern vocabulary but it's the same as it has 'always' been.
There's no fundamental rule, after all, that you can't kill a burglar or robber in your premises (there have been such cases, in one the shop assistant of a gun shop was not even charged when he shot dead an armed robber in his shop) but the force has to be such as the jury thinks not unreasonable.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.