Thief Attempts to Steal Xbox 360, Instigates Knife Fight, Loses

[dystopiaINC]

I think it's unreasonable to state 'blah blah thieves should die' because you don't know what has forced these people to turn to crime. Say he was out of options, and was going to sell the Xbox and telly for cash to feed his family. Does he deserve to die for that?

Sure, criminals should be punished for their actions, but if you think they all deserve to die no questions asked then maybe it's you that this world doesn't need.

He had a suitcase to carry crap in, he could have stolen food but he went for the electronics, really altruistic that one.

Edit: And he deserves to die for threatening another with a knife, not because he is a thief.

Yeah, well it's sort of like give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he'll be sorted for life.

He'd make a couple hundred bucks off the electronics, that will go a lot further than a few tins of food.

And it's possible, especially given the outcome, that he had no intention of using the knife but carried it merely to scare people long enough to make an escape. I'm more interested in the mindset of the person being robbed that was carrying a knife of his own.

Again, not defending his actions, merely stating that situations are never as black and white as people make them out to be.

couple hundred try maybe a hundred for both the tv and the xbox. trust me stuff like that goes fast on the street and of goes for not even close to retail. thousand dollar tv? pfffft... $50 bucks for my coke habit is what a thief is thinking when he steels it and sells it to the first buyer he finds.

and about carrying a knife, so what? i'd carry a knife if i didn't spend most of my time on campus or at work. when i get a car you can bet i'll have at least one knife in there. what wrong with having a knife for protection huh? i'm not paranoid, i don't think anybody is out to get me, but i'd rather carry a knife on me every day for the rest of my life and never need to pull it out, than not carry one and have that one moment when i needed it and chose to go with out. Be prepared to act even if you hope to never have to act.

 

[Girl With One Eye]

Stabbing the burglar? Seriously? What is this world coming to? If I were in this situation, I'd disarm him, strip him naked, then draw him. Nobody gets hurt, burglar goes to jail, and I have a nude portrait of a man who tried to steal my stuff.

Win!!

On a more serious note, I have been burgled before and it's really not a nice feeling to know that some random stranger was inside your house rummaging through your personal belongings and stealing what they felt was worth something. If I had caught the guy who robbed me, you can be damn sure I'd be defending myself, with a knife or any other sharp object. If someone intrudes into your property, they shouldn't be surprised at what happens when they get caught. Whether it's right or wrong, it's human instinct to fight back and I personally don't see the problem with it.

 

[BoogieManFL]

Had this been in Sweden. The man who defended himself and his belongings would've been jailed, forced to pay a huge fine to the thief. And the thief would've gotten little to no punishment.

Hope the thief dies or becomes crippled for life. Scumbag.

Same thing in America, actually.

I've been told by a police officer that if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, empty the entire clip into them to make sure they die. If they survive, they can sue you for everything you own. If they break into your house.

Only in some areas of America and it seems to be getting smaller, check this out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

 

[Susurrus]

In UK I think it's different - reasonable force to defend person and property, but if, for example, you obstruct someone who is fleeing, then you can get in a lot of trouble. The definition of reasonable gives some problems as well.

Although of course it also depends on the jury. There was a case of a man recently, can't find the exact case because I can't remember the relevant details quite clearly enough, but effectively, family and himself tied up, brother or uncle or someone came home and released man, and they pursued attacker with cricket bats and beat him to a bloody, brain-damaged pulp.

Ah, found it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8469850.stm

I wonder if it had been a white family, would he have ever gone to jail?

I think the inset quotation helps:

Clive Coleman, legal affairs analyst
The 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act provides that homeowners who use reasonable force to protect themselves against intruders, and use no more force than is absolutely necessary, should not be prosecuted.
However, there are additional factors. The homeowner should be acting instinctively, fear for their own safety or the safety of others, or act in order to make a lawful arrest (or prevent someone who is lawfully detained from escaping).
The law does not protect those who set upon a fleeing criminal or who lie in wait to attack them. This would amount to people taking the law into their own hands.
The Lord Chief Justice made it clear that the Hussain case was 'exceptional', and that the 'call for mercy' had to be answered.

Technically, he should have gone to jail for GBH. The guy had left, and was no longer a threat to his family. The self-defence option no longer works. Historically, the law in the UK is very unwillign, even in mitigating circumstances, to depart from the usual rule, despite extenuating circumstances. He should have been convicted at trial (which he was). The Court of Appeal, which is an appellate court, and therefore is not ruled by a jury decision, were the ones to release him, given the exceptional nature of the incident.

The directions by the original trial judge by the jury should have seen the man convicted, regardless of colour, because what he and his brother did was a crime. The matters of fact that the jury would have been given to decide are unlikely to have allowed scope for the man not to be convicted and jailed (and arguably, from what little I know of the case, it would have been a misdirection by the judge for him to allow the jury scope to acquit).

The law operated in the way it should have done. There should have been no difference based on colour.

 

[Treblaine]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8469850.stm

I wonder if it had been a white family, would he have ever gone to jail?

I think the inset quotation helps:

Clive Coleman, legal affairs analyst
The 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act provides that homeowners who use reasonable force to protect themselves against intruders, and use no more force than is absolutely necessary, should not be prosecuted.
However, there are additional factors. The homeowner should be acting instinctively, fear for their own safety or the safety of others, or act in order to make a lawful arrest (or prevent someone who is lawfully detained from escaping).
The law does not protect those who set upon a fleeing criminal or who lie in wait to attack them. This would amount to people taking the law into their own hands.
The Lord Chief Justice made it clear that the Hussain case was 'exceptional', and that the 'call for mercy' had to be answered.

Technically, he should have gone to jail for GBH. The guy had left, and was no longer a threat to his family. The self-defence option no longer works. Historically, the law in the UK is very unwillign, even in mitigating circumstances, to depart from the usual rule, despite extenuating circumstances. He should have been convicted at trial (which he was). The Court of Appeal, which is an appellate court, and therefore is not ruled by a jury decision, were the ones to release him, given the exceptional nature of the incident.

The directions by the original trial judge by the jury should have seen the man convicted, regardless of colour, because what he and his brother did was a crime. The matters of fact that the jury would have been given to decide are unlikely to have allowed scope for the man not to be convicted and jailed (and arguably, from what little I know of the case, it would have been a misdirection by the judge for him to allow the jury scope to acquit).

The law operated in the way it should have done. There should have been no difference based on colour.

"The homeowner should be acting instinctively... in order to make a lawful arrest (or prevent someone who is lawfully detained from escaping).
The law does not protect those who set upon a fleeing criminal"

That, to me, seems like a contradiction. Especially after the recent riots have shows how police are more than happy to set after criminals and beat them with batons without criminal repercussions, and the police are certainly not above the law. They have no more right to "take the law into their own hands" than anyone else. It is certainly lawful to detain someone who has threatened you with a knife, beat you, tied you and your family up and robbed you.

"The directions by the original trial judge by the jury should have seen the man convicted, regardless of colour,"

I also think if it was THAT easy to avoid the spectre of racism - a judge simply telling them to not allow such an insidious force to affect their judgement - that we would NEVER have a problem with racism. A jury does not have to justify their decision and their discussions are entirely private, including any sort of way they like to characterise the defendant or situation. All this does is express a judge's wish to prevent racism but is in no way enforced, and I am not talking about making jury debates public record.

"The law operated in the way it should have done. There should have been no difference based on colour."

Except when you consider the aspect of "reasonable" and "racism".

Racists ARE "unreasonable" towards races they have racist prejudices towards, the jury are ultimately left to decide if it was reasonable to pursue a suspect of an very violent crime who was immediately fleeing the scene of the crime, that it was reasonable to be armed with and prepared to use a cricket bat when the culprit was much better armed with a knife that he had already threatened to use.

I can imagine if a white person had done this, they would consider it reasonable. But a (white) racist would say that a non-white person would always be unreasonable to use force.

The Jury system was implemented into English Common law in a time when it was a very homogenous society, and even then it was based on a jury "of peers" a Lord would not be tried by a jury of Commoners.

In America where from the earliest days you had a far more varied society of race, creeds and beliefs it was obvious the necessity for jury selection so you don't have a All-white-jury trying a non-white where all they will see is "criminal" and be too prejudiced to see reason or proportionality in their actions. We now have a hugely heterogeneous society.

UK justice NEEDS HUGE reform of their jury system. They need to weed out the racists and make sure that the full gamut of reasonable voices and perspective in society are included to judge "reasonableness".

Because what is the point in a jury? If they are just there to dogmatically follow what the Judge tells them to do:

Judge "the jury will go into their chamber and decide that he is guilty, and I won't accept an aquittal"

There is no point in having a jury for that. Might as well just have it be like the French system. The Jury was introduced purely for how the exact wording of the law can sometimes be wrong, and that 12 people from society can over-rule the exact wording of the law for the spirit of the law. But NOT if they are swayed by negative forces of society such as racism.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

Sorry but people lose their right to live the moment they threaten family, me, or my belongings in my home. It's ridiculous that they punish people for protecting their own property.

sorry but your shitty belongings are not worth any person's life, get a grip.

 

[Susurrus]

SNIP

Comparing what a homeowner can do and what police can do is ridiculous. Especially comparing police actions in a riot situation, which may or may not have been brutal and criminal, to those of an individual in an isolated crime.

It is lawful to use force to detain someone, but only that which is reasonable. Repeatedly beating the guy over the head with a bat is NOT reasonable, especially when he's already on the ground, there are two of you, both beating him, the guy is nowhere near your house, had been fleeing, and is left seriously brain-damaged as a result. What they did was illegal. It might be understandable, but that doesn't change the law.

You have misunderstood my point about trial judge directions and racism. My point was that the jury is highly unlikely to have been given directions which would allow them to rule on any issue relating to whether the crime was committed or not... The judge rules on points of law, and it is difficult to see how any issue of fact could be relevant. The interpretation of the law would mean that there is no way that their actions could be construed as an ongoing part of the previous crime, nor reasonable self-defence.

Furthermore, you would have to have an entire jury of racists to sway it. And even then it would likely go to CoA and SC if necessary.

Juries decide points of fact. Judges decide points of law (The difference being: Jury might decide whether the state of mind of a defendant in a murder trial was a genuine concern for their own safety, or a desire for revenge for previous wrongs; a judge would direct them to find guilty of murder if revenge, and not guilty by reason of self-defence in the other case). My point is that I dont think that any single fact could be interpreted by the jury in a way which means the men were not guilty.

You will note, in addition, that the CoA did not completely strike out their sentence, only reduce it, on the understanding that the circumstances were exceptional. This does not suggest that the men should not have been jailed - it is a recognition that there were some extenuating circumstances, only.

Also, your conception of trial by jury as being part of a homogenous society is incorrect. Prior to 1066, there was considerable Viking/Danish influence in the UK. The first jury trials (in the sense that we know them) came after the conquest, which necessarily meant that society was composed of Anglo-Saxons, those of Viking/Danish/Norweigan influence, and the Normans of the conquest. Much of high society had a DIFFERENT LANGUAGE to the classes they ruled.

This is a pretty helpful explanation:

An issue that is within the province of the judge, as opposed to the jury, because it involves the application or interpretation of legal principles or statutes.

At any stage in a proceeding, before or during trial, a judge may have to determine whether to let a jury decide a particular issue. In making this determination, the judge considers whether the issue is a question of law or a question of Fact. If the question is one of fact, it should be decided by the jury at trial. If the question is one of law, the judge may decide it without affording the parties the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses to the jury.

A question of law involves the interpretation of principles that are potentially applicable to other cases. In contrast, a question of fact requires an interpretation of circumstances surrounding the case at hand. Resolving questions of fact is the chief function of the jury. Resolving questions of law is a chief function of the judge.

If the pleadings and initial evidence in a case show that there are no factual disputes between the parties, a court may grant Summary Judgment to a party. Summary judgment is a final judgment in the case made by the court before trial. A court may grant summary judgment in a case that contains no factual disputes because such a case presents only a question, or questions, of law, so the fact-finding function of the jury is not needed.

On appeal, the trial court's ruling on a question of law generally receives closer scrutiny than a jury's findings of fact. Being present at the trial, the fact finder is in a better position than the appeals court to evaluate evidence and testimony.

An issue may be characterized on appeal as a mixed question of law and fact. A mixed question occurs when the facts surrounding the case are admitted and the rule of the applicable law is undisputed; the issue then is whether the Rule of Law was correctly applied to the established facts. In a criminal case, for example, assume that a trial court, over the objection of the defendant, allows the prosecution to present evidence that the defendant was identified as the perpetrator. If the defendant is found guilty and challenges the identification procedure on appeal, the question is one of both law and fact. The appeals court must decide whether the trial court correctly applied the law on due process in identification procedures to the particular identification procedure used in the case. In such a case, the appeals court will scrutinize both the facts and the trial judge's rulings on questions of law.

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Question+of+Law

 

[rob_simple]

I think it's unreasonable to state 'blah blah thieves should die' because you don't know what has forced these people to turn to crime. Say he was out of options, and was going to sell the Xbox and telly for cash to feed his family. Does he deserve to die for that?

Sure, criminals should be punished for their actions, but if you think they all deserve to die no questions asked then maybe it's you that this world doesn't need.

He had a suitcase to carry crap in, he could have stolen food but he went for the electronics, really altruistic that one.

Edit: And he deserves to die for threatening another with a knife, not because he is a thief.

Yeah, well it's sort of like give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he'll be sorted for life.

He'd make a couple hundred bucks off the electronics, that will go a lot further than a few tins of food.

And it's possible, especially given the outcome, that he had no intention of using the knife but carried it merely to scare people long enough to make an escape. I'm more interested in the mindset of the person being robbed that was carrying a knife of his own.

Again, not defending his actions, merely stating that situations are never as black and white as people make them out to be.

couple hundred try maybe a hundred for both the tv and the xbox. trust me stuff like that goes fast on the street and of goes for not even close to retail. thousand dollar tv? pfffft... $50 bucks for my coke habit is what a thief is thinking when he steels it and sells it to the first buyer he finds.

and about carrying a knife, so what? i'd carry a knife if i didn't spend most of my time on campus or at work. when i get a car you can bet i'll have at least one knife in there. what wrong with having a knife for protection huh? i'm not paranoid, i don't think anybody is out to get me, but i'd rather carry a knife on me every day for the rest of my life and never need to pull it out, than not carry one and have that one moment when i needed it and chose to go with out. Be prepared to act even if you hope to never have to act.

There is a difference between being prepared and being paranoid, and in most cases pulling a weapon on a career criminal is only going to get you in more trouble. Also, I only pointed that out because carrying a knife in the UK is an instant jail sentence.

I really like that you assumed the thief was a coke addict though, that's not profiling at all.

 

[Treblaine]

SNIP

Comparing what a homeowner can do and what police can do is ridiculous. Especially comparing police actions in a riot situation, which may or may not have been brutal and criminal, to those of an individual in an isolated crime.

It is lawful to use force to detain someone, but only that which is reasonable. Repeatedly beating the guy over the head with a bat is NOT reasonable, especially when he's already on the ground, there are two of you, both beating him, the guy is nowhere near your house, had been fleeing, and is left seriously brain-damaged as a result. What they did was illegal. It might be understandable, but that doesn't change the law.

You have misunderstood my point about trial judge directions and racism. My point was that the jury is highly unlikely to have been given directions which would allow them to rule on any issue relating to whether the crime was committed or not... The judge rules on points of law, and it is difficult to see how any issue of fact could be relevant. The interpretation of the law would mean that there is no way that their actions could be construed as an ongoing part of the previous crime, nor reasonable self-defence.

Furthermore, you would have to have an entire jury of racists to sway it. And even then it would likely go to CoA and SC if necessary.

Juries decide points of fact. Judges decide points of law (The difference being: Jury might decide whether the state of mind of a defendant in a murder trial was a genuine concern for their own safety, or a desire for revenge for previous wrongs; a judge would direct them to find guilty of murder if revenge, and not guilty by reason of self-defence in the other case). My point is that I dont think that any single fact could be interpreted by the jury in a way which means the men were not guilty.

You will note, in addition, that the CoA did not completely strike out their sentence, only reduce it, on the understanding that the circumstances were exceptional. This does not suggest that the men should not have been jailed - it is a recognition that there were some extenuating circumstances, only.

Also, your conception of trial by jury as being part of a homogenous society is incorrect. Prior to 1066, there was considerable Viking/Danish influence in the UK. The first jury trials (in the sense that we know them) came after the conquest, which necessarily meant that society was composed of Anglo-Saxons, those of Viking/Danish/Norweigan influence, and the Normans of the conquest. Much of high society had a DIFFERENT LANGUAGE to the classes they ruled.

This is a pretty helpful explanation:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Question+of+Law

I don't think it is ridiculous. Uber-Liberal newspaper the Guardian thought it was relevant how police officers are permitted to use such force. Police are in a riot situation where they have superior numbers, back up, body armour and so much to their advantage. Defendant here was tied up, beaten and held at knife point. REASONABLY his situation was far more serious than any one police officer's in a riot situation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/14/jail-brothers-burglar-cricket-bat

Well one of the "facts" that juries have to decide upon is a matter of reasonableness. There is certainly a case that it is REASONABLE to strike an escaping suspect in the head as hard and as often enough to render them unconscious, wrestling with them would REASONABLY not be an option considering:
-the culprit was armed with a knife that can deal a lethal injury with a flick of the wrist (he may have dropped it, may not have, accused couldn't know for sure)
-the culprit threatened to use it and already inflicted a beating
-the culprit has huge incentive to use it to avoid capture
-he had multiple confederates in the immediate vicinity

The facts of the matter are clear, being timid and soft are not options. Except those swayed by prejudice to ignore the knife, have no sympathy for the threat, the fear, the confusion. The inability to relate is a subtle aspect of racism that exist in everyone without careful introspection.

Yes, the culprit got a brain injury. ANY time a person is struck in the head, especially hard enough to render them totally insensible, brain injury is a possibility. The police know this and they still carry batons and USE them on knife wielding suspects. Now if the actions of the POLICE is not a metric for what is reasonable then what is? Or if this is not a question of fact, are the police ABOVE THE LAW?! I don't think so. I think the police are reasonable and within the law. But police don't charge their own do they. They have sympathy a white jury wouldn't have for an Asian man.

A successful Asian man. Imagine how a racist could exploit jealously and trouble over that in a white-jury of low-earners.

The fact of the matter is it was reasonable to knock out an armed and fleeing criminal, the risk of brain injury is unavoidable. I also think that "brain injury" is being used in a tabloid and deceptive way: Precisely how has this brain injury affected the culprit? He was discharged after only 2 weeks and continued to commit crimes. This does not seem to have disabled him in any real way.

I also think it is spurious to bring up how the cricket bat broke, when cricket bats are designed to hit cricket balls, not as a weapon of self-defence. So his use of a flimsy weapon is use to damn him? This is what I am talking about. IT is easy to present a hostile side of the story when if it was a fellow white the juror would say:

"Well hang on! If I was in this situation I wouldn't like how this was distorted against me. What would I do, tap him on the head firmly so he can swing round and stab me? Or would I hit as hard as I could muster?"

And anyone is prey to the siren calls of racism. It takes one racist to introduce racist prejudice and to play on the prejudices present in everyone. You don't need an entire jury of racist, just a jury of white people where one of them will prejudice the case with racist perspective, they will distort the truth mercilessness and cast aspersions and doubt where REASONABLY there would be none.

The racist will sway the juries analysis to cast doubt, that a non-white "isn't like us" and deny them the compassion and prevent the jurors actually putting themselves in the defendants situation, or considering what they did may have had justification. But rather to work from reverse, how the evidence can be used to damn them. Racists can name drop things like "honour killings" and things like that to sway their fellow jurors.

And as you said to when juries were implemented
"Much of high society had a DIFFERENT LANGUAGE to the classes they ruled."

I did mention how back then it was a Jury "of peers". A Commoner had a trial of fellow commoners. A lord would (if ever) have a jury of fellow Lords. But now we are all one society, things like the House of Lords are purely honorific and don't separate people on a social level, everyone has the same trial from the same jury pool. But all this allows for is minorities to get unfair judgements by

Whites are far more likely to see malice rather than proportionality in the actions of non-whites, the are certainly easier to be manipulated to see that.

The actual culprit never got a trial, nor did he even reveal who his other masked confederates were. He claimed brain injuries so severe that he could not plea yet he was capable enough to go out committing more crimes and be arrested for them.

 

[dystopiaINC]

I think it's unreasonable to state 'blah blah thieves should die' because you don't know what has forced these people to turn to crime. Say he was out of options, and was going to sell the Xbox and telly for cash to feed his family. Does he deserve to die for that?

Sure, criminals should be punished for their actions, but if you think they all deserve to die no questions asked then maybe it's you that this world doesn't need.

He had a suitcase to carry crap in, he could have stolen food but he went for the electronics, really altruistic that one.

Edit: And he deserves to die for threatening another with a knife, not because he is a thief.

Yeah, well it's sort of like give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he'll be sorted for life.

He'd make a couple hundred bucks off the electronics, that will go a lot further than a few tins of food.

And it's possible, especially given the outcome, that he had no intention of using the knife but carried it merely to scare people long enough to make an escape. I'm more interested in the mindset of the person being robbed that was carrying a knife of his own.

Again, not defending his actions, merely stating that situations are never as black and white as people make them out to be.

couple hundred try maybe a hundred for both the tv and the xbox. trust me stuff like that goes fast on the street and of goes for not even close to retail. thousand dollar tv? pfffft... $50 bucks for my coke habit is what a thief is thinking when he steels it and sells it to the first buyer he finds.

and about carrying a knife, so what? i'd carry a knife if i didn't spend most of my time on campus or at work. when i get a car you can bet i'll have at least one knife in there. what wrong with having a knife for protection huh? i'm not paranoid, i don't think anybody is out to get me, but i'd rather carry a knife on me every day for the rest of my life and never need to pull it out, than not carry one and have that one moment when i needed it and chose to go with out. Be prepared to act even if you hope to never have to act.

There is a difference between being prepared and being paranoid, and in most cases pulling a weapon on a career criminal is only going to get you in more trouble. Also, I only pointed that out because carrying a knife in the UK is an instant jail sentence.

I really like that you assumed the thief was a coke addict though, that's not profiling at all.

i didn't assume he was a coke addict, i'm just saying that a lot of times a person robbing a home for items such as tv's and xboxes are going to be selling them for very little cash on the street and then using that money for something like drugs alcohol, or something else unscrupulous. we're not talking about a guy who's paying the medical bills off with this money here.

another thing. so what if you live in the UK? the laws are different there. i get that, but this happened in Chicago, and i live in Massachusetts. so thew laws where you live are not applicable to laws across the pond. it's perfectly legal to carry a knife on your person. depending on the knife. in my state i can carry a knife of any length or size as long as it has only one blade edge. to use my Criminal Justice instructor's Example, (who is a police officer) you can walk around with a "ninja sword" (his words) all day but if it has two blades your got problems with the law.

so in the eyes of the law this man was perfectly within his rights to carry a knife. and if the police let him go citing self defense then they felt that the situation was dangerous enough that he could not simply run away, and that the suspect intended to and was capable of doing him sufficient harm. they obviously have more details than us and if they look at their details and feel he was within his rights to both carry the knife AND that he was defending himself then i see no reason to question this article.

 

[rob_simple]

I think it's unreasonable to state 'blah blah thieves should die' because you don't know what has forced these people to turn to crime. Say he was out of options, and was going to sell the Xbox and telly for cash to feed his family. Does he deserve to die for that?

Sure, criminals should be punished for their actions, but if you think they all deserve to die no questions asked then maybe it's you that this world doesn't need.

He had a suitcase to carry crap in, he could have stolen food but he went for the electronics, really altruistic that one.

Edit: And he deserves to die for threatening another with a knife, not because he is a thief.

Yeah, well it's sort of like give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he'll be sorted for life.

He'd make a couple hundred bucks off the electronics, that will go a lot further than a few tins of food.

And it's possible, especially given the outcome, that he had no intention of using the knife but carried it merely to scare people long enough to make an escape. I'm more interested in the mindset of the person being robbed that was carrying a knife of his own.

Again, not defending his actions, merely stating that situations are never as black and white as people make them out to be.

couple hundred try maybe a hundred for both the tv and the xbox. trust me stuff like that goes fast on the street and of goes for not even close to retail. thousand dollar tv? pfffft... $50 bucks for my coke habit is what a thief is thinking when he steels it and sells it to the first buyer he finds.

and about carrying a knife, so what? i'd carry a knife if i didn't spend most of my time on campus or at work. when i get a car you can bet i'll have at least one knife in there. what wrong with having a knife for protection huh? i'm not paranoid, i don't think anybody is out to get me, but i'd rather carry a knife on me every day for the rest of my life and never need to pull it out, than not carry one and have that one moment when i needed it and chose to go with out. Be prepared to act even if you hope to never have to act.

There is a difference between being prepared and being paranoid, and in most cases pulling a weapon on a career criminal is only going to get you in more trouble. Also, I only pointed that out because carrying a knife in the UK is an instant jail sentence.

I really like that you assumed the thief was a coke addict though, that's not profiling at all.

i didn't assume he was a coke addict, i'm just saying that a lot of times a person robbing a home for items such as tv's and xboxes are going to be selling them for very little cash on the street and then using that money for something like drugs alcohol, or something else unscrupulous. we're not talking about a guy who's paying the medical bills off with this money here.

another thing. so what if you live in the UK? the laws are different there. i get that, but this happened in Chicago, and i live in Massachusetts. so thew laws where you live are not applicable to laws across the pond. it's perfectly legal to carry a knife on your person. depending on the knife. in my state i can carry a knife of any length or size as long as it has only one blade edge. to use my Criminal Justice instructor's Example, (who is a police officer) you can walk around with a "ninja sword" (his words) all day but if it has two blades your got problems with the law.

so in the eyes of the law this man was perfectly within his rights to carry a knife. and if the police let him go citing self defense then they felt that the situation was dangerous enough that he could not simply run away, and that the suspect intended to and was capable of doing him sufficient harm. they obviously have more details than us and if they look at their details and feel he was within his rights to both carry the knife AND that he was defending himself then i see no reason to question this article.

It's not really a matter of what is legal, I'm questioning the mentality of someone carrying a weapon around with them on the off-chance they get accosted. It's not like your country is any more dangerous than mine.

And as I said from the beginning, I'm not trying to defend the criminal or justify his actions, nor am I condemning a man that was only protecting himself. All I am saying is that it's disgusting how quick people are to pass judgement and assume the worst about others.

Also, how do you know he wasn't going to use the money to pay medical bills? This sort of proves my point.

 

[Susurrus]

Whites are far more likely to see malice rather than proportionality in the actions of non-whites, the are certainly easier to be manipulated to see that.

That's a racist statement, you're making there, the implication being that it isn't true of non-whites.
Anyway.

The actual law on use of force for arresting an offender is essentially, that reasonable force may be used in effecting or assisting the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders.

Reasonable force by a man that offered no resistance once they caught him is not repeatedly bashing him over the head. Further, there is little indication that they were effecting a lawful arrest - the whole incident smacks of retributive justice, which is EXACTLY what the law tries to prevent, and was the driving force behind the trial judge's thinking (if you read the article about their sentencing the article I provided links to). Consider the Tony Martin case, too. The man used a shotgun to shoot at men who had just been stealing from his house. he was convicted of (murder or manslaughter, I forget which), because he shot one of them in the back once they had fled. His conviction was upheld.

Self-defence of the person was not relevant here, as there was no immediate threat to anyone.

You seem to have started with a stand-point of "jury reform", and then tried to fit the facts of this case to support your argument. I don't think it works. There may be a case for reforming English juries, but this case, in which men were rightly convicted for retributive justice, is not one of them.

 

[Treblaine]

Whites are far more likely to see malice rather than proportionality in the actions of non-whites, the are certainly easier to be manipulated to see that.

That's a racist statement, you're making there, the implication being that it isn't true of non-whites.
Anyway.

The actual law on use of force for arresting an offender is essentially, that reasonable force may be used in effecting or assisting the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders.

Reasonable force by a man that offered no resistance once they caught him is not repeatedly bashing him over the head. Further, there is little indication that they were effecting a lawful arrest - the whole incident smacks of retributive justice, which is EXACTLY what the law tries to prevent, and was the driving force behind the trial judge's thinking (if you read the article about their sentencing the article I provided links to). Consider the Tony Martin case, too. The man used a shotgun to shoot at men who had just been stealing from his house. he was convicted of (murder or manslaughter, I forget which), because he shot one of them in the back once they had fled. His conviction was upheld.

Self-defence of the person was not relevant here, as there was no immediate threat to anyone.

You seem to have started with a stand-point of "jury reform", and then tried to fit the facts of this case to support your argument. I don't think it works. There may be a case for reforming English juries, but this case, in which men were rightly convicted for retributive justice, is not one of them.

Obviously it applies for everyone, I thought I made that clear. When did I say this was ONLY about white people?

Though to be unambiguous I gets a big semantically awkward "people-of-one-race are far more likely to see malice rather than proportionality in the actions of non-people-of-their-race, the are certainly easier to be manipulated to see that."

Reasonable force by a man that offered no resistance once they caught him is not repeatedly bashing him over the head.

That COULD be unreasonable only if you ignore all other factors:
-that he was armed with a knife and had already threatened to use it
-he also had two armed confederates in the immediate vicinity
-the antagonism of the beating the culprit had already dealt to the victim

You can't wrestle with a culprit like that, you'll get a knife slipped between your ribs, either by them pulling a concealed one or one of his confederates doubling back.

I f you stop and actually THINK, try to RELATE to the extreme situation then you'll see he has every reason to hit in on the head till he is rendered insensible. As the police do. If the intention was to kill then he would have picked up the culprits knife and dealt a lethal wound to him. Just as Tony Martin was convicted of shooting the invaders not merely when they had their back turned but also when they were lying on the ground bleeding and definitely of no threat.

The difference is that knocking someone out with a cricket bat is fas less lethal than shooting them through the spine with a shotgun. And the accused to not continue his attack once he was totally unconscious. Tony Martin went too far. That does not mean all cases of self-defence resulting in injury

the whole incident smacks of retributive justice

"smacks of" ? How tabloid. How meaningless. That's awfully disingenuous and doesn't say anything.

You seem to have started with a stand-point of "jury reform", and then tried to fit the facts of this case to support your argument. I don't think it works. There may be a case for reforming English juries, but this case, in which men were rightly convicted for retributive justice, is not one of them.

I wonder if you think it is relevant if you are white or not? You ask the Asian community were utterly shocked at the lack of understanding and compassion in this case, how the court DO NOT CARE of the extreme circumstances he was under. They didn't understand how it was different from other cases where WHITE people had knocked violent criminals unconscious AND dealt debilitating injuries and not even been charged.

It's ONLY your opinion that it was right for him to serve such a long sentence for detaining an extremely dangerous suspect with as much force as is reasonably necessary considering the huge threat he posed. One that you haven't backed up. He was in hot pursuit of a fleeing criminal, he did not throw down his knife and submit to capture, he resisted lawful arrest and fought, he used his cricket bat like anyone would:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-13094355

Edward McGinnis, sounds white to me, did the same thing merely was not successful in landing a solid blow. And the judge praised him for taking this action. He was not charged with assault or threatening with a deadly weapon.

The lawyer defending Stephen Garven, said: "He commendably took the law into his own hands."

Yet in the trial of an ASIAN MAN the judge sees it as unforgivable in this case for a man to take the law into their own hands.

Pro-tip: Asians can't except justice in a white court.

I think race is VERY relevant here!

 

[ZombieHordeKila]

haha that theif is dumb, he should to trained better lol

 

[Susurrus]

SNIP

The difference between the cases is huge. The Scottish man hit a robber DURING the robbery.

The men in this case hit the man AFTER he had fled, when the danger was past.

The law of self-defence is there to allow people to escape conviction for a crime when they are put in a difficult situation by someone committing a crime, and use force to prevent that crime, or to protect themselves, because they feel it is necessary. It is not allowable for someone who actively places themselves in a position of potential danger to use as a defence, because this gives too wide a scope for the defendant to have used violence. It is suppossed to be a defence of last resort.

If the men had beaten the guy over the head in their house, then that's fine. It would have been allowable, and the defence would have worked. Note that repeatedly beating him over the head would not have been, however.

But as soon as the man flees, no longer presenting a danger, they have to fall back on "lawful arrest", which is particularly uncertain. It is not a use of reasonable force to inflict brain damage to arrest someone. It is certainly not a use of reasonable force when you do this, and no crime is imminent. The aborted crime which has just happened is not relevant, because the danger that it presented is no longer present.

Saying "smacks of" is no more meaningless than stating "the whole incident is more a case of retributive justice, because of the reasons i have stated above".

There is also nothing I can see that suggests the man fought - part of the problem for the defendants was that they beat him whislt he lay helpless.

I appreciate your rage - the actual criminal in this case did a terrible thing, and he probably deserved what he got, and a sentence besides - but the law forbids retributive justice, and the law was, in this case, followed.

EDIT: It's also not for the trial judge to show sympathy. His role is to apply the law. Sympathy can come into it at higher levels, as it did in this case, but the trial judge has no scope to apply the principles.

 

[Treblaine]

SNIP

The difference between the cases is huge. The Scottish man hit a robber DURING the robbery.

The men in this case hit the man AFTER he had fled, when the danger was past.

The law of self-defence is there to allow people to escape conviction for a crime when they are put in a difficult situation by someone committing a crime, and use force to prevent that crime, or to protect themselves, because they feel it is necessary. It is not allowable for someone who actively places themselves in a position of potential danger to use as a defence, because this gives too wide a scope for the defendant to have used violence. It is suppossed to be a defence of last resort.

If the men had beaten the guy over the head in their house, then that's fine. It would have been allowable, and the defence would have worked.

But as soon as the man flees, no longer presenting a danger, they have to fall back on "lawful arrest", which is particularly uncertain. It is not a use of reasonable force to inflict brain damage to arrest someone. It is certainly not a use of reasonable force when you do this, and no crime is imminent. The aborted crime which has just happened is not relevant, because the danger that it presented is no longer past.

Saying "smacks of" is no more meaningless than stating "the whole incident is more a case of retributive justice, because of the reasons i have stated above".

There is also nothing I can see that suggests the man fought - part of the problem for the defendants was that they beat him whislt he lay helpless.

I appreciate your rage - the man did a terrible thing, and he probably deserved what he got - but the law forbids retributive justice, and the law was, in this case, followed.

EDIT: It's also not for the trial judge to show sympathy. His role is to apply the law. Sympathy can come into it at higher levels, as it did in this case, but the trial judge gas no scope to apply the principles.

The court endorsed the beating with the baseball bat even after chasing them out of the store, in hot pursuit.

Munir Hussain was in hot pursuit of the assailant and wasn't going to give up trying to detain him just because he had left his property, as is reasonable, he is in the immediate vicinity he could easily return. There is NOTHING sacrosanct not significant about the line of the border of one's property. You think the thugs can just pop out into the streets to regroup, taunting his victim that they are untouchable on the street outside? That is NOT reasonable.

Except, a white have historically nevr been reasonable to non-whites. Nor all-Asian courts to non-Asians, or Group-X to non-group-X.

If the men had beaten the guy over the head in their house, then that's fine. It would have been allowable, and the defence would have worked.

Meaningless semantics. It does not matter if it was within his home or immediately outside. The law does not define self-defence as only applicable in your property. And stop making the straw-man argument that this is purely self-defence, the law ALSO authorises reasonable force to detain violent criminals, he didn't shoot him in the back and pump him full of bullets as he lay imobilised on the floor. He knocked the lights out of a knife wielding thug, who then exaggerated the "brain injury" to that he could supposedly not stand trial, yet still able to go on committing further crimes. If police went to prison every time they gave a violent suspect a brain injury then 80% of the police force would be serving long time. Ah, but most coppers are white.

There is also nothing I can see that suggests the man fought - part of the problem for the defendants was that they beat him whislt he lay helpless.

How is a knife wielding thug "helpless"? Until he is absolutely disarmed he is the opposite of helpless he is extraordinarily DANGEROUS, more dangerous than anything in nature, have you any idea how awful knife wounds are? How just a single jab can in a moment destroy someone's life? Even if you survive the surgeon must literally gut you to search around your organs to suture up ever artery that is cut. I've worked on a hospital ward and tended the victims of knife wounds, how for months even they have tubes in them draining fluid and slowly repairing wounds. And how they culprit taunted and repeatedly threatened Mr Hussain and his family to cut them up with it?

If Mr Hussain really intended to kill this culprit then he would have grabbed a kitchen knife rather than a cricket bat. Or he would have picked up the culprit's knife and used it on his unconscious body. No. He knocked him unconscious. The most reasonable way to deal with such an insidious threat as multiple knife armed assailants. Surely it is reasonable to knock an armed criminal unconscious? Unless if you are Asian to a white court perhaps? You can find countless examples of WHITE people knocking out criminals in and out of their property and being commended by courts.

ONLY prejudice could pervert such reasonable circumstances into mere vengeance.

Just put yourself in Mr Hussain's position. Lets say you are an expat living in a foreign country and your home is broken into and you are tied up, beaten and threatened with death and worse. You are able to free yourself, would you grab a cricket bat? How do you like the idea of the man who tied you up, tortured you and your family and threatened you to escape to return again? I'm not saying revenge of killing him, I am talking justice, detaining him so that he will stand trial.

He is armed, it is vividly clear how he intends to use his weapon, you have no chance to wrestle him, not when he has two armed accomplices. So you bosh him on the head, hard and often enough that he can no longer stab at you. Can you see yourself doing this? Is this all so unreasonable?

If this IS reasonable yet still illegal then the law has failed in its purpose for serving a just and fair society.

Now what if the foreign police come, put you in front of a their court and say you acted "unreasonable"? And how locals did the same and were never charged. And they talk of pedantic irrelevant details of chasing them outside, and don't even consider racial bias in themselves for their double standard.

 

[Susurrus]

SNIP

You're willfully misinterpreting both self-defence, and a huge body of case-law behind it. You're also willfully ignoring the actual facts of the case:

(from the Guardian report):

"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.""

If they had simply CAUGHT him, and incapacitated him, fine. But a "sustained attack" is not fine.

Furthermore, 4 people is more than the original two that chased them, implying others joined in.

EDIT: And yes, you can use force to detain violent criminals, but the force that it is reasonable to use dramatically decreases when that criminal is running away, with no immediate intention of inflicting bodily harm, potentially without even a weapon (it was not specified which of the burglars actually had knives).

You misunderstood my point about the use of self-defence. Of course it extends outside of the property. But the point is, once the thug fled outside, there was no immediate danger to anyone - and therefore there can be no self-defence. Equally, if I was attacked in the street, and because an individual came to help, my attacker fled, chasing him away is fine. Using reasonable force to prevent him stabbing me is fine. Chasing him for 200m, catching him, and enlisting the help of three others to inflict a "sustained attack" goes well beyond the bounds of "self-defence". Arguably, that could then come under "detaining violent criminals", but again, the "reasonable" would probably hamper them.

Still further, if they didn't feel that they could apprehend him safely without potentially killing him, they shouldn't have tried.

Further, from the Guardian:

""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.

A document jointly published by the CPS and Acpo says people are not expected to make fine judgments about what might be reasonable force in the heat of the moment, so long as they only do what they honestly and instinctively believe is necessary.

However, force used after chasing someone who runs off may not be considered to be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not be reasonable, it adds.""

Which is all well and good. The trial judge applied the law, and on appeal, the usual sentence under law was varied because of the circumstances of the case. Again, the trial judge does not have the scope to do this.

 

[Treblaine]

SNIP

You're willfully misinterpreting both self-defence, and a huge body of case-law behind it. You're also willfully ignoring the actual facts of the case:

(from the Guardian report):

"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.""

If they had simply CAUGHT him, and incapacitated him, fine. But a "sustained attack" is not fine.

Furthermore, 4 people is more than the original two that chased them, implying others joined in.

EDIT: And yes, you can use force to detain violent criminals, but the force that it is reasonable to use dramatically decreases when that criminal is running away, with no immediate intention of inflicting bodily harm, potentially without even a weapon (it was not specified which of the burglars actually had knives).

You misunderstood my point about the use of self-defence. Of course it extends outside of the property. But the point is, once the thug fled outside, there was no immediate danger to anyone - and therefore there can be no self-defence. Equally, if I was attacked in the street, and because an individual came to help, my attacker fled, chasing him away is fine. Using reasonable force to prevent him stabbing me is fine. Chasing him for 200m, catching him, and enlisting the help of three others to inflict a "sustained attack" goes well beyond the bounds of "self-defence". Arguably, that could then come under "detaining violent criminals", but again, the "reasonable" would probably hamper them.

Still further, if they didn't feel that they could apprehend him safely without potentially killing him, they shouldn't have tried.

Further, from the Guardian:

""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.

A document jointly published by the CPS and Acpo says people are not expected to make fine judgments about what might be reasonable force in the heat of the moment, so long as they only do what they honestly and instinctively believe is necessary.

However, force used after chasing someone who runs off may not be considered to be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not be reasonable, it adds.""

Which is all well and good. The trial judge applied the law, and on appeal, the usual sentence under law was varied because of the circumstances of the case. Again, the trial judge does not have the scope to do this.

"Still further, if they didn't feel that they could apprehend him safely without potentially killing him, they shouldn't have tried."

If that was actually enforced then criminals would have every incentive to arm themselves and threaten to use weapons, they cannot commit wicked crimes and then hold their own well-being ransom to evade justice. They could just wave a knife around and dare them not to escalate the situation as is reasonable to affect their capture.

And he didn't potentially die, he suffered a broken jaw and an unspecified "brain injury" that has not disabled him in any way, he was discharged without any physiotherapy after 2 weeks. He is able enough to care for himself and continue his criminal activities.

Repeatedly you assume this ASIAN man would ONLY knock out an armed criminal for malicious revenge. Why is there always this assumption with non-whites that you don't have with white-people when they pick up a bat? It's a blatant double standard I have demonstrated with past cases.

The culprit didn't have any broken ribs or broken fingers, nor indication he beat him on other parts of the body as if he intended to inflict pain (as the culprit did easier when he tied up an beat Mr Hussain earlier). Injuries are consistent with him being knocked unconscious. Where is the benefit of the doubt that is offered to only white people in English courts?

Again, the example I gave you earlier of the WHITE shopkeeper who chased another knife-wielding thug out striking at them, they were commended for their act of violence inside and also outside.

"once the thug fled outside, there was no immediate danger to anyone"

And you know I have made it clear he still had confederates in the immediate area who were all armed with knives, far FAR deadlier than a cricket bat. As long as Mr Hussian was within arms reach of the culprit he was totally lawfully and reasonably trying to detain him he was at extreme danger of getting stabbed by this vicious career criminal, who WAS ARMED and threatened to use his weapon! There are countless cases of WHITE people cashing down and beating escaping criminals to the point of severe injury and they have not been charged.

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

You're right. This TRIAL does not reflect the thinking of the public or justice.

Knocking out an armed thug = go to jail for 2.5 your son as well for even longer
Break into home, tie up family, beat, threaten and rob them = not even a trial, weasel out with a trumped up sick-note to commit crimes again with indefinite remand.

"the usual sentence under law was varied because of the circumstances of the case. Again, the trial judge does not have the scope to do this."

Nonsense. Compassion and understanding is FULLY within the scope of the trial judge. I highly doubt he would have shown such lack of compassion and understanding to a white face who spoke with the same accent he did. Two and a half years. That is a ridiculously long sentence considering 90% of the public would have acted in the exact same way under the same extreme circumstances. It shouldn't have to go to court of appeals, court of appeals is when the trial court FAILS!

The law is FINE. Mr Hussain was well within the scope of the law.

His problem was facing an unsympathetic and unreasonable White-Court.