Victim Jailed for Resisting Burglar, Burglar Set Free


A millionaire whose family was held hostage by a knife-wielding burglar and his two accomplices has been jailed for resisting the burglar, who was himself spared prison.

The man, a wealthy 53-year-old businessman, returned to his Buckinghamshire home from a trip to the mosque together with his wife, daughter and two sons to discover three men had broken into their home.

The masked intruders threatened to kill them if they did not submit, and then tied them up. One of the man’s sons managed to get loose, and ran to the nearby residence of his 35-year-old uncle, who came back with him to try to free the rest of their family.

The gang broke and ran, but one of their number, a 56-year-old career criminal, was knocked down in the back garden, where he was beaten severely by the man and his brother. He was subsequently hospitalised with a fractured skull and brain damage.

The father and his brother were subsequently arrested and charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm on the burglar.

The presiding judge sentenced the defendant to 30 months in prison, and gave his brother 39 months in light of the fact that he had faced lesser provocation, accusing the pair of “violent revenge,” and ignoring their defence that the beating had been “taken in the agony of the moment”:

“The attack which then occurred was totally unnecessary and amounted to a very violent revenge attack on a defenceless man.

It may be that some members of the public or media commentators will assert that he deserved what happened to him, and that you should not have been prosecuted and need not be punished.

The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable.”

The judge stressed that the rule of law might be seriously imperiled if vigilantes were not jailed whilst criminals walk free:

“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 the criminal justice system take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.”

The injured criminal who broke into his home was chided for a “serious and wicked” attack, but was handed a non-custodial sentence in place of prison. His injuries may qualify him for a disability benefit.

UK law allows victims of violent crime to ‘use no more force than absolutely necessary’ to protect themselves, which in practice can often lead to those who resist and injure criminals facing more serious charges than their assailants…

Via the Daily Mail.

Leave a Comment


  • So let me get this straight, if you break in and rob people you can do whatever you want without having to deal with the law but if you defend yourself and your home by resisting and fighting the burglars, you get punished for protecting your own property?

    Since when has it become normal procedure again that all judges only support the criminals instead of the victims?

  • Anonymous says:

    The burglar shouldn’t have gotten off… but read closely. Jailing the victims is far from insane here. They brutally beat a nearly 60-year-old man who, by this point was both no longer a threat and completely defenseless, doing grievous injury to him. Just because they robbed you doesn’t make being an old man nearly to death right. Both parties should have been jailed — it’s disgraceful to jail the victim of the original crime and let the perpetrator go free, but it would have been just as disgraceful to jail the original perpetrator and not force the victim to pay for their brutality. They should both be jailed for this, and it’s a miscarriage of justice that either of them got off.

  • I’d say, a victim who executes an [i]identical type of punishment[/i] to that of the perpetrator is no different than the perpetrator him-/herself, but executing [i]equal judgement[/i] in the right manner is the best thing to do. Being slapped doesn’t always mean you have the right to slap back, but in situations when lives are in danger, self-defense is fine.

    But then again, it’s all just utopian thinking…

    Court punishment unto the victims is debatable, but letting off the criminals scot-free in addition to medical benefits entitlement caused by their own act that started all this is just wrong.

    Hence, LAW FAIL.

  • Everyone is criticizing this ruling but it makes a lot of sense it you think about it. The criminals tied people up, it doesn’t sound like they physically injured anyone. When they roles reversed and these two men caught the one 56 year old criminal they should have tied him up and called the cops. But instead the beat the shit out of him enough to give him a fractured skull. That’s not self defense, the old man was trying to flee. Those people should definitely face a punishment for that. As for the criminal not getting a sentence, maybe the judge thought brain-damage was bad enough?

  • probably the “millionare” family was MOSLEM (they returned from the mosque and surprised the burglars)
    yeah, brits and aussies..fucking racist countries with cunts in office
    im an asian with friends and families in the uk and aussie (no you DO NOT DESERVE CAPITALIZATION) and they have no other stories to tell other than how the locals,, especially the caucasians, treat them.
    soon, you caucasians, will be the minorities.
    the day is coming.


    Here in Texas, you can pretty much SHOOT & KILL BURGLARS who are in your home, especially when they have weapons at your family.


    All it was, they were trying to stop the guy from leaving – so that justice can be brought on those 3 guys. Think they burglar went down without a fight?

  • Canadian law has the same provision, and it is a source of constant irritation to most people that the criminals get off lighter than those trying to defend their lives, property, or businesses.

  • You know what I can’t believe? That there’s so many people posting here who think it’s okay to chase a burglar away from your home and try to beat him to death. Shame on all of you people who think that killing someone is somehow justified revenge for a robbery. If this had happened inside his home, sure, but no they chased him out into the yard and beat his brains in there.

    And you’ve gotta love the people saying the criminal gets to walk free, yeah, he’s not going to be *walking* anytime soon I’m sure. And the victim’s a millionaire, I doubt he’ll serve anywhere near that amount of time.

  • Not in the Philippines. Here you can see the victim or the victim’s relative(or parents) when they gets mad they punch or kick the suspect even in the Police precinct shot entirely by TV camera. Real Action, man I really love it… 😀

  • Law is overrated.

    We humans are faulty. It’s only natural everything we make has faults too.

    It’s wrong to play-judge, but that 30-years is overdoing it IMO, I sense bigotry.

    Btw, couldn’t the millionaire just use their money to bribe them dumbjudges?

  • Look, normally I’d be outraged here, but this story has been misrepresented.

    AFTER the burglary they caught the robber and beat him nearly to death. The robber is brain damaged so he can’t attend court which is why he hasnt recieved a sentance.

  • CCTV is awesome

    British cop: Hey look a mugging…and the perp has a pistol

    British cop 2: let’s go and help that man

    British cop 1: No way…he has a gun and we have flashlights….let’s just watch him shoot that wanker.

    • British cop 2: shoot, the wanker kill him.

      British cop 1: ah well, let’s arrest him, he won’t shot us. We’ll get promoted this month.

      British cop 2: ” You’re under arrest for killing burglar, you shot him, before he shot you. That’s a crime “

  • another stupidity
    that judges just do announce to all criminals (or criminal wannabe)

    ” Bribe all house if you want it, don’t worry. You won’t get hurt, probably jailed (if you get caught) but don’t worry about damage. You WON’T DIE, and if you DO. We’ll take care of it PERIOD ” …

  • That is the most backasswards sense of justice I have ever seen.
    The fucker was a career criminal and broke into the man’s home tied up and threatened to kill his family.
    If all he was doing was stealing he may have some rights but he threatened to kill them.
    You relinquish your right to live when you commit crimes like that.
    Sure the US may have it’s problems but unlike the UK I can still put a bullet in the heads of scum like this if they give me a reason like that.
    Or use a Katana on them but really I wouldn’t want to get the burglar’s blood all over me as I might catch something.

  • to stop a peeping tom, just gauge their eyeballs.
    to stop a cannibal, just destroy their teeth.
    to stop a thief, just cut off their arm.
    to stop a rapist, just cut off/mutilate their genitals.

    justice is sweet. and thank Sankaku for more articles of genital mutilation.

  • Smiling Jack says:

    The UK stopped protecting their citizens the second they banned guns. What happened? Stabbings mysteriously started to escalate. I’m glad I live in Florida where we get the Castle Doctrine.

    The Florida “Castle Doctrine” law basically does three things:

    One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

    Two: It removes the “duty to retreat” if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

    Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

    Edit: I can’t wait for this subject to come up on “Have I Got News For You” they’re probably gonna rip into it.

    • Same here in my state you can have concealed carry and it has a stand your ground law.

      The UK looks like a criminal’s paradise.
      The citizens not only don’t have guns and can’t even defend themselves without worry of being charged with a crime.
      The cops rarely carry guns and now are lazy choosing to watch via a CCTV system vs actually walking or driving the beat.
      It seems if you want to be a criminal the UK is the place to do it.
      At least in Japan if a school girl kicks a mugger’s ass she’s a hero.
      In the UK they’d throw her in jail.

  • So they’re basically saying I can walk up to a random house, break in and blurgarized them. And if they resist I killed them. But should they resisted and they overpower me I can just put my hands up, say ‘uncle’ and then run away without having to worry about them chasing me down or anything?

    That’s great. I can probably hit about half a dozen houses by tomorrow. And should any of them beat me – well – I guess I’ll run out the driveway and head for their neighbour’s.

  • Think about this.

    Have you guys ever seen a horror/slash flick? Do you remember when the meek little bookworm manage to, somehow, over power the assailent. Remember what she did? That’s right, she kicks the down guy once and then ran away.


    Of course, that’s exactly what happened.

    Now, the white night hero killed him and save her in the end. But not after another 20 minutes of agonising chase and possibly death of another character before he was stopped.

    Well – now you know why she didn’t beat him up; the ‘justice’ system will fuck her over afterwards that’s why.

  • this is one seriously fucked up shit
    in cases like this u have to appreciate law if u live in state like jp where u can cut fuckers head off with katana, or us, where u can annihilate him with anti-tank rifle, lol 🙂

  • This is utter BULLSHIT! How are u gonna ensure if the burglar is restrained properly!? I’m not a cop so I dont have anything better than a handcuff. I can’t even do a proper KNOT! Is it better to immobilize him and knock him out in case he counter attack us.

    • Must be hard for those that still use velcro to keep their shoes on…
      How about some tie wraps? even the police use them theirselves.
      (aka as: zip tie, zap strap, zip strip, wire tie, mouse belt, cable tie, quick draw, or rat belt .. so many names for the same thing :\)

  • I sincerely hope that the judge has his house broken into, and is then disbarred and thrown in jail for trying to stop someone from killing him or taking his possessions in his own home on his private property.

    Seriously, this kind of bullshit has to be stopped. Sure, I care about other people just as much as the next guy, but I should have the right to prevent and deter a burglar from taking my hard earned possessions because he can’t be arsed make his own money.

  • Christ, you guys would probably shit your pants if put into the same situation. Be real, anybody would seek revenge when given a chance. Giving the two “victims” 30+ months in prison is excessive.

  • So the criminals had their family at knife point, and that’s not considered enough provocation to beat him up?

    Really, these sentences should have been switched around. I agree there is a line that should be drawn, even in a situation like this but, this criminal would never have gotten hurt if he were following the law.

    It’s the risk he chose to take when he decided to, with his gang, break into someone else’s home.

  • Well this certainly makes sense. Guess people in the UK no longer have the right to even defend their own homes and families. The three burglars forfeited their own lives when they threatened that man’s family. This is a fine example of a law not working and I sincerely hope they pull their heads out of their ass and fix this mess. Oh well, go UK!

  • For all those internet tough guys who were bragging about being allowed to kill trespassers, I encourage you all to do so. Don’t read your state statutes before you do, though, or else you’ll spoil your surprise present from the courts…

  • To be completely honest, the criminal was running, tripped over and the defendants nearly murdered him. It wasn’t self-defence for them, so they should have received SOME punishment, although I do think their sentance was unfairly harsh and it was ridiculous that the criminal was let off.

    I do, however, detect a strong undercurrent of racism behind the treatment of the defendants here; clearly I’m not the only one.

  • Once the victim has done what is necessary to prevent any harm to him, any more is considered criminal.
    If someone breaks into your house with a weapon even a screwdriver will do, if the owner shoots you; it’s legal. On the other hand if you break into someone’s house and have been apprehended by the owner and he continues to beat you then it’s the owner’s fault.

  • God Bless America: Someone breaks into my home, I hope they like the new air holes I open up in their goddamn ass. At least America has the right idea on how to treat people who threaten us in our own homes. The UK essentially said to get your ass raped, robbed, and killed–but at least you didn’t hurt anybody.

    Fuck that shit, and fuck the UK courts for letting that son of a bitch go free. In America, even if he lived, he would get his ass shanked in prison.

  • Let’s put this all in perspective. Two burglars are walking out of the door of your house with your two brand new $7000 supergaming computers and boxes full of all of your games, manga and anime just as you arrive. You look in the window and your 2D loli girlfriend is laying on the floor with her sailor suit half ripped off and a burglar is doing her up her 2D asshole. Her 2D MILF 25 year old mom is tied up with rope on the floor next to her exposing her shimapan because her OL skirt has been ripped off. The shimapan are oddly damp on the outside with white goo. Your 2D meido is laying on the floor with her black and white meido uniform duct taped over her head and she is exposing her white garter belt and cum is dripping from her 2D vagina.
    You notice a heavy snow shovel next to the door. Now are you going to be man enough to pick up that shovel and bash the burglars skulls in or are you going to tell them you are the paperboy and wait for the police to get there?

  • they gave the guy brain damage and almost killed him. i feel the judge went too far with 30+ months of prison. but you have to understand they could have just attacked the guys limbs and immobilized him, im fairly certain if you break a robbers arm its ok. the reason i think this si because most all self-defense classes teach this.

  • So just where were the British police when this happened? Where were the f….n police who are supposed to be protecting the poor bastards who were broken into? British politicians are like the same f….d up politicians who try to make these types of laws anywhere. They assume there is time to call the police and that the police will get there in less than five minutes and there will be no violence in the home invasion until they get there. Reality: 1. the police never get there in time. Twenty minutes average. 2. Even if they do get there in time it is with lights and sirens blazing so the bad guys have time to put on their hats and coats and are three miles away by the time the police arrive. 3. The real job of a police officer is to fill out reams of paperwork to make sure that the bad guys get off and the good guys go to prison and the good guy can get reimbursed from his insurance company. 4. Home invaders have not gone to charm school. 5. Home invaders are armed with knives or guns. Amerika was going down this same road in the 1970s and 1980s until a small town in the south said screw this, we are making a law that says every citizen of this town must own a gun. Crime disappeared overnight. So where were the British police? Same place as the Chicago police are…they are at an all night donut shop. Get a gun and take care of business yourself. It saves time and money and make sure you kill the bastard so he doesn’t end up getting disability checks from your tax dollars.

  • The victim should sue the city for failure to protect and serve, which caused the family to have to deal with burglars themselves. Such excessive revengeful ruling should only be accountable if the polices were at the scene and the family refused to stop the beating, or they started beating the failed burglar to death.

    Since the polices had not showed up, then the family should still be considered in danger. Now if the police had failed to protect the family, then the family should have the right to engage “castle law.”

  • you know why the crime rate is so low in Isreal?! Because every sons of bitches has a gun in his/her pocket.

    Do you also know why the crime rate is rising in UK and big cities like Newyorkcity? It’s because people rely on the “police,” and citizens are defenseless.

    Excessive punishment or vengeance? STFU, what were they suppose to do? Search the UK website for instructions on how to defend yourself?

    “Castle Law” is the only reason burglars will think twice about breaking into someone’s home.

    If you need food, clothing, or money, that’s your freaking problem. A millionaire is not responsible for your problems. Let nature selection take its course.

  • Dirty_Dingus008 says:

    Well.. this confirms my suspicions.

    Britain is completely And utterly bats to the walls FUCKED Up beyond all compare. The populace lives under a police state government run under the hands of a “jimmy carter” regime of malaise and ignorance.

    Aside the fact that the two innocent men where ragheads, I still would say that what they did was not enough. If you threaten my family under the possibility of death. Your end will be close and I think those two didn’t do enough and crush that fuckers’ head flat before giving chase to the other asspumpers!

  • It’s fuckin easy to judje other’s decisions from the side – whether they were rigth or wrong. But it’s only untill you are not threatened with knife yourself.

    It’s like that scene with Bandits vs Pirates in the beginning of One Piece – if you are putting a gun at someone, you should be prepared to get shot.

  • Here in Brazil, not even a Cop can enter anyone’s house without the owner or a judge’s permission.

    I don’t think the criminal should be spared only because he is at a disvantage: it is a risk he has already taken into account. And twenty minutes (or so) after a robbery is not like the house owner has turned into a “vigilante” and is on a vengeance rampage.

    P.S.: If a Burglar enters my house, to threaten me, my wife or any friend/relative who might be here, I’ll do my best to assure that the only thing he gets here is a bullet in the brain, a knife in the chest or a fracture in the skull.

  • The problem here was twofold: they used clearly excessive force, and they did so AFTER the burglar had LEFT the house. That will get you convicted in most any Common Law jurisdiction (Civil Law as well – you might get away with it in Sharia Law areas, though), even in the parts of the U.S. that still hold to the Castle Doctrine. You can use reasonable force (which may even include deadly force, depending on the circumstances and the jurisdiction) to resist an intruder in your home, but pursuing the intruder when he leaves is NOT “resisting” anymore, you are making an attempt to apprehend, and you then must abide by the acceptable means of apprehension. Even the police don’t have the right to beat a fleeing suspect to a pulp.

    Provocation is only a partial defense: a mitigating factor at sentencing, not a justification.

    That said, the fact that the burglar was not treated with more severity by the court is a miscarriage of justice. Once upon a time, burglary was a capital offense. We’ve sunk pretty low if we’re now giving burglars non-custodial sentences.

      • It doesn’t work that way. “House” means the actual structure of the house. Not the front yard, not the back yard, not even the porch. Even where the Castle Doctrine prevails, it doesn’t apply outdoors.

        The law (even in England) allows reasonable force in defense of self or defense of a third party (though what is considered “reasonable” varies by jurisdiction), but not in defense of property. Unless there is immediate danger to life or limb, the use of force is not justified, because repairing or replacing property can be accomplished through the courts.

        Furthermore, the defendants didn’t even CLAIM justification. They claimed that they were acting “in the agony of the moment” – in other words, they were asserting the merely MITIGATING circumstance of passion. A mitigating circumstance reduces the gravity of the offense, but it does not excuse it entirely.

        Don’t get me wrong, I think current English law doesn’t allow enough leeway to self-defense (especially in the home), but this simply isn’t an example of its deficiency in that regard. This is an example of someone going beyond what is acceptable in civilized society to physically punish someone who had wronged him, rather than allowing the justice system to work.

        The judge is completely right that society will break down if we let people exact violent revenge instead of pursuing the proper, legal remedies.

    • I agree.

      It is one thing for him to defend himself, but as soon as the burglar ran he should have restrained him, not beat him half to death. You’re allowed to use force in DEFENSE, and it had stopped being about defense once the burglar tried to escape.

      However, on the other side I think it’s ridiculous that the burglar got off without prison. Seriously, WTF? Just because he got beaten doesn’t let him off the hook.

      • What if he was fighting them? Are their actions defense? I’d say so. The fact that he was outnumbered is not important–this guy was a violent career criminal and probably could have taken any single one of them. This isn’t the boxing ring and Marquis of Queensberry rules.

        I can kind of vaguely see not bothering jailing the perp. He’s been well-punished and will find it hard to be any further trouble to society. Might as well roll him on home to wet his nappies.

  • The irony huh? I just had a test on tort law today.
    You’re obligated to provide for the safety of the people entering your property, licensees and trespassers alike. It’s the proper standard of care you need to provide since it’s your property and you have to ensure the safety of the people in it as the occupier. Hell, the burglar can even sue for damages.
    Civilized indeed.

    • Henry VI, part 2:

      The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

      JACK CADE.
      Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o’er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, ’tis the bee’s wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.- How now! who’s there?

      • I’ve never heard that phrase before, but I like it!

        I’d never bury someone like that.

        I’d put him into a 55-gallon drum, put the top on, unscrew the plug out of the pump-hole, and quietly roll that sucker into the local illegal toxic-waste dump or unused slough.



        Symptom (not root problem) remedied.

  • Policies like this encourage burglary and robbery since criminals know that they won’t be resisted against during a home invasion.
    You’d be more hesitant to rob someone if they could kill you.
    One more reason why never to move to the UK.

  • And about inflicting brain damage.

    A hard punch to the temple might be enough to cause brain damage if you hit it hard enough and at the perfect angle.

    A trip down the stairs could cause brain damage.

    Just because the man’s 56 and on the ground doesn’t mean the victims should have to give the ass first aid, make him tea, or write an essay on the injustice of him being in his socio economic predicament. Their responsibility is to protect themselves and their families.

  • Some people freak out under the stress of a fight or a beating.

    I heard a 9/11 call where a man threw an outdoors patio table throuh a woman’s window and came in with a pistol.

    The woman was on the line for a minute or 2 freaking out and telling the operator to come before he comes around the corner and she has to shoot him.

    She went off the line and a minute later she was sobbing about how she killed him sounding like she was bawling her eyes out.

    Weekend warriors and people who’s only experience in a mortal combat is Mortal Kombat never experienced the adrenaline of a life or death situation where anything can happen. The panic and adrenaline could probably have had the people’s heads clouded with a million thoughts of what the burglars MIGHT do before the cops get there leading to what to us might be an over the top reaction but to the panicked people was probably to protect their family.

  • not going to log in =.=!/


    tbh at the start they were 3 bulgars if the one with the cracked skull was the unluckiest or well the slowest one and got his arse beaten up its because the other 2 gave him as a scapegoat, if the other 2 came back to help their “comrade” they would be in “imminent” danger and such force should be accepted (you know you want to take them down as fast as possible and at the same time making them un able to stand up again you never know if the other 2 would come back with weapons)

  • Yes, welcome to Britain where defending your house against home invasion and your person from harm due to felonious assault is considered to be greater ‘crimes’ than the commission of the original acts.

    It is not like the British cops can do anything about it – not because they (the constables and beat cops.) do not want to protect civilians but because the government has become so tolerant and weak-willed that they can not do anything worthwhile because it might ‘oppress’ someone or infringe on someone’s civil rights. Most of Europe is the same, which is why any European charter of ‘human rights’ is absolutely worthless.

    Societies like that, where the government and intelligensia consider the regular citizen a greater threat than criminals, are not long for this world. Europe is on the path to becoming merely a geographic expression – something you see on a map but does not have any meaning.

    • Yes. European culture and pessimism has been that way for a good while, including tyrant government and ‘peacekeeping.’

      One of the contextual reasons there were Amendments to the Bill of Rights almost out the door protecting the ‘right to bear arms,’ right of ‘refusal to quarter troops or militia,’ ‘illegal search and seizure’ and ‘right against self-incrimination’ to boot.

      And yes, when a sense of Human creative potential and optimism regarding Humankind’s role and relation in the Universe and in society is lost, and political and cultural revolution don’t occur to change that direction… the society is doomed.

  • The victim was a 53-year-old businessman, not an army commando. Old civilians are not trained to keep their cool in a life-threatening situation like a fucking marine. His life was in danger, as was his children’s lives and his wife’s.

  • I think its my obligation now to find a way how to kill all people and kill em all..
    whoever disagrees is a selfish bastard who doesnt think for others…
    *cough* yes by killing evry1 I think I’ll save them from a lifetime of bullshit

  • In some states including mine there is a law (with different names) called the make my day law. If a person forces their way into your home and there are signs of forced entry, you have the right to blow as many holes in them as you deem necessary. Afterwards you are completely protected from lawsuit and criminal action

  • I believe the family should suffer some consequence for such a severe response, but for them to receive a harsher punishment than the original perpetrator that incited the response is unfair. The burglar deserves prison time and the harshest punishment available for being a repeat offender of the law. The family deserves a light punishment or counseling to prevent such violent responses to spread to their daily lives. It would endanger society if a “victim” was allowed to seek revenge anyway they wanted, which is why there are laws restricting the actions of the victim. This was a very complicated case and such cases are wholly dependent on the caliber of the judge to make a fair and judicious ruling.

    • No…we ought to place Muslims under our thumbs. Bear in mind, is that the Muslims are bound to seek revenge on others whatever it takes (they’d followed the writtings on their books and NOT reading between the lines). For others, we still have the limitations and sound mind to stop our actions, thus, let our Government Laws to handle criminals, not beat them to pulp.

  • It be “Revenge” if they didn’t call the cops, tracked down where the bad guys lived and went to his house and beat the crap out him then.

    The kidnapper burglars had at least one knife, they had threatened to kill the family. A knife is a lethal weapon, you can use lethal force against someone threatening you with a knife. The burglars ran, and legally they could stop them with force, now did they do all that damage in a few hits? or we’re they wailing on him for hours till the cops showed up?

    The damage done really doesn’t say much a muscular guy swinging a metal pole can crush a skull in as little as one hit.

    The age of the criminal doesn’t matter at all, its not like those people knew he was 56, and its not like a 56 year old is incapable of killing someone with a knife.

    If they we’re excessive then yeah give them a slap on the wrist, but its criminally insane, to punish people acting in the heat of the moment more then a “terrorist” who the legal system has let off time and time again.

    if the rule of law meant a damn, the rule of law shouldn’t let a 50 time repeat criminal be on the streets, i think they should sue the government, for being kidnapped by someone the legal system did not hold accountable for crimes. Essentially they condoned his actions by letting him continue to rob people.

  • Times like these I’m glad I don’t live in the UK or the USA.

    “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 the criminal justice system take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.”

    Except vigilante justice is pretty much the only fair system left since all you law abiding pencil pushers either don’t punish the worst crimes good enough or punish completely retarded crimes too harsh (see one of the previous articles). Fuck you, and fuck your law.

  • ….. wow there are allot of scary people on sankakucomplex, amateur crooks out there that are just doing it for the quick cash and aren’t killers do not AND I SAY DO NOT rob these people here! They will murder you In cold blood!! You’ve been warned!

  • in their ‘home’ country , the perps would be slowly cut into bitesize chunks by the family of the people they robbed…
    let them kill each other , less for us to deal with…
    and in england the law is a complete and total ass…
    first they got their guns then they took their freedom of speech , now the courts rule by fiat…
    f**k england , they could have solved these problems 60 years ago…

  • Some people here have played too much GTA and they thing that if you rob a house and you run enough you Crime Stars will just go down and you are not a criminal anymore!!
    A criminal is a criminal in and out the house, if i see someone breaking into my car and taking my stereo i will run behing with whatever i can hit him with and taking it back, and hitting him hard enough so he can´t defend himself and has payment for damaging my car and thinks 2 times about touching it again.
    Now, what would you do Mr”criminals have human rights”? Stay there and call the police? putting a retard face and saying goodbye to your stereo and getting bothered with police stuff so in the end the burglar keeps robbing. Ah, and next week you gonna get robbed again cause you didn´t put any resistance.

    • So…u r a Muslim. Muslim are barbarians if you read thru their ‘books’. Muslims usually take laws in their own hands…so why does 911 occur? or Jihad terrorism??? B’COZ, they wanna rule the world and blame this problems solely on Bush. Obama is Ok…we’ll see his performance.

  • I understand the idea not to let people make their own justice, but this happened clearly not out of revenge, but still in the heat of the moment, just with turned sides. I still would punish such behaviour, but not with prison or anything that severe, more like a warning. If that millionaire had sent a “group” after thouse guys to beat the shit out of em, that would be another matter of course.

  • If someone attacks you, you can defend yourself. What you can’t do is chase him down, knock the guy down, and beat him with a cricket bat until he’s dumber than Sarah Palin.

    If they had stopped with just taking him to the ground and disabling his ability to fight until the police got there, they wouldn’t have gotten arrested. However, when you try to kill a guy in revenge, with multiple people beating on him with weapons, it goes beyond self defense to attempted murder.

  • “The attack which then occurred was totally unnecessary and amounted to a very violent revenge attack on a defenceless man.”

    Which he initiated in the first place. Now, I don’t think we have all the details here, but someone who has tied me up in my own house and threatened me is defenseless just because he’s gonna run for it? And then what happens if he comes back? I don’t get this. ‘Uh-oh! I fucked up bigtime! I broke into someone’s house and tied them up and threatened to potentially kill and/or rape them if they don’t do what I…wait, is that the son? WAIT! WAIT! Five minute break! I get a head start to run for it! You can’t hurt me! Ouch! CRIMINA-OUCH! CRIMINALS! SOMEONE HELP!’

    You can argue that the caliber of the beating they gave the guy was unwarranted and certainly it isn’t something that someone should try to get away with just because the circumstances provided, but face it, the crooks were the initiators here and they showed killing intent. ‘But he was defenseless on the ground’… Well how defenseless was he exactly? And how long does it take someone who is injured on the ground to lash out with a weapon? As this was not a gun but a knife-wielding crook, I can somewhat see where the judge was coming from, but I still don’t think it sounds like the malice from the family was genuine as much as it was a delayed (and provoked) defense. Nor do I believe prison time will help ‘wisen up’ the would be vigilantes.

    But jeez, this makes me happy to live in a place where the burglar is assumed at fault enough for me to safely defend myself without the risk of ‘overdoing it.’ (“Get out of my house” should be an ultimatum I can deliver, not something I have to wait for the cops to come do…lol)

    • @Anon of 4:08

      “Well how defenseless was he exactly? And how long does it take someone who is injured on the ground to lash out with a weapon?”


      “the burglar is assumed at fault enough for me to safely defend myself without the risk of ‘overdoing it.’ (“Get out of my house” should be an ultimatum I can deliver, not something I have to wait for the cops to come do)”

      That and the above being the things some of the people in this thread vilifying violent self-defense don’t understand. Yes, it was excessive, and shouldn’t be overlooked. But the punishment in their case does not match the crime.

  • Barbarian of Gor says:

    That is, at least, one good thing about some parts of AmeriKKKa- they have what is called “Castle Laws” that immunize people from prosecution if they are defending themselves in their homes.

    However, these laws are under constant assault and I fear they’ll only last a few more years. The ones who usually try to take them away are Republicans, but they support them during election time, and then turn around and try to credit any removal to Democrats. With a supposed Democrat president (who’s centrist and appeasing, at least so far) they are in jeopardy.

      • Barbarian of Gor says:

        It’s like Veteran’s benefits.

        During especially wartime, Republican officials fight hard to remove and reduce them. During election time, they claim the support them, pass token one and then blame the Democrats. The thoughtful, sneaky criminal will often accuse others of crimes they themselves commit, which also IMO explains why AmeriKKKan Talk Radio breaks “Godwin’s Law” daily many times. They’ll lie all they want and people like you will lap it up like mutant rats drinking toilet water.

  • For all of you guys that think that the punishment was unfair.

    How would you react if the family members were off duty police officers?

    My point is that, we believe that force should be used for defense and restraint, and punishment should be given and executed by the court.

    We don’t have whippings, lashings, and any other corporal punishment, because we see them unfit in our civilized nation. If the government sees itself unfit to give such punishment, we are too.

    • usxUk DUH! I love hetalia….

      However if this was in america, the results might be the same depending on where you live. Personally the us has just as many fucked up laws as the uk does. Apparently in other country’s too, no surprise really…

  • It why in my state in AMERICA, I can kill the bastard as long as he’s in my house. If I just happen to kill him outside, just drag them back inside the house, problem sovled.

    But still, what is UK thinking? This Man is a hero. Besides, three bad guys VS one man who has the will and want to protect his family. I hope he gets out and the burglar gets in.

  • Here’s the thing: The two victims (obviously those who lived in the house) where MUSLIMS.
    And I don’t care what the judge of this case has to say, bunch of law crap he spilled to justify his crappy decision, it was obviously taken with prejudice and xenophoby in mind.

  • Your system gives a great message.

    You give your burglars a special health and employment plan.

    If on the course of their work they’re injured they can prosecute the victim for not assisting them in the crime.

    If the mayor of my city told me that I could go door to door threatening to kill people unless they gave me all of their valuables and arrest them if they had the temerity to assault me, I’d buy a ski mask and a handgun.

  • The millionaire had a criminal intention. Why?
    Just as the burglars did not hurt them physically the same should happen the other way around. But the millionaire,thinking he’d get away uncharged, took “justice” by himself,overreacting of course.

    Would you agree to be over-condemned? ‘Cos that’s what basically happened here,the burglars indeed threatened to kill the family but they only took belongings avoiding hurting the family. The family on the other end went fucking Flintstones over them. This is one-sided “justice”.

  • Having checked my personal state law in KY, I can at least safely say that had this happened here such actions would have still been legally covered by self-defense ordinance, with precedent.

    What is wrong with you, UK? >_>;

    • Yes, indeed!
      May I know where this is, so I can add it to my list of “countries where people actually do something to get rid of the evil”? I would like to go there someday.
      Also, I would like to check crime rates in this country. All things being equal and as you say, I’d expect it to have far lower serious crimes than other similar countries.

  • This unfortunately how law works.

    If they beat his ass while he was doing the hostile takeover they would be justified in self defense.

    Going afttr him after the fact is simly revenge motivated assualt.

    The burgular got his ass beat so the judge let him go figuring he suffered enough. Personally I think he can suffer more in jail.

  • fuck the uk!

    i’m glad i live in the US. This country imports the best drugs, i can kill intruders, and i can live off almost anything.

    And don’t you think about talking shit or the US Police will invade your fucken shit country, rape you whore mothers, and steal your land.

    Welcome to the real world.

  • Criminal is now mentally retarded right? yay brain damage?

    They did their damage. Punishment? ah, we should ask the judge to get threatened and/or attacked by burglars…

    I bet if we had an understanding judge… [one who’s gotten butt-fucked by crime before] then maybe we’d have a more fair judgement.

    Seriously, how the fuck does one judge a crime objectively if all they’re doing is accepting bribes and following a rule book?

  • Not the first time something like that happened.

    A couple of years ago an Asian was shot by police for being suspected as a terrorist, who turned out to only be an electrician going to work with his gear on. The police were not charged for murder whatsoever.

    With a response time for 30-40 minutes (or worse even in the city), the UK’s police system as a whole is a total failure much like most of their youth.

    • That’s a shame, and a tragedy.

      It’s also very different in a number of important ways to ‘shoot the burglars’ “Castle Domain” laws.

      I’m guessing that man shot was meandering about a neighborhood or around a house – otherwise that makes it much worse.

      He wasn’t caught in the middle of trying to break in, or vandalizing anything. Just wearing his tools. And being ‘suspicious.’

  • I understand the point the judge is trying to make, however, one could easily say the situation caused them to act a bit irrationally (if they guy was running away, there really -wasn’t- a need to beat him). But it’s got to be said, when you break into someone’s home like that, and threaten their family, you deserve WHATEVER you get (cause at the end of the day YOU made the choice to do all that).

  • Welcome to the UK, our justice system helps the bad guys!

    someone needs to sort this place out, our government is shit, our police are shit, our education system is shit, our hospital system is shit, and our welfare system is shit

    therefore UK == SHIT

    (i’m from the UK btw)

    • Brit here too and couldn’t agree more. Our government is a bunch of fucking hypocrites and fear imposing cunts. Seriously in 2 years our government has:

      -Introduced a Dangerous Pictures Act and just recently a Dangerous Drawings Act (some of you know it as Loli Ban).

      -Criminalized photographers of:-
      -Taking photo’s of their own childrens in school
      -Being a suspected Terrorist for taking pictures of Train Stations and Buildings
      -Taking pictures of police at work and at protests

      -Introduced a Vetting System that criminalizes parents and any child carer. Which inadvertedly prevents school kids going on school trips and all sorts.

      -Our Hospitals are becoming more slower, less effective at what they do and become more unhygienic.

      -Expense Scandals…How many bloody more can our government dish out?!

      -75% of young black men are already on a DNA database. However I believe that is only London. Black males are stopped and have their info taken even though they’ve done no crime.

      -Police get fuck ton of bonuses even for minor crimes they deal with or just being at the scene of the crime. Any surprise why they target easy and nonsequencial targets?

      -Illegalized Prostitution to “protect” women from being exploited. Ironically enough the very same women they so rescued couple years back were the owners of Brothels and volunatry prostitution.

      -Lap Dancing clubs are slowly being targetd over the country because of moralfags and the so called “feminists” for equality.

      -Soon to be Digital Economy Bill by January. People who uploads materials may come under scrutiny and have their internet account suspended or banned without notification. Which may also lead up to jail time. Beware torrents.

      -Allowed police to abuse their powers time and time again. G20 was a huge fuck up and pretty much indicates how most police are now.

      -Released thousands of major criminals i.e. rapists, child molestors and murderers just to make room for people who…look at dangerous pictures and drawings, stealing, or just being a complete prat.

      -The government actually still relies on Religious Organizations *coughs*Christians*cough* to impose certain laws and how they are imposed including the level of punishment…

      For the sake of being British too, our weather is complete shit. I’m pretty sure some of the above is already enforced in other countries sadly but bloody hell all of the above pretty much came into action in 2 years. Something tells me it’s about to just get worse for 2010…for the UK and possibly others.

    • Could your educational system possibly be worse than ours (the U.S)? A few of my friends graduated highschool just to find that every class they had was so far below college level, it took them a couple semesters to catch up ( I was in a special college bound program, and thus, was up to snuff…barely…).

  • It’s shocking to see how many people here think that criminals don’t have the same basic human rights like everyone else. Yeah, even if you are a criminal it’s not justified to beat you half dead when you are trying to flee. If you do that you are a criminal yourself!

    • Of course they don’t.

      When you commit a crime that violates the rights of another person, your rights should be suspended until your sentance.

      If you attack someone they should do everything they can until they feel safe including beating the criminal into a coma.

      • I agree with this, when you commit a crime your human rights should be suspended, depending on severity/situation ofcourse, but if you threaten to kill or harm… you are no longer human. We are meant to be better than that (haha like that could ever happen). Human rights are a great thing, but some people just deserve to get skull-fucked.

        • To a large extent, yes.

          And it’s extremely magnanimous to extend the same rights of human protection to the culprits as the victims, even in the middle of the crime.

          It’s the highest of ideals, but it can be misinterpreted and twisted beyond its range such that it can endanger the well being of the victims. Outlawing self-defense or close enough to it is going to far, but so is allowing mob style vigilantism.

          That’s where the frequently incredibly grey area of “excessive force” comes into play. The Father and Brother were definitely in the wrong according to the story, as they not only pursued, subdued the burglar as he was fleeing beyond the interior of their house, but maimed him after the fact as well.

          I don’t support the two men going unpunished, but solidly disagree at both the severity of the sentence, and (aside from the possible crippling at the hands of the family) relative lack of punishment the burglar received.

        • “He was FLEEING!”

          And how did you know that? How would the victims know that? Their home/sanctuary/haven had already been despoiled. Did you think they had enough time to sit down and have a cup of tea to calm down and think rationally and post to 4chan for advise?

          Remember, they were outnumbered 3 to 2, and had family pinned down. Until the police arrived, they had to even the odds. Their lives were at stake, not yours.

  • Serves ’em right for having all that money, those damn richers.

    We’ll teach people to achieve and make something of themselves yet, boys! Don’t worry, soon EVERYONE will be cradle to grave on the system!

  • In Spain we have this kind of stupid laws too.

    Recently, a middle age man killed a rumanian and hurt another one with a gun when they tried to robber his restaurant, this mas had been robbed for the 4th time and just took justice in his hand, now he is gonna be charged for killing, and the robber who is alive will go out with only a fault cause he robbed less than 500€, justice is rotten.

    Ok, so you find someone robbing at your house or your car, you know this guy will have no problem on killing you to escape, and if he escapes he may come back on revenge or to get rid of witnesess, so your choices are letting he do what he wants with you and your family and letting he rob you, who knows he may kill you and rape your wife and kids or take them as hostages and killing them later, and of course he will succesfully escape and never be found by police, or you can stop him by force, and yes, you can take revenge. you choice. I miself i would choice revenge and face the consecuences.

    I don´t like lot´s of USA policies, but everybody should have the right to kill someone who goes into your house like they can.

  • Well, they gave the 56 year old man brain damage, even if the man breaks into your house, a good flogging is manditory, BUT brain damage? Foolishness, Justice is for both sides, a criminal is still a human being, just because he did something stupid, does not mean you can kill him. Both victim and culprit were dumb.

  • I don’t sympathize with the burglars but you do have to be careful about that kinda shit when it happens. I’ve heard of this kinda of thing happening else where too. Especially this case the burglars were already out of the house usually they have to be inside your home for fair game.

  • Seems about right…
    The burglary “victims” did fracture a defenceless mans’s skull and gave him brain damage…

    Judging from the information given, the career-criminals just meant to rob the place without harming anyone. Hey, it’s bad but it’s not murder!

    I just don’t see the point of getting such extreme vengence on the robbers after they fail to rob you and run off. Let the police do their jobs. Keep crazy muslim law away from the UK.

    • Even in Europe you are allowed to kill someone if it’s necessary to protect your life. You are just not allowed to do it when the danger is gone.
      The law isn’t stupid. The law in the US is the stupid one.

      • The law here isn’t stupid either. You don’t get to kill anyone threatening you without discrimination, though you seem to believe that to be the case judging by your comments and attitudes elsewhere in the thread.

        In the case of “Castle Domain,” if you’re present and witnessing someone break into your house, you’re in danger, period. You don’t need to ask the burglar if he’d like some tea and what’s in your wallet as he’s breaking in. The time you take hesitating could be enough for the burglar to pull a knife and shank you, or a gun and shoot you.

        Ownership of firearms and other weapons, when obtained through licensed dealers, after obtaining a permit, often after attending and *passing* mandatory firearm safety and marksman classes, after you’ve passed a criminal screening for record of violent crimes or felonies, after a 24 hour to 1 week waiting period depending on your state…

        …is legal, and protected by the constitution.

        As I understand it, weapon and firearm restrictions are much greater in many European countries, to the point where it’s neigh unto impossible to obtain under ordinary lawful means in comparison to the US.

        With that, not just the wanker homeowner that shoots a guy breaking into his home intending god knows what, but the burglar could be packing heat – and is just as likely and often more so to be, than the homeowner.

        The way all the “Castle Domain” laws that I’ve so far read in different states in the US work, is you *can* shoot and kill someone when they break and enter your home, if you judge them to be that great a threat. But if you do, you *must* shoot and kill them. If you don’t, you’ll often have the same legal situation and worse as
        the Father and Brother in the article on your back.

        And just because there exists the possibility and specifically protected legal context of someone shooting and killing an intruder, doesn’t mean it happens frequently, or in most cases where it happens and is permitted.

      • So theoretically I could run into a home, threaten to kill everyone in it unless they gave me all of their valuable and the moment that I think my life is threatened I politely apologize, holster my pistol tip my hat like a gentleman and walk out and my victim can’t do anything to me?


        Did Monty Python’ Flying Circus take over your justice system?

        • Anon@6:04: Actually the law usually do take things like that into consideration.

          When it comes to crimes involving killing another human you have a whole list if different crimes and severities that very much depends on state of mind.

          Killing someone in cold blood after long consideration and planning gives a very different sentence from killing someone in anger after being provoked or killing someone by accident in a barfight.

        • @Anon 01:23:

          While what you say is right in theory, it doesn’t cover all the issues.

          As someone who has looked down the barrel of a robber’s gun (he took my money and made me drive around a bit — he was some crazy drug addict), I can tell you that the victim is, with 99% probability, not a rational human being.

          She/he is shaking with adrenalin overload, and some lower-brain functions are running his/her body.

          When you are in the adrenalized fight-or-flight mode, you are simply not rational.

          It’s like dog-and-cat. the cat runs, the dog chases.

          The law takes no consideration of this, but it should.

          In the U.S., police train so that they can function (less-badly than Joe Ordinary) in this state.

          As to myself, the robber took my keys and made me accompany him partway to a convenience store. He went in, but motioned me to stay outside. Once he went in, I ran back to my car, and with my *backup* set of car keys, got in and took off.

          He came running out then and chased me down the street; I was ducked down as low in the seat as I could, and weaving back-and-forth, hoping to not take a bullet in the back.

          It took me half-an-hour to an hour to find my way to the police station (though it was only a fifteen minute drive away) — I just could not seem to find it — and I was shaking so badly the desk officer was having a hard time understanding what I was saying to him.

          In the end, the police dusted my car for fingerprints, took my fingerprints, gave me their business card, and I haven’t heard from them since (fifteen years ago).

        • If you threaten people over gunpoint but then give up for whatever reason, hand over your gun and raises your hands into the air, and politely apologize, yes, at that point if someone kills you they become a murderer.

          Why? Because at that point there’s no need to kill you, you are no threat to anyone, and if someone still do kill you they only do it for their own sense of satisfaction.
          What you can’t do is walk away, because the victims have the right to hold you until police arrives since you still committed a grave crime by threatening them.

          This is basic in any civilised society, a civilian only has the right to harm another person in self defence. Under no circumstances are civilians allowed to themselves carry out punishments for crimes committed, the right to punish criminals lies solely in the hands of the legal system.

          The reason we, the civilians, give that right to the legal system is because it’s the only way to uphold any sense of real justice.
          The right to a fair trial is a crucial cornerstone in any sort of modern democratic society, and that’s why the legal system can’t allow Mr.Hussain to bash Mr.Salems skull in, no matter how much Mr.Salem might deserve it.

  • WTF?!

    He was a knife-wielding burglar, a BURGLAR!!! And they set him free?

    What’s wrong with this people? It’s like they are burglars themselves.

    F*ck the system, f*ck the politics, f*ck that thing called “justice”.

  • “UK law allows victims of violent crime to ‘use no more force than absolutely necessary’ to protect themselves, which in practice can often lead to those who resist and injure criminals facing more serious charges than their assailants…”

    I’m sorry to tell you what i’m going to write, but in all the civilized world laws work that way.. well, except china and USA, if you would like to call them civilized countries..

    • Hey, I too have uneducated opinions that I would like to state as facts. Let me try.

      I’m sorry to tell you what i’m going to write, but in all the civilized world laws don’t work that way.. well, except in the UK, if you would like to call it a civilized countries..

    • for the same crime (excess of self defence) you can take some years of jail, here in Italy.. it’s fortunate the man to be from UK. people never know how much they are fortunate until they try other’s panties.

      • Yes. In addition, in Italy and much of Central Europe many police investigations start with being physical.

        What is called “Police Brutality” in some other parts of the world as the US and UK are normal in Spain, Italy, and parts of Canada (I’m looking right at you, Calgary).

  • i fucking love reading shit like this. brightens up my day.

    its not my country or US or china or uk or wherever.

    the whole fucking world is retarded.

    i understand, the guy is prolly a vegetable or shit. nevermind he’s a burglar, a career criminal even.

    ya live by the sword, ya die by it. i don’t mean samurai X and shit. ya live stealing from ppl, if someone beats ya half to death, ya fucking had it coming. its not a simple misunderstanding here. he was part of a group that threatened the guy’s family.

  • Britain’s the most nanny-state, big-government, strip-power-from-the-citizens country in the world.

    Canada is number two, and America is number three.

    These countrys’ citizens fucked themselves when they let the their governments regulate/outlaw firearms and control the schools. (Schools serve as indoctrination camps for kiddies, but without the hard labor. “Repeat after me, class: the government is here to help and protect you…”)

    Best after-the-fact advice I can think of for the victims is they should have thrown the guy over the wall after working him over.

    Victim: “Gee, officer, we were duking it out, but he turned and ran. I don’t know where he is.”

    Officer: “We found him on the other side of your wall, with a nasty skull crack and brain damage.”

    Victim: “Perhaps he fell from the wall.”

    … a few months later, the victim family is sued by the burgler and/or burgler’s family having an “attractive nuisance” (the wall), and the court awards the burgler high damages.

    I guess the only thing you can do is kill the fuckers and DO NOT call the police.

  • If this had happened because they beat him while he was threatening them, in their home, or even armed I could understand the outrage. But that’s not what happened. They beat him to the point of brain damage when he was unarmed and tripped outside while running away. The Judge was completely right, and I honestly can’t see how people could disagree with the ruling after reading his quotes in the article.

  • “…rather than letting the criminal justice system take its course.”

    Like.. Let the police do their job? Which in other words mean; Just wait for the police officers to finish their donuts, taking your emergency call like a lousy IT technician, and come to your house to arrest the culprits (a couple of hours later), while you enjoy the scenery of your stuffs got carried out of the home and your wife and daughters tied up, or worse raped by the burglars.

  • Fark the judge! Never trusted those filthy injustice bastard! Yah the dude beat the shit out of the dirt bag which threaten the safety of his family so does he deserve to be jailed so long… he might as well get some warning and do some social service. Since it aint his fault that all this happen, and what shitty law school that judge came out frm which teach them to let go of the criminal.

  • Hello. Who wouldn’t want to cause some pain to the person who did that to them in the first place. That man and his brother wanted a little payback after being robbed and threatened in their own home. Not everyone else justs let it go like that. Everyone knows this, so the millionaire gets jailed even if he had a gun and shot the bugular to death. That’s just my opinion. The laws are different in every country, but its a little prepostrous that you go to jail for doing more damage than necessary to the criminal.

    • thats why i hate americans
      they can frame me for trying to do something to them, like steal their wallet
      and beat me to death
      and get away with it

      thank god the UK has this law, i rather get jailed and caned by the government where they give well deserved and fitting punishment

      than to let some redneck vent their anger on me

      i bet u bastards will agree to rape someone’s girl if the guy tried to steal ur wallet in the streets

    • Hello. Who wouldn’t want to have some money to eat. The burglars just wanted a little money to help their families not starve. Not everyone else just let it go like that. Everyone knows this, so the burglar gets beaten to death even if he hadn’t hurt anyone. That’s just my opinion. The laws are different in every country, but its a little preposterous that you don’t go to jail for hurting someone badly just for vengeance.

        • Sylar, these scum were running away. As in escaping. As in very likely to get away with it. The whacked guy had 50 convictions and was still out on the street. If the law won’t protect people, they have a right to protect themselves.

        • So they should be let go because they’re poor and want to put food on the table?

          In prison they would always have food on their plate and never be allowed to starve. They should have petitioned for longer sentences.

        • Where they were hungry or not is irrelevant. You have no right to take revenge or cause so much damage to him when HE IS NO LONGER A THREAT.
          As the judge said people shouldn’t take the law in there hands. They are only allowed to defend them-selfs not take revenge or decide on a punishment.
          This is not America and the wild west.

  • These are the news we do not see on the TV or Newspaper of our everyday life because people are always trying to cover up the dark side of the world, making us believe that we are always with the justice.

    • Nothing stupid about it. The fact that you people think the judge wasn’t right is what show that this world has a sad future.
      Don’t get affected by the way something is written. See only the facts that are written.

      • Fact: An innocent family was held captive, threatened, and nearly robbed

        Fact: The courts took no action against this individual

        The moment that this scum walked out of the courthouse this family and their neighbors should have all beat him to death as a warning to future criminals. This includes those government officials charged with and receiving payment to maintain their safety but failing to ensure it by not punishing criminals.

  • Breaking a guy’s skull after he held your wife, daughter and sons hostage is more than justified; but I guess if you want to live in the UK you gotta follow their rules.

    The family’s Muslim, maybe its not too late for them to counter the burglars in court with some kind of hate crime.

  • “The gang broke and ran, but one (…) was beaten severely by the man and his brother. He was subsequently hospitalised with a fractured skull and brain damage.”

    Ugh, yeah. They are totally the victim there. They should probably also sue him for any injuries they got while beating him to near death.

    This isn’t self defence any more. And yeah, thirty month on probation for the burglar seems to be light, but he probably has to live with the brain damage for the rest of his life. And depending on the severeness of the brain damage, he might not be able to care for himself anymore.
    I don’t think anyone would want to trade a prison sentence for that.

  • lol in a few years, it will be mandatory to leave the front door open for everyone, and just stick a sign saying “Take Everything You Need”. and if you don’t the burglar can just call the cops to arrest you lol.

    • Or worse, cases like these used as an argument in favor of Communism or a Fascist police state.

      The robber would never had needed to commit the crime, nor the family beat him silly, if he had been given what he needed from the state.

      Or alternatively, the bastard would never have been able to rob the family to begin with, since the roving National Guard would’ve shot him with a tank-mounted gun the instant he began acting suspicious.

      :rolls eyes:

    • lol in a few years, it will be mandatory to leave the front door open for everyone, and just stick a sign saying “Take Everything You Need”. and after the theft, when the burglar runs away you just shot him in the back from a secure and high location in your home!

  • kind of agreed they shouldn’t have to go to jail, but giving the guy brain damage is a bit much considering they’re filthy rich, they didn’t harm anybody, and the times just suck right now

  • Well though it was a bit over the top. In the UK there are way to many human rights… the guy got what he deserved, I’m sure any of us would of done the same whether or not it was against the law…

  • “The father and his brother were subsequently arrested and charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm on the burglar.”

    Sounds like the law hates good and the innocent. The law just hates you for no reason. It’s a real-life 1984, self-defense is banned and you’re not allowed to fight back, and the only thing missing is Ingsoc. It can’t get much worse than that.

    I’d get out of Not-So-Great-Britain if I were you while there’s still time.

  • Reminds me about this court case where a burglar sued his victims because he got locked in their garage (the electric door was malfunctioning) while they where away on vacation and he had nothing to eat or drink until they returned. The burglar won. Some court cases are just too stupid to believe.

    • They weren’t protecting their home, they were beating up a guy lying on the ground.

      Two completely different things. As they were two against one and the guy was on the ground, some force would be acceptable to subdue him. Yet excessive retaliatory violence isn’t. At least not in many European countries.

      I guess it’s a difference in how one views ‘self defense’. The difference between protecting oneself and that of giving the victim an opportunity to take revenge.

        • @anon 23:32

          That’s another part of the problem. Probably since the Industrial Revolution, Urbanization and upscaling of law enforcement, somewhere along the line the value that killing of any sort, under any condition is unjustifiable and immoral. At least, that’s what the common publicized attitude seems to be.

          And that foundation is one part of how you can arrive at a set of laws that can strip someone of their right to defend themselves. Granted, the case in the article was beyond self defense.

          But the Father and Brother would likely have had charges pressed and been sued had they injured the robber while he was in their home, in the middle of charging them.

        • Oh! and you never know when some other criminal might come back. Why don’t we all get a gun and go outside shooting anyone who looks suspicious.
          And they could just tie the guy up. No reason to let him escape and no reason to almost kill him.

        • Yeah good for you Schrobby but you will still be nothing more than a common murderer.
          Anonymous 21:07 is absolutely right but you American boys don’t like it when you are not allowed to show your murderer animal instincts under the excuse of “he was a bad guy, i can to anything i want”.

        • @Sylar

          “If someone breakes in to your house with a knife you are still allowed to attack him, you just ain’t allowed to hit him until you kill the poor bastard when you already have the situation under control.”

          Exactly. But the problem is, “under control” is a very murky, at best grey area in many circumstances.

          There are some problems with “Castle Domain,” but it’s probably one of the better policies for handling this exact kind of scenario.

          If you actually *catch* someone breaking into your house and have a gun, you’re welcome to make yourself, and your gun bleeding known to the guy (I don’t mean open fire, I mean make sure he knows you’re there and have a gun pointed at his chest).

          Keep it leveled at him, call the cops and maybe open fire at him at the first sudden movement he makes.

          But even that is potentially risking your life. He could have a gun too, and be quicker than you to boot. He could throw something on a nearby table at you, draw his gun, and shoot you before you knew what hit you. If you don’t open fire at him as soon as he knows you’re there, he could shoot you, stab you, before you can react.

          A gun is fast, but unless you’re *well* trained your reactions likely aren’t quite enough to deal with someone close up who’s desperate and hopped up on adrenaline. The intruder could always be armed and intend to murder anyone unfortunate enough to catch him in the act. And if he gets away, he could always come back packing heat, and with a few friends.

          In many parts of the country – much of the south, almost all of the mountain region – the police can’t respond to an emergency call for upwards of 45-60+ minutes, and more at night, and the closest neighbor is 20+ minutes away… easily enough time for a dude you let go to come back with his gun, shoot you on sight and get away before the police show up.

          It’s courteous to give the dood the benefit of the doubt, but courtesy has no place in a life and death situation. When someone breaks into your home, it’s instantly a potential life and death situation – and the seconds spent trying to figure whether it is or it isn’t can easily cost you your life.

          As I stated in a few other posts in this thread I’ve made, this is where the distinction can become hard to make. I don’t support immediately shooting trespassers or someone breaking into my home, but I understand the reasoning behind the law and that its intent is to prevent undue risk of harm to the victim in protecting the invaders rights.


          I moved from the state of Missouri to California last August, and you’re correct – you’re allowed to shoot and kill someone who breaks and enters into your *home* (if they’re in the yard, it doesn’t apply).

          It’s a relatively new law, passed all of 4, maybe 5 years ago. As I recall when reading the specifics on the law when it passed… part of the same laws states that if you do shoot them you *must* kill them. If you don’t, they have the right to sue and press charges.

        • Sylar, how were they to know the situation was “under control”…? Their magic beans tell them? What if the guy had a knife or even a gun (yes, UK but this guy was a career criminal with 50 previous convictions).
          Play with your life, don’t play with mine.

        • Don’t play the fool with stupid questions.
          If someone breakes in to your house with a knife you are still allowed to attack him, you just ain’t allowed to hit him until you kill the poor bastard when you already have the situation under control.
          Is that really so hard to understand? Is it really that hard?

        • You would prefer to ask the burglar “‘scuse me sir, do you want ONLY the TV, or would you like a go at my wife before shooting me?”

          Someone would be stupid to think that if they rob and steal that there is never a chance to be seriously injured or worse, and that they’ll only be caught by police and prisoned.

          Wonder what happens in a case where the cop ‘accidentally’ fatally misfires while chasing said type of robber.

        • Don’t you mean i finally have a chance to kill someone?
          And no someone breaking in to your house is probably after your TV, not your life.
          Not to mention you could kill someone out of misunderstanding. You still have the right of self defense if threaten or attacked just not the right of taking revenge and the law on to your hands.
          Jeez why am i even trying to explain this shit. It’s like trying to explain table manners to monkeys. Fucking rednecks

    • Nothing wrong with the authorities on this case. Or should they just live everyone playing “The Punisher” and taking the law in to his hands.
      You can defend your self but you can’t go on revenge mode.

      • If a robber has a gun, and you draw a gun to defend yourself killing the robber in the process…. Where would people stand then? “Oh they may have killed him, but was in self defense” Here a man’s life wasn’t taken, but imo got what he deserved. If someone is fleeing a crime and down the street already and the victim gets in a car to run the guy over, now that’s just crazy. But when one of them is still in your yard? around your family? You think’d he’d be lucky to get away with his life at all.

        Instead of killing the guy in self defense they kicked his ass. So the technicality is you can kill someone in self defense but can’t beat the living shit out of them after they were prepared to do the same if not worse to you?

        For fuck’s sake….

        • You do know boxers can get mild concussions…AND they wear gloves. Look at Jackass for an example, Knoxville needed stitches after being around Butterbean for just a minute (given Butterbean is exceptional) But still, two guys without gloves. Plus if they had him on the ground they could’ve kicked him. Doesn’t really need to be a weapon involved to injure somebody.

        • CC, skulls are robust? News to me. Either that or definition differences. It’s ridiculously easy to injure someone’s skull if you get a direct hit with a tool.

          And that’s why they’re getting time? The guy went down and they hit him to the head with a golfclub? Try fracturing a skull using your fists, those tiny little bones aren’t made for that purpose.
          Your skulls job is to protect your brains that’s why it’s rather solid… like your hands are made to handle things instead of smashing things in.

          A golfclub is made to hit things rather hard, effect of leverage adding additional force and all that.. something giving in due to that force is not something I’d consider fragile.

        • I’m sorry that I have to kill you in self defense.

          Burglar: you only got me in the arm

          Sorry but I don’t want to risk a lawsuit.

          Burglar: Cmon man I won’t sue

          I’m sorry but you aren’t trustworthy…./bang.

        • “You can defend your self but you can’t go on revenge mode.”


          “They should all 3 have ended up with jail time”

          Exactly. The robber in this case *didn’t* though, which is most of what has got people in the thread upset. I don’t believe we’d have as *much* rage if the whole lot of them received equal time, or the sentence of the robber exceeded that of the Father and Brother.

          “Instead of killing the guy in self defense they kicked his ass. So the technicality is you can kill someone in self defense but can’t beat the living shit out of them after they were prepared to do the same if not worse to you?”

          This is exactly what concerns me, and I said it in a couple lengthy replies above. Inflicting death, but not mere injury is favored, especially in laws in most US regions. In many states you are allowed to shoot & kill someone invading your home, but you had better kill them – if you leave them alive, you’re liable to both be sued and face criminal charges.

          If I were in the robber’s shoes, I’d very *much* like to keep living – even if I were injured or maimed – over being killed outright.

          I don’t think current laws governing these issues are adequate or as fair to all parties as they need to be. And while I protest the laws need reworking, I readily admit it would be no easy task to write the law without severely depriving the victims or assailants of their inherent human rights.

        • CC, skulls are robust? News to me. Either that or definition differences. It’s ridiculously easy to injure someone’s skull if you get a direct hit with a tool. Especially if you’re unfortunate and whack them near the temples (one of the weakest spots on the human skull).

        • Fuck your shit, I’ll hold you down and beat you up for defending that 56 yr old who still can’t straighten his shit and have to rob people for a living.

          If you’re 56, go drink tea and maintain a minimum wage job. Hunt bears or rob people’s house and expect to die at any moment. Bullshit, people like you give others with brains a bad name.

        • Like mentioned before the guy was 56!! years old.
          Don’t tell me 2 man can’t hold down a 56 year old without fracturing his skull? Skulls tend to be rather robust, fracturing it takes an amount of force far beyond self defense or restraining.

          They should all 3 have ended up with jail time.

    • I dunno… permanent brain damage? I think sending him to prison is just going to be more of a strain on the systems since it’d cost more money to keep him there then to give him a cheque every couple of weeks.

      Either way, he’s going to be fucking retarded permanently.

    • that’s nothing, in Chile, stealing a chicken, is the SAME as killing four or more people, even in that case, is like one year in jail, but normally, they are out in one week, and yes, if you try to be a hero, they put you in jail… for more time, the funny part is that, the latests law, are even more crazy, and they actually protect the criminal and not the victim… and for the police, is worst, if they touch the criminal, they may end up in jail…
      * i almost forgot, there is a day for vandalism…
      i would like to say this is a joke… but is true…

    • Well I find it quite fair, not to let the robber go ofc, but use of excess violence is a different matter.

      I happen to know self defence, but if I were to ever use it on the stree, and I broke both my attackers arms, and kicked him 3 times in the head, fracturing his skull, wouldn’t you call me a psykopath who needed to be locked away?

      Does everyone fail too read the part of the 56 yearold robber getting a fractured skull?…

      • Don’t be a faggot.

        The robber, whatever age he is, he’s older than 5 years old and verbally threatened to kill this man’s family. If you invade and threaten someone’s life and his family’s lives in their own home then you should know full well you’re fair game.

        What kind of coddling cum-guzzler are you?

        I hope you get robbed, though I’m not sure if you’ve got any wife or children for that 56 yr old defenseless man to threaten.

      • [quote]Does everyone fail too read the part of the 56 yearold robber getting a fractured skull?…[/quote]

        I don’t know.

        Did you fail to read the part about the [i]poor[/i], [i]helpless[/i] 56 year-old robber taking the wife and children of the man hostage, along with his two buddies, wearing black masks, and threatening them with a lethal weapon?

        I mean, think this through logically for a moment. Two possible scenarios here, with two possible outcomes each:

        [b]Scenario 1:[/b] Robbers succeed
        [b]Outcome 1.a:[/b] Family is killed
        [b]Outcome 1.b:[/b] Family is left alive (at the mercy of the robbers), but is still left robbed and traumatized

        [b]Scenario 2:[/b] Robbers fail
        [b]Outcome 2.a:[/b] Family succeeds in chasing the robbers out of their home (at great risk to themselves), but robbers get off scott free other than that.
        [b]Outcome 2.b:[/b] Robbers are caught by police after being chased out (extremely unlikely), but receive only some mild sentences and are out on the streets again before long.

        And you’d call this “Justice”? You’d call this fair? You’d call the man protecting his family a psychopath who needs to be locked away?

        Fuck that, man. The bastards knew exactly what they were doing. They themselves chose to do what they did. Armed and masked, they terrorized and attempted to rob a family. You do shit like that, you better be prepared for the consequences buddy.

        The man was well within his right to mess the fucker up. Should have killed him outright, if you ask me.

        • @Fairos

          You aren’t wrong with what you’re saying.

          The main point that needs to be made is one of both context, and witnesses.

          In what context did you break both of your attackers’ arms, and proceed to kick him 3 times in the head?

          Did he first lunge at you with a gun/knife, and you were lucky enough to throw him, breaking his weapon arm in the process?

          Was he on PCP at the time and somehow able to break a hold on him if you had one, and attack you again, maybe pulling another weapon or rock off the ground – and you then proceeded to restrain him, fracturing his other arm and kicking him 3 times in the faces until he finally relented?

          Or did a guy try to attack you, weapon or not – and you proceeded to pull his tongue out of his ass? You restrain him, maybe throw and break his arm before you restrain him – but then decide to break his other arm just because you can, and kick him in the side of his jaw 3 times so you can hear the sound it makes?

          And did anybody on the street see what the context was of your ‘self-defense’ to discern exactly what happened, and testify which of the two scenarios the event was closer to?

          I’m not saying this to chastise or disagree with you, only to add a bit more definition. There *are* some (hopefully!) rare times when much force, even lethal force is necessary.

          In the eyes of law enforcement and the justice systems, force or retaliation of any sort is often frowned upon or even disallowed. Had the first situation described above happened with no witnesses, it could easily enough have been you facing charges and the ‘criminal’ getting off free, even if you had genuinely needed to inflict that much harm in defense of your person.

          In the case of the robbers in the article it’s pretty clear the boundary of excessive force was crossed, even though the judgment left much to be desired. But the boundary is decided for you outside of the actual context.

        • Tiedupinknots says:

          You know? If a man or men were to burst into my home and attempt any bullshit, they would get one hell of a lot of lead flying at them. And once there down, finish them…. Also I have dogs, and burglers save on dog food costs. Fuck those pansey assed pacifists and all there shit. Hope the criminals budies break into the judges home next….maybe then he’ll get a clue.

      • Where’s the common sense in this judgment!?

        That’s just it, Darkrockslizer… there isn’t any.

        I know here where I live, so long as you have a permit to, and someone breaks into your house with weapons, you as the homeowner/tenant are well within your rights to ventilate the fuckers. How do you know the criminals won’t leave you or your loved ones dead or dying?

        A fucking outrage, when criminals go free and the victims of violent crime go to jail. Shame on you, Your ‘Honors’. Shame on you! >_<

        • If someone threatens to kill me, they will either succeed or die. And here, that is completely reasonable and legal. Defense of self or others is justification for whatever it takes to disable someone. If a knife-wielding person walked into your home and told you he was gonna kill you, would it be okay for him to beat on you when you react in self-defense? And is this not imminent danger? Stranger in my house with a weapon and threatening me constitutes intent to commit murder, which is also called premeditation.

        • It’s actually pretty justifiable. There should be limits to how severely you can react depending on how threatening a situation is; if your life isn’t in imminent danger, you shouldn’t be allowed to cave in a man’s skull. Subdue him, tie him up and call the police, sure, but beating him to the point of making him unable to stand trial? That’s just dumb. There’s a reason most countries don’t like the idea of a castle doctrine, and why there’s always a different definition of what constitutes self-defense.

      • Yes, the family defended themselves, but they then went and took it further after the incident.

        The criminal was chased and then a group relentlessly attacked him with weapons (allegedly a cricket bat, hockey stick and metal pole) leaving him with a fractured skull and brain damage.

        The reason he got of practically scot free was because he was unable to stand trial as a result of the revenge attack, otherwise he too would be facing a lengthy prison sentence.

        • @Anon 2:08-7:18
          sorry, i use to generalize when it comes to religion, politics and trolling, in that case let me change lefties for “pseudoenlightened-patronizing lefties” i think that will do, btw, i use to be more composed in this sort of business, but well, that very same “utter load of bantha poodoo” you were talking about got to my nerves pal.

        • He didn’t function properly in society anyway, because he did have 50 convictions to his name already.

          So that part of your argument is moot. There comes a point, where it’s clear that a person has no desire to be a productive member of society, and only out there to prey upon others.

          Any argument that folks like that need protection is bollocks really. They chose that route, they could’ve chosen a different path, heck there are enough programs for ex-cons in that regard. But if he thinks it’s just easier to go back to his life of crime. Well, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

          You won’t want your face beaten to a pulp? Then becoming a professional pugilist might not be the most prudent career choice.

          How is this any different?

        • The problem is that they didn’t “shoot him in the leg as he was running away”. They chased after him, knocked him to the ground, and beat him until he had BRAIN DAMAGE with multiple weapons. The guy may never function properly again, and you’re thinking he got off easy because they didn’t throw him in jail? What these people did was not self defense after a point. If we use the gun example, they shot him in the leg, and then when he was on the ground unable to move, they walked up and shot him a few more times at point blank range. That is not self-defense, that is vengeance, and should be punished by the court system.

        • @Sylar

          The beating was unnecessary, from a self-defense standpoint as far as the article paints it. No, it wasn’t right, or justified by the family to beat the fleeing robber.

          Definitely *well-deserved*, but unjustified. Did the Judge make the best ruling he could have?

          …NO. My opinion is the sentence given the father and brother are excessive, and should have been a maximum of a few months in jail. The robber should also have been given a sentence equal to or exceeding what the Father and Brother received.

          The bigger issue here is what means civilians are ‘permitted’ to use in their own defense. The line is always going to be somewhat blurry, but I strongly disagree with the overall precedent in modern society downplaying or eliminating rights of self-defense. Rather than allow the victim in many scenarios to defend themselves, which to a greater extent should be an inherent right, the right is placed with the police.

          To have inflicted such potentially disabling injuries on the robber after he attempted to flee wasn’t correct and shouldn’t be overlooked… but they’re receiving not only greater, but far greater punishment than the original offender. The robber receiving equal punishment would have been acceptable. The robber going (completely? mostly?) unpunished while the enraged Father and Brother get a few years is not.

          What concerns me isn’t so much the judgement handed out in this case, but many judgments against defendants in similar scenarios that resist *as they are being attacked, raped, or held hostage* and inflict grievous or lethal injury to the assailant. An armed robber breaks and enters your home, you shoot him in the leg and are subsequently sued by the robber if not charged with assault/attempted murder as well. The attitude of the Judge in this case reflects a legal mindset that greatly disturbs me.