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.

    Post Comment »
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Comment by Anonymous
    06:43 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Excessive force is excessive.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:17 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Avatar of Manji88
    Comment by Manji88
    08:11 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Yeah, this is why the rule is becoming "shoot, shovel, shut up."

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:52 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:04 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Henry VI, part 2:

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

    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?

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:32 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Hmmm, so if you go there and loli raep, you get a medal and the loli gets house arrest but in your house?!
    I'm in! *buys plane ticket*

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:25 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Avatar of Kay
    Comment by Kay
    07:36 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Avatar of Manji88
    Comment by Manji88
    08:15 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:50 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    well the article says that it was on the owner backyard that in a way its still the victim house because its his property

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:36 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Avatar of Ray
    Comment by Ray
    08:34 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Which is why you catch the burglar, beat him to death, shovel a nice hole in the backyard to bury him and keep it nice and quiet.

    Avatar of stillcode
    Comment by stillcode
    06:28 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Comment by Anonymous
    06:22 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Here in America, if this happens, you get your shotgun and blast that fuckers head off

    Comment by Anonymous
    06:03 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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)

    Comment by Anonymous
    06:03 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    This is why you need Kira.

    Avatar of Grailgun
    Comment by Grailgun
    05:57 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Spontaneous revenge should be allowed tbh

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:38 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Comment by Anonymous
    06:12 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)


    Comment by Anonymous
    08:44 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    (Some very small parts of) Britannia Waives the Rules!

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:46 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Avatar of Computer Research Society President
    06:09 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Maybe causing brain damage was a little too much by the owner of the house, but you are telling me that the burglar gets to walk away scotch free? I mean, how stupid is this?

    Comment by Anonymous
    06:13 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Comment by Anonymous
    06:09 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:11 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    The edited version...the full version runs for 8 or 9 minutes.

    The 911 operator tells her it's a good shoot.

    Avatar of Dirty_Dingus008
    Comment by Dirty_Dingus008
    08:15 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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!

    Avatar of Niktesla
    Comment by Niktesla
    08:13 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:37 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:56 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    The Monty Python skit, "How to Defend Yourself Against Fresh Fruit", seems appropriate here.

    "But what if he's got a pointed stick?"

    "Shut up!"

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:11 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:50 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Before I even clicked the link, I thought to myself, "This must have taken place in England." And hey, I was right.

    Avatar of Anonynonynonymous
    Comment by Anonynonynonymous
    03:44 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I was going to make a joke. But as I kept reading the article, it made me hate this country.


    Comment by Anonymous
    04:08 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    “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

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:37 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    @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.

    Avatar of Barbarian of Gor
    Comment by Barbarian of Gor
    03:59 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Avatar of Manji88
    Comment by Manji88
    08:04 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    "The ones who usually try to take them away are Republicans"
    WTF? What color is the sky on your planet?

    Avatar of Barbarian of Gor
    Comment by Barbarian of Gor
    11:49 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:11 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    And people wonder why other people vote BNP (or similar parties).

    Avatar of kindless
    Comment by kindless
    02:41 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)


    Also why you are America's doormat.

    Avatar of senritsu
    Comment by senritsu
    08:41 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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...

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:43 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:37 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Clearly they were MI5/CIA goons who held hostage and burglarized a moslem family. Sure the "legal system" protects them.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:44 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    even if he killed him and convited, the robber will still be charge with trespass and stealing right? did those crime just disappear?

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:12 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Avatar of Manji88
    Comment by Manji88
    08:06 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Where do you live? Address? I'll be by for a visit. Have your shit packed up for my convenience, please.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:39 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I want in!

    If we lose, or they start fighting back, we'll drop our weapons but not their stuff, apologize profusely, and proceed to run the hell away with their shit before the Cops arrive.


    Comment by Anonymous
    04:19 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:14 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    The burgulars threatened to kill them... what a bad loophole in the justice system. The rich guy should fire his lawyer and hire a better one.

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:27 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:48 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    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."

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:15 16/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Of course, he should have let the man get away so that the criminal justice system can do its job and never find him.

    Post Comment »


Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments