Victim Jailed for Resisting Burglar, Burglar Set Free

ragheads kill each other, its in their DNA or something *shrugs*

First UK bans lolicon.

Now UK protects criminals and jails the victims.

Let's all go there for a loli raep fest. We get paid for the plane home and the lolis get arrested...

No! It's wrong to arrest lolis, you should take them home instead!

Something with that idea doesn't make sense...

Let's summary the facts:
Criminals goes free. The victim gets fucked up.
Lolis always gets their win. Victim, simply helpers or the rapist gets fucked up.

What is this contradiction!?

Hah its like my country. here u can only warn burglar and call police. If u hit him, stab, kill ull be sued. Same goes for street fighting. If someone atacks u and u fight him back ull be sued aswell = D you can only take hits! and use cure3!

The crime the victim is being sued for is assault. If the victim have tried to restrain the burglar but failed to do so, only then force is acceptable.

OKAY i OFFICIALLY DECLARE THAT JUDGE A PUSSY OF THE LOWEST CALIBER.

I mean, who the fuck in his right mind would not beat the shit out of a burglar who once held you and yours at knife point.

You people over there need to get your brains examined

Okay. seriously!? Just when I thought the criminal justice system in US was the most fucked up, UK goes and does this? Man. There seriously needs to be a surplus of vigilantes over there. And they need to end up catching more criminals than the justice system does. That should show them who does the real work.

"Us people"? I assure you, the British public isn't exactly thrilled at this either.

Keeping in mind that the dudes BROKE HIS SKULL AND CAUSED BRAIN DAMAGE. That, is going too far. If they'd broken a leg, or an arm, or I dunno, knocked him down and tied him up, maybe they wouldn't be going to jail. But breaking a mans skull takes some serious viciousness.

So when I break into your home, tie you up and threaten your family's life with a knife, you should just try and restrain me because hey, I have rights to burglarize you safely.

Seriously?! Get your ass out of your head, if your willing to pull a knife on someone then you'd best be ready to take one as well.

We have a similar law in the U.S. as well. If it is believed that you used excessive violence against a criminal you will go to jail. You are only allowed to restrain him, nothing more. I believe their was a case where a man tried to rob a place with a kitchen (restaurant or something) and the victim got boiling oil and poured it on the man and other peopled pinned him down. The cops arrested the people who were originally the victims under the premise that the violence they did to the man made him the victim now. Causing brain damage or being burnt alive by boiling oil is a bit higher an offence then a robbery. If you already have the man subdued and he has already been restrained, you can't beat him down because you are now doing it for revenge, not self defense. This case would have ended the same way in the U.S.

there's also the fact that the burglars were running away by the time their "self-defense" occurred (at least thats what i'm interpreting). at least far as the US is concerned, if you, i dunno... stabbed a man with a kitchen knife 20 times but it was clear the burglar had a gun and was about to cause imminent bodily harm to you; you've got a decent enough case. you were in a life-threatening situation, heat of the moment, etc etc etc. however, if you pull out the knife, and the burglar decides he doesn't really want to up his charges any more than he already has, and starts to flee; at that point you're no longer really in any danger of imminent harm. he's running. the smart thing for you to do is run to your phone and call the cops. legally you really don't have much of a self-defense case any more.
thats not to say the case isn't a little messed up, and the fact that the burglar automatically gets assigned victim status and gets his crimes wiped away is moronic, but my point is simply that there is a certain logic to the law/judgment. one shared by the US, if any of you are thinking you'd get away with it there.

Taking into account this article, I'd say the degree to which you can justify legitimate self defence in the US could be pretty broad.

http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/09/16/burglar-dismembered-with-katana-in-samurai-self-defence/

Sorry, but it would not have ended the same way in most areas of the US. You are not required to "fine tune" your resistance, the same way you are not required to "shoot the gun out of the criminal's hand." These people had just had a horrific experience and were jacked up on adrenaline. And I doubt they had much experience in exactly what level of impact was necessary to crack a person's skull as opposed to just making him wobbly in the knees.
Personally, I believe in the "wolf/lamb" approach to these things. Joe Scumbag attacks Grandma (lamb) then discovers she's a retired combat shooter armed with a .45 (wolf). He shouldn't be allowed to go sniveling into court complaining he didn't expect that kind of result.
If these guys don't want cracked skulls or 3rd degree burns I suggest they find a different line of work, which should solve that problem.

Here in Texas we have the absolute right to self-defense in our home, car or just out and about. You can resist with deadly force if you feel you are physical threatened or your properity is threatened. I can literal chase you from my home and kill you in the street if you come in my home. It happens here a bit.

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

...So, what we'll do now just to prove our point, is we'll jail the vigilantes and let the criminals walk free...

"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."

...and we'll anger people with a sense of justice and/or a libertarian streak by giving him a firm warning equivalent to putting a kid in time out, and grant him a welfare check. Poor criminal, you got your head beat in. Here, have a tax funded check for the rest of your life.

Moral of the story?

1.) Break into a wealthy Arab family's home in Britain, and hold the family hostage at weapon-point.

2.) Cleverly allow family to 'escape' holding and receive an injury while making your escape.

3.) ???

4.) PROFIT!!!/Receive a harsh warning, and a government check for life. =/

i know that this is not how the judge sees it, but this is essentially how it is. the burglars broke in with people in the house. don't know if they got anything. crimes = home invasion. they tie up some folks. crime = home invasion + aggravated assault (maybe, im not a lawyer.) the family gets free and 2 of the perps escape. one dude got his head caved in. now he is fucked up, and has to live on disability (don't know how long). people say justice wasn't served, and that this was fucked up. i do agree that it is unfair to give the 2 men 30 & 39 months. i thing maybe 1 month or probation. but on the other hand justice was served. just not through the court. they beat the fuck out of the dude. lol. that was on site judgement, so he didn't really get off scott free. that would be the equivalent of them going to the neighbors and calling the police. the cops arresting the perps. going to trial and the cops saying, "well, we can either put them in jail for 6 months and they will be back on the street doing it again, or we can take them out back beat them brain dead, and for the latter, well have to lock you up for a few months in minimum security." i would be at a loss. depending on the type of person you are, would decide your answer. i'm just offering a different perspective, i still think the case is fucked up but i'm trying to see the big picture.

Thank God I live in Texas, were this shit just don't fly.

True that! In Florida, it is perfectly legal to kill anyone who breaks into your house!

Well one thing's for sure, that burglar won't be breaking into anybody's home once he gets out of the hospital. I hope he's so badly brain damaged that he just sits in a chair drooling all day.

Completely agree. I understand defending your self, but from the moment the guy was down and his accomplices already left there was no reason to hit him almost to death.
They were just beating him out of revenge and anger after that. Not because he was a thread.
You guys are just easy diluted by the way this articles are written.
The judge was absolutely right. They could have just tied the guy up instead of going John Rambo on him.

And beating him was the right thing to do (preferably to death). The offender was a criminal, tied them, threatened to kill them, and was robbing them. It was his choice and his "career" and his risk.

It's not about what choice he made. It doesn't matter if he was prepared to die or not. What it matters is that they became criminals too when they tried to kill a defenseless man. Because when they were beating him he was already defenseless. They weren't beating him while he was trying to stab them.

I see u're smart and reasonable guy. If he didnt want to be beaten he should have become belboy or something =.=

You don't get it. It's not about him. The judge didn't convict them because he felt sorry of him. It's about them being criminals also because they like to beat people to death when they feel like it.

Because of the damage and all, I understand all of this, but I do not agree with the judgement. Because the family went too far, they shouldn't have 30 month of jail, instead, they shoudl be free and same thing for the criminal.

In this world, you always have to punish someone, and sometimes, the one who is the real criminel goes free without a problem.

I agree the criminal should be convicted for trying to rob them and threatening them with a knife but they deserve their jail time also.

here in my country, the police joins in with the beating. and the bystanders would also try to get a hit in as well

mabuhay!!!

I know I'm going to get severely and mercilessly downvoted for this, but I agree with Sylar here. You see, the judge is meant to see whether the people who beat the burglar up actually needed to do so in order to defend themselves.

Now, I would have a lot of respect for two men who capture a burglar, keep a cool head and detain him while the police arrives. But what these men did is capture the burglar and violently beat him up, which proves a personality that feels it needs to take revenge in order to go on again. That's not very admirable.

With all due respect, but....

Bollocks.

The guy had 50 prior convictions to his record.
Fifty!

He was a career criminal. He should've been locked up ages ago, but they didn't. He was just allowed to go on his merry way and continue with his actions.

And this time he bloody well traumatized a bunch of kids as well. Considering how much folks like the Judge like the following sentence: Won't anybody think of the children.

Well, what about the kids? If they'd locked up the perp previously for an extended amount of time, then he wouldn't have been able to traumatize those kids.

And their father and uncle wouldn't have had the need to beat the crap out of him.

The Judge and his ilk failed the Justice System previously, and their supposed defense against this vigilantism is little more than a smokescreen to mask their own incompetence.

Because I can already tell you what will happen next time round. The perp will get his ass killed, and then the body will be hidden.

No "victim", no crime.

you can talk a lot about human rights bull crap and the sort, but when rage and fear takes over you, you would beat the guy until he's unable to stand. For example, someone rapes your mom, Would you restrict the criminal with "only the necessary force" to protect yourself and your mom? NO, anyone here would make the guy a crippled or a corpse, if thinking so makes you deserve jail, 80% of the population deserves jail, don't talk like you were on the other side of the river. That's why i don't like christfags and lefties, they always talk big about "forgiveness" and "being rational", but they don't know how they would react in the same situation.

i know! next time kill the robber and cut him in to little pieces, and put him in garbage bags weekly, like he was food residuals or something, or feed it to your dog, that way FUCKING PUSSY JUDGES would never know and your family would be right, plus, you made the world a favor erasing that fucking failure of a human, fuck, if people takes justice in their own hands is cuz the state is'nt doing it's job very well, that bastard legitimated it's own death (or in this case harm) with his own actions.

WTF?

Getting beaten up by the victims when you are doing armed robbery should be considered "asking for it" especially after threatening the family!

Furthermore, until the police arrives AND all the perps are caught, the perps should be considered ARMED and DANGEROUS and FAIR GAME!

Or did the judge come from Ankh-Morpork?

Hey guess what guys, we live in an enlightened society, it's not our fault you barbarians are stupid and uneducated. Crime stems from society. If you oppress people long enough they will do what they have to to survive and thrive legal or not. Being a criminal doesn't mean not being a person. Maybe we should instead of jailing these "victims" brutally beat them with weapons and giv e them brain damage because they committed an assault.

Some people just don't know what defence means. If three people are beating a man with weapons there is no way they are the victims anymore.

To the anon of 02:50 16/12/2009

I'm the same anon as 02:08 16/12/2009, hate to burst your bubble, but I'm a leftie. I just take the position, that invasion of a person's home is some ways similar to a rape.

You shatter a person's sense of safety and comfort with their surroundings. That type of mental trauma, well there is no excuse for it really.

I'm probably one of the most boring and law abiding folks out there, but even I would beat the living crap out of a burglar, given half a chance. Why? Because I don't know he won't be back, if I just let him go, and by the time the cops arrive anything could've happened.

Oh and just to dispel some more misconceptions, no I'm not a Yank, nor am I from south of the Mason-Dixie line. I'm a European myself, doesn't mean I agree with this utter load of bantha poodoo, that you have to be nice to burglars and that you're not allowed to defend yourself, or that you should just run away (not always an option either).

Course politicians are as much to blame as judges in that sense. Jack up the prison terms, as opposed to maximum sentences, begin with minimum sentences which are the equivalent of the current max ones, and maybe then things will start turning around again.

To EnlightenedAnon

Sure it's an enlightened society.

You can give the burglar a lesson in civics and tell him that he has a righht to feel oppressed by societies laws...as he's packing all of your stuff into a sack to sell for drugs.

Telling a criminal that you're an "enlightened man and understand his plight" won't keep him from taking everything that isn't nailed down.

@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.

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.

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?

@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.

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.

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.

Good one, I approve =D.

Jesus is fiction? HILARIOUS.

I can understand having a problem with his followers, but this is just too funny.

Zeitgeist is fiction too.

Oh come on guys. there isn't really justice around just wrath and vengeance on the behalf of the victim by the state.

Thank God no one is asking you. You hillbilly.

Sorry to bust your stereotype, but I don't think we have hillbillies in Europe.

Did you have any actual arguments? Or was smart-ass remarks and fallacies all you can muster?

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.

@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.

Wow, you figure out:
he's plays a wizard in an online videogame, he was referring to acting like said wizard, and he was a weeaboo
all from that one sentence?