UPDATE: Victim Jailed for Resisting Burglar, Burglar Set Free

[Jark212]

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.

In other words they broke the law by beating someone up when there was no longer any logical reason to do so? I don't see anything wrong with them begin punished for doing such a thing.

I think that this in unjust, Reminds me of the Trampoline deal where if someone breaks into your backyard and breaks there leg on your trampoline your liable for damages...

The two is not even remotely comparable. The guy who broke his leg through his own acts of stupidity, while the man from this story was beaten up for no good reason by 2 men.

Now if they had been trying to save some someone then that would have been different but if the story is accurate then they were simply beating up an old man for no real good reason to a point that his skull fractured. I do however agree that letting the criminal walk away is a stupid....stupid thing to do.

1: There was no logical reason to break into someones house tie them up and threaten to kill there family...

2: I wasn't comparing the two incidents, Thus I said "Reminds me"

3: They had a perfectly good reason to beat up the old man, He could have killed his family like I read above, god knows what would have happened if the son never got loose...

 

[Doug]

The Daily Mail isn't really a credited newspaper, it's like the Onion in the states... Anyway, that's how our justice system works. It sucks and needs to be changed.

I find most of the pro-censorship stories coming from the Daily Mail...

Only pro-censorship? Their losing their touch. Pro-racism, pro-fear monging, pro-hate, they used to cover all those too!

 

[joshthor]

UK sucks. in america you can kill the guy with a chainsaw if he attacks you in your home. (theoretically)

 

[Internet Kraken]

What was the judge thinking? He was probably thinking that pointless revenge no longer has a place in our society.

Yeah, he had no reason to take revenge on the man, apart from the fact that he threatened to kill his entire family and then proceeded to loot his house.

That doesn't change the fact that revenge is still pointless. What did he gain from beating the fleeing criminal? Nothing. He just gave a 56 year old man brain damage. That's certainly not going to help any attempts to rehabilitate the criminal. And it doesn't matter what the criminal did. If he is no longer a threat, you can't justify attacking him.

 

[Jark212]

UK sucks. in america you can kill the guy with a chainsaw if he attacks you in your home. (theoretically)

Only in Texas...

 

[Nevyrmoore]

3: They had a perfectly good reason to beat up the old man, He could have killed his family like I read above, god knows what would have happened if the son never got loose...

Whether or not he had a good reason is irrelevant. The fact remains that once the man was no longer a threat, they proceeded to kick the ever-loving shit out of him. Despite anyone's thoughts on the matter, the law states that when protecting yourself, you may 'use no more force than absolutely necessary'.

In this case, giving the fleeing, currently non-threatening criminal the beating of his life is not protecting yourself under UK law. Now, were they to have attempted that whilst at knife point, then it's likely that they would have gotten off.

 

[DarkPanda XIII]

I guess from just reading the information provided on the board itself, I can agree to *why* the guys were arrested, though for the thieves to be let go themselves makes it a rather bad case into a laughable one.

Brain Damage to the Thief is enough for those two to be sent to jail, and 30 months is approximately 2 1/2 years, not as bad as some people taking life sentences.

But...on the other hand, the criminals had a knife...if it's just one knife, I'd laugh at the stupidity of it all, but if they all had knives, or basically they were threatening the children with said one knife, then that's a different story, and breaking and entering as well as threatening one's life should at least give the Thieves some time behind bars themselves. I dunno, just kind of a sick, twisted idea. Really if they were in various states in USA, then they could proclaim the 'eye for an eye' law, where if somebody breaks in and enters, you can defend yourself. Not sure how far that law goes, though o.o.

 

[Jark212]

3: They had a perfectly good reason to beat up the old man, He could have killed his family like I read above, god knows what would have happened if the son never got loose...

Whether or not he had a good reason is irrelevant. The fact remains that once the man was no longer a threat, they proceeded to kick the ever-loving shit out of him. Despite anyone's thoughts on the matter, the law states that when protecting yourself, you may 'use no more force than absolutely necessary'.

In this case, giving the fleeing, currently non-threatening criminal the beating of his life is not protecting yourself under UK law.

He's no longer a threat until he get's back to his gang to finds another target, a career criminal is unlikely to take a hint and have a sudden change of heart...

 

[CouchCommando]

wow case like this reminds me of a 6'6" tongan bodybuilder I worked with who got an early mark from the construction site I was on, His arms were bigger than my legs, he arrived home to find a junky had spent the better part of the day ransacking his gfs meager belongings, after, in the ensuing fight to restrain the suspect, the junky was knocked out cold.
Dude from work rang local police to report the incident, on hearing what had happened, officer suggested he drag the junky off the premises and claim he found him in the street to prevent them from claiming damages. Now that's a pretty rooted legal system if your own law enforcement are so disillusioned they advise you to pretend nothing happened.

 

[Iron Mal]

What was the judge thinking? He was probably thinking that pointless revenge no longer has a place in our society.

This is a good point, while I can admit that all of us would want revenge if our family had been held at knife/gunpoint (I can sympathise with that) but this doesn't mean that attacking a man who has surrendered is justified in the slightest (doesn't that make you just as bad as them?).

Of course, this is a rather cold, distant and calculated way to look at it.

 

[Panzer_God]

We're the only counrty in the world where you can be sued for saving someones life.

Uhm.......how does that work?

I guy pulled a woman from a flaming car after she ran into him. The car fire was enough to have cooked her alive. Him saving her broke her legs and she won a lawsuit for 10 million.

 

[Nevyrmoore]

3: They had a perfectly good reason to beat up the old man, He could have killed his family like I read above, god knows what would have happened if the son never got loose...

Whether or not he had a good reason is irrelevant. The fact remains that once the man was no longer a threat, they proceeded to kick the ever-loving shit out of him. Despite anyone's thoughts on the matter, the law states that when protecting yourself, you may 'use no more force than absolutely necessary'.

In this case, giving the fleeing, currently non-threatening criminal the beating of his life is not protecting yourself under UK law.

He's no longer a threat until he get's back to his gang to finds another target, a career criminal is unlikely to take a hint and have a sudden change of heart...

Wrong. If he were to return, then yes, he would be an immediate threat. However, at the time of his beating, he was not an immediate threat. The gang had effectively broken and decided to run. Unless they were running to lure them into a trap, they were not an immediate threat.

The fact as to if he and his gang were a long-term threat is irrelevant in this case. The law does not cover long-term threats, only immediate ones. And in this case, they decided to batter someone who was not an immediate threat. He may have deserved it, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.

 

[firedfns13]

Sort of stupid, but seriously? The old man fell. So restrain him. There is absolutely no need to violently beat the shit out of the guy. All you need to do is wait for the police to show up.

 

[DarkRyter]

That burglar must have one bitchin lawyer.

 

[Panzer_God]

We're the only counrty in the world where you can be sued for saving someones life.

Uhm.......how does that work?

I guy pulled a woman from a flaming car after she ran into him. The car fire was enough to have cooked her alive. Him saving her broke her legs and she won a lawsuit for 10 million.

Ummmmmm.......what logic did the woman use in court exactly? Because either she came up with the most brilliant arguments in the history of the universe or guy defending the accused used the most horrible arguments in the universe. Also, 10 million fucking dollars? How?

The magic of a messed up justice system

 

[lacktheknack]

Pssst... this isn't news.