UPDATE: Victim Jailed for Resisting Burglar, Burglar Set Free

[DoW Lowen]

Aye England has such a great judicial system, but it protects their criminals too much. Such a shame I can see where the Judge is coming from, but would the judge not do the same if these men did not threaten him and his family? Even the most respectable men would go ape-shit if their blood is in danger. So a win for a fair judicial system but a loss for the denial of human nature.

 

[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.

The man had a gang. If they wouldn't have made an example out of him, that gang would have probably come back and put those threats into order for jailing one of them. "Oh, he's not an immediate threat". Big fucking deal, he's a long term threat. If those burglars kidnap one of his children, then what? The only way to assure his family's safety was through violence.

The punishment was not justified. The judge should have considered the long terms effects has well has the short term effects of not beating that person. He should have also taken in account the psychological part of it. The man was hold at gunpoint and threatened to be killed a long with his entire family if he moved. The moment he saw an opening, he exploited it. I don't see a way he could have controlled his rage the moment he caught the man who threatened his entire family with death.

You can't make judgments based on assumptions. Is there even evidence to suggest that the criminals are connected to a gang? They were probably just some minor thugs.

The fact that you think violence was the only answer is depressing. Vigilantism is bad. The cops are the ones that deal with these situations. You rely on them to protect you. You can't just attack a criminal unless it's in self-defense, and in this case it wasn't. You don't know if the criminal was going to come back. You don't know if he could only protect his family this way. You can't just beat people based on an assumption, especially when you do it so much that you cause brain damage.

And he did not see an opening to save his family. His family was already saved. The criminal was fleeing. There was no justifiable reason to beat him senseless. It was not to protect his family. At that point, it was nothing but barbaric revenge. You can't just let someone off the hook for that, no matter what the circumstance is.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Its a bit stupid to send him to jail. But it is justifiable in the eyes of the law

 

[Internet Kraken]

I agree with the courts decision.

The man was lying defenseless on the ground. They beat him so much that he may have received brain damage. That's just ridiculous. There is no reason for them to have beaten the criminal so much, especially when you consider that he was running away instead of attacking them. That wasn't self-defense. It was pointless revenge.

Because the old laws were so effective. What you describe would be barbaric and pointless. And again, this was not self-defense. The man was attempting to flee. He was no longer a threat.

I am going to have to disagree with you here, he was "no longer a threat"? How do you know?, they have already proven they can get in and will use force, maybe they go tool up better and come back again? They came into that house armed and showed a willingness to break the law. Then they get cold feet and high tail it and the victims get in shit because they hurt the poor thieving bastard?

What about the next house they break into and the victims there arent as able to defend themselves. You would rather they are allowed to continue their criminal activites, traumasing and possibly seriously injuring innocents until the law catchs up them. Even when it does catch up with them they walk? How can you support that system, these two people made damn sure that this thief will never threaten them or anybody else again? It may be a tad more "barbaric" than waiting for the due process but in a day and age where criminals walk because a grossly underable police force cant even keep major crimes down dont you think frontier law should be reconsidered?

I have been stolen from, fortunatly i slept through it but a thief entered my home and took something very treasured by my from my side, he may have been armed or not i dont know but he stood over me while I slept. I shudder to think how defenceless I was at that moment and what would have occured if I had stirred, of course the useless police force never caught him nor found what was mine. Why should I have to rely on them?

Again, you do not have the right to exert your view of justice on others, even if they are low-life criminals. Maybe the criminal could have been a threat again. But it's just as likely that he wouldn't be. You can't violently attack someone because you think they could be a threat. The police handle this stuff. How do you know they wouldn't have caught the criminal?

You can't justify this kind of behavior. The man was not protecting his family. The man was not trying to subdue to criminal so that the cops could arrest him. He was trying to get revenge. And it's not like he just roughed him up a little bit. He caused brain damage. You can't let people get away with doing something like that when it was completely unnecessary.

It was pointless revenge.

I think the revenge had a point. "Don't threaten my family with death, ************" would be the point. That is the sort of point that the criminal justice system should get across, and apparently didn't.

This does not justify his actions.

 

[brums405]

Thanks England, for setting the bar high in the 'who is most divorced from reality' legal system!

Don't forget! Us Scottish and the Welsh are also affected by this kind of law.

This kind of thing wouldn't roll a thousand years ago. Somebody broke into your land, you could beat the shit out of him and set him on fire while the authorities watched and helped.

A thousand years ago you could also burn someone alive for money lending in your countries

i'm not sure referring to the past in this way is the best way to argue this point.

 

[Internet Kraken]

I agree with the courts decision.

The man was lying defenseless on the ground. They beat him so much that he may have received brain damage. That's just ridiculous. There is no reason for them to have beaten the criminal so much, especially when you consider that he was running away instead of attacking them. That wasn't self-defense. It was pointless revenge.

So, the man who fucking held a family hostage, threatened to kill all of them, and proceeded to steal their posessions is the good guy here?

If you had just been looted and threatened, I don't think you'd exactly be eager to give the man a fucking pat on the back and by him a beer.

What, were you expecting them to say "Oh, I'm sorry. Did that hurt? Well, feel free to threaten our lives and loot our house again!"

I am not trying to suggest that the criminal is the "good guy". There is no good guy in this situation. Both people did something horribly wrong. Of course I don't expect the victim to tolerate the actions of the criminal. But that doesn't excuse his behavior.

 

[Bad Neighbour]

I'm going to ignore 98% of that article and use the facts I already know, since the daily mail is probably the most overdramatic, biased, blind, flawed and ridiculous newspaper that still exists. I'd rather get my sources from The Sun. Or the Daily Star. Or Porn or something.

I think the sentencing was perfectly fair, only the burgler should have been sent down also (if he wasn't, we only have the mail's word that he isn't/hasn't been prosecuted and I find that pretty damn hard to believe). Yeah, the man had 50 previous convictions and was commiting a pretty nasty crime himself, so he deserved everything he got. However, when they were beating him up, it was 2 or 3 on one and he was fleeing the scene, and defenceless, AND there were relatives and neighbours screaming at them to stop because they thought they might kill the guy. He wasn't still in their house, and they were no longer defending themselves or their property, they were chasing him down with weapons. They had no excuse and no defence. If they'd knocked him down and apprehended him until the police got there it would have been fine and he would've got one hell of a sentence. What they actually did was just stupid thoughtless revenge and they're lucky the sentences are as small as they are - the judge was being leniant.

If you let people take the law into their own hands like that then where the hell does it end? Are you saying if a kid attacks your child at school you can go round his house and beat the hell out of him for it? Should we all be standing outside prisons bottling people who leave them when they're supposed to be rehabilitating? Why don't we just carry around shotguns and shoot anyone who hurts our feelings?

 

[Marik2]

Since the man is a millionaire can't he just pay the bail?

 

[Epitome]

Or more likely come back looking for revenge & this time instead of threatening to kill just skip to the main show.
You say the rules cannot be applied neatly? WTF? These rules are there to stop this kind of thing from happening & should someone be stupid enough to break them, be punished for it. The owner of the house used excessive force & has created a burden on the state & in turn on us as taxpayers & is being punished for it.

I et what you are saying but like I said a line must be drawn

So when they break in again dont waste time with "self defence technicalities" shoot him in the face, im sorry that the taxpayer is picking up teh burden here and if I had my way he wouldnt be alive anymore. Even that he is he shoudl not be entitled to state support let his now retarded ass rot in a chair for all i care, once your at the point of 50 previous charges and threatening children with knives who the fuck needs you anymore.

The problem with the rules is they DONT prevent his kind of crime on any reasonable scale, it shoud still be a tragedy when somebody is gunned down not a footnote in the paper next to the other people who were gunned down that week. You want the law to punish them? the law didnt even catch the other two who got away and now that mans sick wife and children are in that home defenceless if they should come looking for revenge.

 

[FightThePower]

I would not call severely beating a defenseless man who was running away 'resisting' a burglar. I think this punishment is entirely justified.

 

[TheLastCylon]

Since the man is a millionaire can't he just pay the bail?

Bail is just collateral for making sure that the defendant will show up to court. Paying obscene amounts money doesn't absolve you of a crime.

OT: He beat a man on the ground to the point of brain damage, of course he should be tried.

 

[StercusCaput]

Since the man is a millionaire can't he just pay the bail?

That isn't really the point.

 

[jpoon]

I hope this isn't real. I feel sorry for the people in the UK. Can't be armed, can't protect yourselves at all. What the fuck is wrong with the people writing your laws? Your country used to be the badasses of the world, reduced to people afraid to use guns and restricted from saving your own ass even. geez...

 

[Epitome]

I am not trying to suggest that the criminal is the "good guy". There is no good guy in this situation. Both people did something horribly wrong. Of course I don't expect the victim to tolerate the actions of the criminal. But that doesn't excuse his behavior.

Your right he should have written him a strongly worded letter then phone the Victim support helpline and maybe filed a complaint with hsi local MP, that will solve the problem.

 

[FightThePower]

I hope this isn't real. I feel sorry for the people in the UK. Can't be armed, can't protect yourselves at all. What the fuck is wrong with the people writing your laws? Your country used to be the badasses of the world, reduced to people afraid to use guns and restricted from using a knife even. geez...

Don't feel sorry for us, I'd much rather be here than in the USA. I actually feel safer with these restrictions.

 

[Bad Neighbour]

I am not trying to suggest that the criminal is the "good guy". There is no good guy in this situation. Both people did something horribly wrong. Of course I don't expect the victim to tolerate the actions of the criminal. But that doesn't excuse his behavior.

Your right he should have written him a strongly worded letter then phone the Victim support helpline and maybe filed a complaint with hsi local MP, that will solve the problem.

Or, since there were at least 3 of them and one guy they were chasing, they should have apprehended him until the police arrived, leaving the man arrested and basically screwed bearing in mind his 50 previous convictions, instead of trying to kill him, maybe? Or does this magic 56 year old criminal in your imagination have the strength to take on 3 men armed with metal poles and cricket bats while running away?

There was an expert talking about this on the radio who said if they'd knocked him down and held him there until the police showed up they wouldn't have done anything wrong, even if he got injured in the fall. What you're trying to justify is knocking him down and then trying to put his face through the floor.

 

[Evil-Mustache]

Just wanna say: What the hell?! If someone tried to rob me at gun point I'd sure as hell beat the living shit out of them! And I'd be proud as hell about it no matter if I got pressed charges from people!

 

[Rooster893]

Stupid people.

 

[Internet Kraken]

I am not trying to suggest that the criminal is the "good guy". There is no good guy in this situation. Both people did something horribly wrong. Of course I don't expect the victim to tolerate the actions of the criminal. But that doesn't excuse his behavior.

Your right he should have written him a strongly worded letter then phone the Victim support helpline and maybe filed a complaint with hsi local MP, that will solve the problem.

You seem to be suggesting that he has to take revenge. He doesn't. All he has to do is let the cops deal with this and move on with his life. He could have done that. Instead, he choose the path of unnecessary violence.

I can understand why the man did this. When in a temporary fit of anger and rage, people will do crazy thing. But you can't let people get away with these crimes because of it. Nobody ever profits from revenge.