Alienware 17 R4 2017 review
I am rather surprised that no one has picked up on this one before now.
Personally I think the two men were very wrong to beat-up the burglar as they did, and the judge is right to gaol them for doing so. As I said in an earlier post "it is the law of the jungle" and I don`t believe in such rough justice.
I disagree with an awful lot of what you have to say on "justice" but in this case I agree.
These two went very much beyond what could be described as reasonable force and I think they were lucky to get such light sentences.
Protecting your home and family is one thing but chasing someone down the street and beating them severely is totally unacceptable.
I think they got off lightly.
Had the burglar been injured in the house in a self defence struggle, it would have been a different matter.
Some papers have likened the case to that of the Norfolk guy who lay in wait for intruders with a shotgun. Another case where the householder went over the top in my opinion.
“...then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse."
Hmm...so people who arm themselves with knives, break into homes, tie up and threaten to kill the occupants are deemed to have committed such an insignificant crime they escape a custodial sentence.
To me, that would suggest “a collapse” of the criminal justice system.
If ever you are unfortunate enough to be attacked by a criminal you have two choices:
1. Do nothing and end up possibly severely injured or dead;
2. Try to protect yourself and end up with a prison sentence.
The “reasonable force” argument is of course the get out of gaol free card; but it is so hard to know what a judge and jury will think, in the comfort of a nice warm courtroom. Compare this to the time of the incident where you are high on adrenaline, thinking you or your loved ones were/are about to die, and how carefully you must restrain the perpetrator so as to be seen to be using “reasonable force”. Even to the point of running after the agressor who until a few moments earlier was on the point, possibly, of killing you.
I pray I’m never in such a situation.
If we had a “rule of law” that actually did something about such criminals, then perhaps we would see less of this type of incident in the first place.
How many convictions does it take for a criminal to locked up for life?
It is one thing to defend your property but quite another to beat someone half to death once he has been immobilised . Cowardly too.
However I can understand the frustration because they feared he would not be punished sufficiently by the courts.
As it turned out their fears were totally justified.
If they hadn't attacked him, he'd probably have been handed some useless suspended sentence, and he'd be walking the same streets laughing at the bloke who's house he broke into.
Hopefully, he's unlikely to burgle anyone else now that he's brain damaged, although it'll probably cost us a fortune in long term medical care.
"Salem was given a two-year supervision order at a court hearing in September this year."
Not even a slap on the wrist!
This incident was going beyond the limits of what the UK knows as 'reasonable force', but I wonder how the courts or the public would have decided in say America or perhaps some other United Nations country?.
Words almost fail me...you are seriously saying "Not even a slap on the wrist!"
What was the court supposed to do? With permanent brain damage how could any sentence other than a supervision order be contemplated?
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.