Meantime, in Hesperia…!
I am angry but not surprised at the conviction and jailing of Munir Hussain and his brother, Tokeer, for taking good and proper care of a criminal intruder carrying a long conviction record, who invaded Munir’s home with two more bandits, attacked him and his family, tied them up, and threatened them with serious injury or death.
It is high time that our Western “justice” system begins to protect and reward victims, who rise to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property against criminals, thugs, and cutthroats and deal the invaders what’s coming to them.
Munir and Tokeer did what they needed to do. Pardon the insubordination, but the judge’s “reasoning” about the law “collapsing” because the victims took care of business and put away the criminal, most likely for life, thus ridding us all of one major threat against innocents without the costs of a six-month trial, 15 years of appeals, and the ultimate most likely exoneration of the cutthroat on whatever obscure grounds, is pure and unadulterated balderdash.
O, I know all the arguments in favor of “civilized justice” that helps us “rise above the level of animals” and all that… i.e. the very same “justice” that puts the onus on victims, shields perpetrators, and allows “technicalities” to free killers, rapists, and other violent thugs so that they may re-enter our lives and cause more devastation, havoc, death, and destruction.
In the older days, it was enough for an intruder to cross the boundary of your property in order to open himself to receiving deadly fire from the owner. Shooting the bastard who’s coming in with intent seems to me like a natural right of the defender that must take precedent over the “constitutional rights” of the criminal.
“Reasonable” force is the force that will stop and incapacitate the invader beyond any hope of revival so that he can renew his attack.
And since we touched on “constitutional rights,” when will the “law” recognize that a criminal, by virtue of committing the crime, screwing the “law,” and sending our elaborate versions of a “law-abiding society” to trash, has effectively curbed his own constitutional rights and placed himself in a minefield of gray territory?
I would suspect that the foregone conclusion that, in cases of naked guilt, as when caught red-handed, the criminal not the victim carries the burden of proof would take our system of jurisprudence one big step in the right direction.
Let the Hussain brothers go.
Margaret wrote,
It was a jury, of ordinary people, chosen at random who, having heard all the evidence, decided that the offence (causing grevious bodily harm, with intent [to cause grevious bodily harm]) and that the defence of necessary force was not proven.
The judge has only a limited discretion, then, given the jury’s conviction, and the offence attracts a tariff of 1-3 years imprisonment. In a sense his hands were tied. And we wouldn’t want judges to have unfettered discretion in sentencing, I don’t suppose, since unfettered discretion is generally a bad idea in any arena …
Sounds as if your anger should be directed at the jury, those ordinary people, presumably in a better position than any of us to have made that difficult decision, given that they had sat through days of evidence, and had met the defendant.
Take it to its logical end. Should someone be able to murder someone who breaks into their home, and not be prosecuted? If not murder, then where do you draw the line? If it’s OK to murder the burglar, what about the car thief? Or the pick pocket?
Poor jury. I imagine they took it very seriously, and were very conscientious, and now have the agony of wondering if they got it right. Reading between the lines, it sounds as if the judge may think they got it wrong (as people do sometimes). In which case, an appeal may be successful. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the system, but in the application of any system of rules, there are bound to be cases on the margins which cause disquiet. That disquiet is not necessarily evidence that the rules are bad, but just that the case falls at the margins. All the more difficult for the jury.
Link | January 9th, 2010 at 21:55
Demosthenes wrote,
OK, my anger will be directed at the jury. They botched it! Bad! Let’s go to the appeals court to right this… Shooting an intruder — any intruder — inside one’s home I find it far from “murder.” If you’re coming in with ill intention, irrespective of the amount of damage you plan to inflict, you should expect to put your life on the line in order to satisfy your diseased inclination. It’s only fair, isn’t it? Imagine walking in one day and finding these two yobos in your kitchen having lunch after having gone through your belongings and trashed the place bad. It’d be hard, I would imagine, to begin calibrating what is “reasonable force” in dealing with them. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be entertaining such thoughts before jumping you with a knife… The car thief and the pickpocket… Hmmmm… Will need to think about them….
Link | January 10th, 2010 at 14:57
Margaret wrote,
Tried this one out on a criminal judge I know particularly well (:)), who keeps an ice axe under his bedside table and who is not sure sure, now, what he would have done to “defend” his family. I’m not sure that using his ice axe would have been a proportionate, necessary response to an unarmed burglar. Not an easy one, I grant you. The same judge sat on a ‘road rage’ case last week which raised similar, if less serious issues. When a man approaches you in rage, and you fear for your safety, how much force are you legally able to use to repel the threat? Again, a question for the jury. But whilst defending yourself is OK, retaliation with excessive violence is not. Something most of us learnt as children. Applies to countries, come to think of it, as to individuals … though bullies think that it doesn’t apply to them.
Link | January 10th, 2010 at 19:09
Ryan wrote,
I live in the western US and here juries routinely rule in favor of homeowners who use force to deal with prowlers and burglars. In one particular case a homeowner, who chased after the burglar OUTSIDE the house and shot him three times, got off with 20 hours of community service and losing his pistol license for 6 months. I am not sure what I would have done if I were in Hussain’s place; maybe I would have done the exact same. When you are threatened there is little time to think about “excessive force”. The reaction, if you have the guts to do something, would be full bore I think. And never ASSUME a burglar is unarmed. You will most likely discover otherwise when it is too late. All in all I agree with Demosthenes, who seems to espouse our own US pioneer position: “over the fence, down the grave” !!
Link | January 10th, 2010 at 19:41
Margaret wrote,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/20/appeal-court-frees-man-burglar-attack
Not self-defence (because the chain between the burglary and the grevious bodily harm had been broken), but provocation …
Not sure this is any better a verdict … it sounds like “revenge”, which is not something the majority Christian culture of my country normally approves of.
Link | January 21st, 2010 at 10:25
Demo wrote,
Margaret: The appellate judge acted wisely. Judging for myself, I would be out there gunning for them bastards as well. It is indeed welcome that the judge took into key consideration the fact of “extreme provocation” — and very elegant term for describing what hoodlums and bandits could, and would, do to anyone and his/her family given the opportunity. Needless to say, Ryan’s point of view is very close to mine.
Link | January 23rd, 2010 at 07:43