Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Munir Hussain

Imagine if you returned home one night to find three masked men in your home, who then proceeded to tie up your wife and children, threaten them with a knife and beat you in front of them.

Tell me in all honesty that if the opportunity arose, you wouldn't kill them all without a second thought. I'm not a violent man by any stretch of the imagination, but I can say with absolute certainty that unlike Munir Hussain, I would not have shown any restraint whatsoever.

Why on Earth has this man received a two and a half year jail sentence, whilst so many real criminals are routinely let off? I don't care what the liberal elite might say, I'd have bought him a gun.

ps there is a Facebook group here which supports his release and their Government petition will appear on Thursday Dec 17th.


Lilyofthefield said...

In all honesty, I wouldn't have killed them for tying me up, nicking my stuff and/or frightening my family. If they'd actually hurt/harmed any of them I might. If I caused brain damage or death in self-defence I would not lose a second's sleep over it.
But this wasn't self-defence; it was revenge and in my opinion it went too far.

I fully understand the reasons it did, and so presumably did the judge in handing down a much lighter sentence than the law required, but however institutionally racist the Police might be perceived to be, and hamstrung as they are by the criminal-rights bleeding hearts, and however cynically burglars take advantage of the low arrest rate and derisory sentencing, I cannot have DIY summary justice without even a preliminary nod at official channels.

Anonymous said...

He wasn't jailed for the self defense, or for the defense of his family.

He was jailed for the brutality of his brand of retribution.

That's why we are a civilised society.

Julian Noakes said...

Lily, the only justice that has gone on here is what Manir hussain did to that scumbag. If he hadn't, then they would be free to do the same again, possibly to you or I.

Julian Noakes

Lilyofthefield said...

They still wouldn't deserve to lose their lives for it. Burglary is not a capital crime.

Anonymous said...

Tht man dserves an OBE. He protected his family and the burglars were in his house by choice, so he did what he could.
othing wrong with that. Take my hat off to him. He can walk proudly.

Anonymous said...

You people are all morons. Anybody in that situation would, if they got free and grabbed a cricket bat, chase the criminals with the intent of laying it upside their head. You wouldnt stop at your property boundry and say "oh dear, the law says I am now no longer allowed to use violence and will cease my chase". In the real world you chase them until the bat hits flesh. Hussein probably had no idea where he was geographically when he began beating the criminal; he was still in 'fight or flight' mode and if your family is threatened most men would be in 'fight'. Maybe the 'law' is right in convicting him but no way is it 'Justice'

Steve at the Pub said...

Easy to see I was not on the Jury!

Anonymous said...

I fully agree with a previous post, at what point while in fight response and fearing for your family's lives do you rationally think 'I need to stop, I am crossing the court defined line between defence and attack'. Absolute rubbish. If you were still on foot near your home there is no way you would leave your attacker without automatically seeking to immobilise him. That he got brain damaged is a shame but it is HIS FAULT, if he didn't break in to the mans home he would still be healthy. Actions have consequences and the assailants made a cold blooded decision to attack, Munir Hussain never got that luxury. I agree the law should rule on the definition of defence and revenge but surely these sentences should have been suspended.

Anonymous said...

Surely this is a case that cries out for a suspended sentence?

In fact, if all such cases (violence inflicted on burglars) were guaranteed to attract only an SS, there would be a lot less burglary, I'd say, as the perps would be utterly scared of getting a real pasting.

Far more scared of that than the sentence, if they were to actually get caught (unlikely scenario).

Anonymous said...

Totally agreee with the above (Oliver Twist) post. A 2 year suspended sentence would have said "It's wrong to batter people, but in these circumstances, we can understand why you did it"

Surely prison is to keep dangerous people locked up and this man is only dangerous to people who tie up his wife and family.

Jaz said...

Have I stumbled into the Daily Mail by mistake?
IF the guy had clocked him with a cricket bat while in his house - hell even if he had clocked him with a cricket bat after chasing him down the street - fair enough.
But he didn't. He got a cricket bat, a metal pole, a hockey stick and three people set about this robber - breaking his jaw, his elbow and his hand and inflicting permanent brain damage.
The group were seen by many witnesses repeatedly thumping and stamping on the victim.
This wasn't self defence, it was a revenge beating.
I really hope that Mr Chalk does not teach citizenship or PSHE.

As for "anonymous" comment: "Surely prison is to keep dangerous people locked up". I completely agree - such as gangs who beat other people with metal poles.

phatboy said...

Don't forget that it wasn't the judge or the law that convicted this man. It was the 12 people who sat on the jury and decided that he was guilty.

Clearly, they heard the evidence and decided that he had gone way too far.

It's strange that half the time people moan because judges are too lenient, but when the papers report a lenient sentence in these circumstances then they are criticised for being too harsh.

If this had been an unprovoked attack he would have received a sentence of around 4 to 5-years. He would have been at serious risk of an IPP, which is a life sentence by another name.

Anonymous said...

I take two lessons from this case:

1. Do not pursue a burglar beyond your property. If he's gone, he's gone, let him go.

2. If you catch one - on your property or beyond after a chase - do not under any circumstances let him live. Kill him, and do so quickly. Do not administer a "punishment" beating. Kill him with as few blows as possible. Then call the police, and claim self-defence. If you're quick, you will be the only witness.

Time and again the justice system teaches that leaving your attacker alive leaves open the possibility that
(a) they will not be punished and
(b) they will contradict your story of self-defence.

If someone is in your home without permission, they've rejected the protection of law. And stupidity is a capital crime.

Anonymous said...

The real p*ss-boiler? The burglar got a shorter sentence.

Lilyofthefield said...

That would be because burglary is less serious than grievous bodily harm.

Anonymous said...

The man that got beaten had over 50 convictions - why was he even allowed out and about in public and not sitting behind bars?

The law should be changed so that as soon as anyone breaks into your home with the clear intent to rob or cause harm to the people that live there they lose all their rights.

The British Justice system happily lets a man with 50 convictions walk around free to rob people but convicts a family man who never asked for any of this.

It's cases like this why I will happily be vote out the Labour government - The have had 13 years to tackle crime and instead they've sat on their hands and given the criminals more rights then the victims.

Unless the government intervenes in this case and gets the conviction overturned you can say Goodbye to Gordon Brown at the next election.

Lilyofthefield said...

I agree with you. The fact that the burglar had so many convictions shows firstly that his previous sentences had signally failed to modify his behaviour, secondly, his complete contempt, and thirdly that the only way of protecting the public is to keep him off the streets altogether with a long sentence.
That didn't happen in this case and doesn't happen in far too many other cases too.

When criminals lose respect for Police and punishment, and the public lose faith in the power of law to protect them, you get vigilantism. I really don;t know why them up there won't accept this and do something about it.

Build more prisons. Fill them up.

Urban School Teacher said...

This issue has long since got my blood boiling and, as usual, people have different points of view on the matter.

I am a placid, relaxed, non-violent guy who has never been in any trouble with the police. My opinion is this: I pay for my home, where I live with my family. Each of us has a key and a right to be there. If you break into my home and I manage to restrain you, I wouldn't hesitate to beat you until I run out of energy or until the hammer in my hand is completely blunt. You are a disgusting, cowardly criminal and I would do anything it takes to defend my home and my loved ones, either in/on the property or outside of the property as a punishment for the pain that you have caused by breaching our privacy. I did not go looking for this. You chose to move outwith the parameters of the law. You caused the situation by choosing to break into a place that belongs to me, not you, and therefore you must suffer the consequences.

Mr Hussain should have received a medal instead of a jail term. This case makes a mockery of our criminal justice system.

CDC said...

He should have got a suspended sentence - to imagine that after his home was invaded, family tied up and threatened, then after chasing and catching one of the robbers he would have been in any mind to distinguish between detaining him and hurting him is absurd.
Having been attacked in my own home myself, I wanted to get in the car and run them down - but had to go to hospital.
Once robbers and others break into someone's home they should lose ALL rights - the victims rights should be paramount.

Anonymous said...

The thread running through these comments seems to be that once someone breaks into your home then they should lose their rights. I couldn't agree more. I cannot imagine how I would react in such circumstances and am not aloof enough to say "Oh he went too far" or "He should have let them go" (no doubt to return and break in again later)
Good on him, I just hope his appeal succeeds.

MarkUK said...

Whether someone breaking into your home should or should not lose all their rights is irrelevant. The law says they do not. If you don't like this, then get the law changed but until it is, obey it.

Self-defence is a right (though tell that to school heads & governors if a member of staff defends him/herself against a pupil). However, gathering a mob and going after a miscreant with the intent of causing GBH is not self defence.

I could, though, support a suspended sentence in a case like this.

Anonymous said...

"Salem, who has 50 past convictions, was given a two-year supervision order in September this year. "
There's you problem right there. 50 past convictions, why the hell was this person able to walk the streets let alone break into someones home? I'd say Hussain did us all a favor since the law was unwilling to control him

Mosher said...

I'd tend to go with MarkUK on this one. The situation sucks. Criminals need to have fewer rights, but right now that's simply not the case. However, getting the law changed isn't easy due to the bleeding-heart "murdering scum have rights too" brigade.

Similarly as lily has mentioned, we should be filling jails. But I don't see why we should be building new ones when we have plenty as it is. The problem us we're not cramming 6 into a cell like we used to as - again - they have too many rights.

Jails aren't meant to be holiday camps. I've stayed in hostels where I've had less personal space than a prisoner gets in a cell. And a less comfy and more dirty bed. Plus I'm paying for the privilege with an additional fee for my meals.

Cells shouldn't be comfy. They should be hard to live in, smelly... a deterrent.

Anonymous said...

prison inmates even get free sky TV these days...no wonder they're queuing up to get inside for christn=mas. they ought to be treated much, much more harshly. Prisons seem to be something like very, very comfy B&B's, only they don'[t chuck you out after breakfast. if that were to change, less people would volunteer to go inside.
s for the man who chased the burglar..well done. Very well done indeed. At lest, with brain damage, that scum won't burgle anyone anymore, hopefully. for the first time in his life he won't be a threat to others. A job done well.

Mosher said...

Anonymous said "Prisons seem to be something like very, very comfy B&B's, only they don'[t chuck you out after breakfast"

Not heard of open prisons? They don't even ask you to come back once you walk off after your bacon and eggs.

Lilyofthefield said...

Off at a slight tangent, but doesn't it make you laugh when prisoners, especially girlies, who knowingly break the law in another country, get brought back here because the pwisons are so howwid in Thailand [or other country with refreshingly rigorous approach to drug-dealing]?
Apparently their human rights might be breached if they have to serve their sentence in somewhere less pleasant than Pontin's.

English Pensioner said...

I support the American approach as related by my neighbour.
Back home, down south, his neighbour shot a thief who was trying to steal his car from the drive. The Sheriff was called, looked at the body, apologised for not knowing the "little xxxx" was in town, threw the body into the back of his estate car, and casually said "you'd better come down to the office sometime and sign a formal statement for the record". And that was the end of the matter.
In my younger days I would have been horrified, but not now.

Lilyofthefield said...

I'm sorry that the perp was desperate enough to feel that robbing the man was worth the punishment he would risk, but, sadly, increasing the risk is the only way of reducing the gamble.

Anonymous said...

what's wrong with concrete boots?

Phil said...

Thank you, Jaz. If I had been on the jury, I too would have found Hussain guilty. I want aggravated burglars to be dealt with according to the law. Agree with Lilyofthefield, I don't want DIY justice.

All you people who think Hussain's behaviour is a good idea - no. Burglars with knives tend to be the sort who are very, very good at fighting. As familiar with violence as Eric Bristow is at darts. Your average householder hasn't a clue. Householders who attack burglars with weapons usually end up having it used against them. We all know the official advice - if you think there's a burglar, sit tight and wait for the police. I'm sorry, but that's the best that can be done.

I do not accept Hussain and his friends. Well done, jury. Thank you, judge.

Phil said...

Thank you, Jaz. If I had been on the jury, I too would have found Hussain guilty. I want aggravated burglars to be dealt with according to the law. Agree with Lilyofthefield, I don't want DIY justice.

All you people who think Hussain's behaviour is a good idea - no. Burglars with knives tend to be the sort who are very, very good at fighting. As familiar with violence as Eric Bristow is at darts. Your average householder hasn't a clue. Householders who attack burglars with weapons usually end up having it used against them. We all know the official advice - if you think there's a burglar, sit tight and wait for the police. I'm sorry, but that's the best that can be done.

I do not accept Hussain and his friends. Well done, jury. Thank you, judge.

Phil said...

Whoops, sorry about double post :-/

Anonymous said...

Well done Munir for saving many more people from the monster!

Anonymous said...

50 convictions? More than that now. After being released from hospital the "victim" continued his life of crime.


Lilyofthefield said...

"As a result Salem was deemed not fit to plead to charges of false imprisonment in relation to the burglary and given a two-year supervision order.

It has now emerged that Salem was unfit to please to a string of other alleged crimes because of his injury.

I do on the other hand, and in the most festive of spirits, hope that he is so severely mentally incapacitated that he cannot continue his life of crime.
But I doubt it.

He appeared at St Albans Crown Court on Nov 30 to be dealt with on charges of possessing a false identity card, two counts of handling stolen goods and possessing an article for use in fraud.

But he was given an absolute discharge in relation to all five charges after the court was again told that he was unfit to plead because of his injury."

That disgusts me more thasn I can say but he should still not be beaten to death for burglary.

BNPman said...

Oh hi - Ive not been here for ages.

I just want to say, that as a one time member of the BNP, i think the Muslim was very wrongly treated. And that this country is markedly bonkers

Anonymous said...


Philip said...

They say justice will prevail, but I'm not convince that saying!

Rio Pousadas

Hostels said...

There are hostels in castles, in tepees and in railroad carriages.

Palermo Hostel

Fine Woodworking Plans said...

The post is very nicely written and it contains many useful facts. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post. Now you make it easy for me to understand and implement. Thanks for sharing with us.