Self Defence?

I’ve noticed this story mentioned in the past couple of days – with the usual recriminations against the forces of law and order.

Jail for ‘courageous’ Munir Hussain who beat intruder with cricket bat

It sounds typical of what we hear so often; the crim gets away with it and the householder suffers the penalty. And, frankly, who would not have sympathy for Munir Hussain?

A businessman who fought off knife-wielding thugs after his family were threatened has been jailed for 30 months.

Given the ordeal, I certainly have sympathy for him. But, but…

Hussain, 53, made an escape after throwing a coffee table and enlisted his brother Tokeer, 35, in chasing the offenders down the street in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, bringing one of them to the ground.

Now, at this point the danger to his family has passed.

What followed was described in Reading Crown Court as self-defence that went too far. Walid Salem, one of the intruders, suffered a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces. Neighbours saw several men beating Salem with weapons, including a metal pole.

That’s why Mr Hussain was gaoled. This is not self defence and the law is perfectly clear on the matter. Had he used a metal bar while fighting off intruders, he might have got away with reasonable force. As it was, the danger had passed and it was time to hand over to the police.

So, yes, I have some sympathy, but the law is correct – just as it was with Tony Martin. While I do feel that the law should be more lenient with householders who defend their property – I certainly don’t want those householders getting away with dishing out their own version of justice after the event.

42 Comments

  1. And yet…

    And yet

    Salem had 50 convictions. 50! 5-0.

    That gave even the usual bleeding hearts at ‘Harry’s Place’ pause. It’s all very well to say ‘rule of law must prevail’ and ‘vigilantism is wrong’, but if the law in which we put our faith fails so utterly? What can people do?
    .-= My last blog ..The Twelve Plays Of Christmas: Day Three =-.

  2. Hussain wasn’t to know how many convictions Salem had, so that isn’t really relevant to the law in this case and nor should it be.

    Had the assault taken place within the house while the crime was taking place, then I would consider that reasonable force. Salem was fleeing, therefore it was not by any stretch of the imagination self defence. Hussain had already done all that was necessary.

  3. I guess, according to the law, he’s guilty, but the jury should have found him not guilty. There’s no justice in our law any more. 49 times those judges found a reason to give that guy another chance, and he used his 50th chance to break in to someone’s house, tie people up and threaten to stab them to death.

    Now, that’s the situation. What happens next? What do you want to happen?

    I want the good guy to get up and fight them and save his family, and considering that this is his house and his family, and he will have a lifetime of regret if he doesn’t do his utmost as a man, as a father, as a human being.

    Now the judge gave a speech about how the very pillars of civilization would come crashing down if people dare to seek their own justice, but I say to the jury – shame on you! By finding him guilty, you empower the violent thieves who want to break into your homes and terrorise you. You fools! So what if he’s guilty?
    .-= My last blog ..Pirates of Copenhagen =-.

  4. He wasn’t to know, no. But that’s not really my point. If the justice system had done it’s job, Salem wouldn’t have been free to be breaking into Hussein’s house in the first place.

    And if the law can’t protect the populace (and if they start to realise that) then the populace will start to dish out their OWN law.

    And that won’t be pretty…
    .-= My last blog ..Like A Bad Penny… =-.

  5. If the justice system had done it’s job, Salem wouldn’t have been free to be breaking into Hussein’s house in the first place.

    I’m not quibbling with this point at all. But when people start to take revenge – which is what happened here then the cure is worse than the problem.

    TT – I’m not convinced that this case was a suitable one for jury nullification. Hussain and his brother attacked Salem after he had ceased to be a threat.

    And that won’t be pretty…

    Hence my comment. Lynch law is the last thing I want to see.

  6. Julia,

    Hmmm…
    “Lynch law is the last thing I want to see.”

    Agreed. And yet…

    The judges words here ring hollow:
    “If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse”

    read that bit again: “rather than letting justive take its course”.

    That’s where the whole thing stinks. There is just no way whatsoever that the judge can use this line when the “victim” in this case has FIFTY previous convictions.

    If he really wants to take this line, then he has a case if the sentence is, say, a fraction of the average sentence imposed on the scrote, plus a substantial discount for previous good character and the fact that he could make a good case for being provoked.

    Basically, if you don’t want lynch law, you have to sentence the scrotes properly, not the ones picking up the pieces because of your failure to do so.

  7. Basically, if you don’t want lynch law, you have to sentence the scrotes properly, not the ones picking up the pieces because of your failure to do so.

    Indeed – I am saying nothing that contradicts this. Salem should have been doing time; no reasonable person would dispute this. That doesn’t make what Hussain did right, though. It ceased to be self defence the moment Salem left his property. So far as I am aware, two wrongs didn’t suddenly make a right.

    I figure he poses no threat to me, as long as I don’t tie up his wife and children and threaten to stab them.

    I’m not quibbling with this point either. He acted in understandable anger at the invasion of his property – and, as I said, I have a great deal of sympathy for him and none for his victim. If Salem didn’t invade other peoples’ property, he wouldn’t be in the condition he is now – tough shit, well deserved, no sympathy. BUT, Hussain crossed a very clear line. The law in this instance is right.

  8. Where is the line in your opinion then?

    I would have expected a better argument than the “law is the law even if ithe law is wrong”. That’s how you get totalitarian states with that sort of mentality.

    Salem got over the line when invading Hussain’s house and threatening him. From that moment on, he has no right to expect protection from the law he disregarded in the 1st place.

    Not only that, but the sentence seems totally out of line with the usual leniency (shown to Salem 50 times previously) for premeditated assaults one can read about when this was nothing of the sort.

    Indeed, it seems to me that the sentence is not because of the offense itself, but because the judge feels his livelihood threatened. That is the real scandal.

    He chose to invade and threaten someone who was not doing anything, there are possible consequences. Indeed, if there were consequences like this more often, there might be less of this kind of things.

  9. Actually, reading about their ordeal, the humiliation and the threats to his family, no wonder he reacted in this way. I would have done the same, and I would still do if it happened to me.

    When the judge talks about justice taking its course, we see what it means: a supervision order and 2 scrotes still at large.

    Civilisation may be crashing down, but it is certainly not the fault of Hussain.

  10. Where is the line in your opinion then?

    I have already stated it. However, I’ll restate it. When Salem and his associates left Hussain’s property. At that point, self defence no longer applied.

    I would have expected a better argument than the “law is the law even if ithe law is wrong”.

    The law is not wrong. The law is right. What is wrong – and I have acknowledged this – is the failure to apply the law appropriately to Salem during his previous convictions.

    Civilisation may be crashing down, but it is certainly not the fault of Hussain.

    I haven’t said that it is.

  11. “The law is not wrong. The law is right. ”

    Which is why it is the job of the jury to deliver a so-called perverse judgement.

    Consider it a well-deserved two-fingered salute to the paedophile-loving, rapist-loving, fancy-dress travesties who call themselves judges and have ruined our justice system.

  12. If Hussain had been facing prosecution following an assault carried out while actually defending himself and family, yes, absolutely. What he did was, unfortunately, revenge. Therefore, the jury returned the correct verdict. I would have regretfully done likewise.

  13. “I have already stated it. However, I’ll restate it. When Salem and his associates left Hussain’s property. At that point, self defence no longer applied.”

    As a hypothetical point, if Salem and his associates had threatened to come back and kill him after they had left the premises, would your opinion be any different?

    People resort to revenge when they see that the criminal justice system has abandoned them, treats them with contempt, as it has.

  14. Rob,

    I would take issue with Longrider’s ‘revenge’. It was still in the heat of the moment. The same adrenaline that he needed to fight back was still in his system.

    In any case, my argument is that the jury should have let him off, not that he was innocent.
    .-= My last blog ..Pirates of Copenhagen =-.

  15. Good to see you’re on the side of law here, LR.

    Couple of points:

    1) The 50 (or ’56’, or ‘string of’, depending on which report you read – as far as I can see Salem’s trial wasn’t reported) previous convictions aren’t for burglary, unless Salem is a hundred years old. Your second domestic burglary conviction gets you a mandatory custodial sentence; your third and all subsequent get you a mandatory three-year sentence.

    2) The derisory sentence Salem received at court doesn’t make sense based on the reporting of Hussain’s trial. According to those reports, Salem was clearly guilty of the most serious form (domestic, armed, threats of violence, actual use of force) of burglary, which would carry a minimum of five years (binding on the judge, with prosecution gaing an automatic right of appeal if departed from). Instead he received a supervision order for false imprisonment. This is reported to be, in some way I can’t quite make out, due to the brain damage that Hussain inflicted on him. It’s implied, but not stated anywhere, that Salem pleaded guilty.

    Overall: it’s clear from the evidence that the Hussains committed GBH with intent, with self-defence not even an issue.

    It’s clear from the reporting that more angry tabloid-fodder will come away with the false belief that you can’t seriously harm or kill people who’re burgling your house (indeed, the grossly underreported Ed Pitkin case from last year highlights that you can kill someone who isn’t burgling your house, whilst mistakenly believing that they are, and still be in the clear).

    It isn’t at all clear from the reporting what Salem had done in the past, whether this was his first violent offence, or what was the chain of events that led to him getting a SO rather than the apparently correct charge of aggravated buglary.
    .-= My last blog ..What I’ve been up to, week ending 2009-12-13 =-.

  16. As a hypothetical point, if Salem and his associates had threatened to come back and kill him after they had left the premises, would your opinion be any different?

    No. Because it is not a matter of my opinion, it is a matter of the law. Hussain broke the law.

    are there any instances you can think of where you would, if on a jury, find the defendant not guilty when you thought that he was guilty?

    Absolutely – where the law is clearly an ass. Jury nullification can be a useful tool to highlight bad law. This, though, is not a case of bad law. It is a case of a man who, while understandably provoked, broke perfectly good law.

  17. Good to see you’re on the side of law here, LR.

    Unless the law is in the wrong, I always am. it’s one of the cornerstones of libertarianism after all.

  18. I have a somewhat different take on this case, though it is by no means certain that this would invalidate the custodial sentences for Mr Munir Hussain and his brother.

    This is the issue of citizens’ arrest. A violent crime had clearly been committed against the Hussain family. And surely it is the case that those citizens fearless enough to attempt arrest of such criminals are a good in society. Also, given that the robber was previously armed with a deadly weapon, use of adequate, even deadly, force against him would strike me as entirely appropriate.

    The outstanding question in my mind is whether the Hussain brothers continued to apply significant force to the armed robber after it was clear that he was subdued, disarmed and arrested by these citizens; also that the fracturing of his skull (and any other grievous bodily harm) occurred, beyond reasonable doubt, after he was subdued, disarmed and arrested.

    None of the reports that I have read give sufficient information on this question.

    Best regards

  19. “the false belief that you can’t seriously harm or kill people who’re burgling your house”

    Hardly. If what you were saying was true, how then do you explain Brett Osborn’s imprisonment, who had to contend with a complete psycho under the influence of drugs?

  20. “the false belief that you can’t seriously harm or kill people who’re burgling your house”

    We all know you can do this, and we all know the police, the CPS and the judiciary will do their utmost to convict us for it, because, as the judge said, they see what Hussain did as threatening the very pillars of society, unlike the child-molesters, serial burglars or rapists who gain their sympathy – especially if they’re junkies as well.

    “Agreed 100%, but it isn’t one of the cornerstones of all self-professed ‘libertarians’”

    We’re not living under a libertarian rule of law. If we were, Hussain may have been armed, and thus able to defend his family. You can make an idol of the rule of law, if you wish, but the reality is very different.

    “Unless the law is in the wrong, I always am. it’s one of the cornerstones of libertarianism after all”

    This is, of course, subjective. In any case the law is in the wrong. We are talking about a man an attempted robbery with a deadly weapon by a career criminal with scores of convictions. The law decided that he deserved another chance, and that we the public did not merit protection from the almost inevitable crime that followed.

    This is all before Mr Hussain has struggles to his feet and turns the tables. His cricket bat is still in the closet. The law is already in the wrong. All that, you will let go, as long as in this one little incident (Hussain’s crime) blind justice can be seen to be done.

    How many times did a jury convict the criminal who got the beating? How many times did they put this criminal in the hands of a judge for righteous punishment, only for the judge to set him loose?

    No way would I convict Hussain.
    .-= My last blog ..Pirates of Copenhagen =-.

  21. @THR, Osborn’s case is deeply weird and doesn’t make sense; I don’t pretend to understand it. As I’m sure you’re aware, he was never convicted of anything in a court of law.

    @TT, the police, CPS and judiciary will do nothing at all to convict for it. Hence Pitkin – hence *every other case* except Osborn in recent years. You’ll be arrested on suspicion of murder, because there’s a dead chap you killed at your house. Then the charges will be dropped. That is how it works. If you say it works otherwise, you are wrong.

    …and finally – it’s near-certain that Salem has never been before a jury for anything like the crime that he apparently did here.
    .-= My last blog ..What I’ve been up to, week ending 2009-12-13 =-.

  22. The outstanding question in my mind is whether the Hussain brothers continued to apply significant force to the armed robber after it was clear that he was subdued, disarmed and arrested by these citizens; also that the fracturing of his skull (and any other grievous bodily harm) occurred, beyond reasonable doubt, after he was subdued, disarmed and arrested.

    Yes, they did. That was the *whole bloody question asked at their trial*, and the jury decided that the answer was “yes, they did”.
    .-= My last blog ..What I’ve been up to, week ending 2009-12-13 =-.

  23. I completely agree with you Longrider. This was vigitantism not self-defence. Vigilantism is a profound threat to liberty. Just ask the paedatrician who was half-beaten to death because some vigilante filth thought that it sounded like ‘paedophile’. The only thing I hate more than a Labourite is a vigilante. The only good one is a dead one.

  24. And for those of you who think Hussain was justified in what he did, let me ask you this. Hussain tresspassed onto the property of a neighbour to attack the burglar. If Hussain was right then surely the neighbour also had the right to use ferocious force against Hussain for aggravated tresspass. Sauce for the goose, eh?

  25. Jesus Christ, Stephen. What a thoroughly stupid pair of comments.

    ‘Paediatrician beaten half to death’? You berk, that paediatrician story involves ‘paedo’ being sprayed on her front door, not her being ‘beaten half to death’. And if you actually read, you’d realise that the actual specifics of that case are hard to determine. Like, whether the vandals actually KNEW that she worked as a paediatrician-which-they-think-means-paedophile or whether they just has an ordinary vendetta going.

    And your other comment where you’re salivating over the idea of the victim in this case getting a beating from a third party, that’s just priceless. Confirms something I always knew about people who say how much they ‘hate vigilantes’. In fact they hate victims of crime full stop, it’s just as long as the victims are ‘submitting’ to violence and not fighting back like Hussain did, there’s no cause for complaint. But if things go the other way, wow! Watch your temper erupt!

    ‘Vigilatism is a profound threat to liberty’. I think you meant, ‘profound threat to power held by the authorities. After all, being harassed and threatened by violent, nasty people is just as much a threat to liberty as vigilantism is – there’s no difference at all – except one, it isn’t a threat to those in high places (just the little people’) so it’s tolerated.

  26. Paediatrician beaten half to death’? You berk, that paediatrician story involves ‘paedo’ being sprayed on her front door, not her being ‘beaten half to death’

    Oh so that makes it all right, does it? What a thoroughly objectional piece of shit you are.

    And your other comment where you’re salivating over the idea of the victim in this case getting a beating from a third party, that’s just priceless

    The only thing that is priceless is your dishonesty. I was simply pointing out to you that the same violence may be used against vigilantes; and that those who seek to circumvent the rule of law may also find themselves subject to arbitrary violence. Unlike you I would fully support the brisk prosecution and imprisonment of ANYONE who metes out law and order on their own terms.

    Confirms something I always knew about people who say how much they ‘hate vigilantes’. In fact they hate victims of crime full stop

    Dishonest bullshit of the highest order. Being a victim of crime does not give you the right to destroy the liberty of others. Pointing out that simple truth does not make me an enemy of the victim but an enemy of those who use their victimhood to attack the rule of law which protects everyone.

    It’s just as long as the victims are ’submitting’ to violence and not fighting back like Hussain did, there’s no cause for complaint. But if things go the other way, wow! Watch your temper erupt!

    Rubbish. If Hussain had attacked the burglars when they were still a threat to him, or used proportionate force when apprehending them, I would have no complaint. If you get your head bashed in when committing an aggravated burglary, so be it. That does not extend to continuing to beat a man who is already subdued.

    ‘Vigilatism is a profound threat to liberty’. I think you meant, ‘profound threat to power held by the authorities

    I meant what I said for it is true. All the ‘paedo’ scares in Britain would demonstrate the truth it of to you had you not your head planted up your arse.

  27. Oh so that makes it all right, does it?

    It shows that you’re a prize tit who doesn’t have the first clue what he’s talking about.

    And, um, what we saw was you decrying ‘vigilante’ violence – violence against criminals being so objectionable – while at the same time remarking that if the ‘vigilante’ got treated to some (more) violence then he’d just be getting what he deserved.

    In short your world view boils down to – violent scum who initiate crimes don’t deserve retaliation, but people who fight back against those crimes DO.

    Your sweary outburst doesn’t convince anyone that you’re right either. As the Americans say, when you’re drawing flak, you’re over the target.

  28. Aside from the somewhat bad tempered exchanges here of late – the comment that vigilantism diminishes liberty is perfectly correct. Forget the burden of proof. Forget the rules of evidence. Forget fair trials; just retribution meted out by those who decide guilt and punishment based upon their own prejudices. That most certainly will diminish liberty.

    I’ve said it before, but I’ll repeat it here – despite my sympathy for Hussain and acknowledgement that he was responding to an adrenaline rush, the law is correct, the jury was correct and so was the judge. Hussain was not defending himself, he was dishing out retribution. That is, quite correctly, against the law and so it should remain.

    If this discussion is to continue, may I ask that we keep it civil, please?

  29. “just retribution meted out by those who decide guilt and punishment based upon their own prejudices. That most certainly will diminish liberty.”

    Sorry, but no. I don’t see any difference between what you describe and what animal scum force people to endure, whether it’s one-off incidents like this or long campaigns of torment on estates dominated by savages. That most certainly diminishes the liberty of the people suffering from it.

    Judging from the derisory non-sentences that criminals get for violent crimes like that, the authorities are perfectly fine with it. It doesn’t affect them.

    What does affect them is people acting for themselves, which in theri eyes, threatens they power they have that they think the rest of us shouldn’t have.

    It has NOTHING to do with liberty. If they cared about liberty, criminal behaviour would be MORE of a concern to them than vigilantism. Because it’s more common. Because it’s a GREATER affront to people’s liberty.

    But for them, it’s the LESSER concern. Maybe you should ask yourself why that is.

  30. I don’t see any difference between what you describe and what animal scum force people to endure, whether it’s one-off incidents like this or long campaigns of torment on estates dominated by savages. That most certainly diminishes the liberty of the people suffering from it.

    Precisely! Thank you for making my point so succinctly 😉 Two wrongs do not, never have, and never will make a right. Vigilantes are merely a different type of criminal.

    Your second paragraph nails the issue here. It is not the law that is the issue, but sentencing. If that is the basis for your argument, then I agree. I don’t know what Salem was convicted of previously, but after so many, I would have expected him to have received a custodial sentence. Also, given the provocation, Hussain’s sentence seems unduly harsh. The law, however, is right and the conviction sound.

    It has NOTHING to do with liberty.

    It has everything to do with liberty. Lawlessness means people become afraid to leave their homes, to go about their business. Vigilantism is merely more lawlessness and so reduces liberty for the law abiding – particularly if those law abiding innocents are wrongly targeted by vigilantes.

    I am asking myself nothing. I am consistent in my approach – the rule of law should apply equally to all. That there has been a breakdown when dealing with offenders is apparent, but it doesn’t alter my point. I am also not sure how we can return to a more robust approach to sentencing. A new government might do so, but I’m not exactly holding my breath. That said, I do tend to like the idea of locally elected police chiefs. If they are answerable to the local electorate, it might concentrate their minds. The judiciary is another matter.

  31. You haven’t made your point yet. Why don’t you explain how exactly ‘vigilantism’ is so much worse, so much more frightening, than ordinary criminality? I think the so-called ‘dangers’ of vigilantism are decidedly overstated.

    You know, how the authorities like to whip up fears of vigilante mobs ‘taking the law into their own hands’ (which raises some questions of to whom do they expect the law ‘belongs’ – them exclusively?) using the sort of language they refer to in other contexts as ‘moral panic’. Ah, smell the hypocrisy.

    Again, the MAIN difference between the two is that the powers that be are thoroughly, UTTERLY comfortable with one and not the other. One affects THEM. The other only affects US. Again I ask, which do you think is which?

    P.S. Your spam-catching system. Kind of ironic how, every time it tells me my message has been rejected, I can get it past the system by simply trying to post it again. I thought that sort of thing was what spamguards were supposed to prevent?

  32. I have made my point – repeatedly (two wrongs don’t make a right). Indeed, you effectively repeated it for me. Vigilantism bypasses the rules of evidence, fair trails and the burden of proof. If the judicial system gets it wrong – and it does repeatedly – how much worse when we do away with what safeguards we do have? Stephen referred to the paedo campaign whipped up by the News of the World. There were cases (one in Portsmouth IIRC) where innocent people were targeted. Is that what we want? I most certainly do not. Vigilantism is merely another form of lawlessness and would eventually lead to more cases of innocents wrongly identified and targeted. It is no different to any other form of criminality. Salem may have deserved his treatment (he certainly gets no sympathy from me) – but that doesn’t mean that other victims of the mob do. Hussain is a decent man who crossed a line. Understandable, certainly, but it is still against the law and that is nothing new.

    A judicial system must be impartial. If the victims decide the guilt and punishment of the offender (assuming that they get it right), that is not justice, that is revenge and will inevitably be disproportionate. I have been the victim of crime and would have willingly killed the perpetrators had I known who they were (likewise the scrote who broke into my sister’s house while she was sleeping after a night shift). I’m not convinced, though, that stealing a motorcycle actually warrants the death penalty any more than burglary.

    Again, the MAIN difference between the two is that the powers that be are thoroughly, UTTERLY comfortable with one and not the other. One affects THEM. The other only affects US. Again I ask, which do you think is which?

    Not convinced by this. I favour cock-up over conspiracy. What we have seen over the past few decades is an establishment that believes its own propaganda about the causes of crime. i.e. social deprivation leads to people turning to crime. Not so. Like many others I come from a poor background and have at various times been close to insolvent. At no time did it occur to me to turn to crime. Criminal activity is a choice. When the establishment grasp this, we might see a sensible attitude towards sentencing. And it is the sentencing that is the issue here, not the conviction.

    Frankly, I’m appalled that otherwise rational people can actively advocate mob rule – for that is what vigilantism is.

    P.S. Your spam-catching system. Kind of ironic how, every time it tells me my message has been rejected, I can get it past the system by simply trying to post it again. I thought that sort of thing was what spamguards were supposed to prevent?

    I’ve no idea what is going on here.

  33. There’s room for impartiality even if Hussain was judged to have acted under severe provocation (being tied up along with his family and very possibly executed) and set free. And if ‘impartiality’ is leading you to a place where you think the law must provide a measure of safety to violent criminals in the act of committing a violent crime than I suggest you rethink your understanding of ‘impartiality’.

    Cock-up or conspiracy…it’s neither, it’s people who are little better than thugs themselves putting their personal preferences ahead of everything else. You even said it yourself, the current understanding is to deny that criminal behaviour is a choice. Criminals are just poor little lambs who can’t help it. Of course that thinking is also linked to the attitude that criminals must be protected from their victim’s possibly violent retaliation. After all, they’re poor little lambs who can’t help it.

    Sending Hussain to prison serves NO other purpose, it’s not about deterring vigilantism so that we don’t all descend into chaos…it’s about protecting criminals so that THEY can cause chaos against anyone who isn’t rich or powerful. It’s about delivering us bound hand and foot to the law of the jungle.

  34. And if ‘impartiality’ is leading you to a place where you think the law must provide a measure of safety to violent criminals in the act of committing a violent crime than I suggest you rethink your understanding of ‘impartiality’.

    I haven’t said anything of the sort.

    Sending Hussain to prison serves NO other purpose, it’s not about deterring vigilantism so that we don’t all descend into chaos…it’s about protecting criminals so that THEY can cause chaos against anyone who isn’t rich or powerful. It’s about delivering us bound hand and foot to the law of the jungle.

    Yeah… Right…

    The problem with conspiracy theories is that they assume a level of competence on the part of the conspirators that contradicts the available evidence.

  35. “Cock-up or conspiracy…it’s neither, it’s people who are little better than thugs themselves putting their personal preferences ahead of everything else.”

    “The problem with conspiracy theories is that they assume a level of competence on the part of the conspirators that contradicts the available evidence.”

    Sad to see you sinking to the level of just completely ignoring what anyone else says. Especially since you said something about wanting civil discussion earlier. At what point exactly did you turn into a left-wing blogger?

  36. I am neither left wing nor right wing and I have not ignored what you have said.

    I’m afraid that you are, indeed, indulging in a conspiracy theory here. You have taken one case where the law worked precisely as it should and extrapolated a malign conspiracy on the part of the establishment to use crime as a means of social control. There is no evidence to substantiate this. None. What evidence there is suggests that:

    a – they have made a serious error in determining the root causes of crime.

    b – they don’t learn from their mistakes.

    c – that the politicians tend to chase headlines in an attempt to appease the moral outrage expressed in the tabloids and therefore make bad law and poor sentencing guidelines.

    All of this indicates rank incompetence. For malign intent you need to look at the illiberal laws they have devised.

    The law relating to self-defence, with the exception of a minor amendment in favour of the householder recently remains unchanged. The householder is entitled to defend himself when threatened by intruders. He is not entitled to extract retribution – no matter how much we might sympathise, no matter how much he might be high on an adrenaline rush. There is a clear line. Hussain crossed it. This was an open and shut case. You cannot extrapolate from this any more than what the facts of the case tell us. The jury heard the evidence. They are not members of the establishment – they are ordinary people like you and I. They decided that Hussain went too far and committed a criminal offence.

    Now… Argue that the sentence was too harsh by all means. I would agree with you. A fair outcome would probably have been a suspended sentence. You cannot, however, argue that the conviction itself was wrong, nor use it to assume malign intent on the part of anyone else.

    It is not I who has failed to listen to others. I have responded to your points. In exchange, you have sought to put words into my mouth and assume thoughts on my part that are simply not there.

    I’ll go back finally to the very first point I made in the post. One man crossed a line and was prosecuted for it. It was not self defence. If it was, the likelihood is that he would not have been charged and if he was, the jury would probably have acquitted. They would have been right to do so.

Comments are closed.