Two tales of self-defense
Obviously compensating for the size of his penis, a wheelchair bound man kills a home invader.
Where Great Britain Used To Be, a man uses a cricket bat to defend his family from a home invasion. He gets 30 months in jail. The home invaders are walking the streets on parole.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Well, personally I think Munir Hussain should be given a medal for beating Walid Salem—who had 50 previous offenses—with a cricket bat so hard that he suffered a permanent brain injury.
But that’s just me. In all fairness, it was not self defense by any stretch of the imagination, since the beating occurred after he and his brother chased the intruder down the street. I don’t think he’d have been let off the hook by the courts here for doing something like that either.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:30 am
It started out as self-defense then turned into a righteous beating.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:34 am
It was self defense until the dude ran away. If someone is fleeing, it’s not self defense. Wouldn’t be in this country either.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I agree. Though I think in Texas, they actually would give him a medal.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:45 am
This is where jury nullification should come into play. The law may have been on Hussain’s side while his family were kidnapped, but the law certainly wasn’t present. What you have here is a situation where robbers have identified a rich man and specifically laid out a trap for him by threatening his family. They know where he lives and that he has money. They know that the police and the courts aren’t going to stop them. The law had abandoned Hussain, and IMHO he was justified in taking any step necessary to protect his family.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:55 am
You can use force to stop someone from fleeing a crime. Just not deadly force.
This is apparently the case in Britain, at least in the public relations regarding this event:
It should be noted, that in using force to stop someone, if you get your but whipped, there is little recourse against the person since you initiated or mutually engaged in the assault.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Bad comparison, once your leave your property all “home is my castle” laws in the US stop shielding you too.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I still think it’s great that he smashed the guy over the head with a cricket bat.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
He BROKE the cricket bat over the guy’s head. Which takes some doing. Had he not continued to beat the fellow after he felled him, I think the law would have been on his side.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I don’t care if he tracked the man down to a Buddhist monastery in Tibet before killing him. If you threaten a man’s family with deadly force (especially in a place where the police and courts won’t help you), he should have every right to eliminate you.
In the alternative, was there no “temporary insanity” defense available?
December 15th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
“In the alternative, was there no “temporary insanity” defense available?”
That was what I was thinking, too.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
So, the violent criminal who threatened the accepted social order and therefore, implicitly, the very authority of the state, is in jail where he ought to be. The violent criminals who merely threatened a few fat-cat private citizens but posed no threat to the authority of the state, get parole, where the state can limit them to an “acceptable level of violence.” All very reasonable once you get your priorities straight.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
It was self defense until the dude ran away. If someone is fleeing, it’s not self defense. Wouldn’t be in this country either.
No, it was self defense all the way. The man had targeted him, knew where he lived and threatened his family. At that point giving him incentive to never return no matter how far you must chase him is still self defense. That the law doesn’t recognize this is further proof that “The law is an ass.”
December 15th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Uncle,
I agree, we Texans would have gotten a medal. Unless of course you were using a cricket bat, no one plays cricket here that i know of lol.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I called the sheriff’s a few years back and asked if it was legal for me to use a firearm to disable a vehicle from leaving my property after the occupants were caught on my property committing a crime.
Sheriff said no, but that I could use my own vehicle to ram and smash their vehicle into tiny bits whether they were still on my property or fleeing from it on a public road.