PDA

View Full Version : Political/Legal/Unbelievable, and it pisses me off. Thoughts?



Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
12-20-2009, 11:44 AM
Political/Legal/Unbelievable, and it pisses me off.

Thoth had to vent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235782/Millionaire-Munir-Hussain-fought-knife-wielding-burglar-jailed-intruder-let-off.html

Everyone's thoughts on the article?

Sascha
12-20-2009, 12:49 PM
Forget it, Thoth. It's Chinatown.

kkriegg
12-20-2009, 12:54 PM
Yeup, sounds like the British legal system alright. "Taking matters into your own hands is bad, wait for daddy government to take care of it."

Unfortunately, we're headed down the same path.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
12-20-2009, 01:38 PM
I'd like to ask the Judge where it says in the lawbooks that all charges can be dropped when there is no dispute of the crimes perpetrated by the real criminals.

Arkhemedes
12-20-2009, 01:43 PM
Fortunately, we here in Texas believe in the 'Castle Law'. If you break into my home, I have the right to blow your sorry ass away.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
12-20-2009, 01:50 PM
I love Texas, and i visit yearly. Most of my family lives in Texas and it is my intention to move there soon.

kkriegg
12-20-2009, 02:10 PM
I'd like to ask the Judge where it says in the lawbooks that all charges can be dropped when there is no dispute of the crimes perpetrated by the real criminals.

Because the guy who broke into the home comitted a regular crime. The man who defended himself broke the government's monopoly on defense and justice, and must be squashed. Otherwise everybody will start taking responsability for their own saftey and the government (the judge's employer) will start losing power.

cplmac
12-21-2009, 04:51 PM
Not that I can give a specific instance right at the moment, but I have seen articles in the past where this has been done here in the U.S. also. Fortunately, I did see later articles that showed where the original travisty was overturned on appeal. Once it even stated that the burglar was at the appeal trial testifying and was ordered taken into custody by the appelate judge for the crimes that he had committed and had yet to be prosecuted for.

I can honestly say that if someone where to try that to my family, they had better hope that the authorites get them first.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
12-21-2009, 08:33 PM
Because the guy who broke into the home committed a regular crime. The man who defended himself broke the government's monopoly on defense and justice, and must be squashed. Otherwise everybody will start taking responsibility for their own safety and the government (the judge's employer) will start losing power.

Well said.


I can honestly say that if someone where to try that to my family, they had better hope that the authorities get them first.

You and me, both.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
12-22-2009, 11:42 AM
It's official, the world has gone insane: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-fails-to-halt-female-genital-mutilation-1845731.html

Ignorance just makes me sick. There's no excuse for this.

Sascha
12-22-2009, 01:31 PM
It's official, the world has gone insane: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-fails-to-halt-female-genital-mutilation-1845731.html

Ignorance just makes me sick. There's no excuse for this.
We spend time in anthro classes looking at this specific issue and ... it's complicated, to say the least.

Edit: (Also, the "Could your husband be gay?" ad made me laugh. I'm a horrible person.)

Farcaster
12-22-2009, 06:25 PM
Thoth, in regards to your original link, I think the courts acted correctly. I base this only on the information that was available in the article, of course, and not the actual facts of the case. However, if it is true that he successfully disabled the person who invaded his home, it was not legal (and, in my opinion, not moral) for him to further beat the man with a cricket bat. This assumes that a reasonable person would have known that his attacker was now disabled and no longer a threat.

kkriegg
12-22-2009, 10:02 PM
Farcaster: That's all well and good, but that still leaves you with the guy who actually broke in to the house (the "career criminal") getting off.

If the defender actually knew the guy was out and continued to beat him silly, then yes he should be punished. But only in a "slap on the wrist" kind of way, kind of the reversal of the actual sentance.

Farcaster
12-22-2009, 11:37 PM
I would have to completely disagree that he should get simply a slap on the wrist. What he did, as it was described, could have resulted in the guy's death. That is use of lethal force on an already subdued opponent. He deserves a little prison time.

Umiushi
12-23-2009, 03:45 AM
I don't really care about the welfare of burglars, but I think there is a valid question as to whether sentencing an individual who has suffered brain damage to the extent that they cannot enter a plea is even comprehensible to the person.

Dytrrnikl
12-23-2009, 05:28 AM
It's articles like the first that get me...angry with a criminals rights. If as the article stated that the burglar did indeed threaten to kill the guy and his family in his own home if he didn't get down on the ground, then I say the criminal has forfeited any and all rights to be simply subdued...particularly since the burglar was a career criminal and it was the guys HOME. Sorry, but if someone break into my home like and threatens to kill my family, any use of force on my part is completely and totally warranted...up to and including the permanent disablement of the trespasser.

As for article number 2, it may be complicated Sascha, however, I for one do not believe anyone has the right to force things like FGM on anyone for any reason - cultural or religious.

Sascha
12-23-2009, 03:10 PM
As for article number 2, it may be complicated Sascha, however, I for one do not believe anyone has the right to force things like FGM on anyone for any reason - cultural or religious.
I agree, though that agreement comes with biases rooted in culture and privilege. That's the complication. Interesting ethical debate, in any case.

cplmac
12-23-2009, 10:35 PM
Although I will respond to a violent threat to my family with the same being dispensed upon the criminal, I would also not continue to beat upon someone that has been subdued. At that point you become no better than the criminal. What those criminals need to be aware of is the fact that they could get a severe injury that subdues them.

nijineko
12-24-2009, 02:39 AM
try this one on for size:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=12671

and

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:11:./temp/~c111ESM8zM::

kkriegg
12-24-2009, 11:42 AM
It's articles like the first that get me...angry with a criminals rights.

You're off the force, Callahan!


If as the article stated that the burglar did indeed threaten to kill the guy and his family in his own home if he didn't get down on the ground, then I say the criminal has forfeited any and all rights to be simply subdued...particularly since the burglar was a career criminal and it was the guys HOME. Sorry, but if someone break into my home like and threatens to kill my family, any use of force on my part is completely and totally warranted...up to and including the permanent disablement of the trespasser.

You might want to check with a lawyer about that. In Washington, we have some very generous self-denfense laws (including "first strike" self defense, and very strong case law supporting the "castle" theory) but even then there's an exception made for excessive force. The homeowner in the article would have gone to jail here, too, at least for a few months.


At that point you become no better than the criminal.


Uh... huh. I still think the criminal is worse, since he was the initiator of the entire fiasco. The homeowner is just a guy who lost control of his emotions after being threatened and violated.

Farcaster
12-24-2009, 01:25 PM
Uh... huh. I still think the criminal is worse, since he was the initiator of the entire fiasco. The homeowner is just a guy who lost control of his emotions after being threatened and violated.

I see your point on that, kkriegg. However, that doesn't excuse the home owner from responsibility for his actions. Though he may have been provoked, his response was unlawful, and he should suffer reasonable penalties for what he did.

tesral
12-25-2009, 11:35 AM
I don't think I would even take a free trip to England anymore. The whole country is nanny state nuts.