Homeowner Munir Hussain jailed for attacking burglars who tied up family

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,266
If you are going to be ridiculous and twist everything I have said in this thread, then I refuse to comment.
You said that Hussain should not have chased down the perpetrator and he should not have defended himself once he chased said perp down.


As an interesting aside, it appears that there may have been some other factors that weren't reported in the main media. One of Hussain's "accomplices" was heard to say "Who has sent you?" which suggests there is more to the story than meets the eye.
Aaaaaand the rumors start
 

Peter3hg

Forum Addict
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
5,949
Location
Manchester, UK
Car(s)
Audi A3 1.4 TFSI Honda Hornet CB600S
You said that Hussain should not have chased down the perpetrator and he should not have defended himself once he chased said perp down.

Quote please. And an apology when you fail to supply a quote.

Aaaaaand the rumors start

It was said in court. It isn't a rumour.
 
Last edited:

freeferrarisdonotexist

I'm not stupid - I'm British!
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
1,143
Location
Somewhere in the South of England, UK.
Car(s)
Yamaha YBR125 (touring), FG 29er touring bike
I'm seeing some polarisation here. The man was clearly acting in self-defense in every situation except the final part, ie beating the criminal's head in. If the criminal was still armed or making threats to Hussain's family, than the "beating" was justified- his family and life were/could've been in danger. If the perp was just trying to flee, unarmed, than Hussain did go too far- but nonetheless did not deserve the ridiculous judgement he got. And no matter what the criminals should have been put into prison for armed robbery.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,266
However a sustained attack with multiple weapons, while other people are pleading you to stop, on an immobile and defenceless man cannot be justified. This guy went so far beyond the line, he can't even begin to claim it was self defence.
Highlighted in bold are things that you are basically making up. Are you now claiming that you do not think that Hussain and his brother chasing down the man that robbed them and threated to kill their family, and beating said man senseless (especially since it can be safely assumed that, based on his previous history, he would be back on the streets seeking revenge in no time if he had gotten arrested), is justified?


Oh, and re-read this:
As an interesting aside, it appears that there may have been some other factors that weren't reported in the main media.
If it was said in court, wouldn't we know for sure?
 

Peter3hg

Forum Addict
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
5,949
Location
Manchester, UK
Car(s)
Audi A3 1.4 TFSI Honda Hornet CB600S
Highlighted in bold are things that you are basically making up. Are you now claiming that you do not think that Hussain and his brother chasing down the man that robbed them and threated to kill their family, and beating said man senseless (especially since it can be safely assumed that, based on his previous history, he would be back on the streets seeking revenge in no time if he had gotten arrested), is justified?


Oh, and re-read this:

If it was said in court, wouldn't we know for sure?

Pathetic. Using my wording to try and score a point.
Also we do not know what his previous history is, save for the number of offences. They could have been a pile of unpaid court fines or driving offences for all we know.

One man was bent over Mr Salem, punching him in the face and saying ?who sent you?? according to her written testimony, summarised by Mr Price.

Miranda McCoughlin, a neighbour, told the trial that she leant out of her window and urged the men to stop, telling them to leave it to the police, but was told to mind her own business.

However, the attack which then occurred was totally unnecessary and amounted to a very violent revenge attack on a defenceless man.

The last is a direct quote from the judge. I believe that is two apologies you now owe me.

(Sources)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...wielding-burglar-jailed-intruder-let-off.html

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/..._on_intruder__who_held_family_at_knifepoint_/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-attacking-intruder-after-hostage-ordeal.html
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,266
Pathetic. Using my wording to try and score a point.
Didn't you ask me to quote you?


Also we do not know what his previous history is, save for the number of offences. They could have been a pile of unpaid court fines or driving offences for all we know.
True, but be reasonable here - do you really think that he had 50 driving tickets and then resorted to burglary and death threats?


Miranda McCoughlin, a neighbour, told the trial that she leant out of her window and urged the men to stop, telling them to leave it to the police, but was told to mind her own business.
She had no idea what had happened! Of course her first instinct upon seeing a fight is to call the police!


However, the attack which then occurred was totally unnecessary and amounted to a very violent revenge attack on a defenceless man.
Unnecessary? I disgree. Hence this whole argument.
Very violent is a relative term.
Revenge attack? No shit, sherlock! The man threated to kill Hussain's family!
Defenseless? Still don't know if the perps were armed, so I'll hold my judgement on that one.


I believe that is two apologies you now owe me.
:lol: Maybe when I'm actually wrong.
 

salle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
1,084
Location
Sweden
Pretty sure that it was two guys that chased him down. And I also really doubt that the perp was unarmed - he was the one threatening to kill them, remember?

"Neighbours saw several men beating Salem with weapons including a metal pole."
And
"The prosecution alleged that two other men also took part in the ?revenge attack?." (two plus two equals four)
Read the article more closely next time perhaps?

He threatened to kill him before running away... I'd take it as the threat was an empty one or the three burglars would have killed him rather than run away.

That is called ensuring that the threat is no longer present, and that the threat cannot return at a later date to commit the previously intended crime.

Maybe I'm just barbaric, but if I was a criminal and the guy I was robbing simply called the cops after catching me, I'd want to get even with him for making me sit in jail. Dead criminals don't commit crimes anymore.

... and you see no problems with being the one who carries out your own law and judgement on a person?
All they had to do after getting him on the ground would be to restrain him. There are many ways to restraining a person who's fallen to the ground. Especially when you're outnumbering him.
Then you hand him over to the police and legal system to prosecute and sentence him.
If you can't do these things then you have no place in a civilized society...
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
No idea. The issue of lenient sentencing is a separate issue and best left out of this thread.
As an interesting aside, it appears that there may have been some other factors that weren't reported in the main media. One of Hussain's "accomplices" was heard to say "Who has sent you?" which suggests there is more to the story than meets the eye.

Actually, the issue of lenient sentencing is very germane to this topic. If the government wasn't going to do anything (and it looks like they wouldn't) to keep people threatening to kill you in jail, then it devolves upon you to solve the problem and protect yourself and your family.

They won't even hold a guy that has admitted to more than 650 burglaries!!!!!!!

UK NEWS
BURGLAR LET FREE AFTER 700 RAIDS IS ARRESTED AGAIN

A burglar who walked free despite admitting more than 650 raids has been arrested again

Monday December 7,2009
By Paul Jeeves

A PROLIFIC burglar who sparked uproar after he walked free despite admitting more than 650 raids has been arrested again just six weeks after he was released.

Bradley Wernham, 18, was picked up by police on Friday on suspicion of two more burglaries.

Judge Christopher Ball caused outrage among his victims in October after deciding not to send him to jail when he appeared at Chelmsford Crown Court in Essex.

Instead of being behind bars he was given a rent-free home to live in with his girlfriend in Chelmsford because the judge believed he had turned over a new leaf. But Essex Police confirmed they have arrested him again.

It is believed one of the alleged crimes relates to the theft of a ?Porsche.

Wernham, who has been bailed to return to a police station on Wednesday, was described as a ?one-man crime wave? after admitting hundreds of burglaries which totted up to a haul of ?1million.

The spree began when he was 12 and involved stealing luxury cars and breaking into churches, homes and pubs.

After admitting 20 burglaries in court he asked for another 645 offences to be taken into account.

He was told that rather than going to jail he was to be relocated to a new town and given a rent-free home to live with his girlfriend. Judge Ball ordered Wernham to do 150 hours of community service and obey a six-month 11pm to 6am curfew order.

Wernham had earlier been convicted of 26 other crimes. He was previously living in Harlow, Essex, and was moved to a secret location in Chelmsford.

Speaking after the sentencing, Chelmsford West MP Simon Burns said: ?It is misguided do-gooding philosophy when a custodial sentence would have been more appropriate.?

Sorry. When judges are letting people who have admitted to committing 650+ burglaries not only walk free but live at taxpayer expense, do you honestly think that they're going to keep someone with only 50 burglaries to not be let out in time for tea?

Pathetic. Using my wording to try and score a point.
Also we do not know what his previous history is, save for the number of offences. They could have been a pile of unpaid court fines or driving offences for all we know.

The last is a direct quote from the judge. I believe that is two apologies you now owe me.

(Sources)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...wielding-burglar-jailed-intruder-let-off.html

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/..._on_intruder__who_held_family_at_knifepoint_/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-attacking-intruder-after-hostage-ordeal.html

They had knives when they ambushed the family. Where did the knives go?

And do you *really* think they were parking tickets on his record?


He threatened to kill him before running away... I'd take it as the threat was an empty one or the three burglars would have killed him rather than run away.

Not so much. Hussain escaped from them, then came back with reinforcements. Then the burglars fled - but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't come back later.
 
Last edited:

merp

New Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
4
Location
Coppell, TX, USA
Car(s)
1993 Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.6
To all you US Americans: you do realize your crime rate is about twice that of the UK even when you do have a more draconian approach to the whole issue. Although granted, the amount of burglaries are half of the UK's rate. But for pretty much all else the US is clearly in the lead, especially for the violent crimes. So it does seem violence just breeds more violence rather than less.

A bit late to the thread, but the above is a TOTAL LIE.

The US has less than half the crime rate of the UK, and that's only if you roll the rates for murder into it, which, as any serious criminologist will tell you, is a special-case crime, since in 95% of cases the victim and assailant know each other.

Eliminating violent crime, the UK has approximately 500% the property crime rate (defined as crimes per 100,000 persons).

For vandalism alone, the UK has over 1,200% the US rate.

You really should check the numbers. I take mine from the FBI's crime rate statistics for 2008 and the UK Home Office crime statistics for 2008. Where, pray tell, did you get yours?

(EDIT)

I'm sorry, I mistyped. The UK has 880% the property crime rate and 1,950% (that's NINETEEN TIMES) the violent crime rate of the US!

I LOL'd
 
Last edited:

Crazyjeeper

NickGyver
DONOR
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
7,984
Location
Dallas, TX
Car(s)
F150, CJ7, Mustang GT, Tenere, Griso
... and you see no problems with being the one who carries out your own law and judgement on a person?
All they had to do after getting him on the ground would be to restrain him. There are many ways to restraining a person who's fallen to the ground. Especially when you're outnumbering him.
Then you hand him over to the police and legal system to prosecute and sentence him.
If you can't do these things then you have no place in a civilized society...

It all boils down to what your basic philosophy of life is. I believe there is a natural law higher than all laws of man. That law is that everyone is entitled to their own life, liberty and property, assuming they do not try and encroach upon the life, liberty and property of others. So, it is wrong for me to just walk up to somebody in the street and kill them, because I am taking away their right to their own life. However, if I attempted to kill someone and failed, they have a right to defend their own life with maximum possible force. There is nothing more precious to me then my own life, so I will defend it to the maximum extent possible, and if that means killing a repeat offender criminal dipshit, then so be it, I won't be going to the morgue in a body bag.
 

Peter3hg

Forum Addict
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
5,949
Location
Manchester, UK
Car(s)
Audi A3 1.4 TFSI Honda Hornet CB600S
Didn't you ask me to quote you?

I asked you to quote me where I said he shouldn't have chased him and defended himself. You have failed miserably to do this.

True, but be reasonable here - do you really think that he had 50 driving tickets and then resorted to burglary and death threats?

No, but I also fail to believe they were serious offences or the papers would have mentioned it. If a paper mentions an amazing fact, but then fails to elaborate on it, it means the fact isn't as amazing as you might imagine.

She had no idea what had happened! Of course her first instinct upon seeing a fight is to call the police!

I quoted this as you claimed I had made up a person pleading them to stop.
You said "Highlighted in bold are things that you are basically making up".
This quote proves what I said.

Unnecessary? I disgree. Hence this whole argument.
Very violent is a relative term.
Revenge attack? No shit, sherlock! The man threated to kill Hussain's family!
Defenseless? Still don't know if the perps were armed, so I'll hold my judgement on that one.

That was a direct quote from the judge. Do you not think he might know whether he was armed or not? Are you being deliberately obtuse or can you not be bothered reading up on what you are talking about?
And you are agreeing that it wasn't self defence when you say it was a revenge attack. A revenge attack is not legal in any civilised country.

:lol: Maybe when I'm actually wrong.

You have been proved wrong repeatedly.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,266
I asked you to quote me where I said he shouldn't have chased him and defended himself. You have failed miserably to do this.
:? And here I was thinking that this whole argument was over whether or not Hussein is justified in having chased down and beaten the assailant.


No, but I also fail to believe they were serious offences or the papers would have mentioned it. If a paper mentions an amazing fact, but then fails to elaborate on it, it means the fact isn't as amazing as you might imagine.
"The papers would have mentioned it" is a pretty poor argument. Maybe the police just didn't release all the details to the press? :dunno:


I quoted this as you claimed I had made up a person pleading them to stop.
In my mind a random person yelling from a window is not pleading. But whatever, I'll actually give you that one, as I can see your side of that argument.



Do you not think he might know whether he was armed or not?
Idk, but there's a hell of a lot of unclear facts coming from your side of the argument.


Are you being deliberately obtuse or can you not be bothered reading up on what you are talking about?
And poor Peter3hg is reduced to personal insults. Great. :rolleyes:


And you are agreeing that it wasn't self defence when you say it was a revenge attack. A revenge attack is not legal in any civilised country.
I guess we have different definitions of "revenge attack". In my opinion this "revenge attack" was in self-defense.
 

Peter3hg

Forum Addict
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
5,949
Location
Manchester, UK
Car(s)
Audi A3 1.4 TFSI Honda Hornet CB600S
I'm sorry, I mistyped. The UK has 880% the property crime rate and 1,950% (that's NINETEEN TIMES) the violent crime rate of the US!

I LOL'd

You cannot compare violent crime rates due to the difference in what is counted as violent crime. The US stats start with Aggravated Assault whereas in the UK everything including assault and battery, neither of which are even remotely close to the level of aggravated assault, are counted. As the vast majority of offences are assault or battery, it heavily skews the results. You can only compare offence for offence, for offences that are basically the same, such as murder, robbery, burglary and so on.
I can't be bothered going through the stats so your point may well still stand.




:? And here I was thinking that this whole argument was over whether or not Hussein is justified in having chased down and beaten the assailant.

You are still failing to provide what is requested. Please show me one single quote where I have said he was not justified in chasing the guy and defending himself when he got there.

"The papers would have mentioned it" is a pretty poor argument. Maybe the police just didn't release all the details to the press? :dunno:

I agree it is a poor argument, and in reality neither of us know, or is likely to find out.

Idk, but there's a hell of a lot of unclear facts coming from your side of the argument.

I fail to see how I can be any more clear than providing a quote from the judge. If the judge, who has all the facts, says the man was defenceless, then I think it is safe to assume that that is the truth.

And poor Peter3hg is reduced to personal insults. Great. :rolleyes:

Nothing I have said was a personal insult.

I guess we have different definitions of "revenge attack". In my opinion this "revenge attack" was in self-defense.

A revenge attack can never be self-defence as far as I am concerned. They are two very different beasts. I accept this point largely sways on what somebody defines the two phrases as meaning.
 
Last edited:

jedd_kenobi

Forum Addict
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
6,498
Location
Gallifrey
Car(s)
A Blue Police Box
Personally i don't think he should have gone to prison for the length of time he was sentenced. When someone enters their home and they did what those 3 did, i very likely would have resulted in the same manner. While its true and i admit that once the guy was on the ground, the man should have stopped beating him to the point of retarded but i honestly can't blame the guy. What he went through, no one should have to go through. Its easy to judge someone on this but until you go through a similar experience (and god hoping no one does) its impossible to determine someone's actions.
On the other hand as well, things could have gone out of hand and the worst could have happened in the house and all of the family ended up dead and there would be the normal political/media outcry of something having to be done. This really is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. The way i see it, this was a situation that could have turned out very badly.
I don't think this will lead to a bunch of vigilantes running around in a bunch of tights and dressing themselves up as a bat. More that people should really think about what they would do in that kind of situation and how they'd react.
If you want to neg-rep me for my comments, go ahead. i don't care but quite frankly if it had been me and i had gotten my hands on them, there would be a very good chance they'd not only be retarded, but in a wheelchair, eating their food through a straw and been castrated.
 

Cold Fussion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
4,444
Location
A small island off the coast of New Zealand
Car(s)
1988 Ford Laser Ghia
It all boils down to what your basic philosophy of life is. I believe there is a natural law higher than all laws of man. That law is that everyone is entitled to their own life, liberty and property, assuming they do not try and encroach upon the life, liberty and property of others.

Thats how the the law operates, except the role of the courts is to objectively assess the crime. You are saying you want to make that judgement for yourself. A person who is baised and in a rage can not objectively asses their situation which is why we have the legal system. You say that him saying he is going to kill to kill his family is justifyable grounds for bashing his skull in when he had not inflicted any harm on any individual, and was fleeing at the time of the offense.

If i say to you right now that im going to kill your wife while she is sleeping and make you watch before i set you on fire, you are aruging that gives you justifyable grounds to kill me. Its obvious im joking but you can't take your own form of justice on a completely ambiguous statement.
 

salle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
1,084
Location
Sweden
Not so much. Hussain escaped from them, then came back with reinforcements. Then the burglars fled - but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't come back later.

Why would they flee rather than say use the family as a hostage? instead they fled showing they didn't have the balls to be as violent as threatened.

A bit late to the thread, but the above is a TOTAL LIE.

I didn't lie, I just used the first statistic site that showed crime rates.

It all boils down to what your basic philosophy of life is. I believe there is a natural law higher than all laws of man. That law is that everyone is entitled to their own life, liberty and property, assuming they do not try and encroach upon the life, liberty and property of others.

But no one tried to kill anyone else. A threat is a threat which is a criminal act in and of itself but you can't go around and kill people that threatens you saying it's in self defence. When their actions are the opposite of their threat.
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,266
Why would they flee rather than say use the family as a hostage? instead they fled showing they didn't have the balls to be as violent as threatened.

Whoa, whoa, a hostage situation is VERY different from a burglary. They tried to get out of there before the cops showed up
 

freeferrarisdonotexist

I'm not stupid - I'm British!
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
1,143
Location
Somewhere in the South of England, UK.
Car(s)
Yamaha YBR125 (touring), FG 29er touring bike
It all boils down to what your basic philosophy of life is. I believe there is a natural law higher than all laws of man. That law is that everyone is entitled to their own life, liberty and property, assuming they do not try and encroach upon the life, liberty and property of others. So, it is wrong for me to just walk up to somebody in the street and kill them, because I am taking away their right to their own life. However, if I attempted to kill someone and failed, they have a right to defend their own life with maximum possible force. There is nothing more precious to me then my own life, so I will defend it to the maximum extent possible, and if that means killing a repeat offender criminal dipshit, then so be it, I won't be going to the morgue in a body bag.

+rep to you sir.
 

freeferrarisdonotexist

I'm not stupid - I'm British!
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
1,143
Location
Somewhere in the South of England, UK.
Car(s)
Yamaha YBR125 (touring), FG 29er touring bike
Top