Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Another Tony Martin

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Another Tony Martin

Old 26th Dec 2009, 22:55
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 38
KnC

You are more scared of 'Middle England' (whatever that is) than robbers, muggers etc.? What a lot of bollox you are spouting. You also manage to label everyone who disagrees with you as right wing, an insult in your book. Sorry, but my opinion is that most people are fully supportive of the Husseins and that you are totally and utterly wrong. But then I'm just a right wing middle Englander, so what would I know?
Nick Riviera is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 04:17
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Africa
Posts: 412
Christmas Eve, South Africa:-

Friends of my parents, a couple in their 80s were ambushed in the driveway returning home from a midnight carol service. The old boy was badly beaten and his wife beaten and raped.

Me? I'd follow the perpetrators as long as it took to get a clear run at them and remove them from this vale of tears.
Cardinal Puff is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 07:49
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 67
Posts: 3,056
Krystal n chips

I fail to understand the reference to petards, and I do know what a petard is, and am familiar with 'hoist with his own petard'.

You do a nice line in petards with regard to the views expressed on the subject of this thread and your denial of such......well done.
Denial of what exactly?

The only facts I have posted are the links I have enclosed.
And those links are where?

Instead of repeating your mantras, why don't you express opinions of your own?

You do seem to have a certain inferiority complex in relation to the so-called middle classes. Calling someone right wing is no insult, at least not to me it isn't, I consider myself somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun, not to mention Maggie Thatcher and Enoch Powell. Maybe now you can understand why I think a burglar who invaded the security and lives of a decent family should have been beaten to within an inch of his life, if not beyond.

I wonder how you would react in the same circumstance? No doubt you'd welcome the thugs in with a glass of wine and a bacon sandwich?
Capetonian is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 08:06
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 58
Posts: 211
What really does left or right mean?

The abstraction of this debate into left and right wing or a division between social classes is somewhat misleading as the question of justice is clearly universal and, to my mind, transcends simplistic political stereotyping.

The People's Republic of China, for example, is a communist regime (left wing?) and yet hangs around 8000 people per annum.

The moment that any group of people think they are above or beyond the reach of the law (as criminals or would be vigilantes) then civil society is threatened. It remains my opinion that we should seek to ensure that our system of justice is fair (i.e. proportionate, accessible to all and that it does meet the tenets of showing that the guilty perpertrators are being punished appropriately).

Rushing willy nilly for some sort of barbaric return to the jungle is simply a denial of civilised values and is the last gasp of the intellectually and morally moribund, whatever class, income group or political dispensation etc. they represent.
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 08:37
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
NamibFox please tell me what you think I should do then if I come home and find my house being ransacked by person or persons unknown and with who knows what weapons to hand. What do YOU think would be a reasonable way of protecting myself and my property? What would YOU do if you have a wife and young child with you? No mantras please just tell us what would YOU do. Lets not bother calling the police for a crime number because that will just increase my insurance premium. So I say again please tel us what YOU would do. Please try and be quite specific on this one.
WorkingHard is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 08:55
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 58
Posts: 211
NamibFox please tell me what you think I should do then if I come home and find my house being ransacked by person or persons unknown and with who knows what weapons to hand. What do YOU think would be a reasonable way of protecting myself and my property? What would YOU do if you have a wife and young child with you? No mantras please just tell us what would YOU do. Lets not bother calling the police for a crime number because that will just increase my insurance premium. So I say again please tel us what YOU would do. Please try and be quite specific on this one.
One can only be as explicit as the event itself which in your example is an imaginary one so I can only answer in principle.

You are clearly justified to do what is necessary and reasonable to protect your property and your life. If you genuinely believed your life was in imminent danger then you might be justified in employing lethal force. What you can be sure of, since we do live in a civilised society here in the UK, is that you would be liable to face questioning in court if your actions resulted in major injuries to the people you apprehended.

Appearing in court is exactly what happened to the men accused in this case. The court found that what occurred was illegal (disproportionate, vengeful, who knows...). Why can't we accept that? Do we really believe that jurisprudence in this country is so flawed? I dont!
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 11:01
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
I note NamidFox that you very carefully refrained from telling us what YOU would actually do
WorkingHard is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 11:04
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 58
Posts: 211
I note NamidFox that you very carefully refrained from telling us what YOU would actually do
"One can only be as explicit as the event itself which in your example is an imaginary one so I can only answer in principle."

In short I'd try and protect my family and property in a rational fashion. Getting myself arrested for aggravated battery or murder would not be my priority!
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 22:34
  #109 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: EGNX
Posts: 1,168
but the pious arrogant hypocrisy of the fabled "middle England" who feel that, as they are "respectable" people then the law only applies to lesser beings
If I got together with a couple of other "middle Englanders" put on balaclavas, armed myself with a 12 inch knife and went into the house of an innocent family and threatened to kill members thereof which include women and children then I would expect to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. So not quite sure what point you are making. Perhaps best to get back to your copy of "The Guide" - I hear it is a bumper edition this week.
Doors to Automatic is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 23:41
  #110 (permalink)  

Hmmmyeah
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Leopardess.
Posts: 652
Originally Posted by corsair
Are you human or a robot?
Human.

Originally Posted by corsair
Why do you think you can be reasonable and give consideration to the law when faced with the horror Mr Hussain faced.
See above.

To elaborate, I'm not saying the person in question wouldn't get a good going over. Simply that I believe myself capable of retaining sufficient clarity of mind not make that going over so severe that it compromises my own position.

419, Indeed, and I stand by what I said. That being that I'm inclined to stand up for myself, but not in a way that leaves me on the back foot. See above.

In short, some, such as corsair, believe it's impossible to stop swinging the bat once they have begun, but I do not. So, the law, as it stands, seems to give reasonable scope in which I can protect me and mine. Consequently, I don't see a need to make unnecessarily severe summary lynchings legal. Simple as that.
SyllogismCheck is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2009, 06:58
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: I'm right behind you!!!
Posts: 470
I'm not going to deny that this is a tough question.

While I agree that if someone is ransacking your place, you have the right to defend it and the people in it, with lethal force if necessary, it becomes a grey area when they flee your home to avoid being hurt.

I haven't looked into the details of Hussains case and so don't have an opinion, but here are my views (for what it's worth)

1 - You threaten my family and I think you will follow through, I will be hitting you until you stop moving.
2 - If you run, my priority is the family. The last thing they need if I chased them out of the house is for me to keep chasing them, corner one, and then have him shoot me or something out of fright. Depending on the circumstances I may very well chase them, I honestly hope I never find out.

A couple points to consider:

- What if you become the target of a revenge attack for beating the crims "mate"? What if this time they don't want to steal your belongings, just to hurt/kill you and your family?

- What if the right to bash someone who commits a crime against you extends to other crimes. What if you cut someone off in traffic... that's a crime. What if you're involved in a minor accident, or forget to pay for your groceries? I know I'm being a bit ridiculous, but food for thought I guess.

- What if someone really takes a dislike to you, invites you over, then beats you dead and claims you were robbing them, and the public then goes "well done I would have done the exact same thing if I was getting robbed!"

I can see the pluses and minuses to both sides, just remember it's not clear cut, and someone isn't a fool just because they don't agree with you (although this is Jet Blast....)
Cap'n Arrr is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2009, 12:21
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 68
Posts: 0
There are several points to this case.If I was asked if I would have done the same thing as Mr Hussein then I have to agree that I might well have done.

If I was asked if the assailant deserved to be beaten to within an inch of his life for what he did I have to say that my inclination is that he did.

However,as a general principle.I have to agree with the other lobby that revenge attacks are probably not a good idea for several reasons.If this sort of thing happened a lot then burglars would most likely arm themselves against such a response and we are then entering a spiral of violence.

I am generally anti gun.However if I lived in a country where most of the population carried arms I would not be prepared to do without one.If in such a country I felt threatened by someone who I thought was armed I would shoot first and ask questions later.

Perhaps you can see where this is going.A peaceful non violent man ends up blowing someone away.It is better that I don't get myself into that situation in the first place.However much we feel that this scumbag deserved everything he got it just isn't desirable from the point of view of society that it happens.

The jury must have considered this to be the case too.As a previous poster said,had the perpetrator of the original crime still been in the house rather than running away then it would be no case to answer in my book.The crucial point is that he had finished his crime and was running away.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2009, 13:10
  #113 (permalink)  

Hmmmyeah
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Leopardess.
Posts: 652
Again and again, it keeps coming up as if it is black and white, so I'll labour the point.

In my experience, the running away is not the crucial factor. It is the extent of the action taken against the person running away which is.

I think the difference is important as some keep banging on about how, 'They shouldn't have to just let the criminals walk away scot free!', as if they'll be in for the high jump if they do not. They can do otherwise, give chase, tackle and detain their fleeing attackers, and will most likely not face the any legal implications provided they do not use excessive force in the process.
SyllogismCheck is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2009, 13:35
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 67
Posts: 3,056
provided they do not use excessive force

..... and therein lies the problem. I think we would nearly all agree that 'excessive force' was used in the High Wycombe case under discussion.

What if the beating had just resulted in severe bruising? Excessive force?
What if Hussain had given the man a punch meaning to simply give him a fright but had inadvertently broken the man's jaw? Excessive force or collateral damage?

Where do we draw the line, and do we also make an allowance for the mental state at the time this took place of the aggrieved party, and an understandable, if legally wrong, desire for revenge?

I know that I will be attacked for relating this, but so be it, and I do so without comment. About 20 years ago, I stopped at a robot (traffic light) late at night in a dodgy area of Cape Town (Woodstock ....!) two skollies (hoodlums) approached my car, stood in front of it, and slammed an iron bar onto the bonnet. I drove forward. One was fast enough to get out of the way, the other rolled off the bonnet, and I doubt if he was badly hurt.

I went to the police, who told me I should have done the job properly and taken two criminals out of circulation.

As I say, no comment.
Capetonian is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2009, 14:02
  #115 (permalink)  

Hmmmyeah
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Leopardess.
Posts: 652
Agreed. That is the problem. It's a grey area.

On face value, it would appear the Hussains did go too far. I like to think I'd have seen sense, even through my rage, stopped short of where they did and not faced charges myself. That said, I'm quite good at keeing my head and a sense of proportion even under stress and accept that not everyone is so, perhaps Mr. Hussain included.

I once handed a guy to the police who had become a little battered and bruised at my hands and who complained I'd assaulted him. In fact he'd done most of the damage to himself whilst struggling to escape from me. The police dismissed his claims out of hand and stood firmly by me. He'd only kicked my fence in out of drunken stupidity but I wasn't inclined to let him get away with it. The force I used to tackle and restrain him seemed resonable to me, the common man, and was agreed by the police to be, so no problem. That's how it is written in law.

Should his crime against me have been more serious and my tackling and restraint of him been rather more aggressive as a result, I feel that the police would have taken this into consideration and, provided my actions did not extend significantly beyond the scope of reasonable, have made allowances accordingly.

It's potentially a very grey area. Simple fact is though, that one is not compelled by law to simply take things lying down as some would make it appear.
SyllogismCheck is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2009, 16:24
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Well, just got back from my Crimbo break and I thought I'd see how/if this Thread was progressing. Roger Sofarover; It's good that there are some things on which we can agree and, perhaps, natural that there are some things on which we won't.

For what it's worth, I'm glad that Mr Hussein incapacitated the bandit for the scuffs to take charge of. My preference would have been for him to have incapacitated him not significantly more than once, though. My question about intervention was serious as it is the sort of thing I might do, again. Of course, I won't know when I'm too old for that sort of thing until the day I am, I suppose.
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2010, 21:42
  #117 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: EGNX
Posts: 1,168
Whilst I can understand the comments that violence in "revenge" is not acceptable here we have a family man who was subjected to a brutal robbery and attack, not through his own making, (i.e he is the victim) and is now in prison for 30 months whilst the aggrevated burglar has got away scot free, as have his accomplaces.

How can that be possibly be described as a just outcome by anyone bar the most warped criminal-appeasing Guardian reader?
Doors to Automatic is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 09:48
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Essex
Age: 49
Posts: 164
Munar Hussain released by Court of Appeal. breaking news on BBC.
maliyahsdad2 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 09:57
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,703
BBC News - Jailed businessman Munir Hussain freed by court
Captain Stable is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2010, 10:01
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Essex
Age: 49
Posts: 164
what happened overnight? this story yesterday..

BBC News - Burglar attacker's appeal fails
maliyahsdad2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.