Brave father jailed for giving murderous home invader brain damage - invader released

[Beanjuice]

And this is why superheroes don't exist

no this is why they SHOULD. Justice system is ****ed

 

[Metamorpho1977]

This is one of those stupid news stories that makes me think "lady justice has been r***d."

-----------------------------------------

Was Munir Hussain supposed to let the intruders escape?

Munir Hussain savagely beat a man who had tied up his family at knifepoint, writes Philip Johnston. Was the judge right to send him to prison?

It is every father's worst nightmare. He returns home with his wife and children to be confronted by knife-wielding burglars who tie them up and threaten to kill them.

What would any of us do in those circumstances? Our first instinct would be to protect our families by whatever means at our disposal. Our second would likely involve unadulterated fury at the violation of our most precious sanctuary. Above all, even in the red mist of our anger, we would imagine ourselves to be the victim and to expect the law to recognise that, too.

But it doesn't entirely, as Munir Hussain found out. The nightmare unfolded for the 53-year-old businessman when he came home from worshipping with his family at their local mosque in High Wycombe to discover three masked men in his house. They threatened Hussain and his family, tied their hands behind their backs and made them crawl around the house before forcing them to lie down in the living room.

A teenage son managed to escape and alert his uncle who lived close by. Help arrived and the intruders fled, pursued by Hussain and his brother, Tokeer. At this point, according to the law, the family was no longer in danger and the hue and cry should have stopped.

But the brothers caught up with one of the burglars and beat him savagely with a cricket bat, which broke in three places. Suddenly, the intruder, a serial criminal with more than 50 convictions, became the victim – and at Reading Crown Court on Monday, the Hussain brothers were jailed, Munir for 30 months and Tokeer (who had not been in the house during the burglary) for 39.

-----------------------------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/6822702/Was-Munir-Hussain-supposed-to-let-the-intruders-escape.html

Now, if I might stand on my soap box for a minute...

Seriously, that is big-time effed up. This is hardly the only story of a man going into a blood to protect his family, but the stupid laws don't seem to understand that it's part of a male's nature to do that kind of thing. Since our earliest days, the man of the family filled the role of hunter, gatherer, and protector, and the last point is pretty much hardwired into our psychology.

When a man thinks his family is in immediate risk, some will do anything to protect them-- any inhibitions against violence are suddenly shut off, because the man's family is at stake. It's like being in a drunken rage, except that the father had no choice in whether or not they were going to get drunk enough to beat someone into chum. It's like if you beat someone's dog, and then sue them when the dog bites your hand. It's cause and effect, and the courts should have room for leniency towards it.

That idiot robber should have known better than to break into someone's home and be an evil SOB. He got exactly what he deserved-- he was going to kill the man's family, and he got beaten within an inch of his life for it. If anything he got off easy. As one Youtuber opined, the brain damage is probably an improvement over whatever tangled mess of neurons that this lowlife was using for a brain before.

Personally, I think Munir Hussain should get nominated for Father of the Year out of solidarity. Some people might argue that he and his brother used excessive force, but unless you have been in that situation, where it takes every ounce of self control in your entire body to keep you from tearing the intruder's head clean off of his shoulders and somehow you managed to not resort to violence, you should not be so quick to fault him. I heard one story of a man that broke every bone in his hands from smashing in the skull of an intruder who was intent on raping he man's baby daughter-- how can you say a man like that was conscious of his actions when his OWN FREAKING HANDS were breaking!? Likewise, do you really think that Hussain's logic and reason would have been able to override his biological commands to make sure that a man who brutally attacked his family won't come back for a second attempt?

At this rate, maybe if that idiot PS3 thief / rapist who got his chest slashed open by that kid with a samurai sword has a case. "Sorry kid, we know you probably saved your older sister from being raped, but you had no right to attack that man with a sword when you could have just used karate."

This guy should get a medal.

 

[Karem-Knight]

This is why I hate England.

 

[Paroxysm]

Munir Hussain is a dumbass. You don't take the law into your own hands, this isn't the "mother land" and don't you have to kill someone to be "murderous"?

 

[GhostPoet]

Anyone sneaking into my house gets an automatic death sentence.

 

[Timstuff]

Munir Hussain is a dumbass. You don't take the law into your own hands, this isn't the "mother land" and don't you have to kill someone to be "murderous"?

Yeah, because I'm sure that if he'd called the bobbies they would have gotten there in time to rescue his family and capture one of the thugs, right?

This whole situation would be avoided if Britain didn't have such dumb gun laws. The father could have just shot the the guys while they were still in his house, and everything would have been fine.

 

[Anubis]

Well, from the way this sounds, it sounds like he and his brother chased them down. Meaning they were outside his house. I could see if they were still on his property but when you actively hunt a guy down and beat the crap outta him that's not self defense, that's vengeance. Righteous Vengeance. The best kind really.

 

[Twin2]

Munir Hussain is a dumbass. You don't take the law into your own hands, this isn't the "mother land" and don't you have to kill someone to be "murderous"?

I'd say that in this situation after having been tied up, and threatened with a knife logic was probably tossed out the window in favor of, "**** that they aren't getting away". Law is to be applied I agree, but I think there might be some mediating circumstances here (in so far as time spent in jail for this).

 

[Majic Walrus]

Munir Hussain is a dumbass. You don't take the law into your own hands, this isn't the "mother land" and don't you have to kill someone to be "murderous"?

Thank you! Finally someone who isn't smoking vengeance-laced cocaine.

 

[StrainedEyes]

Sorry crying wife and child, I must go chase after 3 knife wielding men in your honor!

 

[Superfreak]

This would be an iffy case in the US, anyway. The fact that they beat the crap out of the burglar while he was fleeing would probably get them arrested because self-defense doesn't cover attacking your assailant while they're running away from you (they're no longer posing an immediate threat). However, an American jury would likely clear the homeowner out of pure common sense (and the writer of the article seems to think so as well).

no, it's after the fact. It's the same situation if they had caught up with the burglars 2 days later, and beat them senseless.

the whole point of the law is to stop retribution between individuals. Moreover, the punishment has to fit the crime. Being beaten to the point of brain damage (a life long punishment) does not fit this crime. Robery and confinement does not equal being ******ed for the rest of ones life.

said uncle should have called the police, not rush over with his cricket bat.

defending ones property... doesn't apply, once the baddies have left the property.

movie example: American History X... you can't give some dude a smiley, just because he's stealing your daddy's car. Especially off your own property.

 

[Superfreak]

Now, if I might stand on my soap box for a minute...

Seriously, that is big-time effed up. This is hardly the only story of a man going into a blood to protect his family, but the stupid laws don't seem to understand that it's part of a male's nature to do that kind of thing. Since our earliest days, the man of the family filled the role of hunter, gatherer, and protector, and the last point is pretty much hardwired into our psychology.

When a man thinks his family is in immediate risk, some will do anything to protect them-- any inhibitions against violence are suddenly shut off, because the man's family is at stake. It's like being in a drunken rage, except that the father had no choice in whether or not they were going to get drunk enough to beat someone into chum. It's like if you beat someone's dog, and then sue them when the dog bites your hand. It's cause and effect, and the courts should have room for leniency towards it.

That idiot robber should have known better than to break into someone's home and be an evil SOB. He got exactly what he deserved-- he was going to kill the man's family, and he got beaten within an inch of his life for it. If anything he got off easy. As one Youtuber opined, the brain damage is probably an improvement over whatever tangled mess of neurons that this lowlife was using for a brain before.

Personally, I think Munir Hussain should get nominated for Father of the Year out of solidarity. Some people might argue that he and his brother used excessive force, but unless you have been in that situation, where it takes every ounce of self control in your entire body to keep you from tearing the intruder's head clean off of his shoulders and somehow you managed to not resort to violence, you should not be so quick to fault him. I heard one story of a man that broke every bone in his hands from smashing in the skull of an intruder who was intent on raping he man's baby daughter-- how can you say a man like that was conscious of his actions when his OWN FREAKING HANDS were breaking!? Likewise, do you really think that Hussain's logic and reason would have been able to override his biological commands to make sure that a man who brutally attacked his family won't come back for a second attempt?

At this rate, maybe if that idiot PS3 thief / rapist who got his chest slashed open by that kid with a samurai sword has a case. "Sorry kid, we know you probably saved your older sister from being raped, but you had no right to attack that man with a sword when you could have just used karate."

1)laws are there to keep people from acting out on their nature: we men would be raping like a pack of rabid dogs, without laws

2)there is no immediate risk, after the fact, when the criminal is fleeing

3)being drunk has never been a defense for anything

4)says who?

5)they certainly did use excessive force: how do you judge this? It's simple, if a police officer had been present, and delivered the beating... what would happen to them?

6)depends on when the beating occured, during the home invasion, or after. In context of the article, no physical damage it seems happened to the family, only property theft/damage, and confinement.

 

[The Guard]

This father savagely attacked a man when there was no longer an immediate threat to himself or his family. He had to chase the guy down to do it nonetheless! He pursued and beat a man with malice and ill intent. That is illegal.

He should be punished by the law for what he has done. But I believe that he did what he did in spite of the law. Somethings transcend legal and illegal and sometimes you just don't give a flying ****. I probably would've done the same thing in his situation but that doesn't make it any less illegal.

I don't know the laws where he lives that well, but...

This.

Beyond whether what he was right or wrong, the law doesn't care what someone is going to do, or might do. It cares what someone did, and the context of a situation. He had every right to defend himself in his own home, probably had the right to detain the people who had tried to harm him, etc, even probably to chase them down, stop them, and detain them for authorities. He clearly went way beyond that.

I get the whole "Had he not beat the man half to death, the man might have come back and killed him", but while that's a possibility, that's not the law's fault, and it doesn't affect the law's stance on this issue. Fact is that his family was held hostage, threatened, and humilitated, not killed, or even injured as far as I can tell, and that he was no longer in any immediate danger. He had the man incapacitated, and obviously could have and probably should have turned him over to the authorities.