c4countdown

There is a lot of defending ourselves on this forum, but what about defending our families and home?
This week in the news there was a story which divided people, about how far you should go to defend what is yours. A husband and wife and their three children returned home from the mosque to find three intruders in their home, who forced them at knifepoint to lie on the ground while they tied them up. One teenage son managed to escape, and alerted his uncle who came to the rescue. The father and the uncle then pursued the intruders armed with a cricket bat, and beat one of them so badly that the bat broke into three, and the person was left brain-damaged.

I find this one very difficult. Usually it is easy to see where you stand as soon as you hear a news story, but not so clear-cut this case. To most people their home and family are the most important thing in their lives, and they would do absolutely anything to protect them. But can going this far when the intruders had already been chased off of the property be justified? Until it has happened to you, you cannot know how the humiliation, and the danger to your loved ones might affect you at that moment.

I would be interested to hear others' views on this. Would you do anything possible to get revenge for what they'd done to you, or do you think you should immediately calm down and stop within the boundaries of your land?

I haven't seen this story, but if it's exactly as you've reported it there, I'd say the beating was fully justified. Obviously I've never been in anything remotely resembling that situation, but I'm not sure you'd feel your family was particularly safe just because you've chased them off. They could return, WITH BIGGER KNIVES, or anything. I reckon if you tie people up at knifepoint in their house, you can't complain when you end up brain damaged by a cricket bat. (yes, that is deliberately phrased like that to be funny)

Too good for the thieving fuckers

I do hope those thieves will pay for that broken bat.

What Derek failed to mention was that when it came to court, the perpetrators got off scot free (apart from the brain damage) while the householder was sent to prison. He's currently appealing. The Judge excused his decision by saying something along the lines of "he should not be taking the law into his own hands but should rely on the justice system" !!

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:the perpetrators got off scot free (apart from the brain damage)

"The Judge excused his decision by saying something along the lines of "he should not be taking the law into his own hands but should rely on the justice system" !!"

The problem is that when the perps have run away you are not threatened any more, so the law says you should let them go... (This doesn't apply to the police obviously, who shot Harry Stanley in the back for carrying a table leg.) Another factor may be that the judge had his doubts, but decided to send down the householder, so that when he was let off on appeal, the judge would have followed the letter of the law. There are also definitions of "reasonable force". So you must deal with the intruders inside the property.

I recall a case some years ago of someone being attacked on a train, and was being strangled. Luckily he was carrying a sword-stick and he prodded his assailant with it, so of course was fined for carrying an "offensive weapon" (absolutely ridiculous terminology as a weapon cannot be offensive or otherwise in its own right). The judge also ruled that the weapon be destroyed so the poor bloke had to go and buy another one. Apparently the law considered that you should allow yourself to be strangled. The daft thing is that if the guy who was being strangled had used an ordinary umbrella or picked up a bottle from the floor, that would have been legal. But of course they are not always available when you need them...

This is one of those good issues where you can make people go "OMG MY FAMILY!" and then justify anything (see also: paedophilia). It would be a pretty shit society if anyone who committed a crime was then an open target for being hit with a cricket bat. Relying on the police and the justice system superficially sucks because it doesn't appeal to our natural instinct for justice, but that's exactly the kind of instinct that we sometimes have to curb in pursuit of civilised society.

Charlie Reams wrote:This is one of those good issues where you can make people go "OMG MY FAMILY!"

Another one is discussing great British sitcoms of the last decade.

I agree with your point, to the extent that I did say I hadn't seen the story, if it's as simple as chasing the guy off during the incident, a scuffle ensuing (he did have a knife) then it's fair play. If it's something more orchestrated (eg Tony Martin) then it's different. I don't know the particulars of this case.

Jon Corby wrote:I did say I hadn't seen the story[ . . . ]I don't know the particulars of this case.

BBC story

Allison Pearson, Daily Mail's view

Guardian comments


Edit: What's going on? The BBC story stopped working just minutes after I'd checked and posted it! Changed to different version now.

LOL @ Daily Mail.

So let me just check - the bad guys were running away, and they chased after them?

Michael Wallace wrote:So let me just check - the bad guys were running away, and they chased after them?

Correct. "When the intruders fled, Hussain and his brother chased and caught one of the men and attacked him" says the Guardian. (Obviously the Daily Mail couldn't find space for this minor technicality.)

Michael Wallace wrote:So let me just check - the bad guys were running away, and they chased after them?

I guess that's what shows up the difference between "protecting" your property and "revenging" the attack.

I heard this story on Today on Radio 4, where I'm sure they said that they had the intruder pinned to the ground, at which point they should have ceased their self defence and called in the coppers.

It makes much more interesting/shocking reading if this fact is removed from the story.

If Munir Hussain comes near my kits I swear I'll do time.

In my opinion only students, graduates and post-graduates should have the authority to hit people in the head with cricket bats.

The `victim' had fifty convictions.

Charlie Reams wrote: Relying on the police and the justice system ................ sucks.

Charlie Reams wrote:In my opinion only students, graduates and post-graduates should have the authority to hit people in the head with cricket bats.

Only, Hilarious, students. (sorry Jon)

Liam Tiernan wrote:

The `victim' had fifty convictions.

Charlie Reams wrote: Relying on the police and the justice system ................ sucks.

Yep. So fix the sentencing system. Vigilanteism is not an adequate substitute for fair sentencing. Create some prison space by ceasing to persecute consumers of tasty plants and little white pills, in accordance with scientific evidence on the subject.

Also what were those 50 convictions for? I bet it wasn't violent armed robbery, which is what they're trying to imply.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Liam Tiernan wrote:

The `victim' had fifty convictions.

Charlie Reams wrote: Relying on the police and the justice system ................ sucks.

Yep. So fix the sentencing system. Vigilanteism is not an adequate substitute for fair sentencing.

Also what were those 50 convictions for? I bet it wasn't violent armed robbery, which is what they're trying to imply.

Bring in the three strikes rule. (not with a cricket bat, obviously)

Edwin Mead wrote:I heard this story on Today on Radio 4, where I'm sure they said that they had the intruder pinned to the ground, at which point they should have ceased their self defence and called in the coppers.

Weren't there three intruders? If you get one pinned down, the other 2 could stab you? The best way is to whack one over the head with a cricket bat giving him brain damage and scare the other 2 away. Oh....

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Edwin Mead wrote:I heard this story on Today on Radio 4, where I'm sure they said that they had the intruder pinned to the ground, at which point they should have ceased their self defence and called in the coppers.

Weren't there three intruders? If you get one pinned down, the other 2 could stab you? The best way is to whack one over the head with a cricket bat giving him brain damage and scare the other 2 away. Oh....

Did you read the rest of this thread at all?

Charlie Reams wrote:In my opinion only students, graduates and post-graduates should have the authority to hit people in the head with cricket bats.

Whereas firemen should do what is my Nan's answer to absolutely everything, and turn the hosepipes on them . . .

Charlie Reams wrote: Also what were those 50 convictions for? I bet it wasn't violent armed robbery, which is what they're trying to imply.

Probably not, but you can be pretty sure there's a progression from petty crime to violent armed robbery. So yes, fix the sentencing system, and not just for serious crime. Guaranteed longer sentences for each successive conviction would be a start.

It's important, under the current justice system, to remember that (i) the man who wants to murder your family has exactly the same human rights as you; and (ii) you must not let the fact that he wants to murder your family cloud your judgement as to how to treat him.

Derek Hazell wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:In my opinion only students, graduates and post-graduates should have the authority to hit people in the head with cricket bats.

Whereas firemen should do what is my Nan's answer to absolutely everything, and turn the hosepipes on them . . .

If I did it intentionally then I would get lifted and charged with assualt. If however the I lost control of the branch due to excessive water pressure & the resulting jet happened to accidentally stray in the direction of the little bastards who were flinging stones at my crew then that would be unfortunate.

Bring back the cat.

Charlie Reams wrote: Did you read the rest of this thread at all?

Yes, and the Daily Mail article and I was basically agreeing with everyone but put my point across in a semi humorous way. Sorry for trying.

Davy Affleck wrote: If I did it intentionally then I would get lifted and charged with assualt. If however the I lost control of the branch due to excessive water pressure & the resulting jet happened to accidentally stray in the direction of the little bastards who were flinging stones at my crew then that would be unfortunate.

Yey for emergency services vigilanteism! This is just the sort of thing we need from our heroes in blue.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Davy Affleck wrote: If I did it intentionally then I would get lifted and charged with assualt. If however the I lost control of the branch due to excessive water pressure & the resulting jet happened to accidentally stray in the direction of the little bastards who were flinging stones at my crew then that would be unfortunate.

Yey for emergency services vigilanteism! This is just the sort of thing we need from our heroes in blue.

I feel as if you are picking on me. Can I go in the corner and sulk for a while?

I read in my paper today that 219 people have been lynched in Guatemala City this year, with 45 deaths. I'd have thought this a bit over the top, but then again we old people do get set in our ways.

Davy Affleck wrote:I feel as if you are picking on me. Can I go in the corner and sulk for a while?

Last time you did that, Julie Russell had to order in a ton of cooked pasta and a snooker table before you'd come back out again!

Is that Michaela Strachan in your photo? I bet you and the banter boys gave her a really wild show! Phwooarr!!!. .. .Get 'em ahhhht!! . . .My fireman's pole!!!!. . . Phwooooooooarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

But seriously, I wouldn't recommend taking a break. I tried that and I actually felt worse when I came back.

So back to the topic, sort of, how far would a group of colleagues who depend on each other, even to the death sometimes, go to protect one another?

Charlie's view is one of few I've seen defending the manner in which this affair has been handled. Most comments seem similar to James's.

Interestingly my wife seems more on James's side than I would have expected her to be, thinking that the law of the jungle in this instance is preferable to the law we have. And she a Christian!

Our system works on the basis that if I commit a crime against you, this does not entitle you to punish me as you see fit; rather the State will do this. I think the extent of your right is to effect some kind of citizen's arrest and to deliver me into the arms of the Law who will take over and do what's necessary. Oh, and of course to benefit from the wonderful services of 'Victim Support'.

In some ways, I think this case demonstrates the wisdom of this system. Granted there should be strong punishment for anyone who behaves as despicably as these burglars did, but by my standards, the punishment meted out was too severe for this particular crime. Mr Hussain went too far. I understand how this happened. I might have acted the same way myself. But this does not make it right that he did so.

That said, I find the sentence very much on the high side. While it was far lower than could have been handed down for such a violent assault, to my mind, given the severe provocation, it should have been lower still. Not as low as five minutes, as one person has suggested: I think I would have perhaps gone for a few months on the basis that just half of this would have been served behind bars.

Derek Hazell wrote:

Davy Affleck wrote: Is that Michaela Strachan in your photo? I bet you and the banter boys gave her a really wild show! Phwooarr!!!. .. .Get 'em ahhhht!! . . .My fireman's pole!!!!. . . Phwooooooooarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


So back to the topic, sort of, how far would a group of colleagues who depend on each other, even to the death sometimes, go to protect one another?

She was a cancer victim of the Chernobyl disaster who was brought over (with another 25 people) by our station for a holiday.

It may be because we do depend & rely on each other that our sense of comradeship is as strong a bond as any.
And, much like nurses & doctors we do use extreme & black humour frequently. Often misunderstood by "outsiders"

Derek Hazell wrote:

Davy Affleck wrote:I feel as if you are picking on me. Can I go in the corner and sulk for a while?

Last time you did that, Julie Russell had to order in a ton of cooked pasta and a snooker table before you'd come back out again!

Why did you have to mention Julie Russell? I have nearly finished my therapy and you have set me back 6 months. Shame on you.

Richard Adams wrote:Charlie's view is one of few I've seen defending the manner in which this affair has been handled. Most comments seem similar to James's.

Indeed. Clearly there are some issues here but people tend to criticise the wrong part, focussing on the stiff sentencing of someone who smashed a guy's brain out with a cricket bat, rather than a justice system which does little to prevent recidivism and escalation of petty crime. There will always be isolated incidents of extreme violence. It would be much more productive for society to address large-scale problems such as a disastrous prison sytem which leaves recently released ex-cons with few options and little chance of becoming useful members of society.

(A cynic might observe that, historically speaking, Christians have not been terribly successful at turning the other cheek.)

Bring back National Service.
Then at least with all that square bashing, burglars would be able to outrun the Cricket bat yielding vigilante.

I think he was wrong to have chased after them (but I have very little sympathy).

My husband was recently in a nightclub with a friend, and a drunk deliberately walked into him and told him to eff off, and that he was lucky he didn't know him or he'd break their faces. They walked away. The aggressor approached them again and and threatened them while prodding them with a champagne bottle. They walked away, and the man's friend offered them a drink. While purchasing said drink the aggressor threatened them again, in his face and telling him to leave or he'd sort him out. At this point he was punched.

My husband earned a fine and a criminal record for assault, as none of the previous incidents had been captured on CCTV.

The law is an ass. The aggressor has a long record of convictions for assault, burglary, and similar violent crimes. My husband has (had) a clean sheet. His aggressor walked away with compensation. I realise these are different cases but for me the worst thing is that the perpetrators walked Scott free (sustained injuries aside). I think at least the perpetrators should have been similarly prosecuted, and received the prison sentences I feel they deserve. If you're going to rely on the law to right the wrongs it ought to do that.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Davy Affleck wrote: If I did it intentionally then I would get lifted and charged with assualt. If however the I lost control of the branch due to excessive water pressure & the resulting jet happened to accidentally stray in the direction of the little bastards who were flinging stones at my crew then that would be unfortunate.

Yey for emergency services vigilanteism! This is just the sort of thing we need from our heroes in blue.

If they are flinging stones, is that not self defence? Also compare spraying water v smashing someone's brains out.

Anyway, I have to say I'm always annoyed by the reactions I see in the press and among some people I know. On a (vaguely) similar subject, someone was saying that the Bulger killers had apparently gone to Australia, which was the cue for a load of other people to pile in - "string 'em up", "I can't believe they've let them go to Australia". Far better for someone to recognise them over in this country I suppose and commit some vigilante attack. Maybe some of you agree with this, but a few years ago I got a forwarded e-mail from a friend trying to get everyone to sign this petition to make sure they would never be released from prison and I just thought "Fuck off".

My feeling is that you should not procesute tha actions of vigilantes unless you have a legal system that will itself deal properly with the perpetrators of crime.

Suppose this guy had captured his perp and handed him over. What would have happened next? It's a certainty the police would just have let him go, either unprosecuted "for lack of evidence" or just out on bail. So maybe he returns the next night to deal with the witnesses.

If somebody breaks into my house I should be free to take any retribution I like. He has, literally, asked for it. Chickening out and running away is just adding insult to injury.

It is a pity he got badly hurt, mainly because he will now be a drain on the community. But if that is what it takes to cure a criminal of his habits I'm basically OK with it.

My opinion is - perhaps - coloured by the fact that I am not young enough, strong enough nor fit enough to exact the kind of retribution I would like to. It follows that other people should get even more leeway to keep up the "pressure to reform". Whereby I mean reform both the police and the perps.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:If somebody breaks into my house I should be free to take any retribution I like.

Someone on another forum I go to once said that if anyone broke into his house then they would deserve everything they got. Thank you very much. I am now the owner of a new television, DVD player and laptop.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:If somebody breaks into my house I should be free to take any retribution I like.

And, once you've done so, if it turns out that there was an innocent explanation, I assume you would agree that he is entitled to take any retribution he likes on you.

David Williams wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:If somebody breaks into my house I should be free to take any retribution I like.

And, once you've done so, if it turns out that there was an innocent explanation, I assume you would agree that he is entitled to take any retribution he likes on you.

No. In my house I have complete authority over any intruder. If he has an innocent reason he should have called ahead.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

David Williams wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:If somebody breaks into my house I should be free to take any retribution I like.

And, once you've done so, if it turns out that there was an innocent explanation, I assume you would agree that he is entitled to take any retribution he likes on you.

No. In my house I have complete authority over any intruder. If he has an innocent reason he should have called ahead.

He might not have your number.

Oh and remember people, this is the c4c forum, not the i4i forum.

He's seen a fire through your window.

He's the chap who sold you the house, now suffering from dementia, and he still has a key.

He's a bailiff with a right to enter, but his incompetent superiors have given him the wrong address.

He's visiting the identical house next door.

It's his first parachute jump.

Give sixty million people these rights, and innocent people will die.

David Williams wrote:He's seen a fire through your window.

He's the chap who sold you the house, now suffering from dementia, and he still has a key.

He's a bailiff with a right to enter, but his incompetent superiors have given him the wrong address.

He's visiting the identical house next door.

It's his first parachute jump.

Give sixty million people these rights, and innocent people will die.

Still no.
A fireman would first hammer on the door.
The vendor has no right to keep a key, so it's still breaking and entering.
The bailiff would knock.
The house viewer would knock.
A parachutist might land on the roof but is unlikely to break through it and would then probably not pose a threat.

If you really want to press the point, I have nothing against innocent people dying so long as it isn't me or my family. What I would like is for violent and sadistic burglars to die out. When they have done so we can all relax a bit.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

David Williams wrote:He's seen a fire through your window.

He's the chap who sold you the house, now suffering from dementia, and he still has a key.

He's a bailiff with a right to enter, but his incompetent superiors have given him the wrong address.

He's visiting the identical house next door.

It's his first parachute jump.

Give sixty million people these rights, and innocent people will die.

Still no.
A fireman would first hammer on the door.
The vendor has no right to keep a key, so it's still breaking and entering.
The bailiff would knock.
The house viewer would knock.
A parachutist might land on the roof but is unlikely to break through it and would then probably not pose a threat.

If you really want to press the point, I have nothing against innocent people dying so long as it isn't me or my family. What I would like is for violent and sadistic burglars to die out. When they have done so we can all relax a bit.

Considering what has happened to old people from burglers, being smashed up, tortured for information etc, I would hope that I would be able to inflict considerable damage with a suitable object before he hurts me or my Wife. I would not care what his condition is, or in fact whether he dies. I would not care what the law (sorry about that joke) does to me. But I would know that almost all of the honest people of this wonderful (sorry about another joke) country would applaud me.

Wow George is that you? Like the avatar - you're fit!
Hello

Rosemary Roberts wrote:If you really want to press the point, I have nothing against innocent people dying so long as it isn't me or my family

Haha, this is a great example of what I said right at the start of the thread.

What I would like is for violent and sadistic burglars to die out. When they have done so we can all relax a bit.

Genetics does not work that way.

Lesley Hines wrote:Wow George is that you? Like the avatar - you're fit!
Hello

Yes Lesley, that's me in 1952, twenty four years old, and the youngest Engine driver on the Southern. My problem is that I still feel like a twenty four year old. last year I was twenty feet up five conifer trees, chopping the tops off, which gives me delusions that I could handle a burglar. I hope I never get the chance to prove it.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:What I would like is for violent and sadistic burglars to die out.

Genetics does not work that way.

I do apologize for my misleading turn of phrase.

What I would like is for violent and sadistic burglars to vote with their feet in favour of a less hazardous way of life. They can have all the human rights they like so long as they stay out of other people's houses and property. In my house they shall have none.

It might be sufficient if we could rely on the law to lock them all up.

I have keys to my neighbours' houses. On more than one occasion alarms have gone off in the early hours and my son and I have gone round, turned off the alarm, had a quick look round, locked up and returned home. It must happen all the time. But sorry, Rosemary, if you lived next door to me I wouldn't risk it.

Surely if you hit someone over the head with a cricket bat you should not be sent to prison, you should be sent to a bails hostel...

Rosemary Roberts wrote:In my house they shall have none.

So why is that? Why does one person forfeight all human rights as soon as they set foot on some bit of ground which you're arbitrarily designated to have purchased? Don't you think those kind of rights (you know, the inalienable ones) are a bit more basic than the real estate system? Is it okay to torture them over a period of 20 years, or does it have to be a nice clean cricket bat to the brain? Seems like your position involves an awful of adhocary.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:In my house they shall have none.

So why is that? Why does one person forfeight all human rights as soon as they set foot on some bit of ground which you're arbitrarily designated to have purchased? Don't you think those kind of rights (you know, the inalienable ones) are a bit more basic than the real estate system? Is it okay to torture them over a period of 20 years, or does it have to be a nice clean cricket bat to the brain? Seems like your position involves an awful of adhocary.

I think all of life is ad hoc. My basic point is that if the law and the police do not do their job properly then it is up to the individual to do his bit, if necessary more or less as nature raw in tooth and claw. Which is no more than (properly defined) anarchy. I do not actually keep a cricket bat next to the bed, nor would I be able to use it effectively if I did.

And I did not deny all human rights to anybody who sets foot in my house, only to those who break in with obviously evil intent. Tying people up and threatening them is a sure sign of evil intent (unless you have a very varied and peculiar set of friends).

Nor do I intend to be drawn on property right: what's mine's my own.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:In my house they shall have none.

So why is that? Why does one person forfeight all human rights as soon as they set foot on some bit of ground which you're arbitrarily designated to have purchased? Don't you think those kind of rights (you know, the inalienable ones) are a bit more basic than the real estate system? Is it okay to torture them over a period of 20 years, or does it have to be a nice clean cricket bat to the brain? Seems like your position involves an awful of adhocary.

Rosemary, You ought to be ashamed of yourself for being arbitrarily designated to have purchased your own house. I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a dreadful crime.
To get back to the real world, we are an animal pack similar to a pack of wolves. In the civilised society of wolves, they have rules for suvival. one of the rules applies when times are hard and food is scarce. To limit breeding, one male is designated for breeding, and if another male tries to get in on the act, the rest of the pack turns on him. If he is not killed, he is expelled from the pack and is likely to die anyway. that's what I call civilisation, the welfare of the many against the refusal of the few to obey the rules. the Chinese recognised that fact when they made the law that allowed only one child per family.
The mistake that supposedly educated and nice(?) people make, is to refuse accept the fact that we are also an animal pack called humans. I presume that these people would assure the burglars who tie him up to watch his Wife being gang raped before ransacking his arbitrarily designated house, of their rights, that he knows about their rights and not to worry.
I would like all killers who kill for the pleasure of it, and killers in progress of burglary, to be killed in the same manner as their victims, and long may they suffer. Show it on television so that I and the many will feel a bit safer. The few who don't agree with my views should not write telling me what a nasty person I am, I already know that.

This bloke whose head looks like a cricket ball is clearly in favour of violence. You don't break into someone's house and hold a knife to his throat if you don't like violence. He likes violence, he got violence, what's the problem?

There are a lot of things in life which people do under pressure. I'd give a man a lot of latitude as to what constitutes "reasonable behaviour" when he's 5 minutes removed from having his wife and family murdered.

George Jenkins wrote:I would like all killers who kill for the pleasure of it, and killers in progress of burglary, to be killed in the same manner as their victims, and long may they suffer. Show it on television so that I and the many will feel a bit safer.

I think that might overload the schedules a bit, and the camera crews wouldn't like it much. Nor would you, come to think of it, if a murderer had pushed his victim under a train and was scheduled to be similarly pushed under the one you were driving.

Besides - consider the chaotic ineptitude that would result if the current government were given the job of organising it. I think even Charlie might prefer my adhocery.