In the case of Tony Martin, it meant shooting an escaping burglar in the back.
Munir Hussain, a father of three, returned from the mosque he attends with his family, and he, his wife, and his three children were tied up by the three masked intruders in his house.
He was told he was to be killed. He threw a coffee table, and made good his escape. He found his brother, and chased the intruders down the road. The one they caught was beaten with a cricket bat. The bat split into three, an indication of the force used. He has a permanent brain injury, and was not fit to plead. He is effectively in a secure mental hospital for life.
He was jailed. The Times Online link has comments at the foot of the page. If you look to see the "Most Recommended" (sic), one of the top two comments is as follows:
THESE MEN DESERVE MEDALS NOT JAIL. LET ME KNOW IF THERE IS AN APPEAL FUND FOR THEM & A HANGING FUND FOR THE OTHERS.
The judge, of course, made remarks, which received precious little attention. His comments deserve repeating, albeit as reported by the press, and not from a transcript:
"If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse."
Quite right, too, however tempting it may be to grab that bat or 12-gauge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Prosecutor , is that correct? Is he really in a secure hospital. The times seemsto think that despite his injuries he's out and about doing what he does best.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6956044.ece
London PC
Not a good day when people take the law into their own hands with vengeance and serious violence.
ReplyDeleteI read the report in the press - and assuming the report is accurate (which is not always the case, it seems) then the judge is right.
Self defence is a right - excessive force is not?
The 'law' as I understand it is is based on 'common law' laws or values/customs that are common to a land, locality, community etc and its people - I would say a great deal of inhabitants in the UK would agree that this and other bulglars and other such criminals do deserve a good kicking and they got what was coming to them espeically since the so-called 'justice' system in this country fails many victims of crime whilst allowing most criminals to carry on with impunity.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how long it will be before a standard defence of " my client assumed incompetence from the police and CPS and excessive liberalism ( howard league ect) from your worships , so he sought to correct this deficiency by himself" becomes statutory. I imagine out of all the failings the police will get it hardest for not finding evidence that did not exist or not predicting the future.
ReplyDeleteLondon PC
I'm sure all those crying outrage at the sentence would change their mind if vigilantism was allowed for any offence such as speeding.
ReplyDeleteWithout the rule of law we risk anarchy.
There is a point in this case where the actions taken went from defence of one's property to violent abuse. If he'd chased the guy off with a cricket bat, then his actions should have been considered reasonable self-defence, but in this case it seems reasonable that he was punished.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember the details of the Tony Martin, but if I were sitting on a jury, I couldn't give a guilty verdict to someone defending their property from violent criminals.
And to the previous comment, vigilantism is allowed for speeding - in the form of giving out speed cameras to local busybodies. It's just real crime with a victim it's frowned upon.
I completely agree with charonqc, you absolutely have a right to defend yourself you family and your home. You don't have the right to beat the bejasus out of someone unless that is the only way to stop them. And before anyone says I'd change my tune if it happened to me, it has happened to me - several years ago in Leeds I found myself face to face with a burglar in my kitchen who was waving my kitchen knife at me (I roared something about sex and travel, and he fled).
ReplyDelete"If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse."
ReplyDeleteThis is just the usual pompous cant we've come to expect from the ranks of the hand-wringing classes. If this happened in the States, and some scumbag finally got what he deserved, no one would have "batted" an eyelid.
Talking about "instant and violent punishment"...
ReplyDeleteIn 2006, in Polk County Florida, there occurred a murder of a Police officer. An individual stopped for speeding shot a Police officer six times, including in the spine. Realising the officer was incapacitated but not dead, the murderer approached the officer and fired two shots into the rear of his skull from close range, killing him.
When the murderer was finally located by a SWAT team he stood up (possibly to surrender, who knows) and the SWAT team opened fire hitint the murderer 68 times and killing him.
When questioned as to why Police had found it necessary to use such a high level of force on an individual who may have been trying to surrender, in particular why 68 rounds were fired into the murderer's body, the Police spokesman replied "That's all the bullets we had or we would have shot him more".
Nice guys, those Americans.
Anonymous 2
There's lots of pros and cons with this, but tellingly, despite knowing who one of the three original villains are, the police have been unable to collar the other two. Had Hussein not done what he did, other families might have been similarly terrorised.
ReplyDeleteThe constraints of law will only hold whilst the law is effective in fulfilling its duties to protect us. This is a case in which it can be shown that for the other perpetrators, to have failed.
Anonymous at 1.43pm - your understanding of the common law is seriously deficient. Common law is the law as interpreted by judges in previous cases. It is not justifying incest in Norfolk by saying that sleeping with your own sister is the custom of the land!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 4.22am - if you really believe that people should be free to impose their own justice as and when the think it right then may I suggest you move to Somalia where you will quickly find that in the survival of the fittest; you are not the fittest!
I heard about this case this morning, but there was one phrase which stood out for me. While Hussain was administrating the beatings he shouted "Who sent you!" in my mind it has changed from a retaliation or in a heat of the moment action to an act of torture.
ReplyDeleteSalem had 54 previous convictions. Our justice system is just a revolving door which does not deter criminals.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that surprises me is that there are so few vigilantes.
Exactly..."Salem had 54 previous convictions"... and how had the law protected us citizens? ineffectively, done-nothing, Chuff bloody all...
ReplyDeleteIf the bleeding-heart policymakers won't protect the citizenry, and the parasitic legal profession simply roll over in compliance, then at some stage I'm afraid the citizenry WILL act...and it won't be pretty...the British are a fairly tolerant lot, but I suspect the very end of the tether is being reached...
"If the bleeding-heart policymakers won't protect the citizenry, and the parasitic legal profession simply roll over in compliance, then at some stage I'm afraid the citizenry WILL act...and it won't be pretty...the British are a fairly tolerant lot, but I suspect the very end of the tether is being reached..."
ReplyDeleteThat may be the case, cog, but it doesn't - as yet - change the law. I agreed with the guilty verdict in R v Tony Martin and I agree with it here.
I ask all those 'hand wringing classes' - how can you moan and groan when you see videos of Police 'assaulting innocent members of the public', claiming that you can't use violence against criminals, then in the next breath claim that a person shouldn't be convicted for doing exactly the same.
If you want a comparison, or a way of making a decision, ask yourself how you would feel if you heard of a Police Officer acting in a similar manner, namely shooting a burglar in the back or leaving one with permanent brain damage.
I'd cheer
ReplyDeleteHe found his brother, and chased the intruders down the road. The one they caught was beaten with a cricket bat. The bat split into three, an indication of the force used. He has a permanent brain injury, and was not fit to plead. He is effectively in a secure mental hospital for life.
ReplyDeleteThat's the best news I've heard all day (Admittedly its 8:20 AM but it sets a high benchmark) - And i used to be in the BNP.
Interesting article, added his blog to Favorites
ReplyDelete