Your another incident Munir Hussain is completely differnt not similar. Munir Hussain never claimed the defence that he was acting in self-defence or defence of his family or home his defence was that the intruder’s injuries had not been inflicted by him at all. The intruders in the house with knives was no doubt terrifying, but was over quickly, and at trial the evidence was that Munir Hussian believed their intent was robbery no more. Munir Hussain had the presence of mind to get a weapon and seek assistance in the pursuit, and when they chased down the criminal then there was a prolonged attack with weapons by the four men, the householder and his brother armed with cricket bat and hockey stick and two others identity unknown unarmed, the attack continued despite the criminal being rendered unconcious and despite a neighbour pleading with them to stop. To the point the criminal was left with a fractured skull and permanent brain damage and was unfit to stand trial.
It is not "completely different". The principles of rage are identical.
As far as "presence of mind" hasn't it been argued that the Father in this case, had the presence of mind to stop beating when he did ?
At appeal it was claimed Munir Hussian's had feared the intruders were going to rape his daughter and kill his family, and that his actions were heat of the moment in defence of his family. At appeal the sentence was reduced to one year, suspended for two years, and he walked free.
I don't know why you keep using that bloody awful phrase "revenge porn". Knowing that you would inflict serious harm on someone who violates your child in such a way is nothing to so with internet hardmannery or revenge porn or any other guff it's the primal instinct to protect your child. As for if the offender was a 7ft 25st giant it wouldn't matter that's why it's called a "blind rage". Some people would shy away but a majority of us would fight with disregard for who, what, how or why.
Hey, it's not my phrase. But it's been quoted at me often enough on cases where I've been in favour of the criminal being struck.
Don't be so sure. I can categorically say that I would've have given him a damn good beating at the very least. The only thing I can't "know" is whether I'd go the whole hog and murder him. Certainly wouldn't rule it out though.
....and what do you think would have happened if you had murdered him...?
I don't...what do you want, body disposal scenarios or something? It's hard to tell which way you're going with all your what iffery.
It's not even a what if. You'd have been arrested for murder and almost certainly done jail time thus depriving your child of a Father, compounding the trauma he'd already suffered. .
You couldn't even say it was self defence, or done in anticipation of something harmful done to you. Your only argument would have been "blind rage", which caused you to completely lose it and batter him to death.
I'm not sure that even the Daily Mail and Sun at their finest would have been able to muster much of a case against you serving at least a few years behind bars for that.
Yes it's another "what if" - so what ? Are you some self appointed goon who thinks he can authorise what can and can't be said ? You've done enough of it in the past, with your "hypothetical cases" and don't pretend otherwise.
It is brilliant considering the number of times you have opposed it. Yet suddenly it's OK in your eyes. You see this one act as morally justified because the perpetrator appalls you. Not because it is a different type of self control loss.
You haven't given one single reason why the loss of self control in this case is any different to the loss of self control in Munir Hussain's case. Not one, except he gave chase, so should miraculously have cooled down, despite the fact that the criminal had tied up his wife and kids and threatened to rape his wife and kill his kids in front of him.
Sheesh man, you are not for bloody real >:( .
Yes it is yet another what if, something you deny doing, and there's been another one since.
I comment on what's happened in these cases.
You seem to be the only one who cant see the difference between this and the Hussain case, therefore the problem is yours.
I can understand the anger of any victim of crime, and I've actually met a great many in real life, so have seen what reactions you can get.
However, we have a law that allows reasonable force, and the few cases that have been prosecuted go beyond what happens in the heat of the moment, and I'm pleased that it works like that. I don't want crime victims prosecuted, and have gone out of my way plenty of times to play down complaints from villains who have been assaulted. I've dealt with these things. You just argue a contrary point from the comfort of your chair.
The number of times I've opposed retribution, as you put it, is few in number, and extreme in detail. The likes of Hussain, and Martin went too far, yet you support them to the hilt, yet you don't like what this bloke did, where the villain committed worse offences than burglary.
You have a really big problem and it's nothing that anyone on here can help you solve. I refrained from commenting on your posts earlier but the more they continue the more disturbing they get,
It's not even a what if. You'd have been arrested for murder and almost certainly done jail time thus depriving your child of a Father, compounding the trauma he'd already suffered. .
You couldn't even say it was self defence, or done in anticipation of something harmful done to you. Your only argument would have been "blind rage", which caused you to completely lose it and batter him to death.
I'm not sure that even the Daily Mail and Sun at their finest would have been able to muster much of a case against you serving at least a few years behind bars for that.
Why on earth would the authorities be involved? I wouldn't be straight on the blower to the police preaching about how much I love my god, that's one area the gentleman and I greatly differ on.
Why on earth would the authorities be involved? I wouldn't be straight on the blower to the police preaching about how much I love my god, that's one area the gentleman and I greatly differ on.
Sorry, I don't understand your reply Tony.
If you'd killed him, as you suggested was a potentiality, of course the authorities would be involved.
Yes it is yet another what if, something you deny doing, and there's been another one since.
I comment on what's happened in these cases.
You seem to be the only one who cant see the difference between this and the Hussain case, therefore the problem is yours.
I can understand the anger of any victim of crime, and I've actually met a great many in real life, so have seen what reactions you can get.
However, we have a law that allows reasonable force, and the few cases that have been prosecuted go beyond what happens in the heat of the moment, and I'm pleased that it works like that. I don't want crime victims prosecuted, and have gone out of my way plenty of times to play down complaints from villains who have been assaulted. I've dealt with these things. You just argue a contrary point from the comfort of your chair.
The number of times I've opposed retribution, as you put it, is few in number, and extreme in detail. The likes of Hussain, and Martin went too far, yet you support them to the hilt, yet you don't like what this bloke did, where the villain committed worse offences than burglary.
I'm still waiting for you to explain the differences. No doubt I shall continue waiting, as you don't appear to have the wit to extend into true explanatory debate, quite honestly. Not your forte.
Well yeah, duh! Am I supposed to just throw my hands up and say "it's a fair cop"??
Since we're so deep into the fantasy scenario already, of course I would disappear said dead peado and get on with my life. What am I supposed to be wracked with guilt or something, deeply penitent? I wouldn't give a toss about him!
I'm still waiting for you to explain the differences. No doubt I shall continue waiting, as you don't appear to have the wit to extend into true explanatory debate, quite honestly. Not your forte.
Another poster did explain the differences in very concise, easy to understand terms tbf. Why would DP need to do it all over again?
I'm still waiting for you to explain the differences. No doubt I shall continue waiting, as you don't appear to have the wit to extend into true explanatory debate, quite honestly. Not your forte.
You're playing stupid again if you claim you cant see a difference. No one else seems to have that problem.
It doesn't actually matter, so detailed explanations are not really necessary. it didn't happen here, so a decision under our procedures hasn't had to be considered.
I gave a personal opinion, that's all, and it seems to run alongside the majorities. You for some reason disagree. I'm shocked!
You're playing stupid again if you claim you cant see a difference. No one else seems to have that problem.
It doesn't actually matter, so detailed explanations are not really necessary. it didn't happen here, so a decision under our procedures hasn't had to be considered.
I gave a personal opinion, that's all, and it seems to run alongside the majorities. You for some reason disagree. I'm shocked!
No, you have not said precisely what the differences are between the one type of rage and the other. Do so or shut up.
You even fail to condemn a guy who says he would kill and not tell the police about it.
Well yeah, duh! Am I supposed to just throw my hands up and say "it's a fair cop"??
Since we're so deep into the fantasy scenario already, of course I would disappear said dead peado and get on with my life. What am I supposed to be wracked with guilt or something, deeply penitent? I wouldn't give a toss about him!
Well in saying that you've lost all credibility, and has has DP in agreeing with you on another point, but not calling you on this.
Reasonable debate is clearly no longer an option here.
Well in saying that you've lost all credibility, and has has DP in agreeing with you on another point, but not calling you on this.
Reasonable debate is clearly no longer an option here.
Wait ok, just so I'm clear...this is your fantasy world and yours alone? You proposed this hypothetical situation where I've killed a paedo caught in the act abusing my child...but I've no choice in the matter, the next step has to be me handing myself in?? Is that it?
I don't get why it's apparently believable I'd kill the guy, but completely beyond the realms of possibility I'd then attempt to actually get away with it
No, you have not said precisely what the differences are between the one type of rage and the other. Do so or shut up.
You even fail to condemn a guy who says he would kill and not tell the police about it.
Rage is not the defence in law, reasonable force is, in the circumstances.
Severe provocation, such as that involved in catching someone committing a crime such as this would be considered.
Chasing after the villain, getting help, and taking weapons may involve the same rage, but the force in that case would not be deemed reasonable, as shown by the Juries verdict.
That's the difference.
As for condemning someone else for a hypothetical add on to your hypothetical scenario, why would I bother?
Comments
It is not "completely different". The principles of rage are identical.
As far as "presence of mind" hasn't it been argued that the Father in this case, had the presence of mind to stop beating when he did ?
Precisely - what more do you want ?
Hey, it's not my phrase. But it's been quoted at me often enough on cases where I've been in favour of the criminal being struck.
....and what do you think would have happened if you had murdered him...?
It's not even a what if. You'd have been arrested for murder and almost certainly done jail time thus depriving your child of a Father, compounding the trauma he'd already suffered. .
You couldn't even say it was self defence, or done in anticipation of something harmful done to you. Your only argument would have been "blind rage", which caused you to completely lose it and batter him to death.
I'm not sure that even the Daily Mail and Sun at their finest would have been able to muster much of a case against you serving at least a few years behind bars for that.
Yes it is yet another what if, something you deny doing, and there's been another one since.
I comment on what's happened in these cases.
You seem to be the only one who cant see the difference between this and the Hussain case, therefore the problem is yours.
I can understand the anger of any victim of crime, and I've actually met a great many in real life, so have seen what reactions you can get.
However, we have a law that allows reasonable force, and the few cases that have been prosecuted go beyond what happens in the heat of the moment, and I'm pleased that it works like that. I don't want crime victims prosecuted, and have gone out of my way plenty of times to play down complaints from villains who have been assaulted. I've dealt with these things. You just argue a contrary point from the comfort of your chair.
The number of times I've opposed retribution, as you put it, is few in number, and extreme in detail. The likes of Hussain, and Martin went too far, yet you support them to the hilt, yet you don't like what this bloke did, where the villain committed worse offences than burglary.
Sorry, I don't understand your reply Tony.
If you'd killed him, as you suggested was a potentiality, of course the authorities would be involved.
Unless you're saying you'd try and cover it up ?
I'm still waiting for you to explain the differences. No doubt I shall continue waiting, as you don't appear to have the wit to extend into true explanatory debate, quite honestly. Not your forte.
Since we're so deep into the fantasy scenario already, of course I would disappear said dead peado and get on with my life. What am I supposed to be wracked with guilt or something, deeply penitent?
Thank you, and I've explained in less detail too. It is so obvious it doesn't really need explaining does it?
You're playing stupid again if you claim you cant see a difference. No one else seems to have that problem.
It doesn't actually matter, so detailed explanations are not really necessary. it didn't happen here, so a decision under our procedures hasn't had to be considered.
I gave a personal opinion, that's all, and it seems to run alongside the majorities. You for some reason disagree. I'm shocked!
No, you have not said precisely what the differences are between the one type of rage and the other. Do so or shut up.
You even fail to condemn a guy who says he would kill and not tell the police about it.
Well in saying that you've lost all credibility, and has has DP in agreeing with you on another point, but not calling you on this.
Reasonable debate is clearly no longer an option here.
Little do you know. I asked around and most parents would kill for their children
It would not be murder so no issue
Edit, don't bother,
Most of us would kill for our children but most of us wouldn't.
I don't get why it's apparently believable I'd kill the guy, but completely beyond the realms of possibility I'd then attempt to actually get away with it
Rage is not the defence in law, reasonable force is, in the circumstances.
Severe provocation, such as that involved in catching someone committing a crime such as this would be considered.
Chasing after the villain, getting help, and taking weapons may involve the same rage, but the force in that case would not be deemed reasonable, as shown by the Juries verdict.
That's the difference.
As for condemning someone else for a hypothetical add on to your hypothetical scenario, why would I bother?