What The Hell Is Wrong With The British?

UPDATE: What the hell is wrong with me? Jack Snyder in the comments section points out that I leapt to conclusions without learning the facts behind the Munir Hussain case. As is often the case he’s right. Hussain crossed the line by attacking his attacker outside of his house after he and his family were safe. Had I done this first I would probably not have written the piece below, or at least, without as much piss and vinegar. I’m sorry for this mistake. SK———-
The Brits don’t seem to think self defense is a human right.

In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire. Hussain was jailed for two and a half years, despite his attacker being spared prison.

Appeal judges reduced the sentence to a year’s jail, suspended.

How very sporting of them. A knife wielding burglar ties up a man’s family and he gets prison for fighting the guy off with a cricket bat and metal pole while the assailant walks free? Are you serious? No wonder the Brits don’t understand Americans. I would have shot dead a knife-wielding burglar who tied up my family, not just battered them about the head with cricket bats and metal poles and slept well at night thanks to the Castle laws on the books here in North Carolina, which ironically enough derive from English common law that states “an Englishman’s home is his castle.”

Honestly, I love the UK and the British people, but I’m sometimes simply stunned by how… wussified the English have become. What the hell happened to fighting on the beaches, fields and streets and never surrendering? The Nazis would have conquered this lot in a fortnight.

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)

6 Comments

  1. Jack:

    Scott,

    The link you provide only gives a summary of the story, so I Googled it and got the full story. There were three intruders who tied up Munir and his family. His teenage son escaped and found his Uncle Toker (Munir’s brother), but before Toker could make it to the house, the intruders fled. Munir and Toker chased them and caught only one, Salem (I guess the intruders used the buddy system and outran their ‘buddy’). They beat Salem until he was crippled with a brain injury. The judge praised the teenage son for his bravery and acknowledged that Munir and his family went through a terrible ordeal, but said that persons cannot take the law into their own hands and carry out revenge attacks. Though it’s not stated in the article, I think it’s pretty clear that chasing them down outside the house and the severity of the injury is what led to the sentences for both Munir and Toker. In essence it was vigilantism. Salem was given a 2-year supervision order (I assume that’s probation) and the article says he was “not fit to plead” which might mean he was also unfit to go to prison.

  2. Jack:

    Here’s the story is you care to read it. There’s a lot more detail than in my summary.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/14/jail-brothers-burglar-cricket-bat

  3. Scott Kirwin:

    Jack
    Quoting the Guardian? You realize the Guardian makes Pravda look like the Weekly Standard by comparison? I prefer the Telegraph and the Economist, the latter of which I’ve subscribed to for 20 years now.
    The Telegraph has a very different take on the story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/search/?queryText=munir+hussain&Search=) but the search did bring up the row over the human rights of self-defense that is waging in the UK. Even David Cameron said, “...burglars leave their human rights at the door when they break into a property.” The fact that such self-defense cases are controversial says much about the UK, little of it good. But it’s an old debate there; after all, we’re both A Clockwork Orange fans, aren’t we?

  4. Jack:

    Scott,

    Yes, we are both A Clockwork Orange fans! :-)

    The Guardian, The Telegraph, irrelevant. The facts of the case are the same from both sources. Let me quote The Telegraph that you linked to:

    “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.”

    I don’t even understand your point. The reason I even looked it up is because your original post leads one to believe the entire event took place inside Munir Hussain’s house. You reinforce this with commenting on North Carolina’s Castle Laws and stating the English common law source, “an Englishman’s home is his castle.”

    So your original post is misleading at the very least.

    Your comment on my comment continues the error when you quote David Cameron, “... burglars leave their human rights at the door when they break into a property.” Again, this makes it seem as though the entire incident took place in the house.

    If that was the case, there would be no dispute. Here in the US it’s the same. You can shoot an intruder dead in your house. But you can’t shoot them on your lawn and you can’t chase them. (Remember the old saying, “If you shoot’em on the lawn, drag’em in the house before the police arrive.”) Once you are not in danger, you cannot use deadly force. Yes, I know there are exceptions to the rule and, of course, dead men tell no tales, but, generally, you can’t shoot someone if you’re no longer in danger. Even the Stand Your Ground states that. But again, dead men tell no tales, so as long as the perp is dead there is not much dispute.

    I have no problems with self-defense and protecting one’s family, but your original post was misleading as to really why there is a controversy over this. And your follow-up comment did not clear that up.

  5. Scott Kirwin:

    Jack
    Dammit you are right! As you annoyingly often are. Updated the post with appropriate mea culpa. Thanks for keeping me humble.

  6. Jack:

    Scott,

    I didn’t mean to bust your chops on it. I was just pointing out a legal detail that got the Hussain’s in hot water. Even though it’s unlawful what they did, I think anyone, myself included, very well may have done the same thing. It’s frustrating, no doubt, but we can’t have vigilantism or lynch mobs chasing people down.

    And when it comes to the Castle Law, I agree 100%, a person’s home is their castle. If someone broke into my house and I thought they meant me or my fiancee’ or her son harm, they’d be removing him in baggies! I don’t have a gun, so I’d be forced to do it in a much more barbaric way.

Leave a comment