Thetownend.com

Picture the scene..you get home and are pounced on by three armed masked robbers...they tie you up and your family is threatened with knives....they demand cash and pin numbers..all three have numerous past convictions...the main man of the story over 52.
This happened in Wycombe..the victim a wealthy buisnessman...only his brother manages to wriggle free and run to his brother next door.....the wealthy gent kicks a coffee table at his attacker just as the son returns with his brother...the three give chase and catch one of them...the beat him to an inch of his life and fracture his skull..a woman just manages to intervene that probably saved his life.
Does  them three being in that bubble of anger give them the right to do this?...outcome yesterday was that the wealthy buisnessman and his brother were both jailed for 3 years for excesive use of self defence...i find it a toughy...the robber has slight brain damage and didnt face any charges..maybe if the system were dong its job by making sure he was locked up it wouldnt have happened..maybe a burglar who is caught 3 times should get 5 years minimum as a deterent...who knows,another sad episode really ware a person who has fifty convictions is free to reek havoc.

i heard about this on the radio.they should be given medals and the real criminals put to sleep.

Medals for nearly killing a bloke? Behave.

he deserved it

Certainly a tricky one, I think the fact that it was an armed robbery makes a difference- Tony Martin for example, deserves to be where he is, however, these people were threatened with a Knife during the robbery and therefore I can't help but feel those being robbed would have a very reasonable case for being in fear of their own lives.

That said, I don't know the full details of the case, and the extent of the robber's injuries seem rather severe considering the circumstances.

No he didn't.  You're ignoring the concept of proportionality, which has to be a factor in any legal system.

Personally if someone broke into my house, tied up my wife, 10 year old daughter and 13 year old son, and threatened us with knives, I would think it was completely proportionate to whack him over the head with a cricket bat....

I have absolutely no problem at all with what he did - to me the burgler deserved everything he got.....

It's just a shame the "namby pamby" state we live in has sent a message out to everyone saying "if someone does this - ask them politely to leave, but do not get aggressive, or you will be locked up for years".....

Shame on the judge....

the fact is that if someone came into the house of any one of us, we would do whatever we could to protect ourselves and our loved ones. If these 2 guys had beat the shit out of the robber while he was still in the house, that would have been fine, but in this case I understand they chased him some considerable distance before attacking him with a cricket bat. That sort of takes away the self-defence aspect of the case, and leaves them open to pre-meditated assault charges.

i'm normally one to salute the have-a-go heroes who stand up for themselves against greedy selfish wankers who think they can take away anything someone else has worked hard to get, but in this case I find myself having little sympathy with either party

It is a tough one.

A sentence of 3 years will probably equate to a few months, after which they will likely pick up the pieces and carry on where they left of. A firm slap on the wrist really considering they could have killed the and so I reckon the judge might have got it about right.

Not sure its what they did that is the problem but how they did it.

If someone has a knife pulled on you and your family, if you grab the knife, stab them and kill them then that's self defence. But chasing them down the street and then nearly kicking them to death isn't, that's attempted murder.

I'd say they got off pretty lightly only getting 3 years when they left him with brain damage.

Can't understand why the robber wasn't prosecuted though, the attack on him shouldn't make any difference.

Bang on.  The moment they started chasing the guy, it ceased to be self defence.  Of course I have some sympathy with the family that was robbed.  The desire to exact some form of retribution would have been quite powerful...but you can't condone a vicious attack on the grounds that another crime took place immediately beforehand.  These things are rarely black & white, but it sounds to me as if the judge got it right on this occasion.

my understanding is that the robber was chased and then hit immediately after the robbery.
going after someone who has done what he did and hitting him with a bat seems like justice was served.this case should have been thrown out of court and the robber lethally injected.
too many times the victims of crime end up in situations like this.
he didn't ask to have his mrs and kids robbed and tied up at knifepoint.he reacted and took a swipe at the scumbag.good on him.first form of defence is attack.how do we know that cunt wouldn't have stabbed the bloke if he could have.dont go armed to rob then you wont get a bat around your head.

By your own admission you've been a bit naughty in your time, I'm gonna come and jump on your skull a few times and if you survive you can present the medal yourself then. Twat.

nothing i did ever came near to armed robbery.
wish i trousered your credit card that time and fleeced you now.prick!

That would equate to robbery.... ;)

not even theft when some dumb cunt drops in on the floor.well until money is laundered on it anyway

I can see why they get 3 years, and i think it's harsh, but if i was in his/their position i woulda gone to jail as well. I doubt anyone would be able to hold back in their anger if minutes before their life felt close to ending. I would actually want them dead, so if i was in his position, brain damage at the cost of 3 years inside would be a pretty sweet second.

The burglar not going down though is a fucking joke. Why? Hopefully it's because he'll be dribbling for the rest of his days, although leefer does say "minor brain damage", so once you sift past the propaganda, it probably means he's absolutely fine.

I also think that the thought of myself and my family being subjected to that would require immediate revenge. Would you just let them walk off after being put through that? Christ, the police wouldn't have even turned up until the following day if the blokes hadn't caught the criminals. Afterall, the police wouldn't have had time in between filling forms and catching people using cars.

I think you missed the point me old chap.

Don't worry Arriba, I don't really want to beat you to within an each of your life, no matter how much of a cunt you might be for wishing such treatment on someone else.

It is a tough one....the fact is if our justice system did its job properly these lowlife who go around treating people with contempt wouldnt be out after Fifty convictions...it really rankles me.

I'm with arriba on this one. These were career criminals quite happy to terrorise innocent folk. They got more than they bargained for - tough shit. I'd rather they took a battering than next time go and hurt or frighten other innocent folk. Fuck em. 

Thank fuck you said that CS. Totally agree.

I understand why he got 3 years but i would do the same thing in that position.

i dont think i did at all.
you more or less made out i was a hypocrite because i've got convictions.
mine were petty drunken crimes of which i was punished by the courts.

the scumbag whacked with a bat has 54 convictions and had just held the blokes family at knifepoint and tied them up.i dont wish pain on anyone but if you do what he did then i'm afraid i think he more than deserved a whack around the head.i would have done the same had i seen my mrs and kids put through that ordeal.the law is an arse!

and i'm certainly not worried by a little gobshite like yourself.

I find myself agreeing with Arriba on this, they deserve everything they got.

The punishment should fit the crime. Being beaten half to death and left with brain damage seems a little extreme.

If the guy had twatted him in the house, fine. But to chase after somebody down a street, knock him down, then continue to hit him with a cricket bat even after he was unconscious?

I would argue the cunt had brain damage before he got batterred. Holding a knife to a woman and threatening to kill her and her kids in front of each other is despicable.  All it did was give a physical reason for somethnig that was already present. Here's to all those who won't have to put up with this loathesome piece of shit breaking into their houses in future.

Yeah it's ott, but who really would let it go?

And you could argue he got what he asked for as opposed to got what he deserved. First off he commits a crime then gets caught and punished. Perhaps excessively, but you don't throw stones at a hornets nest, causing them no real pain or trauma, and then wonder why you got stung by a thousand hornets.

The cunt went out of his way to ask for it. He broke in, he committed a crime against a whole family and he got a fucking kicking. Tough shit in my mind and he won't do it again.

I see the lunatics are out again. The cunt deserved the battering, end of. If anyone did that to me and my family I would have fucking killed them. The next best thing is brain damage, hopefully it's damaged enough that he never terrorizes an innocent family again. Though it is a shame the state is probably going to end up picking up the bill for this piece of shit.

Death should be chalked up as an occupational hazard of burglary.