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.

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.

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

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.