Italian lawmakers OK use of lethal force to protect property.

As a matter of curiosity, and to take this out of the realm of speculation and pub anecdotes, can anyone refer me to a case where a burglar successfully sued for assault or injury where reasonable force was used? And since the Occupier's Liability Act of 1995, can anyone point out a case where a burglar sued for injuries sustained on a premises in which they were committing a crime?

Sparks

ionapaul wrote:

Physically restrain him in any way?

Not as a first resort, no. I'm less certain of what happens when you've told him he's under a citizen's arrest and that he's to stay where he is.

Grab your DVD player back from him, trying not to injure him of course?

And what happens when you drop this DVD player (which is obviously of immense sentimental value since you're risking your life to save it :rolleyes: ) in the inevitable ensuing scuffle?

Or does the law stipulate / encourage resignation on the part of the DVD owner - let your property go and be glad nothing worse came of the instrusion?

The law stipulates nothing in this regard; the Gardai encourage you to not risk your life unnecessarily, as would common sense.
Me, I'd advise you to lock your doors and windows at night.

civdef

So are there no legally allowable means to physically restrain the burglar / remove the DVD from his temporary possession, even while on your property?

There are indeed. The person on your property illegally in possession of you DVD player is commiting the offence of burglary. Burglary is an arrestable offence (an offence carrying a sentence of 5years or more, maximum sentence for burglary is 14 years).

Under the Criminal Law Act 1997, Section 4, any person can arrest someone in the act of committing or who has committed an arrestable offence. If the person damaged anything in the process of breaking in, you could arrest for criminal damage either.

In this case arresting would mean physically detaining someone until the Gardai arrive. You are allowed use reasonable force to arrest somone. (NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT, 1997 SECTION 19) Legal judgements have stated in the past that you MUST physically restrain the arrested person in order to confirm to them that you have deprived them of their liberty.

You are allowed use reasonable force in a range of circumstance, these include preventing property being stolen in the first place (NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT, 1997 SECTION 18).

Just to clarify, there is no real concept of " Citizen's Arrest" in Ireland. If any person makes a lawful arrest, that has the same force of law as an arrest by a Garda.

CRIMINAL LAW ACT, 1997 SECTION 4

---

1997 16 4
Arrest without warrant. 4.—(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be in the act of committing an arrestable offence.

(2) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), where an arrestable offence has been committed, any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(3) Where a member of the Garda Síochána, with reasonable cause, suspects that an arrestable offence has been committed, he or she may arrest without warrant anyone whom the member, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(4) An arrest other than by a member of the Garda Síochána may only be effected by a person under subsection (1) or (2) where he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects that the person to be arrested by him or her would otherwise attempt to avoid, or is avoiding, arrest by a member of the Garda Síochána.

(5) A person who is arrested pursuant to this section by a person other than a member of the Garda Síochána shall be transferred into the custody of the Garda Síochána as soon as practicable.

(6) This section shall not affect the operation of any enactment restricting the institution of proceedings for an offence or prejudice any power of arrest conferred by law apart from this section.


CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT, 1991 SECTION 12

---

1991 31 12
Arrest without warrant. 12.—(1) This section applies to an offence under this Act other than section 5 or 13 (4).

(2) Any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be in the act of committing an offence to which this section applies.

(3) Where an offence to which this section applies has been committed, any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(4) Where a member of the Garda Síochána, with reasonable cause, suspects that an offence to which this section applies or an offence under section 13 (4) has been committed, he may arrest without warrant anyone whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(5) A member of the Garda Síochána may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be about to commit an offence to which this section applies.

(6) For the purpose of arresting a person under any power conferred by this section a member of the Garda Síochána may enter (if need be, by force) and search any place where that person is or where the member, with reasonable cause, suspects him to be.

(7) This section shall apply to an attempt to commit an offence as it applies to the commission of that offence.

(8) This section shall not prejudice any power of arrest conferred by law apart from this section.


NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT, 1997 Section 18

Justifiable use of force; protection of person or property, prevention of crime, etc. 18.—(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—

( a ) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or
( b ) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or
( c ) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or
( d ) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or
( e ) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.
(2) "use of force" in subsection (1) is defined and extended by section 20.

(3) For the purposes of this section an act involves a "crime" or is "criminal" although the person committing it, if charged with an offence in respect of it, would be acquitted on the ground that—

( a ) he or she was under 7 years of age; or
( b ) he or she acted under duress, whether by threats or of circumstances; or
( c ) his or her act was involuntary; or
( d ) he or she was in a state of intoxication, or
( e ) he or she was insane, so as not to be responsible, according to law, for the act.
(4) The references in subsection (1) to protecting a person and property from anything include protecting the person or properly from its continuing; and the reference to preventing crime or a breach of the peace shall be similarly construed.

(5) For the purposes of this section the question whether the act against which force is used is of a kind mentioned in any of the paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1) shall be determined according to the circumstances as the person using the force believes them to be.

(6) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person who believes circumstances to exist which would justify or excuse the use of force under that subsection has no defence if he or she knows that the force is used against a member of the Garda Síochána acting in the course of the member's duty or a person so assisting such member, unless he or she believes the force to be immediately necessary to prevent harm to himself or herself or another.

(7) The defence provided by this section does not apply to a person who causes conduct or a state of affairs with a view to using force to resist or terminate it:

But the defence may apply although the occasion for the use of force arises only because the person does something he or she may lawfully do, knowing that such an occasion will arise.

(8) Property shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) and (d) as belonging to any person—

( a ) having the custody or control of it;
( b ) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest); or
( c ) having a charge on it;
and where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be treated as including any person having a right to enforce the trust.

Property of a corporation sole shall be treated for the purposes of the aforesaid provisions as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.


NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT, 1997 Section 18
19.—(1) The use of force by a person in effecting or assisting in a lawful arrest, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence.

(2) "use of force" in subsection (1) is defined and extended by section 20.

(3) For the purposes of this section the question as to whether the arrest is lawful shall be determined according to the circumstances as the person using the force believed them to be

Manic Moran

Sparks wrote:

There are burglars in your house. Something's already gone wrong. Me, I'd be planning on not letting anything else go wrong, and you do that by minimising your risk. Staying upstairs is the least-risk option, assuming your family is there. Or do you think your TV is worth more than their health?

Than their health? Probably. At least, in some places, such as in some American states and Italy now, that has been codeified into law. The question I think the burglar should be more worried about is "Is that TV worth my health," not "Does the homeowner think the TV is worth my health."
Some places, such as California, are a little more quirky. It is not permitted to use lethal force here in order to protect property. It is, however, permitted to use lethal force against anyone in your home without legal authority or permission because his mere presence in your home is deemed a threat to your personal safety.

Indeed, this is so enshrined in some jurisdictions, take this example: This week a Miami man was cleared of shooting a policeman. The cops were investigating a rock thrown at them, and had hopped over the man's fence looking for the perpetrator. The man, woken by the noise of banging around at 2am, just sees people wandering around on his property with flashlights. He shot, wounding the policeman, and got brought up on attempted murder of an officer. The jury took 30 minutes to find him not guilty. "Judge Rodriguez explained it is contrary to law for a police officer to enter a private residence without a search warrant or permission from the homeowner unless it's a very unusual circumstance. If Barcia had a reason to believe a felony was being committed on his property, or that his or others lives were in danger, the judge added, he could legally fend for himself."

And you're planning on getting the firearm, how?

You can obtain the firearm for normal lawful use. Once you have the thing in your house, what you do with it in times of emergency is up to you, not the Gardai. Under Irish law as it stands, use of a firearm to stop a burglary is not considered sufficient emergency. To protect life might be. That is determined by the DPP and a jury.

Yes, if in extremis. Shooting someone for stealing your telly is not legal as your life is not under threat and shooting someone for theft is not reasonable force. You would go to jail. And if you get the firearm through illegal means, you wouldn't be charged with shooting someone with an illegal firearm (if it was in self-defence); but you would be charged with possession and trafficing.

In Ireland, yes. But is not the topic of the thread the merits of the policy which the Italians have put into force? I happen to agree with them on a moral standpoint.

The right to not be killed can't be rescinded because of an act of petty theft!

Yes it can. The Italians just did made it so, in Italy.

Wouldn't a good security system be a lot less hassle and less risky than playing Rambo in the sitting room?

Um. No. By all means, have a good security system, but how long does it take the Gards to get to where you live (particularly in the country) after the call is put out? Ultimately which would you rather defend yourself with if it should come to your safety: A mobile 'phone, or a shotgun? Ultimately, in the US, the only person responsible for your personal safety is you. Not the police. This is basically an acknowledgement of the fact that the police cannot be everywhere at once or respond immediately in time to prevent any and all crimes.
What would happen if you were to get beaten up by a burglar, and then sued the Gards for taking too long to get to your home?

NTM

Sparks

Um. No. By all means, have a good security system, but how long does it take the Gards to get to where you live (particularly in the country) after the call is put out?

Are you seriously asserting that someone's going to spend a half-hour trying to break into your home after the cops are called?
See, walter mittyism is fine most of the time - but here it could get someone killed and someone else in serious trouble. Don't forget, the few cases you hear of where a firearm could be of use for self-defence are actually very rare; and are usually balanced by an equal number of cases where the use of a firearm led to tragedy.

As to the Italian law, read the actual article. It says "It applies if there is a danger of aggression and the attacker does not desist." which is exactly the same situation as you have in Ireland today - in other words, you're not allowed shoot someone to save your TV, only if the thief turns on you, at which point it ceases to be prevention of theft and becomes an act of self-defence, a wholly seperate body of law.

Would it be fair to say then that, given the accessibility to guns, burglaries are simply not known in America? Or at least that it is significantly lower than in Ireland? Any stats I've googled suggest something completely different altogether.

The_Minister

Deleted User wrote:

And frankly yeah, I would rather they broke a door and took a DVD than having their brains spattered all over my sitting room wall...

I always liked red paint....:D

Manic Moran

Deleted User wrote:

Would it be fair to say then that, given the accessibility to guns, burglaries are simply not known in America?

Of course not. Whilst there is a difference in the burlgary rate in high-firearms-ownership areas to low-firearms ownership areas in the US, that in itself is not conclusive: More often than not, the firearms ownership tends to be in rural areas which usually have a lower crime rate overall than the cities. (Whether or not the crime rate is a result of the firearms rate is another issue which is hotly contested, particularly when cases like Kennesaw are mentioned). Burglaries happen in the US, possibly as many if not more than happen in Ireland.

The difference is that in the US, the burglary occurs 90% of the time when there is nobody present in the home, vs some 45% of the time in the UK. I presume Irish figures are about equal to UK ones. One possible conclusion from this (which I abscribe to) is that the burglar in the US is rather adverse to getting shot by the homeowner, and tries to pick his targets to ensure his own safety. If this is the case, then there is less chance of a burglar being in a position where the contemplation of harm to either himself or the resident becomes an issue.

Are you seriously asserting that someone's going to spend a half-hour trying to break into your home after the cops are called?

Who needs a half-hour? Five minutes is plenty enough time for you as the resident to have a really bad evening.

Don't forget, the few cases you hear of where a firearm could be of use for self-defence are actually very rare; and are usually balanced by an equal number of cases where the use of a firearm led to tragedy

Now that is a very suspect claim, and experience in the US (Particularly when it comes to firearms in public, which is beyond the scope of this thread) would appear to counter that.

NTM

samb

Xterminator wrote:

The balance of rights is too far in protection of the criminal. i think thats obvious.

I believe that a burglar, who enters someones home should forfit all protection of the law, while commiting an act against the law.

So if they are beaten, injured or even shot they cannot then use the law as a shield.

Can you think of a good reason why they should be able to claim the protection of the law, while engaged in breaking it?

X

I can't believe this facist attitude, I suppose you believe that Nally running into his shed, reloading his gun, chasing after a wounded man, and shooting him in the back was a good deed.
Have you never broken the law, should the Gardai shoot people who speed because they should ''forfit all protection of the law, while commiting an act against the law''. Much burglary is commited out of desperation (often a substance addiction problem) and the burglar does not want trouble. If they attack, or threaten you then of course you can defend yourself. I can't see how the law protects the criminal. A jury will decide if your actions were justifable.
Your name is telling;)

Sangre

Haven't read all posts but basically you have reasonable force.
A jury will try you so they will emphatise with any homeowners.

Btw a burgler cannot slip and sue you. He will be laughed at of court. It just doesn't have in Ireland. Ever.

Xterminator

samb wrote:

I can't believe this facist attitude, I suppose you believe that Nally running into his shed, reloading his gun, chasing after a wounded man, and shooting him in the back was a good deed.
Have you never broken the law, should the Gardai shoot people who speed because they should ''forfit all protection of the law, while commiting an act against the law''. Much burglary is commited out of desperation (often a substance addiction problem) and the burglar does not want trouble. If they attack, or threaten you then of course you can defend yourself. I can't see how the law protects the criminal. A jury will decide if your actions were justifable.
Your name is telling;)

I have come to the conclusion you either cant or didnt read my statement.

I believe someone breaking into my house, ie the place where i reside should forfit their protection under law.

Not because i love my TV, but because their presence in my home, endangers me and my family. Hence i should have the right to take any actions i deem warranted to defend my home.

Now i dont belive my family to be under the same imminent threat if soneone breaks into my shed, or is in my garden etc. So while reloading my gun and shooting someone in a field or street repeatedly is IMO not strictly defence, if he's in my house, i should be able to use any force i deem nessacary.

So tell me how is my attitude facist? I belive your attitude to be naive. I believe if your parents were terrorised in their own home, your opinion might rapidy change.
PS The nick is from playing counterstrike, not my political affiliations:)

Have a look at the 2 follwing links, which i belive back me up, a nd are bnoth from todays paper, ie both in the same day!

(mother's opinion on right to shoot home invaders)

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1552867&issue_id=13618

(Burglar sprays cleaing fluid on baby and threaters to make him drink it)

http://www.unison.ie/breakingnews/index.php3?ca=9&si=86371

Sangre

Sangre wrote:

Btw a burgler cannot slip and sue you. He will be laughed at of court. It just doesn't have in Ireland. Ever.

My thoughts exactly.

The whole 'burglars suing homeowners left right and centre for injuries' sounds to me like one of those 'non-nationals get a free Merc in Ireland' myths as favoured by taxi-drivers...

Wibbs

samb wrote:

I can't believe this facist attitude, I suppose you believe that Nally running into his shed, reloading his gun, chasing after a wounded man, and shooting him in the back was a good deed.

Did he say any of that. Did anyone suggest anything like that? No. That makes you wrong now doesn't it?

Have you never broken the law, should the Gardai shoot people who speed because they should ''forfit all protection of the law, while commiting an act against the law''.

Riiiiight, so speeding is the same as having an intruder in your home(don't start with the guff about road deaths either. Silly argument). By that logic you think he's suggesting that people who litter could be shot. Nonsense TBH.

Much burglary is commited out of desperation (often a substance addiction problem)

Boo hoo. Much of it is of course committed out of badness and petty greed. I've known two heroin addicts and neither of them turned to petty crime.

and the burglar does not want trouble.

So the poor ickle burglar doesn't want any trouble? Ahhhh, poor thing. Then stop breaking into peoples houses. End of trouble.

Sparks

Xterminator wrote:

I believe someone breaking into my house, ie the place where i reside should forfit their protection under law.

You are in error. They certainly should (and in fact do under the present law ) forfeit some of those protections, but others should be forfeited only under the most extreme of circumstances. Those circumstances certainly may arise during a burglary; however, it's highly unlikly to happen in this country despite the scaremongering in the press. And in those circumstances, they do indeed forfeit their protections under the law. But preparing for them and waiting for them to arise, with this sense of longing for them that I get reading some of these posts in here, isn't just morally wrong, it's downright stupid. You want to be placed in a situation where your life is threatened by an unknown number of assailants who are armed with an unknown number of unknown weapons at a time and place of their choosing, more than likely when you're barely awake and can't see very well? How daft is that?

Hence i should have the right to take any actions i deem warranted to defend my home.

And if those actions include pre-emptive defence? No snickering, it's a logical question given your stated position.

I belive your attitude to be naive.

Someone who is unaware of the basic facts regarding burglaries and home invasions (ie. that the former is opportunistic and defeated in 90%+ of cases by locking doors and windows; and that the latter is not only very, very, very rare in this country, but also usually well-planned by the assailants and that you will have no realistic chance to defend yourself in such a case) should not be calling others naive.

Have a look at the 2 follwing links

The former, while horrific, would not allow you to defend yourself with any form of weapon; the burglar was let into the house by the woman because she believed him to be an ESB worker. (Not to criticise someone who's been obviously traumatised by the event, but that is a scenario that gardai have been warning people about for several years now. One phone call is all that would be requred to prevent a recurrance for others). The latter indicates what happens in the exceptionally rare cases where an attack is planned. These represent a tiny minority of burglaries and the account demonstrates how these fantasies of being able to defend the homestead with guns a-blazing are exactly that, and are best left as such. For another example, there was a firearms dealer whose home was broken into two years ago. This man had hundreds of firearms at his disposal (literally), knew his personal security risks and had considered them carefully, and was still unable to defend his home from an armed gang of robbers. What makes you think that Joe Public, with no warning and little forethought, woud do better? And for that ill-concieved and unlikely chance, you're willing to accept serious risks that go with arming a large section of the population, which is fundamentally what you're talking about here.

civdef

And if those actions include pre-emptive defence?

Pre-Emptive attack is a legitimate form of self defence if reasonable in the circumstances. You don't have to wait till someone smacks you to hit them back, for example.

Sparks

civdef wrote:

Pre-Emptive attack is a legitimate form of self defence if reasonable in the circumstances. You don't have to wait till someone smacks you to hit them back, for example.

First off, that's not pre-emptive attack. That's one person initiating an attack and being beaten to the punch by his/her intended victim. That's just straightforward self-defence. I'm talking about going for someone before they commit a crime in the belief that they will, which is a different thing alltogether and which leads most of the time to unnecessary tragedies because people generally have lousy judgement. Take the much-publicised case of Yoshihiro Hattori for example. Shot dead in 1992 in Louisiana because he knocked on the wrong door looking for a fancy dress party he'd been invited to. That is where pre-emptive defence and firearms lead to.

Nuttzz

that sounds like a once off case

Sparks

Leaving aside the "if it just saves one life" argument since it's rather suspect under the best of circumstances to begin with, I'll point out that there have been many such shootings in the US. Hattori's was just the most well-publicised at the time.

Xterminator

Sparks wrote:

... I'm talking about going for someone before they commit a crime in the belief that they will, which is a different thing alltogether and which leads most of the time to unnecessary tragedies .....

Before they commit a crime? If they've broken intio my house it wouldnt be before they commited a crime now would it?

Have you missed the entire thrust of my argument?

The action of breaking into someones home, is a crime, which should mean they lose any protection from the law. (IE they choose to step outside the protection of the law). Hence a home owner who feels threatened should be able to take reprisal action without fear of prosecution. And i dont know any homeowner who wouldnt fell threatened by the mere presence of a burglar in their home, speaking as a parent of young children.

Manic Moran

Deleted User wrote:

My thoughts exactly.

The whole 'burglars suing homeowners left right and centre for injuries' sounds to me like one of those 'non-nationals get a free Merc in Ireland' myths as favoured by taxi-drivers...

Again, this may have changed since I took my law courses in UCD ten years ago, but at the time it was a long-standing common law principle that a landowner has a duty of care to all who are on his land, with or without his permission.

You can do more or less what you like to keep them off your land, such as barbed wire, broken glass bottles embedded in the top of cement walls, signs about minefields and dogs etc, but once they have crossed the boundary, you are responsible for any dangerous situations that may occur, such as rickety staircases, bear trap things, and so on.

I do not recall if that protection extended to inside the house, or merely the external grounds, however.

Leaving aside the "if it just saves one life" argument since it's rather suspect under the best of circumstances

That, and it's relied upon by both sides. You have some people saying that burglars do not deserve to get shot on the basis of punishment fitting the crime/sanctity of life, and you have the other crowd saying that it's the one homeowner's life that's important.

I don't like to rely too much on extreme cases, but sometimes they really are worth remarking upon. Some time ago (about a year? If anyone really wants a link I can probably drag one up), there was a case pretty well touted around the firearms community in the US of an incident where a man was shot while beating up a woman in her home by her son, aged seven or eight, who got his dad's revolver. It really is a 'best case incident' pointing out the great equaliser that is a firearm. Not all such in-home incidents are going to end so fortunately, it is admitted, but I'm fairly sure that mom, dad and the kid are all pretty happy that her one life is still alive. (Of course, if it had happened in California, the DA would probably have had them charged with leaving a firearm in reach of a minor)

NTM

Sparks

Manic Moran wrote:

That, and it's relied upon by both sides. You have some people saying that burglars do not deserve to get shot on the basis of punishment fitting the crime/sanctity of life, and you have the other crowd saying that it's the one homeowner's life that's important.

Actually the reason burglars should not lose all their rights without due process except in extremis is that it undermines the state. Why bother with police and a judicial system if we can just kill or maim or injure whomever displeases us?

I don't like to rely too much on extreme cases, but sometimes they really are worth remarking upon. Some time ago (about a year? If anyone really wants a link I can probably drag one up), there was a case pretty well touted around the firearms community in the US of an incident where a man was shot while beating up a woman in her home by her son, aged seven or eight, who got his dad's revolver. It really is a 'best case incident' pointing out the great equaliser that is a firearm. Not all such in-home incidents are going to end so fortunately, it is admitted, but I'm fairly sure that mom, dad and the kid are all pretty happy that her one life is still alive. (Of course, if it had happened in California, the DA would probably have had them charged with leaving a firearm in reach of a minor)

Whereas in counterpoint we saw this christmas in Cavan a woman shot and tragicly killed when one of the family children was playing with a shotgun that had been bought as a gift. As I said before, for every emotive heart-string-tugging story from one side, there's an equally emotive one from the other side...

Manic Moran

Actually the reason burglars should not lose all their rights without due process except in extremis is that it undermines the state. Why bother with police and a judicial system if we can just kill or maim or injure whomever displeases us?

That is not the case over here. As I said, the legislature has decreed that anyone in my house without permission automatically is presumed to intend me harm. The State has simply delegated authority to the homeowner in that one situation.

And the counterpoint to the argument above is that evidently the family did not make sure that the kid was sufficiently trained to be responsible with a firearm before leaving it within reach of him. Their failing should not be held as a noose over everyone else's head. There was a bit of a related dispute about this over on Irishmilitaryonline.com. One of the posters, living in Africa, mentioned that his ten year old son was out and about hunting with a high-calibre rifle unsupervised. Most Irish posters considered it highly irresponsible parenting. It's par for the course over there. It's a matter of training. It can be simple 'Eddie the Eagle' stuff: "If you see a gun: 1) Don't touch, 2) Tell an adult." You teach kids the Green Cross Code at an early age (God, that brings back memories of some cheesy adverts), those two rules shouldn't be too hard, and they do not require that the kid be made into a marskman.

You were a kid once, didn't you ever go for the things that were 'forbidden?' People around here bring their kids to the range, for exposure, and after, say, age 10 or so, training. "Son, you can shoot this gun whenever you want. Just let me know and I'll take you." Result: No 'appeal of mystery.' Give a six-year-old a .44 magnum with one round in the cylinder. Let him have a shot. I guarantee you he won't play around with firearms for a long time. Heck, I can't take more than a half-box of ammo with that thing before I put it down.

Going off on a musing, there's an aprocryphal story (True, I don't know) which later got turned into a TV advert, of two neighbours, one pro-gun, the other anti, arguing. The one turns to the other and says "OK. Put your money where your mouth is. I'll get a sign, put it in front of my house, it'll say 'Trespassers will be shot.' You get a sign, put it in front of your house, it'll say 'This is a gun-free-house.'

If there is any way of doing such an experiment in some city in the US without it being obviously a trap, I'd be very curious to see the result!

NTM

Sparks

And the counterpoint to that argument is that evidently the family did not make sure that the kid was sufficiently trained to be responsible with a firearm before leaving it within reach of him.

...

You were a kid once, didn't you ever go for the things that were 'forbidden?'

A counter-counterpoint with a built-in counter-counter-counterpoint. I think that's fairly indicative of which way this would go and how far it would go if we pursued it.

Give a six-year-old a .44 magnum with one round in the cylinder. Let him have a shot.

Someone did that in Canada last year. The recoil was too much for the unfortunate child and the pistol came back, hit him in the head and killed him.

Manic Moran

Unfortunate. Perhaps the parent should have held his hands over the kid's to control it.

NTM

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote:

Again, this may have changed since I took my law courses in UCD ten years ago, but at the time it was a long-standing common law principle that a landowner has a duty of care to all who are on his land, with or without his permission.

Tut tut, ask for a refund!!

The Occuper's Liability Act is now 11 years old. In it, the common law rules were modified to distinguish between a visitor who is on a premises with the express or implied consent of the occupier, and the recreational user or trespasser. The only duty the landowner owes this group is not to intentionally injure the person or act with reckless disregard, whereas they must go a step further and take reasonable care to protect a visitor.

Manic Moran

For crying out loud...

A common law state of affairs rests pretty much untouched for centuries, and as soon as I learn it in college, they change the bloody thing.

NTM

civdef

Some people have expressed concerns about facism, vigilantism etc on this thread, reminds me of the old saying:

"A conservative is a liberal who got mugged".

Sparks

civdef wrote:

Some people have expressed concerns about facism, vigilantism etc on this thread, reminds me of the old saying:
"A conservative is a liberal who got mugged".

"...usually by a conservative."

the_syco

/me looks at yesterday's papers, when some family was held at shotgun, robbed, the father was hit, and a policeman shot at...

And I don't mean that you to run away, and come back with a gun. I mean that if you're woken up by a bugular breaking into your house, that you can confront them, and ask them to leave, whilst pointing a shotgun at their head, without fear of going to jail.

As for people wondering about the bugular's rights, screw them. What excatly gives them the right to break into my house, to terrify my family, with the full knowledge that if I hit him, he can do me for assault, as he never intented to hurt me?

civdef

I mean that if you're woken up by a bugular breaking into your house, that you can confront them, and ask them to leave, whilst pointing a shotgun at their head, without fear of going to jail.

Tbh, legally that's probably safe at the moment. Pointing a firearm at someone can constitute assault, but I think any jury would see it as reasonable in the circumstances. (You are in fear for your safety etc etc) It's in cases where people depart from the "reasonable" that trouble starts - shooting burglars in the back as they flee and the like.


Btw Sparks, I'm afraid

"...usually by a conservative."

Isn't making much sense for me...

Sparks

the_syco wrote:

/me looks at yesterday's papers, when some family was held at shotgun, robbed, the father was hit, and a policeman shot at...

/me wonders how long we can compare pro- and anti- shooting articles in the press for before the NAS's point is taken...

And I don't mean that you to run away, and come back with a gun. I mean that if you're woken up by a bugular breaking into your house, that you can confront them, and ask them to leave, whilst pointing a shotgun at their head, without fear of going to jail.

That's fully within your rights at present. What's at issue is whether you have the legal right to pull the trigger at that point if you feel like it. (You don't, btw).

As for people wondering about the bugular's rights, screw them. What excatly gives them the right to break into my house, to terrify my family, with the full knowledge that if I hit him, he can do me for assault, as he never intented to hurt me?

He doesn't have that right. And looking after his rights doesn't mean wrapping him in cotton wool and giving him a mug of warm cocoa either. What it means is that you don't do what Nally or Martin did and claim you were justified in doing it. It's about where the line is drawn. Right now, the law draws the line by saying if you honestly acted out of fear for your life then you didn't do anything wrong; but if you made a decision to inflict a punishment on someone then you've decided that you're above the law and that's decidedly not allowed.

civdef wrote:

Btw Sparks, I'm afraid

"...usually by a conservative."

Isn't making much sense for me...

Civ, every time I hear someone say that a conservative is a mugged liberal, I keep wondering who's doing all the mugging since liberals don't believe in harming others for gain. So it has to be the conservatives who are doing all this allegorical mugging.

The Corinthian

civdef wrote:

"A conservative is a liberal who got mugged".

"...by reality."

Sparks

The Corinthian wrote:

"...by reality."

What strikes me about that sentiment is that those expressing it usually have a relatively poor grasp on reality themselves...

civdef

"Reality" as defined by you, of course

Sparks

No, reality as defined by reality. I'm talking about the kind of people who talk about how things work in "the real world" all the time and then expect that their cars will ignore the laws of physics on an icy bend; or that they'll be impervious to physical factors such as fatigue, grogginess when disturbed at 4am, and the like; or who forget that every action has consequences.

The Corinthian

Sparks wrote:

No, reality as defined by reality.

Sure, because you’ve such a great grasp on it.

or who forget that every action has consequences.

That would be a libertarian.

Victor

K-TRIC wrote:

As far as I'm concerned when someone enters my house without permission they're mine,

And if its a Garda serving a warrant? Or the fire brigade / ambulance? Or you neighbour worried you haven't been seen in a while?

stevenmu wrote:

Ideally the law should allow for people to take whatever options seem reasonable given the circumstances, taking into account the time and emotional stresses someone will be under in these situations, and punish those who take unreasonable actions. One problem with this is that it's very hard to define in specific legal terms what is 'reasonable' and what is not.

That is how the law stands at the moment. It is for a jury to decide what was reasonable.

Sand

And if its a Garda serving a warrant? Or the fire brigade / ambulance? Or you neighbour worried you haven't been seen in a while?

They shouldve rang the door bell maybe?

Victor

Sand wrote:

They shouldve rang the door bell maybe?

Maybe they have? Maybe you are known for taking pot-shots at people and its the ERU?

Sand

Maybe they have? Maybe you are known for taking pot-shots at people and its the ERU?

No, Im not known for wandering out towards police carrying a shotgun forcing them to shoot either. Neither am I known for landing on the moon, but then that has absolutely nothing to do with defending property from criminals either. Curious theme developing there.

Seriously, talking about taking potshots at people? People invading your house or people wandering by on the street outside? Pope Benedict might break into your house at 4am with a perfectly good reason to do so, but its rather unlikely.

the_syco

Victor wrote:

Maybe they have? Maybe you are known for taking pot-shots at people and its the ERU?

Well, if you were known to have taken pot shots at people, breaking through your front door would be a pretty stupid thing to do, tbh.

As for the neighbour breaking into your house to check up on you, what happens if he has the keys for your car in their hands?

Finally, if the Gardai does break into your house, they must say they have a warrent, otherwise they have no real ground to stand on.

the_syco

the_syco wrote:

with the full knowledge that if I hit him, he can do me for assault

Again, does anyone anywhere have any link whatsoever to caselaw in the past 10 years where a burglar successfully sued a houseowner?

If someone can link, great. If someone can't surely this old chestnut should be consigned to the same drawer that has the story about the non nationals getting free Merecedes the second they set foot in Ireland or other great urban myths (there was this couple in a car, and some maniac who decapitated victims on the loose, and they heard police sirens and a banging on the roof, and the police told them to run from the car and not look back etc. etc.)

the_syco

Deleted User wrote:

Again, does anyone anywhere have any link whatsoever to caselaw in the past 10 years where a burglar successfully sued a houseowner?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/2987642.stm

Manic Moran

the_syco wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/2987642.stm

That is not a case considered a 'poster child' by the gun lobby. Mr Martin was in illegal posession of firearms, and there was some dispute as to whether at the time Martin shot him if Martin could reasonably consider himself in danger.

NTM

The Corinthian

Manic Moran wrote:

That is not a case considered a 'poster child' by the gun lobby. Mr Martin was in illegal posession of firearms, and there was some dispute as to whether at the time Martin shot him if Martin could reasonably consider himself in danger.

None of those factors appear to make a difference in the claimant from suing the plaintiff, whether you consider it a 'poster child' or not.

Victor

Have you never broken the law, should the Gardai shoot people who speed because they should ''forfit all protection of the law, while commiting an act against the law''.

Wibbs wrote:

Riiiiight, so speeding is the same as having an intruder in your home(don't start with the guff about road deaths either. Silly argument).

Road deaths last year: 399
Murders: 61(?) Most of which were either family or gangland types.

Xterminator wrote:

I believe someone breaking into my house, ie the place where i reside should forfit their protection under law.

And if the are 14, 11 or 7 years old?

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

You teach kids the Green Cross Code at an early age (God, that brings back memories of some cheesy adverts),

We were taught the safe cross code (not enough green lights to go about), oddly enough introduced by a character called "Judge".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

The family of Fearon applied for, and received, an estimated £5,000 of legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injury he sustained, but later dropped the case. Martin sold his version of the story to the Daily Mirror; the government launched an investigation into the law against convicted criminals receiving payments from newspapers.

Do we have a successful suit? In Ireland?

Since his release Martin has appeared on the platform of the United Kingdom Independence Party and has also allegedly endorsed the far right wing British National Party, both parties have advocated changes in the law to stop prosecutions of people attacking intruders as well as less restrictive firearm controls.

Some people seem to think he's a poster boy. Another way of writing the headline the next day would have been "Criminal shoots 16 year old in back".

Sand wrote:

They shouldve rang the door bell maybe?

Maybe you are hard of hearing?

And hard of smell, and you can't make out the porcine waft

the_syco

the_syco wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/2987642.stm

Sorry, meant a case in Ireland, not anywhere in the world.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote:

Sorry, meant a case in Ireland, not anywhere in the world.

And that took place on a Tuesday. Only those count.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote:

And that took place on a Tuesday. Only those count.

With respect, I had a cracking anecdote about housebreaking (or igloo breaking, to be exact) amongst the Innuit, but I really just didn't see the relevance to the Irish legal system...plus when did the Occupier's Liability Act here cover Norfolk? Is it just Norfolk or did we annex East Anglia too?