Italian lawmakers OK use of lethal force to protect property.

JohnK

Rovi wrote:

If you're willing to gamble the lives/health of your spouse/partner, children, elderly parents, etc, etc, on the possibility that the intruder(s) in your home at 3 in the morning are merely 'misguided youths' who have been 'failed by society' and who 'wouldn't hurt a fly', and you're okay with them breaking your windows or doors and making off with your expensive electronic consumer items (paid for with your hard earned money), then you're a better man than I.

Good luck with the 'hugs and kisses' and 'I feel your pain' approach.

.

I'd perfer to make them feel my pain

Lemming

Wicknight wrote:

All this is going to do is make sure robbers come armed to the teeth and kill you first before they rob you.

Nail.Hammer. Head.

Whatever you might argue about morals, this is a fundamental point. All this means is that the matter will escalate. Burgalers will soon start to carry weapons and be prepared to use them without hesitation against home-owners.

Add to the point that as soon as you pull a weapon in any situation you are committed to using that weapon whether you are really prepared to or not. If you're not, then you've just given the burglar another weapon. And nobody here can pull the macho bullsh*t "oh yeah no f*cking problem they're scum" line on this because the simple fact is that you. do. not. know. what you would do when push came to shove.

If you wnat to argue that it'll instill fear, I'm afraid you're going to be wrong. If you want a prime example, take a look across the pond to the US. The police are armed. The criminals are armed. The home owners are armed. And it's like a miniature civil-war there every night with each city having a score of shootings every single night.

stevenmu

Both the pro and the anti gun lobbies have so many different statistics supporting their cases that statistics begin to be a bit meaningless. At the end of the day, I'm not a statistic, my family aren't statistics, and anyone who chooses to invade our home isn't a statistic. If someone breaks in and threatens me or my family, I'm not going to sit there and think "Thank god I don't have a gun, statistically I'd be more likely to blah blah blah".

In any situation a person needs to evaluate the risks and the possible options to decide on the best course of action for that situation. It may be best to just wave bye-bye to your DVD player as some little scumbag jumps out the window with it, it may be best to shoot some guy standing over your little daughters bed in the back of the head (or torso ), when outdoors it's more often than not best to just run like f**k.

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.

Wibbs

Lemming wrote:

And nobody here can pull the macho bullsh*t "oh yeah no f*cking problem they're scum" line on this because the simple fact is that you. do. not. know. what you would do when push came to shove.

Well I have a fair idea. I once had an occasion when a gurrier climbed over the back wall of a friends house I was looking after while he was away, bold as brass with obvious intent to do what scumbags do. I went up and got my mates crossbow, ran back down and challenged him. His response was along the lines of "it's ok buud Im doinnn nathin ri'", while all the while walking towards me. His next line "I got a blaaade", didn't go at all well with me so I shot at him. Now I must point out I missed(stress, bad sights, distance an' all that), but I had little compunction in shooting at him and would do the same to his like again. Now I'm about as macho as julian clary at a flower arranging festival, but in situations like that you would be surprised at your response.

If you want a prime example, take a look across the pond to the US.

Now no one wants the same as the US model, but there is a happy medium, where the homeowner has more rights under law to defend themselves.

Johnee

JohnK wrote:

That’s all well and good but when it gets to court the Judges generally only look at one single fact: Was the person on your property when they were injured? If yes, your liable. They don’t seem to give a damn as to why the person was there in the first place :mad:

Yeah, that's exactly what they look at. :rolleyes: Glad to see the boards tradition continues of not needing to have a clue what you're talking about to state something as fact.

Or do you have a friends friends friend who this happened to to prove your point?

Or could it be this happened in a case in the US where a jury made this decision? But sure all courts are the same, right?

Rovi

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.

This is pretty much the situation we have here right now.
Mr. Nally went to jail because he reloaded and took a second shot at a fleeing man. In all likelihood, he would have gotten away with the first shot and the beating.

The only difference this sort of law would make here is, it would accept 'personal defence' as a valid reason for application for a firearms licence.
Currently, hunting and target shooting are the only acceptable reasons.


.

Sparks

K-TRIC wrote:

I know and I'd see them all the way to court. We need to stand up to this scum and not let them away with it.

Actually, you mean you'd see them all the way to jail. Which is where you'd end up. There's a line between honest self-defence or defence of property and what you're describing, and it's usually obvious when it's crossed. That stout citizen in the UK, for example, who surprised a burglar, knocked him unconcious, tied him up and then proceeded to set him on fire as punishment.

Remember, what you're talking about is something we've had a term for for the past 20-odd years - "punisment beatings".

The relationship between the increase/decrease of armed homeowners to the decrease/increase of home invasions while the resident is present is pretty much proven at this point.

Actually, it's nothing of the sort. Lott's statistics on this have been shown by the NAS to be wholly unreliable.

Well the statistics are quite clear, if you own a gun you are more likely to be shot by your own gun in a home invasion than by the gun of the robber.

And those statistics are in no way reliable either, according to the NAS. As it stands right now, we have no studies to prove or disprove either assertion.

I am not willing to bet my life solely on the good nature of the criminal currently in my home to not kill me.

And yet, you're willing to be it on a large number of other, far worse risks than a policy of minimum contact with criminals; the reaction of another member of your family with the firearm on your late return home, for example, or not seeing the burglar's accomplice as you attempted to incapacitate the burglar.

There are several criteria to responsible firearms ownership for defensive use.

And the first is that you not live in Ireland. Let me be clear. From the Dept. of Justice website:

Firearms certificates are only granted for recreational or sporting purposes. You will not be granted a licence for any weapon for the purposes of personal protection, protection of others or the protection of property.

Rovi

Rovi wrote:

If you're willing to gamble the lives/health of your spouse/partner, children, elderly parents, etc, etc, on the possibility that the intruder(s) in your home at 3 in the morning are merely 'misguided youths' who have been 'failed by society' and who 'wouldn't hurt a fly', and you're okay with them breaking your windows or doors and making off with your expensive electronic consumer items (paid for with your hard earned money), then you're a better man than I.

What is the gamble? How many lives of partners, children or elderly parents have been taken by intruders? On the other hand I can think of one intruder's life taken by a man with a shotgun. 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...

Manic Moran

Sparks wrote:

And yet, you're willing to be it on a large number of other, far worse risks than a policy of minimum contact with criminals; the reaction of another member of your family with the firearm on your late return home,

I do intend to have minimal contact with criminals. If the contact lasts more than, oh, two seconds, something's gone wrong.

for example, or not seeing the burglar's accomplice as you attempted to incapacitate the burglar.

A risk I'm willing to take. I would know the layout of my house, and I have a pretty reasonable idea on how to move around in it without excessive vulnerability. Granted, in my particular case, the best defense for my personal safety is to stay in my room, as the door leads directly and in line to a two-walled straight staircase. Basically, it's shooting down a funnel. Anyone who starts to move up will be shot. Period.

And the first is that you not live in Ireland. Let me be clear. From the Dept. of Justice website:

Well, technically, that's just for the issuance of a license. The use of the firearm is another matter, I believe Irish law still provides for a killing in self defense argument.

What is the gamble? How many lives of partners, children or elderly parents have been taken by intruders?

Well, I don't know the number, but on the RTE website, I only had to go four days back in the archives before reading about 19-year-old Rebecca Kinsella who was beaten to death by a 16-year-old in her house in Cellbridge.

21 January, two men entered a flat in Limerick, shot the resident in the forehead. That could have just been a 'hit' though.

30 Dec, Sam Smith shot at his home in Sligo. Could also have just been a 'hit'

01 January. Man assaulted in his house in Co Meath.

I didn't go back any further than Jan 1 in the archives, and didn't bother clicking on links where bodies were found outside of houses. So in one month in Ireland, there are two probable assasination attempts, one unknown, and I'm not sure about the Cellbridge incident's details.

No incidents of people being accidently killed, other than car accidents.

NTM

KTRIC

Sparks wrote:

Remember, what you're talking about is something we've had a term for for the past 20-odd years - "punisment beatings".

You say that like its a bad thing

Sparks

Manic Moran wrote:

I do intend to have minimal contact with criminals. If the contact lasts more than, oh, two seconds, something's gone wrong.

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?

Well, technically, that's just for the issuance of a license.

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

The use of the firearm is another matter, I believe Irish law still provides for a killing in self defense argument.

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.

So in one month in Ireland, there are two probable assasination attempts, one unknown, and I'm not sure about the Cellbridge incident's details.
No incidents of people being accidently killed, other than car accidents.

It's not a valid comparison as we don't have firearms available for use in defence of life or property. It sounds to me like you're making an emotive argument based on the outrage at someone invading your home. The outrage is justified; but the degree of punishment you're suggesting most certainly is not. You are not the judge and jury and executioner all rolled into one, and there's a reason for that - go down the road of vigalantism and pretty soon, we don't have Gardai, we have the 'ra running protection rackets.

Wouldn't a good security system be a lot less hassle and less risky than playing Rambo in the sitting room? Plus, it would be much cheaper than paying a good defence lawyer...

Xterminator

... It sounds to me like you're making an emotive argument based on the outrage at someone invading your home. The outrage is justified; but the degree of punishment you're suggesting most certainly is not....

At the moment if you even grab a burglar, you can be done for assault.
There have even been cases where burglars have sued for injury while on a victims premises!

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.

Thats not to say i have to kill a burglar, if i detect one, rather that i could choose to do so. That alone would make burglary a less attractive employment option. I dont see how that can lead to breakdown in law and order. After all most people wont have a gun in their home for various reasons, but the burglar wont know that!

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

Nuttzz

he fell onto my hurley a number of times your honour....

Sparks

Xterminator wrote:

At the moment if you even grab a burglar, you can be done for assault.

Depends on what you did. If you tell him to stop and grab him if he runs, that's a different matter. Quite why you'd want to grab someone who's desperate to escape and could be armed, I'm not sure, however.

There have even been cases where burglars have sued for injury while on a victims premises!

Yes, but not in cases where whatever caused the injury could only have injured a burglar, as I understand it.

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

I think that it's nothing of the kind. There is no "balance of rights", there is equal protection of rights for all until due process is applied.
In other words, just 'cos I say you were burgling my home is not sufficient justification for my killing you. Otherwise, I could make a small list of those I didn't like, invite them to my home, then kill them and claim they were a gang of burglars...

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

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

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

And if knocked unconcious, tied up and then set on fire?
Where exactly do you want to draw that line?

[qutoe]Thats not to say i have to kill a burglar, if i detect one, rather that i could choose to do so. That alone would make burglary a less attractive employment option.[/quote]
You're assuming it's a career choice. In most cases, it's opportunistic, driven by some form of motivation that doesn't respond to such deterrents (or else you'd see no burglary anywhere in the US!).

I dont see how that can lead to breakdown in law and order.

Then you need to think about it more.

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

Tony Martin, Patrick Nally, and dozens of cases like them.

ionapaul

If I'm particularly attached to my DVD, given that I worked hard to pay for it, and don't want to see it removed from my home under the arm of an opportunistic burglar, what exactly are my options if I want to keep my DVD? Options that are legal in Ireland, I mean? Say in a circumstance where I cannot see any weapon in the burglar's possession, nor do I suspect him to have access to one.

Sparks

what exactly are my options if I want to keep my DVD? Options that are legal in Ireland, I mean?

Lock your doors and windows. Have an alarm system. Keep it in a locked cabinet. And so on. And none of these require that you risk your health.
Remember - most burglary is opportunistic. And by most I mean over 90%. And by opportunistic I mean that if the burglar sees an open door or a window, you're a target; if s/he doesn't, they'll move on to the next house.

ionapaul

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

Sparks

You mean, can you lay into him and beat him senseless with a hurley for daring to touch your stuff?

ionapaul

Physically restrain him in any way? Grab your DVD player back from him, trying not to injure him of course? (unless previously insured against accidential injury to burglars while protecting property doubt Lloyds of London offers any policies on this!) 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?

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.