Italian lawmakers OK use of lethal force to protect property.

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.