Italian lawmakers OK use of lethal force to protect property.

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?

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote:

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?

You’re kind of missing the point.

Whether or not it has happened yet is not hugely relevant. Apparently terrorists haven’t smuggled and detonated nukes in Western cities, but that’s hardly a reason for us to then abandon arms controls. The question is not whether is has happened, but that it can happen - and under Irish law (which let me remind you is based upon UK law, so the link was not without merit) it can regardless of whether the plaintiff was engaging in an illegal activity at the time.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote:

Whether or not it has happened yet is not hugely relevant.

So our legislation should be amended to account for speculation as to what may or may not happen based on one (unsuccessful) case in a foreign country, rather than look at what actually has happened here?

I simply don't agree with that nor do I think it a good basis for changing the law.

the_syco

Victor wrote:

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

I wonder how many 90 year olds can defend themselves against a 14 year old, never mind a group of alcohol fueled 14 year olds, doing the break-ion for the kicks?

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote:

So our legislation should be amended to account for speculation as to what may or may not happen based on one (unsuccessful) case in a foreign country, rather than look at what actually has happened here?

I simply don't agree with that nor do I think it a good basis for changing the law.

How do you think law is drawn up? Do you actually think that we only legislate after the horse has bolted, as it were? Perhaps if legislators find a loophole in the law they should leave it alone until someone exploits it?

In reality, that kind of legislation is often the worst as it tends to be reactionary and panders to the hysteria that follows a crime rather than dealing with the crime itself. This is why in the case of a lot of legislation, it is drawn up and enacted before it has actually occurred in reality.

You may not agree with that, but that’s how it often works.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote:

How do you think law is drawn up? Do you actually think that we only legislate after the horse has bolted, as it were? Perhaps if legislators find a loophole in the law they should leave it alone until someone exploits it?

Still, in the hundreds of thousands of burglaries since the enactment of the Occupier's Liability Act, noone here can point to a case here of a burglar suing a houseowner in Ireland. The question is not whether legislation should be proactive or reactive, the question is whether this issue of burglars suing householders in fact exists at all. I know how the law is drawn up, and it's not or should not be in response to myths or hysteria.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote:

Still, in the hundreds of thousands of burglaries since the enactment of the Occupier's Liability Act, noone here can point to a case here of a burglar suing a houseowner in Ireland.

And no one can point to a case here of terrorist group planting a nuke in a Western city either - so we should not bother to consider it a possibility by your logic.

Note that this is the second time I’ve raised this example.

The question is not whether legislation should be proactive or reactive, the question is whether this issue of burglars suing householders in fact exists at all.

Legally it does and every lawyer I know would concur with this. That it has not been successfully exploited yet is irrelevant as it is probably only a matter of time.

I know how the law is drawn up, and it's not or should not be in response to myths or hysteria.

Who said it should be in response to hysteria? To date the only one who has made that implied suggestion, given your preference for reactionary legislation, is yourself.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote:

terrorist group planting a nuke in a Western city
...hysteria

!!

How many millions will die from this 'burglar sues householders' threat? Could it be the Chernobyl of our times? I doubt it...

Victor

the_syco wrote:

I wonder how many 90 year olds can defend themselves against a 14 year old, never mind a group of alcohol fueled 14 year olds, doing the break-ion for the kicks?

So do you think its safer for granny to actually have a phone (something Nally didn't) or a gun?

Let me see if I can find that video of the granny with the sub-machine gun.

Manic Moran

Can the granny use a gun?

If so, she might be better off with that than a 'phone. Phones don't deter people or defend people. (Unless it's the Sprint 'phone with Crime Prevention feature that was advertised in the Superbowl this week). Police don't protect you, they come along afterwards, investigate the crime, and then bring the lads to court.

NTM

Manic Moran

Well, speak of the devil. Look what showed up on the news today. 90...87, close enough. Go Granny!

ELDERLY WOMAN SHOOTS AND KILLS INTRUDER
For the second time in two months, an intruder breaks into the home of an elderly East St. Louis woman. The first time, she was beaten and robbed. This time, however, the woman was ready. 87-year-old Jacksie King fired three times and shot the intruder dead. The woman worked for a living up until she retired as a doctor's office receptionist just four years ago. She was a crime victim in December and her daughter got her a gun to protect herself. Around 2:00am, she fired three rounds from the revolver, walked into the kitchen and waited for her daughter to get there. Her daughter Pamela said, "When I got here she was in the kitchen and the gun was on the kitchen table, and I asked her way the gun was there, and she said, 'We had guests'." The break-in was similar to the one in December. The intruder cut the phone line, removed bars from a side porch window and tried to crash through the front door of the modest home in the 2100 block of Gaty. 49-year-old Larry Tillman was killed in the incident. He had a long criminal history of residential burglaries and lived just six blocks from Jacksie's home. Jacksie's daughter is protecting her from the glare of the spotlight, but she's obviously proud of the way her mother conducted herself. "People work all their lives for what little they have, and it's not fair for anyone to try to take that away from them." The Illinois state police investigated the shooting. They say they will not seek any charges against the gun-toting grandmother. During the last break-in, she ended up in Barnes-Jewish Hospital. Records show Tillman also had numerous armed robbery and drug charges.

So let's see... First time around, Granny is unarmed, is robbed, and sent to the hospital. Second time around, Granny is armed, is not robbed, and other guy sent to the morgue. Who can possibly argue that the latter is not the more desireable outcome?

NTM

civdef

Supergran.

Sparks

*sigh*
For every pro-firearms-for-self-defence story, there's one from the opposite point of view...

Man fatally shot by ex-wife's grandmother
LAKE FOREST, Calif. -- A man picking up his young son for a supervised court visit was shot twice at point-blank range by the boy's 81-year-old great-grandmother and died of his injuries, police said.

Alex Reyes, 26, was shot Saturday while picking up his 18-month-old son, said Jim Amormino, a spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

Witnesses reported that Reyes appeared to be having a casual conversation with his ex-wife and her grandmother, Jeane Ellen Allen, on the front porch of their home, when Allen allegedly pulled out a gun and fired, said Amormino.

"There was no argument," he said. "She just pulled the gun out and started firing."

Reyes was shot in the hip and the head and died at a hospital, said sheriff's department Lt. Ted Boyne.

Allen was arrested for investigation of attempted murder and was being held in lieu of $500,000 bail. She likely will be charged with murder, Boyne said.

Grandmother, 71, fatally shoots grandson, 21
A 71-year-old grandmother shot and killed her 21-year-old grandson early Monday morning.

Birmingham police identified the victim as Antonio King of Birmingham.

Police went to 500 Princeton Ave. at about 12:15 a.m. and found King lying in the front yard with an apparent gunshot wound to his upper torso. Paramedics took King to UAB Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Birmingham police spokesman Lt. Henry Irby would not identify the grandmother, but said she had not been taken into custody.

The owner of the property said the woman renting the house is Georgia Johnson. A Birmingham directory identifies the woman living at the house as Johnson.

"There have been no arrests or charges filed in this case," Irby said.

A second killing was committed less than four hours later and about a half mile away. Allen Dunn, 22, was shot inside Mike's Crossroads lounge at 101 Third Ave. North at about 3:50 a.m., Irby said. Dunn also was taken to UAB Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

A preliminary investigation revealed that there was an attempted robbery outside the lounge in which shots were fired. One of the shots entered the building and hit Dunn in the torso. According to a police statement, there were no reported injuries outside of the building.

There have been no arrests or charges filed in the case.

Monday's homicides were the 10th and 11th in Birmingham so far this year. There were eight homicides in the city at this time last year.

Also Monday, Birmingham police identified the bodies of two shooting victims found Sunday morning at 829 28th St. Southwest as Loreal Bussey, 27, of Birmingham and Reginald Matthew Taylor, 29, of Brighton.

There have been no arrests or charges filed in the case. Police said Sunday they were searching for two people, who aren't suspects, who may have knowledge about the deaths.

The_Minister

That wasn't a break in

Manic Moran

Sparks wrote:

*sigh*
For every pro-firearms-for-self-defence story, there's one from the opposite point of view...

Not entirely equivalent.

On the one hand, you have a responsible use of a firearm.

On the other, you have irresponsible (Or downright illegal) use of a firearm. You argument is akin to saying that because drunk drivers irresponsibly drive and kill people, then we should all have our cars removed from us.

I do not take kindly to being penalised or handicapped for other people's faults.

NTM

Victor

Question, of the headline "Elderly Farmer Killed in Burglary" type incidents, how many more had access to guns than phones. I suspect a lot.

Manic Moran wrote:

Can the granny use a gun?

I think more people can use phones than guns. And what if granny doesn't recognise the new guy from Meals & Wheels, that has just let himself in?

Phones don't deter people or defend people.

Remind me what the most dangerous weapon in the world is? Yes, your enemy with a radio.

(Unless it's the Sprint 'phone with Crime Prevention feature that was advertised in the Superbowl this week).

I'm not aware of the prduct, but there are many monitored alarm systems, including ones specificly designed for the elderly and less able. If granny breaks her hip, a gun is going to be much less use than a phone.*

http://www.medgadget.com/archives/2005/05/bluetooth_neckl.html
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=alarm+necklace&spell=1

Police don't protect you, they come along afterwards, investigate the crime, and then bring the lads to court.

Which is the ideal solution. Nobody is dead / wounded, hopefully the criminals have learned a lesson and other people are less likely to break into houses in future.

* They shoot horses, don't they.

Manic Moran

Victor wrote:

Remind me what the most dangerous weapon in the world is? Yes, your enemy with a radio.

Some say a Marine and his rifle... Seriously though, the reason a radio is dangerous is because it enables the opposition to position themselves in the best place to kill you. With guns, probably, and at a time and place of their chosing.

I did note, however, in the commentary that Granny's 'phone line had been cut on both occasions. Whilst this is doubtlessly unusual, it does rather place the responsibility on herself in that situation..

I'm not aware of the product, but there are many monitored alarm systems,

It's one of the superbowl adverts. Two guys are arguing over the features of their 'phone. "I've got live TV" "I've got email" "I've got web access" "I've got that. I've also got crime deterrent" "What?" "Crime Deterrent. Try and steal my wallet" "Umm.. OK. Give me your..." (And the other guy throws the 'phone into his face, knocking him to the floor)

Monitored alarm systems are still completely without guaranteed effect until the constabulary show up. More often than not, if there is a loud audible alarm, the crook will egress immediately. Not always.

Which is the ideal solution. Nobody is dead / wounded, hopefully the criminals have learned a lesson and other people are less likely to break into houses in future.

In Granny's case, I doubt anyone will be breaking into her home again in the future.

NTM

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

In Granny's case, I doubt anyone will be breaking into her home again in the future.

Ah, they'll just go on bingo night.

civdef

Police don't protect you, they come along afterwards, investigate the crime, and then bring the lads to court.

Which is the ideal solution. Nobody is dead / wounded, hopefully the criminals have learned a lesson and other people are less likely to break into houses in future.

Back up a step there, what's to say noone is wounded or dead? Reactive policing is just as reactive when the victim is injured or dead. That's not to mention the fairly high level of undeteced crimes where the criminal is never caught, so s unlikely to learn the error of their ways and be rehabilitated.

Victor

Ok, look at the amount of police time that goes into a homocide (justifiable or not), sometimes measured well into the man years, compared to the number of other crimes that time could be used to solve.

Victor

Victor wrote:

Let me see if I can find that video of the granny with the sub-machine gun.

http://www.break.com/index/grannymachinegun.html

Just where do shots 14-15 (the end of the last burst, before the single shot) go?