Murder set to be legalised by xmas

citizen_p

so it will make it safe for us too have a fight....then a burglar will kill somone, or just win the fight and the resonable force bit will go out the window... :pac:

Einhard

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Ten dead scum bags is better than one injured citizen.

You seem to have a rather callous, and cavalier attitude to human life. And scumbags are citizens too. Have you watched Robo-Cop today by any chance?

Biggins

Einhard wrote: »

I don't know about that. If the intruder was no threat to the homeowner, and was found not to be armed in any way, then a murder charge would be plausible in my opinion. Difficult to prove though, plus the fact that lots of Irish people seem to get a hardon for people shooting intruders, so would be difficult to get a conviction in front of a jury.

Technically by definition "murder" is pre-planned.
You have a point in that a home-owner might pre-plan to kill any future person that might break in.
However as most will not do this but still maybe go too far, the lesser charge of manslaughter (in the second degree) might be applied on very rare occasions more so by a prosecutor, who is seeking to get a more successful penalty placed upon a person.

I reserve the right to be a double-plonker and be wrong!

Einhard

Biggins wrote: »

Technically by definition "murder" is preplanned.
You have a point in that a home-owner might pre-plan to kill any future person that might break in.

Hmmmm, how exactly do you define "pre-planned" though? I mean, should a homeowner take a shotgun, and say, shoot the burglar from the top of the stairs, then one could argue that has been planned in advance. Doesn't manslaughter refer more to accidental homocide, or that carried out in the heat of the moment?

questionmark?

Einhard wrote: »

You seem to have a rather callous, and cavalier attitude to human life. And scumbags are citizens too. Have you watched Robo-Cop today by any chance?

You forgot to mention the cavalier attitude scumbags have to law abiding citizens and there property.


Btw the thread title is a piss take i hope either that or the OP is worried he'll receive a walking stick up his arse next time he breaks into some auld ones home!!!

Biggins

Einhard wrote: »

Hmmmm, how exactly do you define "pre-planned" though? I mean, should a homeowner take a shotgun, and say, shoot the burglar from the top of the stairs, then one could argue that has been planned in advance. Doesn't manslaughter refer more to accidental homicide, or that carried out in the heat of the moment?

Manslaughter can be pre-planned too in the heat of the moment.
Example: Me and Santa get into a fight over the presents and I go leave the room and grab my gun, come back and shoot him.
(Poor Santa!)

Manslaughter in the second degree might be where me and Santa actually fight on the spot without my leaving the room and I still kill him in anger, in the heat of the moment.
(Again poor Santa - I really have it in for him!)

The above are just simple examples and I reserve the right to be a twat and triple wrong!

Einhard

Biggins wrote: »

The above are just simple examples and I reserve the right to be a twat and triple wrong!

You killed Santa?!:eek:

That's more than a triple wrong!!

Morlar

Einhard wrote: »

But they're not necessarily targetting an individual or a family when they break into a home. They're targetting the valuables in the house. Generally speaking, burglars will try to make as little as noise as possible, in order not to alert the homeowner to their presence. Are you really saying that, should you catch a burglar in your kitchen, and there is no discernible threat to yourself, then you should just point your gun at him, and blow his brains out?! That's cold blooded murder no matter how you parse it.

If I own a gun and wake up at 4am to find a man in my bedroom or living room I am going to shoot him. Likewise I'd use a baseball bat or a knife or hammmer. 'But your not necessarily talking about . .wah wah wah . ' 4am and finding a strange man or strange men, probably armed and definitely criminals after having invaded your home is not the time for technicalities or for 'but that's not necessarily wah wah wah'. Most likely your knees will be shaking your throat dry and your heart going like a machine gun out of fear for your self and your gf/partner/kids etc. Any burglar ever gets shot in someones home had it coming as far as I am concerned. The excuses and whatif's are just that - braindead fluffy 'lets all have a hug' liberal excuses for scumbag criminals and their scumbag behaviour.

I actually think this law is not going to let any dogs off the leash in terms of reactions to burglars - what it will mean is that AFTER the fact, ie in the days afer an incident homeowners who were terrorised and victimised into a reaction more than likely won't be penalised for their reaction.

Biggins

Einhard wrote: »

You killed Santa?!:eek:
That's more than a triple wrong!!

So true. :pac:

Einhard

Morlar wrote: »

The excuses and whatif's are just that - braindead fluffy 'lets all have a hug' liberal excuses for scumbag criminals and their scumbag behaviour.

You're an idiot. This kind of nonsense doesn't even deserve a reasoned response.

Carlos_Ray

Einhard wrote: »

You seem to have a rather callous, and cavalier attitude to human life. And scumbags are citizens too. Have you watched Robo-Cop today by any chance?

No, but thanks for the idea.

We're not all born equal, lets just put that idealistic cliche to bed. Some of us are born into hardworking families and communites. Others are born into a society of crime, exploitation and low morals. Over time, the latter have developed into a sub-species. They have inherited physical and mental traits from generations of wasters and scum. Don't even pretend you can't identity a scumbag from his facial features. Do I believe the life of a scumbag junkie criminal is worth as much as that of a upstanding citizen??? Of Course not... the fact is its not.

Citizens improve society, pay taxes, educated their children in mind and soul. Scum are a drain on society , they contribute absolutely nothing. When these little scrouts have the audacity to break into my house after MY taxes are already paying for their habits, then as far as I am concerned they have gone too far. Society would be far better off without them thats the reality, whether you like to admit it or not.

Morlar

Einhard wrote: »

You're an idiot.

No, actually. You are the idiot.

Einhard

Morlar wrote: »

No, actually. You are the idiot.

For having a difference of opinion? On a forum that thrives on differences of opinion? Oh, but then I s'pose I'm a fluffy headed, brainless liberal PC do-gooder or whatever...

Einhard

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

We're not all born equal... the latter have developed into a sub-species. They have inherited physical and mental traits from generations of wasters and scum... Do I believe the life of a scumbag junkie criminal is worth as much as that of a upstanding citizen??? Of Course not... the fact is its not.

Society would be far better off without them thats the reality, whether you like to admit it or not.

Says it all really. Interested in eugenics by any chance? Let's just steralize the lot of them. Even better, just exterminate them...

zuroph

Einhard wrote: »

You're an idiot. This kind of nonsense doesn't even deserve a reasoned response.

Morlar wrote: »

No, actually. You are the idiot.

Can't we have more than one idiot?! :rolleyes:

Morlar

Einhard wrote: »

For having a difference of opinion? On a forum that thrives on differences of opinion?

No, not for that. For holding the opinion that if a scumbag, conciously targets a person in the dead of night, breaks into their home and terrifies that woman or man out of their wits - that said scumbag is entitled to the benefit of some kind of cosmic karmic doubt on the basis of the following pro-criminal excuses you have so far offered on behalf of said scumbag criminals;

a)

But they're not necessarily targetting an individual or a family when they break into a home.

b)

Einhard wrote: »

They're targetting the valuables in the house.

A completely optimistic and retarded assumption to make. IF you are the man of the house it is not really an assumption you should be relying upon. If you are going to rely on that assumption and you are ever in that situation then god help you.

c)

Einhard wrote: »

Generally speaking, burglars will try to make as little as noise as possible, in order not to alert the homeowner to their presence.

Another unrealistic moronic assumption. Whether someone is making lots of noise, stoned off their tits or calmly moving from room to room in your home is irrelevant - you find them there then you have a right to respond with violence as far as I am concerned.

TheInquisitor

Morkarleth wrote: »

Oh aye, just continue to medicate the problem without treating the underlying causes.


Morkarleth if time has taught us anything its that some people just have no interest in earning an honest living. Some people out there are just scum

Morlar

zuroph wrote: »

Can't we have more than one idiot?! :rolleyes:

One or two or even Three there are no limits

Einhard

Morlar wrote: »

No, not for that. For holding the opinion that if a scumbag, conciously targets a person in the dead of night, breaks into their home and terrifies that woman or man out of their wits - that said scumbag is entitled to the benefit of some kind of cosmic karmic doubt on the basis of the following pro-criminal excuses you have so far offered on behalf of said scumbag criminals;

.

I made no excuses for criminals Morlar. I stated quite clearly that you should have recourse to deadly force if your safety is threatened. I make no bones about this. However, if there is no threat to your safety, or that of your family, then no, you don't have the right to execute someone which is what is being advocated on these boards. It's really quite simple.

Carlos_Ray

Einhard wrote: »

Says it all really. Interested in eugenics by any chance? Let's just steralize the lot of them. Even better, just exterminate them...

It does say it all, and yes in the interest of the human race, these people should be sterilised. They don't even look after the mountains of children they have in the first place.

Einhard

zuroph wrote: »

Can't we have more than one idiot?! :rolleyes:

I dunno, I thought morlar had a monopoly on it!!



Ok, joke people, joke...nothing to see here...move along...








:pac:

Einhard

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

It does say it all, and yes in the interest of the human race, these people should be sterilised. They don't even look after the mountains of children they have in the first place.

Well glad we're clear on that one then! Mass murder for the scumbags!

Carlos_Ray

Einhard wrote: »

Well glad we're clear on that one then! Mass murder for the scumbags!

we can only dream...

Biggins

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

we can only dream...

You forgot the "...till Chrismas" bit. :pac:

Terry

Biggins wrote: »

NOT against the new change in the law.
A point to further ask though. Will we see even a small decrease in break-ins and a slight rise instead as regards muggings by the scumbags trying gain money by other alternative ways more so?

Possibly, but I doubt it.
The majority of burglaries are carried out by junkies. They don't give a flying **** if they get caught.
All that happens is that they do a short stretch in jail, where they can get some methadone and gear. Then it's back out to do the same crap again.

The_Minister wrote: »

AFAIK this doesn't change the law, it just codifies recent decisions such as DPP v Barnes.

That just frees up the courts for other stuff. Win win situation.

Now I just have to wait for the recently released, knife wielding junkie, and ihs halfwit brother to break into my house (they've already tried half the estate), and beat him to death with his own shoes.

Morlar

Einhard wrote: »

I dunno, I thought morlar had a monopoly on it!!

:pac

Another 'swing and a miss' to add to your ever increasing list.

Ronin247

Couple of quick points.

1. About time.
2. Burglary was reportedly down 75% the following year in the Mayo region when Frog got real justice.
3.


Dear Santa,
I hope you and Mrs Clause are well.How are Rudolph and the other reindeer?
This year I would like the following.......

Glock 9mm
200 spare hollow point rounds
3 bear traps
a Tazer
baseball bat
box 6" nails for the bat
a scumbag/pikey detector model p1k3yD13 with silent alarm mode.
Bottle of scumbag/pikey scent
Replica handgun (dropsie).

I will leave carrots out for Rudolph,please ring your bell very LOUDLY this year.

Ronin

seanbmc

Even if it was legal or not, I wouldn't hesitate in taking any means necesary to defend my family from an intruder.

Einhard

Morlar wrote: »

Another 'swing and a miss' to add to your ever increasing list.

Care to clarify that please? I'm not the one who made it personal by referring to anyone who dares hold a different opinion as "brain dead" and "fluffy brained". You've yet to respond to the essence of my point, unlike several other posters who believe me to be mistaken on this issue, but at least argue the merits of the arguement.

Apologies for calling you an idiot, that was uncalled for, but I do believe your response was idiotic.

My name is URL

seanbmc wrote: »

Even if it was legal or not, I wouldn't hesitate in taking any means necesary to defend my family from an intruder.

Yeah, it's a funny point that. Neither would I fwiw.. I've planned for the eventuality actually.

Is it not a wonder however, that most people who are burgled are defenseless old people?.. ya know.. the type of people who simply would not be able to overpower an intruder..

So what will happen when these older people get burgled in future? Is there any new mechanism which insures that Gardai will be present to support them any sooner? No, there isn't.. and because of the thoughtfulness of our kind leaders, criminals will now be incentivised to carry more lethal weapons to protect themselves, and probably use them with even more indiscretion than before.

Einhard

Ronin247 wrote: »

Couple of quick points.


2. Burglary was reportedly down 75% the following year in the Mayo region when Frog got real justice.

Reported by whom?

The RIRA kneecap and murder joyriders in the North, and execute petty drug dealers without trial. Perhaps we should ask them to come down south too if, as it seems, there's no cost so high that wer're prepared to pay for some alleged deterence.

Roomic Cube

seanbmc wrote: »

Even if it was legal or not, I wouldn't hesitate in taking any means necesary to defend my family from an intruder.

I agree with this, I think it's about time we had some piece of mind that we can defend ourselves by any means if the need should arise!

Liam Byrne

Einhard wrote: »

There's an increased chance of "undeserved death". By that I mean the likes of some neighbourhood kid climbing in an open window as a prank, or even to steal.

Why did you phrase it as "or even to steal" ? Why make it sound reasonable ?

If they decide to climb in an open window in any circumstances other than me asking them because I've locked myself out, then they deserve all they get.

It is, after all, THEIR choice.

Einhard

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why did you phrase it as "or even to steal" ? Why make it sound reasonable ?

If they decide to climb in an open window in any circumstances other than me asking them because I've locked myself out, then they deserve all they get.

It is, after all, THEIR choice.

I phrased it like that to include the possibility that a kid might enter a house to steal, as opposed to as a prant. Not to make it reasonable in anyway. But, I don't think it's correct, that one should be allowed to blow a child's brains out, or an adult's for that matter, when there is no threat to your own or your family's safety. If there is such a threat, then fair enough. Otherwise, don't be surprised to find yourself in court on manslaughter charges.

Morlar

Einhard wrote: »

your response was idiotic.

I'd really have to say the same about yours.

Regarding responding to your 'points'

Einhard wrote: »

But they're not necessarily targetting an individual or a family when they break into a home.

Not really sure this warrants a response. I find repeating it in order to point and laugh is lots more fun.

Einhard

Well then you have a distinctly odd sense of humour, and an inabilty to grasp simple concepts. When a burglar breaks into a house, he is not targetting your person. He is not targetting your family either. He is targetting your goods and would seek to get away with them without alerting anyone to the act. That's why, in law, breaking and entering is not treated as a crime against the person. I'm not sure why you find this simple, legal distinction so hard to comprehend.

In any case, you should re-read the original article. My position is basically that enshrined in the new legislation, and outlined by Dermot Aherne. Nothing remotely PC about it. Unless you consider Aherne a fluffy headed PC pinko?

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern said today that new laws on defending your home do not give 'carte blanche' to people to shoot and kill burglars.

Mr Ahern says the Bill, expected to become law by Christmas, merely re-states the law, and defines what reasonable force can be used.

However, it will allow a person use a firearm if they believe a burglar is armed and refused to retreat.

Indeed, reading the text, it would appear that I take a moe hardline approach to that in the legislation.

Jumpy

genericguy wrote: »

if someone broke into my house they'd be getting a broken bottle up their arse.

.

Promise?


Oooooooh matron.

Morlar

Einhard wrote: »

When a burglar breaks into a house, he is not targetting your person. He is not targetting your family either.

If a scumbag breaks into your home where you live and sleep - they are targetting you/and your family.

Einhard

Morlar wrote: »

If a scumbag breaks into your home where you live and sleep - they are targetting you/and your family.

They are not!! Seriously. Not legally. Not literally. Not figuratively. As I mentioned, burglary is not treated as a crime against the person. Why? Because it's not a crime against the person!!

And if, for some reason, the intruder does end up threatening the occupant of a house, then I agree that force can be used in defence! And yet you seem to have a major issue with this...

Jumpy

Einhard wrote: »

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern said today that new laws on defending your home do not give 'carte blanche' to people to shoot and kill burglars.

As long as you remember the correct line to say first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE5pGeCUM-Y

Wibbs

Einhard wrote: »

You seem to have a rather callous, and cavalier attitude to human life. And scumbags are citizens too. Have you watched Robo-Cop today by any chance?

Well I would agree but then again I am a Nazi in many ways.

Einhard wrote: »

Says it all really. Interested in eugenics by any chance? Let's just steralize the lot of them. Even better, just exterminate them...

If I could hypothetically excise all human waste from the spieces, would I? Tempting TBH.

Einhard wrote: »

They are not!! Seriously. Not legally. Not literally. Not figuratively. As I mentioned, burglary is not treated as a crime against the person. Why? Because it's not a crime against the person!!

I contend it very much bloody well is. I do not buy into this all property is theft notion that the left wing handwringers often do. My "stuff" is bloody well mine. If I choose to give it away I will. More importantly, my personal space is mine also. I have seen two people, one elderly and one young, feel the very real violation of their personal space and security that burglary caused. The former actually killed herself because of the fear of it and the fear of repetition. A woman widowed after 40 odd years, who had spent her life in the service of others and the community she belonged to. All she expected was to feel safe in her own fúcking home. She came home after a few hours helping others, to find her home, her very being ransacked, with human faeces on the floor of her previously pristine little kitchen. Her memories violated and her feeling of safety raped. And it is a rape for some. I do not use that word lightly. I watched that woman's soul wither because of it. I watched her go int the ground because of it. That outcome is not that unusual either. Ask any copper.

If I had caught those scum in the act and I had the chance, I would have gutted them like a fish and would have felt NO remorse in that action. If I have the chance to extinguish a valueless life if they come into my home? I would do it and happily. Some people are simply not worthy of breath and if they come into my home and threaten my family and the safety and mental security of same then I will be the judge, jury and executioner of that worth. If we dont feel safe in our own homes with all the memories of import they contain, then we're not safe full stop. Not a crime against the person? Utter and complete shíte of the highest fúcking order.

sligopark

Einhard wrote: »

When a burglar breaks into a house, he is not targetting your person. He is not targetting your family either.

Morlar wrote: »

If a scumbag breaks into your home where you live and sleep - they are targetting you/and your family.

Agreed - totally.

Whats not in the bill is capturing these pricks and keeping them on your premises for a period - would this be illegal?

If you need would you be required to feed and water them? Would human rights issues come into play?

Could you remove them from the original area of intrusion for a period?

How long a period is there between self defense and capture and premediated attack causing injury and perhaps subsequent death?

What is allowed, when does it constitute manslaughter, and when should one book tickets for Spain prior to ending that capture?

sligopark

Ronin247 wrote: »

2. Burglary was reportedly down 75% the following year in the Mayo region when Frog got real justice.

are you suggesting that one gippo alone was responsible for 75% of burglary in Mayo and PAtrick Neary was awarded a prize from the President and recommended for a UN prize via that do gooder robinson?

Why was Neary charged with anything other than full and correct citizenship given the numbers of elderly robberies and deaths in that same area if that frog prick was the main suspect?

Liam Byrne

Einhard wrote: »

Not to make it reasonable in anyway. But, I don't think it's correct, that one should be allowed to blow a child's brains out, or an adult's for that matter

You see, this is the main issue.

My rights and responsibilities don't change even though someone chose to rewrite the rules ?

If someone breaks in here tonight then either they'll be seriously injured or I'll die defending my property. And I won't be waiting until Christmas either.

They choose. Their consequences.

If they don't want those consequences then they can choose not to.

Why law-abiding people have to stand by and let scum do what they want is beyond me.

Everyone has rights and responsibilities.

The two are inextricably linked.

Choose to abandon one, and the other disappears too.

EDIT : I'll even be reasonable. I'll say - once - "Get the f**k out of my house". If they don't, then that's 2 bad choices they'll have made. You can't say that I haven't been reasonable and given them a chance.

sligopark

totally agree Liam but what if the do gooder greens used this logic for animal rights...

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Everyone has rights and responsibilities.

The two are inextricably linked.

Choose to abandon one, and the other disappears too.

see this is where the gippo argument always breaks down but the greens ignore it to increase animal rights above citizen rights

Dyr

Einhard wrote: »

Well then you have a distinctly odd sense of humour, and an inabilty to grasp simple concepts. When a burglar breaks into a house, he is not targetting your person. He is not targetting your family either. He is targetting your goods and would seek to get away with them without alerting anyone to the act.

And how does someone know that this is the case when they here an intruder on their property? Maybe get the scumbag to fill in a questionnaire?


Purpose of visit (tick where appropriate):
burlgary only
burglary involving violence
violence against the occupier
rape
murder
other (please specify)

:rolleyes:

sligopark

Liam Byrne wrote: »

EDIT : I'll even be reasonable. I'll say - once - "Get the f**k out of my house". If they don't, then that's 2 bad choices they'll have made. You can't say that I haven't been reasonable and given them a chance.

I have always thought it was best to say this inside whilst quietly moving upon them

sligopark

Bambi wrote: »

And how does someone know that this is the case when they here an intruder on their property? Maybe get the scumbag to fill in a questionnaire?


Purpose of visit (tick where appropriate):
burlgary only
burglary involving violence
violence against the occupier
rape
murder
other (please specify)

:rolleyes:

believe me some do gooders would have you do this and then question your response to their answers and have you analyse them

failing to forget the robbery of your hard earned and trauma to you and your family whilst trying to talk you into paying them off for your traumatising them

why are shotguns and guns being actively removed from civil society at present?

Personally at the very least I would shoot the **** out of them. Then hide their bodies to avoid further intimidation that the guards would be too PC'ed to contain.

Einhard

Wibbs wrote: »

I contend it very much bloody well is. I do not buy into this all property is theft notion that the left wing handwringers often do. My "stuff" is bloody well mine. If I choose to give it away I will. More importantly, my personal space is mine also.

Well you're wrong. I'm no left wing handwringer, and I'm sure Dermot Ahern would be as surprised to be labelled as such. Burglaries and home intrusion involving theft are not categorised as crimes against the person in this jurisdiction or, as far as I know, any other. Of course your personal stuff is yours, and yours do with as you wish, but that really has nothing to do with it. If that were the criterion for crimes against the person, then any theft, no matter how insignificant would be classed as such.

I have seen two people, one elderly and one young, feel the very real violation of their personal space and security that burglary caused. The former actually killed herself because of the fear of it and the fear of repetition. A woman widowed after 40 odd years, who had spent her life in the service of others and the community she belonged to. All she expected was to feel safe in her own fúcking home. She came home after a few hours helping others, to find her home, her very being ransacked, with human faeces on the floor of her previously pristine little kitchen. Her memories violated and her feeling of safety raped. And it is a rape for some. I do not use that word lightly. I watched that woman's soul wither because of it. I watched her go int the ground because of it. That outcome is not that unusual either. Ask any copper.

That's awful and I can understand why anyone having experienced such a tragedy would have such strong feelings on the matter. However, our laws aren't based on the subjective, the personal. They haven't been for centuries. Indeed, the whole basis of western jurisprudence is to remove justice from the indivdual, place it in the hands of the state, and dispence judgement in an objective, impartial manner. This isn't always satisfactory, but it's a damn sight better than the anarchy of fueding and violence that would erupt were vengeance and the settling of scores to usurp the impartial administration of justice.

If I had caught those scum in the act and I had the chance, I would have gutted them like a fish and would have felt NO remorse in that action. If I have the chance to extinguish a valueless life if they come into my home? I would do it and happily. Some people are simply not worthy of breath and if they come into my home and threaten my family and the safety and mental security of same then I will be the judge, jury and executioner of that worth.

Fair enough. And I would equally expect that you would be tried and punished for those actions. Indeed, the very piece of legislation which this thread is based on, would see you prosecuted. I'm not being flippant here, and I mean no disrespect, but it is not for you, or anyone else, to take justice into your own hands, to be meted out as you see fit. I'd find that abhorrant on the street were RIRA goons engaging in it, and I find it equally abhorrant in the home, where a homeowner decides he is the arbiter of who lives and dies. Who are you to usurp the judicial process? Who are you to put yourself in the position of judge, jury and executioner? Who are you to decide the value of an individual's life or the weight of his crime? Should we dispense with a state justice system altogether, and replace it with vengeance and personal retribution?

If we dont feel safe in our own homes with all the memories of import they contain, then we're not safe full stop. Not a crime against the person? Utter and complete shíte of the highest fúcking order.

Again that is your opinion, but I fundamentally disagree. As does the criminal code in this country. An attempt to steal items from a house cannot possibly be considered a crime against the person, unless it involves an actual assault against a person, or a threat to do so. If your criterion for such an assault is based, even partially, on the sanctity of the home and the memories therein, as indicated above, then surely burgling an empty house would be classified as a crime against the person? This of course is completely absurd, but it is the logical outcome of your sentiments as outlined above.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You see, this is the main issue.

My rights and responsibilities don't change even though someone chose to rewrite the rules ?

If someone breaks in here tonight then either they'll be seriously injured or I'll die defending my property. And I won't be waiting until Christmas either.

They choose. Their consequences.

If they don't want those consequences then they can choose not to.

Why law-abiding people have to stand by and let scum do what they want is beyond me.

Everyone has rights and responsibilities.

The two are inextricably linked.

Choose to abandon one, and the other disappears too.

EDIT : I'll even be reasonable. I'll say - once - "Get the f**k out of my house". If they don't, then that's 2 bad choices they'll have made. You can't say that I haven't been reasonable and given them a chance.

Fair enough Liam. But the homeowner has quite reasonable responsibilities under current legislation, and the changes announced today do nothing to alter that. Indeed, Minsiter Ahern was insistent in pointing that out today. You have a responsibility to use reasonable force at all times. This can include lethal force when necessary, and I have no problem with this clarification. But, using reasonable force to protect yourself and your own is entirely different to taking the law into your own hands and executing someone. Nobody has the right to do that. That's what I'm against.

Bambi wrote: »

And how does someone know that this is the case when they here an intruder on their property? Maybe get the scumbag to fill in a questionnaire?


Purpose of visit (tick where appropriate):
burlgary only
burglary involving violence
violence against the occupier
rape
murder
other (please specify)

:rolleyes:

No, if you deem an intruder poses a threat to you or your family, you can kill them. If the DPP deems it otherwise, you can be prosecuted and incarcerated. Quite simple. Surprising a burglar on the stairs, panicing, fearing for your safety, and shooting him is one thing. Cornering an unarmed intruder, cocking your rifle and shooting him in cold blood is clearly another. Similarly, coming upon a man in your kitchen and stabbing him as he runs for you is reasonable, shooting him in the back as he tries to flee is manslaughter. Or at least grounds for a prosecution. There's no need for questionnaires or interviews as you imagine.

Again, just to point out before my comments are jumped upon and I'm pronounced a leftie/PC/big girls blouse, I have no problem with the law as it is. I'm all for reasonable force, up to and including lethal force. And I wouldn't be as strict in my definition of said force as Dermot Ahern is. What I cannot abide however, what I find objectionable (to say the least), is the idea that someone can decide to usurp not only the entire judicial process, but the very foundations of western juriprudence, and appoint themselves to stand in personal and capital judgement on another human being.






As an addendum: In 2001, the electorate voted by an almost 2-1 majority to remove the death penalty from the Constitution. And now, having removed such sanction from the hands of the state, we should instead vest it in the hands of the individual?

Pdfile

Highly Salami wrote: »

This progressive society has gone toofar this time. Whatever next? Marijuana? Political correctness gone mad, I tells ya! source:http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/justice-minister-urges-restraint-ahead-of-new-home-protection-laws-466047.html

break into my gaf, ill show you murder... :pac: