Man who knocked down burglar in court

gerryo777

benway wrote: »

Due respect, but you're way off the mark here.

First up you *always* have the same human rights as a burglar. ALWAYS. It's the nature of human rights - they adhere by virtue of being a human being.

This is why I object so strongly to all this guff about criminals having "too many" rights and all the other nonsense that gets trotted out. A criminal has the same rights I do. If his rights are diminished, so are mine.

And, just say there's an exception made for "scumbags" ... well, who's to say who the "scumbags" are? Plus, if you're to allow an underclass with reduced rights to develop, that's basically a road to fascism.

But again, it's not like the Indo/Tories/FG/Daily Mail, etc., etc. don't have fascist leanings. And you can guarantee it that they're not looking to help your average citizen protect his home, it's about reducing your average citizen's rights as against the state and elites.

As for reasonable force, it's such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as you believe them to be according to the new "Home Defense" Act. Basically, a jury will decide whether it's reasonable or not. But if you're inexperienced with violence, it's probably best to get yourself out of harms way and not risk a confrontation.


Again, you're way off the mark. A "scumbag" who's been injured in circumstances where no reasonable excuse can be made, like this, has the same right to compensation as anyone else. If we're to start excluding people for being "scumbags", where will it end?

As for the amount involved, this covers ongoing medical treatment, etc. Where the misfortunate father has died, there will be no ongoing treatment. I would say that it's unlikely that the burglar here will see very much of that compensation as "profit".

Public good of the trial is to show that you can't go running down people who pose no threat to you, your property, family or friends at the time. Simple as.

A "scumbag" is someone who breaks into my house in the middle of the night and is going through my things, my home, my kids rooms etc etc.
He/she does not have the same human rights as me!

My name is URL

grindelwald wrote: »

He ran out of the room he could have ran into one if the kids room, daddy didn't just dit there in bed he made sure the man left and didn't come back. Personally it wouldn't bother me if he had of killed the man.

It may not bother you if he had killed the guy, but what about the family he was supposed to be trying to protect? Having yourself locked up on a murder charge isn't exactly the best way to go about protecting your family.

The King of Moo

gerryo777 wrote: »

A "scumbag" is someone who breaks into my house in the middle of the night and is going through my things, my home, my kids rooms etc etc.
He/she does not have the same human rights as me!

Jesus, he's a human, therefore he has the same human rights as you. They're universal. Thankfully, we're not allowed to pick and choose who receives human rights based on our emotional reactions, and the law in most countries frowns upon killing a thief.

ash23

daddy could have made sure the man left without hurting him and winding up in court with a possible jail term hanging over him and a law suit against him.

He reacted and it cost him dearly. And as a result of his actions he maimed another human being. Yes he was a petty thief who robbed some jewellery. That should have cost him his life should it?

Sure, why don't we go the whole hog and bring in hangings and stonings.
Personally I think adultery is pretty scummy so lets hunt them down and maim them. Pffft...who needs human rights :rolleyes:

cynder

My name is URL wrote: »

It may not bother you if he had killed the guy, but what about the family he was supposed to be trying to protect? Having yourself locked up on a murder charge isn't exactly the best way to go about protecting your family.

People will go to great lengths to protect their family.

bamboozle

gerryo777 wrote: »

A "scumbag" is someone who breaks into my house in the middle of the night and is going through my things, my home, my kids rooms etc etc.
He/she does not have the same human rights as me!

find it hard to disagree with this. A man's home is his castle and all that..

benway

steve9859 wrote: »

What a load of nonsense. Someone breaks in to my house, they are going to be sorry. Hopefully the Irish courts will follow the precedent set by the UK courts where in recent months defendants (both shopkeepers and homeowners) have been cleared of assault or manslaughter, on the basis that they were tackling a "scumbag" who was robbing them

I get that you're an internet tough guy, but care to enlighten me further as to my errors?

Btw, the right to use reasonable force already has a statutory basis in this country, so there's no need to follow UK "precedent". Unreasonable force is the problem.

gerryo777 wrote:

He/she does not have the same human rights as me!

Yep, he/she does.

Human rights aren't about protecting burglars or "scumbags", they're about protecting all of us from torture, degradation, discrimination ... tyranny, essentially.

Lots of you may be wishing them away here, but you'll miss them when they're gone.

My name is URL

grindelwald wrote: »

People will go to great lengths to protect their family.

And sometimes they go too far; rendering their efforts useless.

gerryo777

ash23 wrote: »

daddy could have made sure the man left without hurting him and winding up in court with a possible jail term hanging over him and a law suit against him.

He reacted and it cost him dearly. And as a result of his actions he maimed another human being. Yes he was a petty thief who robbed some jewellery. That should have cost him his life should it?

Sure, why don't we go the whole hog and bring in hangings and stonings.
Personally I think adultery is pretty scummy so lets hunt them down and maim them. Pffft...who needs human rights :rolleyes:

We should have a 3 strikes and out law like Giuliani brought to NY.
If, after 3 crimes your not behaving then it's say, 10 years in the slammer.
A full 10 years!

ripcord

Here is the lesson I have learned from this story:

If someone breaks into my house - make sure I hammer the living ****e out of him before he gets away.

When the guards arrive - i'll say:
He was violent, threatened me, my wife, and kids. We got into a fight and I feared for my life. It was all self defense. The intruder may have serious injuries, but he just didn't stop coming at me... I didn't have any choice... It's all such a blur... etc. etc.

From here on, it's my word against the scumbag. I reckon i'd be ok there! Maybe even get him on a lawsuit!



(Try to avoid joking about things like: "He must be an unlucky burgular - he kept falling down the stairs!" - **cue laughter from jury** )

ash23

gerryo777 wrote: »

We should have a 3 strikes and out law like Giuliani brought to NY.
If, after 3 crimes your not behaving then it's say, 10 years in the slammer.
A full 10 years!

I agree. Sentencing in Ireland should be tougher. But that doesn't mean vigilantism is ok.

gerryo777

ripcord wrote: »

Here is the lesson I have learned from this story:

If someone breaks into my house - make sure I hammer the living ****e out of him before he gets away.

When the guards arrive - i'll say:
He was violent, threatened me, my wife, and kids. We got into a fight and I feared for my life. It was all self defense. The intruder may have serious injuries, but he just didn't stop coming at me... I didn't have any choice... It's all such a blur... etc. etc.

From here on, it's my word against the scumbag. I reckon i'd be ok there! Maybe even get him on a lawsuit!



(Try to avoid joking about things like: "He must be an unlucky burgular - he kept falling down the stairs!" - **cue laughter from jury** )

That's called 'hitting the nail on the head', right there.
Oh, wait for it, "you can't go hitting nails on the head just because they're nails", the nail might sue and you could end up in jail.

benway

Three strikes didn't work, neither does harsh sentencing - criminals are willing to take the risk. What has been shown to reduce the crime rate significantly is a high probability of being caught.

gerryo777

benway wrote: »

Three strikes didn't work, neither does harsh sentencing - criminals are willing to take the risk. What has been shown to reduce the crime rate significantly is a high probability of being caught.

Caught and prosecuted and jailed for as long as possible.

hondasam

grindelwald wrote: »

First instinct protect your family, make sure the person wont come back and finish whatever he started. You dont have time to think is he just robing the place or did he come here to kidnap one of the kids or did he come here to murder us or to rape my wife.

First instinct protect the family and that's what he did. He obeyed his first instinct.

Wonder what would have happened if the man slept through it all, would he have woken to find one of his children gone or raped or murdered, or would he have just robbed the place and got away with it?

He was there to rob the place, I'm sure raping/kidnapping children was not his motive.

His first instinct was to chase the burglar, this I agree with but once the man had got away he should have gone back into his own house and checked on his family and phoned the gardai.
He had a desc of him and knew where he went. As I said all ready he was out of control with rage and wanted revenge.

Corruptable

benway wrote: »

Three strikes didn't work, neither does harsh sentencing - criminals are willing to take the risk. What has been shown to reduce the crime rate significantly is a high probability of being caught.

You are arguing in circles. You have already lambasted people for daring to think about effecting a citizens arrest and that we're not fit to arrest criminals, so by your logic we should just let them walk away when waiting ages for the so-called professionals to arrive.

You know that my previous point relating to citizens arrest is not designed to encourage excessive force or unlawful arrests, it's clear that they would be wrong and the culprit could still be appropriately dealt with by the courts.

If you witness an arrestable offence, then you should have a huge scope of leeway in apprehending the person and funneling them over to the Gardai as soon as is practicable. Anything else would be false imprisonment and the courts would have discretion to deal with such claims in the context of the leeway allowed.

bbam

benway wrote: »

And, just say there's an exception made for "scumbags" ... well, who's to say who the "scumbags" are?
If we're to start excluding people for being "scumbags", where will it end?

Who are the scumbags? Let's start with those going round breaking into houses to steal and god knows what else. Then move on. Funny their not too hard to identify in any town
Where will it end? Hopefully it will get to the stage where scumbags know they have no rights or protections, once they cross the line all bets are off.

benway

The length of the sentence isn't a deterrent. And the effect of incapacitating one criminal is minimal when there's two others to take his place. More, better trained, better equipped professionals would be more effective than more prison places and longer sentences.

My logic is that ordinary citizens shouldn't be encouraged to put themselves at risk just to arrest someone, when they're probably not up to the job. It's pretty straightforward, I don't want to see anyone getting hurt or killed unnecessarily.

But I am 100% in favour of neighbourhood watch style setups - neighbours keeping in touch with each other and keeping an eye out for each other.

bbam wrote:

Then move on.

First they came for the scumbags,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a scumbag.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

:pac:

steve9859

Blimey......the number of peaceniks on this thread! You would think we were all living in the sixties wearing flowers in our hair!

amacachi

hondasam wrote: »

wanted revenge.

Perhaps helped by the knowledge of who the guy who did it was and that he would get away with it yet again.

benway

The amount of frightened, blinkered, reactionary refugees from the Daily Mail site in this thread, you would think that we were living in downtown Baghdad.

ash23

bbam wrote: »

Who are the scumbags? Let's start with those going round breaking into houses to steal and god knows what else. Then move on. Funny their not too hard to identify in any town
Where will it end? Hopefully it will get to the stage where scumbags know they have no rights or protections, once they cross the line all bets are off.

I think anyone wearing adidas stripes is a scumbag. Or anyone in PJs and uggs. Some would maintain anyone on the dole is a scumbag. Or that single parents are. More would argue that anyone who uses drugs is a scumbag. Or breaks the law in anyway (so bear in mind that would include anyone who downloads music or movies or smoked hash or has penalty points etc).
The crime has to fit the punishment and therefore it's not up to anyone outside the legal system to decide what that punishment is.
Or else I could go around in my car knocking down anyone who ever downloaded a song off limewire. Scumbags, the lot of them :rolleyes:

Corruptable

steve9859 wrote: »

Blimey......the number of peaceniks on this thread! You would think we were all living in the sixties wearing flowers in our hair!

Yeah, you know once someone references "fascism" as a reason why we shouldn't dare take on a criminal or dare to suggest stronger laws you know it's the end of meaningful discussions with that person, and that they would need an invasive surgical procedure to safely remove their head from their anus.

The King of Moo

bbam wrote: »

Who are the scumbags? Let's start with those going round breaking into houses to steal and god knows what else. Then move on. Funny their not too hard to identify in any town
Where will it end? Hopefully it will get to the stage where scumbags know they have no rights or protections, once they cross the line all bets are off.

Do you seriously think that burglars should have no rights whatsoever?

That they could legally be killed in the streets by citizens?

Do you really want to live in such a barbaric world?

Stark

The King of Moo wrote: »

Do you seriously think that burglars should have no rights whatsoever?

That they could legally be killed in the streets by citizens?

Do you really want to live in such a barbaric world?

That sounds pretty ****ing awesome tbh.

cynder

hondasam wrote: »

[/B]

He was there to rob the place, I'm sure raping/kidnapping children was not his motive.

His first instinct was to chase the burglar, this I agree with but once the man had got away he should have gone back into his own house and checked on his family and phoned the gardai.
He had a desc of him and knew where he went. As I said all ready he was out of control with rage and wanted revenge.

When someone is in your house who you don't know and without permission you have no idea what their motive is, some might ask what are you doing, they may or maynot get an answer and if the person did answer them they may not be telling the truth.

Bottom line get them out of your house by whatever means necessary, and keep them out by what ever means, if that means driving over them so be it.

ziggyman17

Society is in a mess because of the all the do gooders in the world.. The burgular had 7 previous convictions and yet is out and about walking the streets, it should be like the american system of 3 strikes and your in jail for a long time..

Corruptable

grindelwald wrote: »

When someone is in your house who you don't know and without permission you gave no idea what their motive is, some might ask what are you doing, they may or maynot get an answer and if the person did answer them they may not be telling the truth.

Bottom line get them out if your house by whatever means necessary, and keep them out by what ever means, if that means driving over then do be it.

Exactly, from the paper many peaceniks regard as the voice of reason:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0303/1224291212601.html

He only wanted to rob as well, but that's cold comfort to the woman in question.

The King of Moo

Stark wrote: »

That sounds pretty ****ing awesome tbh.

Then you might want to consider moving to Somalia.

And if criminals had no rights here, you'd better make sure you stay out of the way of the packs of Daily Mailers roaming the streets looking for people in tracksuits.

Also, don't wear a tracksuit.

ART6

bbam wrote: »

Who are the scumbags? Let's start with those going round breaking into houses to steal and god knows what else. Then move on. Funny their not too hard to identify in any town
Where will it end? Hopefully it will get to the stage where scumbags know they have no rights or protections, once they cross the line all bets are off.

In my book human rights should be coupled to human responsibility. If you break into someone's house with the deliberate intention of stealing his property and have no concern about the fear or harm you may cause his family, then your human rights take second place to his. That doesn't mean you no longer have any rights. It doesn't mean that you can then be deliberately beaten to a pulp or tortured by the Gestapo or, for that matter, run over by his car streets away.

The trouble is that if the intruder is injured then the issue might go to court, and courts are places of confrontation rather than absolute, calculated judgement. The respective legal teams will argue complex legal issues and will do all they can to convince a jury that is not composed of Solomons, and which can be swayed by an emotional argument: He was drunk at the time and not responsible for his actions/his dog had died that day and he was emotionally disturbed/his mother didn't kiss him goodnight when he was a child/he has made a donation to a poor box/he has undertaken to change his ways having learned his lesson etc.etc.

So, given what many others have said here, what would I do if confronted by an intruder? I have no idea, but I am sure that his human rights would not be my sole consideration.:eek: