"I'd blow the legs off any intruder in my home" says councillor

snubbleste

Independent - I'd blow the legs off any intruder in my home, says councillor

Cllr Padraig Conneely said he believed the current spate of robberies would result in a death because people were being terrorised in their own homes. And he warned that in similar circumstances he would pull the trigger. "I believe one body laid out on a slab after a robbery would put an end to robberies in the area pretty lively," he added. ..He does not own a firearm but insisted if he had, he would have no issue about using it in such circumstances. "If you were to come home and find people in your house ransacking it, you have to think what state of mind would that leave you in? "I think I'd have pulled the trigger and blew the legs off them if I had found them," he said.
Garda Superintendent Marie Skehill responded to Mr Conneely's comments, saying: "I'm glad, chairman, you don't have a firearm."

:cool: :cool:

meoklmrk91

I don't see anything wrong with what he said.

thesandeman

He was on Pat Kenny giving his 'point of view' earlier.

snubbleste

He represents the main government party at local level. I don't think that was in FG's manifesto at the last elections.

kippy

This guy riles me up no end. Indeed many members of the most inept organisation I know of (Galway City Councilers) make me embarrassed to be living in this city.
I really dont know why people vote for these guys, or indeed why we need them at all, they seem to argue about the most mundane things, drag out issues that should be sorted in no time and stand over some of the biggest project cost over runs in this state.
Indeed wasn't conneely parked on a footpath yesterday when he was discussing illegal parking in this very meeting!


What he said on this topic, who really cares - the guy doesn't even have a firearm.

Indeed, it's akin to saying, if I had a million euro, I'd give it to the poor.
When you don't have a million Euro and your sentiment cannot be proven one way or another.

snubbleste

kippy wrote: »

What he said on this topic, who really cares - the guy doesn't even have a firearm.

..and every burglar in the country knows it.

inisboffin

snubbleste wrote: »

..and every burglar in the country knows it.

IF its true!

Mrs OBumble

I wonder what he thinks about the abortion legislation debate?

Most of the people who are opposed to legislation change have this view because they are opposed to murder. Cllr Connelley clearly isn't opposed to murder ("I believe one body laid out on a slab after a robbery ... ") so .....

biko

Pádraig Conneely is a very "outspoken" person but to a point I agree with him.
If you come into my house on "bad business", don't expect me to do nothing. If I have a means to stop the robbery I will try to use it.

VinLieger

Completely agree with what he said, i believe a persons home is their castle and a burglar forfeits all rights when breaking in.
I dont own a firearm but i do own a rather large gurka knife which i keep beside my bed, i dont know about killing someone but i would deffinitely set out to harm/incapacitate with it anyone who invaded my home which in my opinion would be simple self defence

Scofflaw

Thread moved into Politics.

moderately,
Scofflaw

yore

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I wonder what he thinks about the abortion legislation debate?

Most of the people who are opposed to legislation change have this view because they are opposed to murder. Cllr Connelley clearly isn't opposed to murder ("I believe one body laid out on a slab after a robbery ... ") so .....

Bit of a large jump there...... you should look up the definitions, both legal and moral, of murder

Denerick

A citizen has a right to defend themselves in their own home, I think this is (Or should be) a no brainer. But the kind of populist pigwash this councillor is spouting, attempting to appeal to the most base instincts of the electorate, is exactly the reason why Irish democracy is such a cesspool.

goose2005

VinLieger wrote: »

Completely agree with what he said, i believe a persons home is their castle and a burglar forfeits all rights when breaking in.

All rights? Doesn't self-defence have to be some bit proportionate? If someone shoves you in a pub, do you stab him?

hardCopy

goose2005 wrote: »

All rights? Doesn't self-defence have to be some bit proportionate? If someone shoves you in a pub, do you stab him?

If he's in my house he doesn't even have to shove me. (My moral code, not my interpretation of the law)

The location is what matters here.

VinLieger

goose2005 wrote: »

All rights? Doesn't self-defence have to be some bit proportionate? If someone shoves you in a pub, do you stab him?

If a person invades my house in my book all rights are forfeit, how am i to know what they plan to do? simply steal or hurt me or my family? In that situation you have to assume the worst and act accordingly. I wouldnt set out to kill them but if intimidation and/or some physical harm didnt deter them then obviously i would do what needed to be done and have no regrets about it.

We are talking about peoples homes here not a night out in the pub, stop trying to change the subject

Mossess

OK, I’ll start by saying that I'm against all forms of violence. If I caught a burglar in my house they would be removed by garden hose as their wouldn't be a solid bit of them left to get enough of a grip to put into a body bag.
The law will do nothing to these people who rob houses. I on the other hand, would. I don’t own a gun. I have kids so I wouldn't want one in the house. But even if I did have a gun I would be very hesitant about drawing it. You’d make bits of the walls.

kippy

VinLieger wrote: »

If a person invades my house in my book all rights are forfeit, how am i to know what they plan to do? simply steal or hurt me or my family? In that situation you have to assume the worst and act accordingly. I wouldnt set out to kill them but if intimidation and/or some physical harm didnt deter them then obviously i would do what needed to be done and have no regrets about it.

We are talking about peoples homes here not a night out in the pub, stop trying to change the subject

I think a lot of people are missing the point of this thread.

There have been plenty threads on this and other fora down through the years about the rights and wrongs of protecting your home.

The point, I believe, is that this comment is coming from an elected representative and more importantly an elected representative, who, like some other famous elected representatives in Galway, tend to come out with this populist bull crap on a regular occasion.

Scofflaw

Can we limit this discussion to whether you're for or against the use of force on intruders in your home, rather than showing off just how righteously hard you are.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Mossess

kippy wrote: »

I think a lot of people are missing the point of this thread.

There have been plenty threads on this and other fora down through the years about the rights and wrongs of protecting your home.

The point, I believe, is that this comment is coming from an elected representative and more importantly an elected representative, who, like some other famous elected representatives in Galway, tend to come out with this populist bull crap on a regular occasion.

It might be populist bull crap, but with the numbers of Guards being reduced and crime going up there is no longer any other option. His speaking out about these things is a reflection of what people are saying. Maybe it’s time the law of the land reflected the feelings of the people of the land.

VinLieger

kippy wrote: »

I think a lot of people are missing the point of this thread.

There have been plenty threads on this and other fora down through the years about the rights and wrongs of protecting your home.

The point, I believe, is that this comment is coming from an elected representative and more importantly an elected representative, who, like some other famous elected representatives in Galway, tend to come out with this populist bull crap on a regular occasion.

And in my previous post i agreed with what he said, and was questioned on my reasoning so i answered.
He's simply voicing the opinion of alot of people who are angry that in many of these cases criminals end up with more rights than the occupants of the house they are burglaring

kippy

Mossess wrote: »

It might be populist bull crap, but with the numbers of Guards being reduced and crime going up there is no longer any other option. His speaking out about these things is a reflection of what people are saying. Maybe it’s time the law of the land reflected the feelings of the people of the land.

Indeed. And if those we elect spent more time coming up with and debating laws etc instead of spouting crap we'd be in a better position. People have been saying and dome have been doing it for years.
Do you know how much money has been wasted on the watch of this guy and others in the galway chamber? Do away with the lot of them and put the savings into policing if you will.....
These guys have been arguing about a name for a pitch for ages. Embarrassing. Look up the galway advertiser fb page for more examples of the muck that goes on at these meetings.

MadsL

If this councillor is talking about blowing the legs off intruders, he ought to get his shotgun looked at - or aim higher!

Ireland has a castle doctrine and I see no issue with that. The main issue I see is that even if the firearm is legally help he cannot actually train legally with it as teaching defensive firearm in a practical setting is illegal in Ireland, as is owning a firearm for personal defence in the home.



Oh, and this made me chuckle.

CptMackey

spikethedog wrote: »

Spot on there.
If some scumbag wants to break into my home and crawl around mine or my young kids bedrooms on the rob they can expect summary justice.
The sooner a few of them are laid out, the better. It might make the other ones think before they act.
At least now the law is back on the homeowners side.

It is about time. If it were my house I would use any and all means including killing him/her no problem

MadsL

spikethedog wrote: »

At least now the law is back on the homeowners side.

The law was always on the householders side - it has just been clarified.

Death and Taxes

I thought the Garda Superintendent at the meeting in question summed it up best when replied "I am glad you don't own a gun".
Citizens do not have the right to shoot anyone entering btheir home, noot even a burglar, they can only act proportionally to the threat, and an unarmed burglar running away from you poses no immediate threat.

CptMackey

WileyCoyote wrote: »

I thought the Garda Superintendent at the meeting in question summed it up best when replied "I am glad you don't own a gun".
Citizens do not have the right to shoot anyone entering btheir home, noot even a burglar, they can only act proportionally to the threat, and an unarmed burglar running away from you poses no immediate threat.

I can't understand this mentality tho. If they enter your home unlawfully why should the home owner be held responsible at all if the burglar is shot. They should have NO protection under the law once the enter your home. They are hardly there for your benifit.

MadsL

WileyCoyote wrote: »

I thought the Garda Superintendent at the meeting in question summed it up best when replied "I am glad you don't own a gun".
Citizens do not have the right to shoot anyone entering btheir home, noot even a burglar, they can only act proportionally to the threat, and an unarmed burglar running away from you poses no immediate threat.

Really?

2.— (1) Notwithstanding the generality of any other enactment or rule of law and subject to subsections (2) and (3), it shall not be an offence for a person who is in his or her dwelling, or for a person who is a lawful occupant in a dwelling, to use force against another person or the property of another person where—

(a) he or she believes the other person has entered or is entering the dwelling as a trespasser for the purpose of committing a criminal act, and

(b) the force used is only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be—

(i) to protect himself or herself or another person present in the dwelling from injury, assault, detention or death caused by a criminal act,

(ii) to protect his or her property or the property of another person from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act, or

(iii) to prevent the commission of a crime or to effect, or assist in effecting, a lawful arrest.

Whilst shooting a fleeing intruder is bad sport, I wonder are you really arguing for 'the duty to retreat'...

The police association of superintendents and inspectors, the AGSI, stated before the bill became law, that “the current situation, which legally demands a house owner retreat from an intruder, was intolerable."

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-homeowners-now-have-legal-right-to-shoot-intruders-in-their-homes-137373588.html#ixzz2I4eUXUuT

Nothing in this Act shall operate to require—

(a) a person to retreat from his or her dwelling, or

(b) a lawful occupant in a dwelling to retreat from the dwelling

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0035/sec0003.html#sec3

walshb

I would have no hesitation in shooting a person who entered my home illegally in the process of say a burglary or an attack situation. I wouldn't be happy to kill someone, but it's them or me. And, in split seconds there is little time to reason or bargain.

Dr Turk Turkelton

WileyCoyote wrote: »

I thought the Garda Superintendent at the meeting in question summed it up best when replied "I am glad you don't own a gun".
Citizens do not have the right to shoot anyone entering btheir home, noot even a burglar, they can only act proportionally to the threat, and an unarmed burglar running away from you poses no immediate threat.

That's why it would probably be better to kill them rather than maim them if they were running away.
Dead men can't tell the truth in court!

GSF

VinLieger wrote: »

If a person invades my house in my book all rights are forfeit, how am i to know what they plan to do? simply steal or hurt me or my family? In that situation you have to assume the worst and act accordingly. I wouldnt set out to kill them but if intimidation and/or some physical harm didnt deter them then obviously i would do what needed to be done and have no regrets about it.

We are talking about peoples homes here not a night out in the pub, stop trying to change the subject

So now if you want to bump someone off all you have to do is invite them around to your house, kill them and claim he was an intruder. Since by your rules you have 100% right in all circumstances to kill anyone you choose in your home, you can't be prosecuted. I suppose be your rules you could even knock off the missus and get away with it.

walshb

GSF wrote: »

So now if you want to bump someone off all you have to do is invite them around to your house, kill them and claim he was an intruder. Since by your rules you have 100% right in all circumstances to kill anyone you choose in your home, you can't be prosecuted. I suppose be your rules you could even knock off the missus and get away with it.

Not sure that is anything to do with the post you quoted. I do not agree with the blase and nonchalant attitude that a person would blow another away for being on their property. That is a scummy attitude IMO. Dangerous attitude too.

Death and Taxes

CptMackey wrote: »

I can't understand this mentality tho. If they enter your home unlawfully why should the home owner be held responsible at all if the burglar is shot. They should have NO protection under the law once the enter your home. They are hardly there for your benifit.

The point is they do! This is not the wild west.

VinLieger

GSF wrote: »

So now if you want to bump someone off all you have to do is invite them around to your house, kill them and claim he was an intruder. Since by your rules you have 100% right in all circumstances to kill anyone you choose in your home, you can't be prosecuted. I suppose be your rules you could even knock off the missus and get away with it.

Another attempt to deliberately misquote me and derail the topic, sad really.
Where did i say anything about inviting someone over? My post that you quaoted specifically said "invade" which i think we can all logically agree means unwanted and uninvited intruder/burglar/criminal etc so please point out where i mention premeditated murder by inviting someone into my home?

murphaph

Denerick wrote: »

A citizen has a right to defend themselves in their own home, I think this is (Or should be) a no brainer. But the kind of populist pigwash this councillor is spouting, attempting to appeal to the most base instincts of the electorate, is exactly the reason why Irish democracy is such a cesspool.

Indeed, whilst citizens can and do have the right to defend themselves against physical attacks, the councillor should perhaps have raised the issue of law and order in a more mature way. Like why do we incarcerate so many non-violent offenders, rather than using modern technologies like tagging to cheaply imprison them in their own homes, saving the real prison spaces for dangerous people.

There are lots of ways decent society could improve the criminal justice system and while I am deeply frustrated by the law sometimes, the solution is not to break it, but to fix it. The councillor's own party are in government, so why not have a word about it with the boss?!

MadsL

walshb wrote: »

Not sure that is anything to do with the post you quoted. I do not agree with the blase and nonchalant attitude that a person would blow another away for being on their property. That is a scummy attitude IMO. Dangerous attitude too.

Stop! I'm armed! Leave now!
(Guy comes towards you)
Apply reasonable force.

Of course in Ireland, by the time you have unlocked all the safes and actually assembled the firearm and unlocked the ammo, you have been battered to death.

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The point is they do! This is not the wild west.

Intruders have only the protection of the law in that a householder may apply reasonable force. If I am in fear of my life from an armed intruder then that is reasonable force. The reality being is that most Irish burglers would run like hell if shown a gun.

spikethedog

If any one of these 'gentlemen criminals' wants to come into my house, creep around my kids and my bedroom trying to rob or cause harm thy can expect to be dispatched in one go.
I think it's right and proper that any householder has the right to use whatever force he/she deems necessary to end a threat.
If these people stay out of my home they won't have any problems.

thebman

murphaph wrote: »

Indeed, whilst citizens can and do have the right to defend themselves against physical attacks, the councillor should perhaps have raised the issue of law and order in a more mature way.

You forget they are gombeen men and not capable of professional conduct in many instances.

Not stating it about the person in this case in particular but making a more general comment that I don't think our councilors are as professional as you'd expect from a glance at their pay packets.

Scofflaw

Before posting, people, please stop and consider this - if you can't add more to the thread than "I'd totally blow away these scumbags if they were in my house", please don't post, because you'll get an infraction and your post deleted.

moderately,
Scofflaw

rasper

The last think society needs is yo rile up every gobsyite in the country to sleep with a shotgun under the bed, imagine for every scumbag burgalar shot they d be 20 accidental , anotyer 20 domestics , another 20 spur of moment suicides and not to mention a lot of stolen guns
We need less guns not more

VinLieger

rasper wrote: »

The last think society needs is yo rile up every gobsyite in the country to sleep with a shotgun under the bed, imagine for every scumbag burgalar shot they d be 20 accidental , anotyer 20 domestics , another 20 spur of moment suicides and not to mention a lot of stolen guns
We need less guns not more

Who said anything about giving people guns? this is about defending your property and if a councillor should be expressing views mentioned in the title

seamus

MadsL wrote: »

you have been battered to death.

Because violent burglaries are so common...

The reality being is that most Irish burglers would run like hell if shown a gun.

FYP.
Assuming an automatic "he's here to hurt me, I must kill him" approach is the mind of someone deeply paranoid and disturbed.

Thieves want to rob stuff and make profit. There is no profit in attacking the homeowner. They will not pay any regard to the homeowner's safety, but it's exceptionally rare that they will seek out the occupant to attack them. In most cases if confronted or disturbed, they will run because they don't want to risk being caught.
Therefore there is no good cause to assume that someone who is unlawfully in your home intends to cause you or your family injury.

walshb

seamus wrote: »

Because violent burglaries are so common...FYP.
Assuming an automatic "he's here to hurt me, I must kill him" approach is the mind of someone deeply paranoid and disturbed.

Thieves want to rob stuff and make profit. There is no profit in attacking the homeowner. They will not pay any regard to the homeowner's safety, but it's exceptionally rare that they will seek out the occupant to attack them. In most cases if confronted or disturbed, they will run because they don't want to risk being caught.
Therefore there is no good cause to assume that someone who is unlawfully in your home intends to cause you or your family injury.

With all due respect how the hell can you know what an intruder may and may not do. Yes, most times they will steal and leave, but is that any comfort to you if they break into your home? Is that what you should think?

"Sit tight, statistics show that most burglars will steal and leave. We'll be grand. So will the children. Oh, but what if I am the unlucky one who gets beaten to death and my wife and children are attacked."

I would rather act and try to assure my safety than not act and hope for the best.

who_me

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

I thought the Garda Superintendent at the meeting in question summed it up best when replied "I am glad you don't own a gun".
Citizens do not have the right to shoot anyone entering btheir home, noot even a burglar, they can only act proportionally to the threat, and an unarmed burglar running away from you poses no immediate threat.

To me, that's a very simplistic, naive view. If you wake the middle of the night, finding someone in your home, you have no idea of what is going on. You don't know if they're alone or part of a group. You don't know if they're armed or not. You don't know if their intent is theft, or assault/rape, or physically forcing someone to hand over your bank details etc.

If a burglar is 'running away', are they going home? Are they going to fetch help? Are they running for a weapon?

Having suffered an attack in the street outside my home, I too keep a knife by my bed (I'd keep a gun, if I could legally get one). I've no idea if I could use it, if push came to shove, but I've no time for the opinion that my safety as a home occupant takes second-fiddle to the safety of a burglar.

seamus

I would rather act and try to assure my safety than not act and hope for the best.

Killing an intruder because there's a one-in-a-million chance that he will attack you and beat you to death is paranoia. I don't have a weapon at home because I know that the odds of such a thing happening are tiny. Likewise, I don't believe that anyone who has a weapon at home purely for self defence is incapable of using that weapon rationally.

As I mentioned in another thread, lots of people have stories of intruders who didn't even intend to steal anything - drunk kids who got confused and thought they were locked out of their own homes. But screw them, let's just blow the legs off anyone who dares to stand on my property.

walshb

who_me wrote: »

To me, that's a very simplistic, naive view. If you wake the middle of the night, finding someone in your home, you have no idea of what is going on. You don't know if they're alone or part of a group. You don't know if they're armed or not. You don't know if their intent is theft, or assault/rape, or physically forcing someone to hand over your bank details etc.

If a burglar is 'running away', are they going home? Are they going to fetch help? Are they running for a weapon?

Having suffered an attack in the street outside my home, I too keep a knife by my bed (I'd keep a gun, if I could legally get one). I've no idea if I could use it, if push came to shove, but I've no time for the opinion that my safety as a home occupant takes second-fiddle to the safety of a burglar.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but if someone is running away and you act and kill them then you deserve to face prosecution. This is not Paul Kersey Death Wish country we live in. There is a police force. You could opt to report the crime. Now, if the intruder is not running away and presents a very real threat to your life then I would act. I will not hope for the best.

Death and Taxes

who_me wrote: »

To me, that's a very simplistic, naive view. If you wake the middle of the night, finding someone in your home, you have no idea of what is going on. You don't know if they're alone or part of a group. You don't know if they're armed or not. You don't know if their intent is theft, or assault/rape, or physically forcing someone to hand over your bank details etc.

If a burglar is 'running away', are they going home? Are they going to fetch help? Are they running for a weapon?

Having suffered an attack in the street outside my home, I too keep a knife by my bed (I'd keep a gun, if I could legally get one). I've no idea if I could use it, if push came to shove, but I've no time for the opinion that my safety as a home occupant takes second-fiddle to the safety of a burglar.

Why are you quoting my post? I never said ,nor inferred that "safety as a home occupant takes second-fiddle to the safety of a burglar"

walshb

seamus wrote: »

Killing an intruder because there's a one-in-a-million chance that he will attack you and beat you to death is paranoia. I don't have a weapon at home because I know that the odds of such a thing happening are tiny. Likewise, I don't believe that anyone who has a weapon at home purely for self defence is incapable of using that weapon rationally.

As I mentioned in another thread, lots of people have stories of intruders who didn't even intend to steal anything - drunk kids who got confused and thought they were locked out of their own homes. But screw them, let's just blow the legs off anyone who dares to stand on my property.

I am not saying I would confront the intruder all guns blazing attitude. I would at least try to assess the danger in the time I have. Now, I would hate to think that I could kill someone who just happened to be on my property and that they weren't a real immediate danger. Every situation is different. But, to rely on statistics and hope when a stranger breaks into your home could see you six feet under. I don't think it's paranoia at all to think this. I am not in the camp that thinks it's fair game to shoot dead a person who happens to be illegally on their property.

antoobrien

If somebody enters the home with intent to do do something illegal they have broken the social contract and should relinquish any rights to that would normally apply, as the occupants should have the right to defend their property.

If the invader ends up in less than full health as a result of the incident then tough, they should have considered that possibility before breaking in.

who_me

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

Why are you quoting my post? I never said ,nor inferred that "safety as a home occupant takes second-fiddle to the safety of a burglar"

Because you said citizens do not have the right to shoot a burglar in their home unless they present a threat. (And I pointed out it's impossible to determine the threat posed by a burglar until it's too late to effectively defend yourself).

That, to me, is placing the safety of the burglar ahead of the safety of the home occupant.

Death and Taxes

who_me wrote: »

Because you said citizens do not have the right to shoot a burglar in their home unless they present a threat. (And I pointed out it's impossible to determine the threat posed by a burglar until it's too late to effectively defend yourself).

That, to me, is placing the safety of the burglar ahead of the safety of the home occupant.

Thats the law, don't blame me for it!