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

who_me

walshb wrote: »

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.

"Running away" is a vague thing to define. If it's 100m down the road and the burglar is still running, then fair enough. But if it's inside your home, are they running away, or running to get a weapon, or running to get backup. Are they charging at you, or running by you to get to the door?

I heard of a recent incident in my neighbourhood where some guys from a house came out to stop a neighbour's car from being vandalised. The group vandalising the car 'ran away', only to loot a nearby garden shed and came back and beat the crap out of them, leaving at least one with permanent scarring. Am I advocating killing anyone committing a crime? No, of course not. I'm just saying just because someone is 'running away' doesn't mean the incident is over and you're now safe.

who_me

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

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

Fair enough. I didn't mean to single you out, sorry.

FTA69

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.

I agree with you in many respects, the vast majority of house break-ins occur during the day while you're at work. Often the thief(ves) will ascertain a way in to your house, knock on the door and if they're satisfied there's nobody home, in they go; they'll usually find some sort of gear bag in the house and fill that in case they find large valuables like laptops, tablets etc. They aim to be in and out fairly quickly. Thieves are just that, people who just want to thieve and get away. Robbers on the other hand, also exist. There are people out there whose MO is to find vulnerable people on their own, often elderly people (due to the fact they "don't trust banks") and then invade the house with the view to forcing them to give up cash. Similarly some thieves do operate at night, and when confronted can easily turn violent due to the fact they're pumped with adrenalin and often off their heads on drugs. Violence in the context of home break ins is very rare, but neither is it a "one in a million" chance and there are many examples out there that prove that.

Is keeping a weapon handy a viable option? Probably not. Is a dog a better option? Probably, but then a lot of burglars have no problem dipping a slice of bread in weedkiller and sugar and posioning the poor animal. Every case is different like. Similarly this notion of "proportional force" is vague to say the least. If I came home from work early to find someone rooting around the sitting room and I flaked the head off him would that be "unreasonable force"? I would argue it isn't but then some would disagree.

At the very least I do think in general that the law be on the side of the victim and not the person who decides to break into houses to feed a drug habit or whatever.

walshb

who_me wrote: »

"Running away" is a vague thing to define. If it's 100m down the road and the burglar is still running, then fair enough. But if it's inside your home, are they running away, or running to get a weapon, or running to get backup. Are they charging at you, or running by you to get to the door?

I heard of a recent incident in my neighbourhood where some guys from a house came out to stop a neighbour's car from being vandalised. The group vandalising the car 'ran away', only to loot a nearby garden shed and came back and beat the crap out of them, leaving at least one with permanent scarring. Am I advocating killing anyone committing a crime? No, of course not. I'm just saying just because someone is 'running away' doesn't mean the incident is over and you're now safe.

Ok, so be clearer about what you mean when you mention running away.

I think a common ground needs to be reached. I am right in the middle. I abhor the attitude that they will "get it" for being on my property. But, I can also understand that terror and fear and split seconds when a person is confronted with real danger, and I wouldn't slate them for acting first. As I said, every situation can be different.

flutered

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

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

i am in total agreement with him, people who break into peoples homes, with the intention of robbing and inflicting gbh on elderly people, deserve to be greeted with open arms:D:D instead of giving the elderly alarms, a tazer should be issued.

rasper

flutered wrote: »

i am in total agreement with him, people who break into peoples homes, with the intention of robbing and inflicting gbh on elderly people, deserve to be greeted with open arms:D:D instead of giving the elderly alarms, a tazer should be issued.

Gurantee , most of those tazars would be taken from them, just coz someone has a weapon doesn't mean they r able to use it

walshb

rasper wrote: »

Gurantee , most of those tazars would be taken from them, just coz someone has a weapon doesn't mean they r able to use it

Even with a weapon an elederly person is still in real danger.

FTA69

You're always better off not confronting a burglar to be honest, once you and your family are safe. At the end of the day your possesions are never worth your life. That having been said if someone chases a burglar out of the house, catches him a few hundred yards down the road and gives him a few digs I wouldn't see a major issue in that either.

walshb

FTA69 wrote: »

You're always better off not confronting a burglar to be honest, once you and your family are safe. At the end of the day your possesions are never worth your life. That having been said if someone chases a burglar out of the house, catches him a few hundred yards down the road and gives him a few digs I wouldn't see a major issue in that either.

The issue is not not so much you confronting him/her, but the possibility that if you do not then you could end up in a bad way. If I knew that myself and my family were not going to be harmed I would help the thieves pack the stuff away, but nobody can know what any stranger(s) is capable of when they enter your home uninvited with the intention to commit a crime.

howamidifferent

Some guy on Mat Cooper spoke yesterday of confronting 3 blokes who had broken into his shed. He had in his hand a legally held shotgun and told them to get lost or else...One replied "you have only 2 shots in that. When their gone we'll put a screwdriver through your head". He was completely thrown by this answer and backed off to leave them out. He said they sauntered away without a care in the world. :eek:

howamidifferent

Another caller said he'd fire one to the head or chest and then the warning shot into the ceiling afterwards.

MadsL

howamidifferent wrote: »

Some guy on Mat Cooper spoke yesterday of confronting 3 blokes who had broken into his shed. He had in his hand a legally held shotgun and told them to get lost or else...One replied "you have only 2 shots in that. When their gone we'll put a screwdriver through your head". He was completely thrown by this answer and backed off to leave them out. He said they sauntered away without a care in the world. :eek:

Clear case of the advantages of a pump action....

wexie

howamidifferent wrote: »

Some guy on Mat Cooper spoke yesterday of confronting 3 blokes who had broken into his shed. He had in his hand a legally held shotgun and told them to get lost or else...One replied "you have only 2 shots in that. When their gone we'll put a screwdriver through your head". He was completely thrown by this answer and backed off to leave them out. He said they sauntered away without a care in the world. :eek:

I somehow doubt there are many 'people' out there robbing garden sheds that are 'ard enough to watch two of their buddies be shot with a shot gun without legging it though....

long range shooter

howamidifferent wrote: »

Some guy on Mat Cooper spoke yesterday of confronting 3 blokes who had broken into his shed. He had in his hand a legally held shotgun and told them to get lost or else...One replied "you have only 2 shots in that. When their gone we'll put a screwdriver through your head". He was completely thrown by this answer and backed off to leave them out. He said they sauntered away without a care in the world. :eek:

That's why I have a pump action shotgun with 5 rounds;)

ganger

If they were to be caught/interrupted during a break-in and were shot and wounded would it deter others.Also if it went legal should the judiciary say ,out ,stop wasting our time(to housebreaker/robber),you put up with consequences of your criminal actions,no insurance claim etc.I think burglaries would decline if they know without a doubt that if someone is home they will face lethal and deadly force,so may think is it worth death or mutilation by shotgun for some jewelry /laptop.

jmayo

howamidifferent wrote: »

Some guy on Mat Cooper spoke yesterday of confronting 3 blokes who had broken into his shed. He had in his hand a legally held shotgun and told them to get lost or else...One replied "you have only 2 shots in that. When their gone we'll put a screwdriver through your head". He was completely thrown by this answer and backed off to leave them out. He said they sauntered away without a care in the world. :eek:

The stock answer to this is to threaten to shoot the loud mouth.
It always works in the cowboys when the lynch mob threatens to spring the guy from jail for the hanging.

As for this debate...
I think the majority of people in favour of allowing homehowners protect themselves in their homes happen to come from rural areas where there isn't a neighbour next door or a Garda station within 10 odd miles.
Now that a Garda will do any good anyways.

As I have debated elsewhere with the usual "protect the poor criminals crew", maybe if it was your relatives or neighbours who were going to bed scared everynight then you would feel differently about seeing them armed so that they can protect themselves.

Or perhaps some of the fighters for the rights of criminals around here didn't catch the poor old 80 year old woman being interviewed last night about being set upon by the "poor missunderstood, socially disadvantaged types" that carry out these house breakins.

BTW no one has ever been caught or tried for the murder of Eddie Fitzmaurice in Bellaghy/Charlestown in 1998.
Just to jog the memories of those who would suggest we give criminals the benefit of the doubt about their intentions and thus a free reign in ones home, poor Eddie Fitzmaurice was an 83 retired shopkeeper who was beaten, tied up and left to die.

How many more Eddie Fitzmaurices (or Tommie Caseys - Oranmore) do the the criminal apologists in this country feel are jusitifed in order to protect the lives of criminals ?

MadsL

...and I will reiterate that current Irish legislation makes it illegal to train anyone how to defend themselves in a legal manner with a legally held firearm.

Akin to making judo classes illegal.

miller50841

Hi all I believe you should and should be able to defend your Property, Family and Yourself if it means taking a stand to a person or person's invading your personal home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY

I don't believe in the mad gun laws in the USA but I have no problem with people legally having shotguns and obviously not running around the place shooting everybody.

Tisserand

snubbleste wrote: »

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

Beware of the law of unintended consequences.

Headline in newspaper during canvassing for next Council elections reads

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

MadsL

miller50841 wrote: »

Hi all I believe you should and should be able to defend your Property, Family and Yourself if it means taking a stand to a person or person's invading your personal home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY

I don't believe in the mad gun laws in the USA but I have no problem with people legally having shotguns and obviously not running around the place shooting everybody.

What is "mad" about them?

miller50841

MadsL wrote: »

What is "mad" about them?

There is a loop hole where you gun to these gun meets/shows and buy whatever gun you like once been sold privately.
This means no background checks & no mental health check.

I know different states have different laws but 1 person can own way too many guns look at all the shootings.

MadsL

miller50841 wrote: »

There is a loop hole where you gun to these gun meets/shows and buy whatever gun you like once been sold privately.
This means no background checks & no mental health check.

Designed to make it affordable for people to sell their guns privately and without excessive charges. Could be closed with a buyer presenting a background check done by a dealer I guess.

I know different states have different laws but 1 person can own way too many guns look at all the shootings.

There is a limit to the number of guns you can carry is there not?

Sparks

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.

...yes, if you watched him break in and you're awake and alert and in possession of all the facts involved.

On the other hand, if you're downstairs at bleary-eyed-o-clock in the morning heating up a bottle for the ten-month-old upstairs who's just woken up and you stumble into someone robbing the place in the process without even realising they were there, and in blind panic you bash their head in with the kettle - well, that's actually the scenario that the law was always intended to address. It doesn't matter that in the cold light of dawn the intruder was just some 90-lb 17-year-old whose brother got him hooked on drugs and he was desperately stealing a twenty-euro note to feed the habit; at dark-o-clock when you couldn't even see the guy because you were walking around by braille not having slept properly since 2012, you couldn't have reasonably known that and all you knew was **** me there's someone in here by the knife drawer robbing the place he's going to stab me and the wife and kid are upstairs and here's the kettle and I'll just knock the ****er on the head and run for the stairs. Far as the law's concerned, that's self defence and always has been, waaaay back before FG's PR-stunt of a law (which didn't change anything, just took us from a case-law basis to a statute-law basis).

Now the councillor in the OP, well, he's a non-issue. Saying you're planning to shoot anyone who you see in your house in front of the local Garda Superintendent, well, that's what we refer to as a self-correcting situation

sfakiaman

I agree very much with the sentiments expressed by JMAYO and Sparks and empathise with Spark's description of blundering around the house in a state of baby induced terminal tiredness but I would like to make a few points from my own perspective. I am a senior citizen living in a tiny rural village and the nearest full-time Garda station is (according to Google maps and my own experience) thirtyfive to fourtyfive minuts away, so at dark-o'clock on a wet winters morning I have to depend on myself and my neighbours half of whom are also pensioners. My own point of view is that prevention is better than cure and if prevention doesn't work you should have an action plan. You don't have to be paranoid to put your seatbelts on or have smoke alarms in your house, likewise you don't have to be paranoid to have systems in place incase of robbery. In my case the dogs would waken the dead before anyone would get near a door or window, I have automatic outside lights, all my doors and windows have good quality locks, I have a monitored alarm system and both my wife and myself have the neighbours on speed-dial. These measures would give me time to react in a positive manner to any intruder stupid enough to persist. Your own action plan will depend on your own capabilities and could range from stand and fight to leg it through the back window but if you have it thought out before hand you will have more chance of success.

R P McMurphy

Sparks wrote: »

...yes, if you watched him break in and you're awake and alert and in possession of all the facts involved.

On the other hand, if you're downstairs at bleary-eyed-o-clock in the morning heating up a bottle for the ten-month-old upstairs who's just woken up and you stumble into someone robbing the place in the process without even realising they were there, and in blind panic you bash their head in with the kettle - well, that's actually the scenario that the law was always intended to address. It doesn't matter that in the cold light of dawn the intruder was just some 90-lb 17-year-old whose brother got him hooked on drugs and he was desperately stealing a twenty-euro note to feed the habit; at dark-o-clock when you couldn't even see the guy because you were walking around by braille not having slept properly since 2012, you couldn't have reasonably known that and all you knew was **** me there's someone in here by the knife drawer robbing the place he's going to stab me and the wife and kid are upstairs and here's the kettle and I'll just knock the ****er on the head and run for the stairs. Far as the law's concerned, that's self defence and always has been, waaaay back before FG's PR-stunt of a law (which didn't change anything, just took us from a case-law basis to a statute-law basis).

Now the councillor in the OP, well, he's a non-issue. Saying you're planning to shoot anyone who you see in your house in front of the local Garda Superintendent, well, that's what we refer to as a self-correcting situation

This is where things change I think. Once there is a baby in the house protection of ones home takes on a different urgency.

Mossess

If someone broke into your house and wrecked the living room, smashed everything in the room and found your laptop, they are just about to head out the door with it when you come down the stairs, walk into the living room and shout “Get down on the ground, face down, hands behind your back, I have a gun” and the burglar does it. (you don’t have a gun, you have a wooden spoon) And 5 minutes later the guards arrive and take him away.

The burglar goes to court, pleads to the court that he has 4 kids, was drunk, history of drug problems, came from a dysfunctional family etc. The burglar will be released. Then the burglar will come back and rob your house again looking to steal your gun.

The burglar does not care if they are caught as there is no impact on their lives. But the jokes on him, it was only a wooden spoon…


On the flip side, if the burglar didn't get down on the ground and instead ran at you, lets say it's a male, 5 foot 4 inches tall, weighing about 90 lbs. Your towering over him. And you have a wooden spoon. What would you do?

The odds are he is on drugs, possibly has Hepatitis B, and who knows what else. Do you want to take the risk of getting bitten by him?

walshb

R P McMurphy wrote: »

This is where things change I think. Once there is a baby in the house protection of ones home takes on a different urgency.

I think the fear and terror and sense of urgency is the same no matter who's in the house. A man alone, a woman alone, a man with a wife and children etc. It must be one of the most terrifying experiences ever to hear an feel and intruder inside your home.