Would you kill an intruder if you were guaranteed to get away scot free?

Beyondgone

smelly sock wrote: »

Ok then. Tough break.

But you done nothing wrong. You cant legislate for little bastards like that.

I'm shaking replying to this thread tho. Muscles twitching like you wouldn't believe, because "been there, done that" and it was such a sh1t time afterwards I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. If I had it back to do over, I'd have rung 999 and stayed in our room. Not worth the grief. Scumbags never come alone - they always have 20 bad pennies behind them.

smelly sock

Beyondgone wrote: »

I'm shaking replying to this thread tho. Muscles twitching like you wouldn't believe, because "been there, done that" and it was such a sh1t time afterwards I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. If I had it back to do over, I'd have rung 999 and stayed in our room. Not worth the grief. Scumbags never come alone - they always have 20 bad pennies behind them.

Yeh but hindsight is wonderful thing. There and then you had to make call and you did.

They went through your front door with a sledge? Your bedroom door would have been light work.

Manic Moran

You have to be alive today to worry about the guys out for you tomorrow.

The reality is that although nobody can guarantee ahead of time how they would react, there are enough people in the world who will respond to a home intrusion with force. We have a saying over on this side of the water, that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Around here, one in four burglaries occur with the homeowner present. (Much less than in the U.K., given that intruding upon a US homeowner can realistically be a fatal error). The more important figure, for the homeowner, is that about one in four of those result in the homeowner being subjected to violent crime.

Those are not great odds. Those who resisted with violence were somewhat less likely to be "successful" vicimes, and those who used a firearm were less likely to be injured.

While I understand where you are coming from, one bridge is to be crossed at a time.

Manic Moran

Double post.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Samuel T. Cogley

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not even you're standard burglar, 90% of which won't try and burgal the place when someone is there. 99% of those will leg it if they hear someone in the place. It's the tiny, tiny minority that stand their ground or that are too stupid to get the feck out. They deserve to get whatever injury they get from a lawful occupier going only as far as they thought reasonable, if only to serve as a deterant to other burglars.

pilly

I really can't believe the amount of people on here that think it's okay to take a persons life for breaking and entering.

Seriously lads, get a grip! We're talking about KILLING someone here. Someone who has a mother, father, possibly lots of other family.

Personally, I have a key in my bedroom door, someone breaks in during the night I lock that door and call the police. I'm not going risking my life for a few electronic devices.

And before someone rants about protecting your children how many burglars go near children? I've never heard of one case. You'd swear there was a plague of them.

It's all hard talk in my view. If it wasn't there'd be a lot more than one case of a burglar being killed in Ireland wouldn't there?

It would be happening every night of the week going off this thread.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Samuel T. Cogley

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly this!

It's not about the DVD player or the telly, it's that if you break into my home, you try and make me the victim, expect me to try my damndest to prevent that.

blinding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQcgcmZvv28

There probably is a little bit of this in all of us.....

Maybe , But I would probably regret it afterwards......

sbsquarepants

Berserker wrote: »

One of the reasons why I would like to see guns being made more freely available in Ireland. The thought of getting shot would make the little tramps think twice about breaking into your home.

That's not how it works out though - it actually ends up that the little scummer breaking into your house is more likely to be armed himself. Just look at the states - every tom, dick and (dirty) harry being armed to the teeth doesn't make anything safer -quite the opposite in fact.

riffmongous

Manic Moran wrote: »

You have to be alive today to worry about the guys out for you tomorrow.

The reality is that although nobody can guarantee ahead of time how they would react, there are enough people in the world who will respond to a home intrusion with force. We have a saying over on this side of the water, that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Around here, one in four burglaries occur with the homeowner present. (Much less than in the U.K., given that intruding upon a US homeowner can realistically be a fatal error). The more important figure, for the homeowner, is that about one in four of those result in the homeowner being subjected to violent crime.

Those are not great odds. Those who resisted with violence were somewhat less likely to be "successful" vicimes, and those who used a firearm were less likely to be injured.

While I understand where you are coming from, one bridge is to be crossed at a time.

Aggravated (armed) burglary is much less likely in Ireland though, about 1% of all burglaries according to the CSO
link

I can't find any statistics for the number of burglaries with the owner present for Ireland though, but for England (2008) it was around 20% with 10% of those people attacked (note that this is not the same as aggravated, at least in Ireland)

link

end of the road

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It's not even you're standard burglar, 90% of which won't try and burgal the place when someone is there. 99% of those will leg it if they hear someone in the place. It's the tiny, tiny minority that stand their ground or that are too stupid to get the feck out. They deserve to get whatever injury they get from a lawful occupier going only as far as they thought reasonable, if only to serve as a deterant to other burglars.

the reality though is it won't serve as a deterrant to other burglars. those determined to burgle will just arm themselves and come in groups instead.

Omackeral

I would never kill anyone unless it was life and death for me and/or my own family.

However, I never feel bad for intruders if I hear of them being killed. They've no earthly business being there so f*ck 'em, in all honesty. I also never feel bad if people in stolen cars are killed. If you didn't steal that car or enter that house then you wouldn't be in that fine mess now would you?

Dublin Pintman

Don't want to be shot dead by an innocent person in his own home? Don't be a housebreaking scumbag. Simple.

Omackeral

pilly wrote: »

And before someone rants about protecting your children how many burglars go near children? I've never heard of one case. You'd swear there was a plague of them.

Here ya go. Gang of these Dublin scumbags terrorised a family in Co Tipp a couple of years back, threatened to cut the children's fingers off.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/court-hears-of-terrified-screams-of-children-during-burglary-1.2371188

pilly

Omackeral wrote: »

Here ya go. Gang of these scumbags terrorised a family in Co Tipp a couple of years back, threatened to cut the children's fingers off.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/court-hears-of-terrified-screams-of-children-during-burglary-1.2371188

Okay, fair enough, those scum deserved to be shot. But it is an exception.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Manic Moran

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's not how it works out though - it actually ends up that the little scummer breaking into your house is more likely to be armed himself. Just look at the states - every tom, dick and (dirty) harry being armed to the teeth doesn't make anything safer -quite the opposite in fact.

Just over 60% of burglars in the US are unarmed. 12% have a firearm. The rest have knives or other physical combat weapons.

I can't find any statistics for the number of burglaries with the owner present for Ireland though, but for England (2008) it was around 20% with 10% of those people attacked (note that this is not the same as aggravated, at least in Ireland)

link

There may be a miscalculation somewhere. This seems to be based off the same report, but goes into more figures.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html

According to the BCS, householders came face-to-face with burglars in 20 per cent of domestic burglaries last year. That translates one every ten minutes. In other cases, either no one was at home or the victim was at home but unaware they were being burgled and did not see the offender.
Of the burglaries in which the victim came face-to-face with the intruder, violence was either used or threatened in 59 per cent of crimes.

By combing the two research reports, the Tories estimated that householders came face-to-face with burglars in 57,000 - 20 per cent - of burglaries.

Of these, 23,000 resulted in the burglar using violence against the householder.

So that's 20% of burglaries that the homeowner actually encountered the burglar. The 'homeowner present' rate thus must be somewhat more.

Page 80 of this report may be instructive, although it's a few years older. http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/Brookings-Burglary-Policing-Ch3-2003.pdf (11 on the PDF). It shows UK homeowners aware in 25% of burglaries, not aware 20%, and concludes the UK hot burglary rate is between 36 and 46%. I would presume the comparative ratio would be similar for 2010. There are a few more caveats, but the bottom line comparison is that hot burglaries are rarer as a percentage in the US than in the UK.

Comparative US figures here from the same years (early/mid 2000s, released 2010)
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

28% of US burglaries had homeowner present (In a survey taken in the 1980s, 74 percent of prisoners agreed that they reason they try to avoid homes where the owner is present is that they don't want to get shot), and in only one of four of those was there use of violence against the victim. So not only is the US homeowner less likely to encounter a burglar in the first place, there is also less likelihood of violence when it happens. Generally speaking, the burglar will run away when he knows he's been detected rather than risk losing a firefight, if he's armed at all.

What the report doesn't seem to say is who wins once violence starts, but one in two victims were injured, and there is this from 2013.

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf (Page 16)

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies

Of course, this is all largely academic in Ireland where possession of a firearm purely for defense purposes is not permitted, but it makes good food for thought.

99problems

I'd rape them

Manic Moran

Apropos... on CNN today.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/us/homeowner-gun-photo-trnd/index.html

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

99problems

I have two women in my house ,one is my defenceless five year old daughter I would kill anyone that tries to come into my house and I wouldn't do it fast either.

Erik Shin

99problems wrote: »

I have two women in my house ,one is my defenceless five year old daughter I would kill anyone that tries to come into my house and I wouldn't do it fast either.

Rape them to death ?

99problems

Erik Shin wrote:

Rape them to death ?

Yes

pilly

Patww79 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

So we've the death penalty now for robbery?

99problems

pilly wrote:

So we've the death penalty now for robbery?

If there was any justice we would.

.......

This post has been deleted.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

DrWu

What a bizarre thread. Why would anyone want to "get away" with such a thing? If you had no choice but to do it then so be it, but the OP is phrased almost like it would be an opportunity not to be missed!

Junkyard Tom

If any raider broke in I'd lull them into a stupor by playing an hypnotic aboriginal melody on me didgeridoo and if that didn't work I'd cave their fucking skull in with it.

erica74

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Had a lively discussion with some friends lately saying that if they had a gun and happened across an intruder in their house they would pull the trigger no questions asked, its them or me.
But really, could you kill an intruder if you had the means or is that standpoint often just bravado especially for men?
If for the sake of argument you had a choice between killing them and getting away with it or restraining them and handing them over to the cops, what would you do?

I live in a rural area and have a shotgun in my house - owned legally for "vermin";) There have been break ins not far from me over the past number of years and on some occasions, the assholes used weapons against elderly people, which makes me fúcking sick to my stomach.
I have 2 large dogs that always have a lot to say when strangers come near the house, however, I wouldn't allow my dogs come to harm, even though they would defend the house viciously.
If I felt anyone in my house was going to come to physical harm, then yes, the shotgun would be used. However, I would do everything in my power not to kill someone, I'd try to aim for a leg.

Ush1

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If any raider broke in I'd lull them into a stupor by playing an hypnotic aboriginal melody on me didgeridoo and if that didn't work I'd cave their fucking skull in with it.

Is that a euphemism?

Irish Guitarist

Could I feast on his corpse too? If not then I don't see the point in killing him.

Samuel T. Cogley

erica74 wrote: »

I live in a rural area and have a shotgun in my house - owned legally for "vermin";) There have been break ins not far from me over the past number of years and on some occasions, the assholes used weapons against elderly people, which makes me fúcking sick to my stomach.
I have 2 large dogs that always have a lot to say when strangers come near the house, however, I wouldn't allow my dogs come to harm, even though they would defend the house viciously.
If I felt anyone in my house was going to come to physical harm, then yes, the shotgun would be used. However, I would do everything in my power not to kill someone, I'd try to aim for a leg.

Do yourself, us and the genepool in general a favour and aim squarely 'between' their legs.

Reindeer

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Strike first and strike hard. Defence and the Dwelling Act

I have always had issues with home defense laws that state something like(quoting the Irish Act you note above):

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

How am I supposed to know how reasonable a trespasser is? How am I to know how much force he plans to reason upon myself? How do I know if their brains are swimming in krokodil or meth or cocaine or E or cornetto's? Am I supposed to know exactly how much of a fighter or lover this trespasser is and then fight or love them just that much more, making my decision on the spot under a bit of duress?

My main issue here is, if I intend to enter in to a fight, why in the world would I ever wish to enter in to a reasonable fight in my own home or property? That makes no sense at all. The laws' intent and my own should be for me to overwhelmingly prevail over the criminal. This, by essence, means I must take every reasonable care to insure the fight is well in my own favor, and not remotely fair for the criminal. Would I intentionally kill them? I don't know - I am not a doctor, nor a murderer by trade. I mostly spend my time drinking coffee and whinging about the weather. All I know is if the intruder wants to stay for as long as I can swing a bat, he is welcome to it. My every intent is to keep harm away from myself and my family and my coffee and my dogs.

blinding

Reindeer wrote: »

I have always had issues with home defense laws that state something like(quoting the Irish Act you note above):

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

How am I supposed to know how reasonable a trespasser is? How am I to know how much force he plans to reason upon myself? How do I know if their brains are swimming in krokodil or meth or cocaine or E or cornetto's? Am I supposed to know exactly how much of a fighter or lover this trespasser is and then fight or love them just that much more, making my decision on the spot under a bit of duress?

My main issue here is, if I intend to enter in to a fight, why in the world would I ever wish to enter in to a reasonable fight in my own home or property? That makes no sense at all. The laws' intent and my own should be for me to overwhelmingly prevail over the criminal. This, by essence, means I must take every reasonable care to insure the fight is well in my own favor, and not remotely fair for the criminal. Would I intentionally kill them? I don't know - I am not a doctor, nor a murderer by trade. I mostly spend my time drinking coffee and whinging about the weather. All I know is if the intruder wants to stay for as long as I can swing a bat, he is welcome to it. My every intent is to keep harm away from myself and my family and my coffee and my dogs.

Shoot first ask questions later........Well thats how they sorted things out in the cowboy / gangster movies of my youth..... It may be still good advice mind .....

Samuel T. Cogley

Reindeer wrote: »

I have always had issues with home defense laws that state something like(quoting the Irish Act you note above):

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

You and law students everywhere (well everywhere that study Irish criminal law so Ireland then...) who misinterpret it as you have :pac:

Reindeer wrote: »

How am I supposed to know how reasonable a trespasser is? How am I to know how much force he plans to reason upon myself? How do I know if their brains are swimming in krokodil or meth or cocaine or E or cornetto's? Am I supposed to know exactly how much of a fighter or lover this trespasser is and then fight or love them just that much more, making my decision on the spot under a bit of duress?

My main issue here is, if I intend to enter in to a fight, why in the world would I ever wish to enter in to a reasonable fight in my own home or property? That makes no sense at all. The laws' intent and my own should be for me to overwhelmingly prevail over the criminal. This, by essence, means I must take every reasonable care to insure the fight is well in my own favor, and not remotely fair for the criminal. Would I intentionally kill them? I don't know - I am not a doctor, nor a murderer by trade. I mostly spend my time drinking coffee and whinging about the weather. All I know is if the intruder wants to stay for as long as I can swing a bat, he is welcome to it. My every intent is to keep harm away from myself and my family and my coffee and my dogs.

You're not. You're supposed to do what you think is reasonable under the circumstances. You may think all of the above and go screaming at them with a hurley and kill them with one or two blows. Most people would believe, you believed you were acting reasonably, even if they believe hitting someone with a hurling stick is unreasonable.

However hitting them 15 times with machete, 13 of those blows when the guys is on the ground screaming no-more, no more, with his arms hanging off, not so much.

Similarly hitting a 8 year old in the head with a hurley who is nicking apples - again not many people are going to believe that you believed that was reasonable, but you never know!

Reindeer

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You and law students everywhere (well everywhere that study Irish criminal law so Ireland then...) who misinterpret it as you have :pac:



You're not. You're supposed to do what you think is reasonable under the circumstances. You may think all of the above and go screaming at them with a hurley and kill them with one or two blows. Most people would believe, you believed you were acting reasonably, even if they believe hitting someone with a hurling stick is unreasonable.

However hitting them 15 times with machete, 13 of those blows when the guys is on the ground screaming no-more, no more, with his arms hanging off, not so much.

Similarly hitting a 8 year old in the head with a hurley who is nicking apples - again not many people are going to believe that you believed that was reasonable, but you never know!

I made the assumption the intruder was in my house and started a fight. As in my life, or the lives of my family are potentially in danger of being harmed or killed.

If you enter someone's home and commit a criminal act such as this, I personally believe the law should protect the homeowner, not the criminal. Adding "reasonable" puts the onus upon the homeowner, not the criminal. If I want to hit the man 15 times VS 13 with a machete, that is HIS doing, not mine. Because, trust me, I am not counting, nor can I likely even hear what he is saying if I feel I am protecting my life or the life of my family. This isn't some film, or TV show. When you are in a fight for your life, you don't get the chance to sit back and think terribly reasonably. Your brain is full of adrenaline and rage, and all you see is red. I doubt anyone can be reasonable when their life is in danger. Asking for mercy for violent criminals is pandering to ignorance. I would never get the chance to ask a criminal for mercy, as you show in your example. And the law should give criminals no mercy when they threaten the well-being of the law abiding.

Sound Bite

Whether I would "get away with it" or not wouldn't matter, if I thought my life or that of my family was in danger, I would. No hesitation.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

pilly wrote: »

So we've the death penalty now for robbery?

A person/family should be well within their rights to expect to be able to come home, close the door behind them and feel safe and secure. We should have a reasonable expectation of safety and the safety of our property in our own homes. It's not an unreasonable expectation that a person should feel relaxed and comfortable and safe.

When you have somebody who shows blatant disregard for a persons home or safety, such as breaking in (in padraig nallys case multiple times) and leaving a person (especially an elderly person) so in fear that they felt safer sleeping in sheds than they did in their own house, that goes beyond robbery IMO.

I see the arguement "but he had his back turned, he was walking away". This time. He'd ransacked the place before and no doubt he'd have been back to do it again. Is it reasonable to expect an old man to live like that? Being terrorised in your own home?

I don't blame him for shooting the intruder. Actions have consequences and if you're brazen enough to rob and intimidate a man out of his own house into a shed, then the risks that go with that is if someone saw him walking in they might not see him walking out.

You break in to another persons house, you can reasonably assume you may be attacked or killed. If a bit of tacky jewellery or an iPad is worth that risk to your life, crack on I suppose but that decision is resting solely with the robber and not with the victim.

Absolutely not. I don't need more effort loaded onto my life which is exactly what the entire saga afterwards would be.

pragmatic1

Wouldn't fancy having it on my conscience. Nah.

manutd83

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No.

Unless I felt my life or that of my wife or child was in danger.

Otherwise, I'm not killing someone for my DVD player.

What self respecting burglar nowadays takes a dvd player

willmunny1990

I never understood why some people put such value on human life, we're not as special as some like to think, we live and die like everything else.

We raise and kill animals to feed ourselves, kill vermin when they invade our home,hunt for sport (killing for pure pleasure), we do all these things and nobody bats an eye but when it comes to defending yourself, family or property people get an attack of conscience for some reason acting as if life is sacred when in reality its not.

GarIT

I think that the reasonable force laws should be removed, if someone breaks into your home any amount of force should be legal.

If I have a gun and somebody unarmed breaks into my home I should have a right to make them beg for their life and shoot them between the eyes without my motives ever being questioned.

Manic Moran

Reindeer wrote: »

If you enter someone's home and commit a criminal act such as this, I personally believe the law should protect the homeowner, not the criminal. Adding "reasonable" puts the onus upon the homeowner, not the criminal. If I want to hit the man 15 times VS 13 with a machete, that is HIS doing, not mine.

Not a huge amount. Irish jurisprudence giv s the homeowner a fair bit of leeway on that reasonable standard. From the Court of Criminal Appeals in Barnes

at it would be observed that the statutory formula itself partakes of both a subjective element - force “such as is reasonable in the circumstances as her or she perceives them to be…” and an objective element - the provisions of s.1(2) of the 1997 Act which require a court or jury to have regard to the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the belief that the level of force used was no more than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances. But it must always be borne in mind that the burglar must take the occupant as he finds him and that in many cases it will in practice take the deployment of grossly disproportionate force, or evidence of actual malice (as in the well known Martin case in Great Britain) to fix the householder with liability. He or she has, after all, been deliberately subjected to an experience which will shock even the most robust and might make many irrational with terror.

Manic Moran

Double post

jeff bingham

90 year old man taken to hospital with head injury after break in in Roscrea last night.
Somehow doubt it was the 1st or last break in for the scum who did it.
I just hope the next person he tries to rob is armed....

Winterlong

jeff bingham wrote: »

90 year old man taken to hospital with head injury after break in in Roscrea last night.
Somehow doubt it was the 1st or last break in for the scum who did it.
I just hope the next person he tries to rob is armed....

You would need to be some low bred scummer to hit a person of that age.