Attempted burglary Aghamore shooting

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376654#Comment_122376654

It could possibly be

Kaybaykwah

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122374384#Comment_122374384

Yes, but you’re nice enough to chat up…

Kaybaykwah

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122374419#Comment_122374419

The driver of that van could easily have ended up "Holyhead". Lol

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376650#Comment_122376650

Your citizens arrest is foolproof

Is shooting a stolen van even a crime, I feel it was a balanced response

Large bottle small glass

The farmer is in much worse position today than yesterday.

Once these gangs have you on there mailing list they keep coming.

I've had a few encounters over the years with this type of crew; usually in winter time at night. I've had the gun out twice, it seems a useful deterrent for a while before they seem to drift back to their regular routes.

The trick seems to be letting them know you have a gun and you might be just mad enough to use; but you don't ever want to or you don't want to be heard threatening to use it.

Saying that the night a jeep pulled in the gate at midnight I wasn't thinking rationally as I chased them up the the road. Hard to make good decisions when your blood is full of stress hormones and your heart rate and BP are through the roof. Thankfully we parted company when I less than calmly explained my rifle capacity was a bigger number than their group size.

I didn't see any of them for a few years after but your sleep isn't quite as peaceful knowing they might be calling. It's a scourge in rural areas to be honest.

PastaPizzas

Culture, boss.

Galwayguy35

These scumbags have no fear of the Gardai or the courts so its not surprising when someone takes the law into their own hands.

Clo-Clo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376748#Comment_122376748

When the Gardai stop these scumbags they end up in court and potentially jail themselves

We have ended up complaining about the Gardai but when they do their job we complain about them as well. How many videos online do you see of d**kheads shouting abuse at Gardai and they can do nothing?

It's time we gave the power back to the Gardai.

PastaPizzas

Knackers should be rounded up and dealt with.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376650#Comment_122376650

Well not necessarily. The existing jurisprudence was written into statute in the 2011 Act as mentioned above. Technically it didn't really change the position, but putting it on a statutory footing did make it clearer. It also explicitly says that there is no obligation to retreat. Although it appears to allow honest belief as a defence when fatal force is used. In general, as also mentioned above, honest belief is not enough for cases of fatal self defence but it is for non-fatal. It's quite a short Act if you would like to read it:

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/35/enacted/en/print

Regarding your comparison between holding the man at gunpoint vs firing at a van when he wasn't in it, I think the latter would be seen as less serious. In this case, it appears to have worked. The man was in his 60's and may not have had the training or skill that you possess to be able to control a situation where it was highly likely that transport containing additional criminals would arrive before the Gardai.

Slightly Kwackers

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122374932#Comment_122374932

Do they not rely on the mobile vans these days?

It seems pointless to tie up guards clocking speeders if there is less risk just taking a photo or whatever they do.

Things are looking up on the roads, I went into town adhering to the speed limits all the way yesterday and wasn't overtaken at all.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122375690#Comment_122375690

What does your last sentence mean?

arctictree

Why aren't lads with multiple burglary convictions just electronically tagged like in other countries? We have the technology.

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376792#Comment_122376792

We need to build more prisons too. Ideally with more than enough room to house them for their full sentence term and have capacity for all their pals/kin/colleagues to join them.

Clo-Clo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122377378#Comment_122377378

Can't put peopel in prisons when everyone says they are lovely people

Every single scumbag drug dealer is described as a lovely person and a lovely family

A clown speeding in a car and killing himself and 3 others is a thread on here full of excuses

Problem here is Irish mentality of the "cute hooer" etc……scumbags are scumbags, stop making excuses for them

whisky_galore

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122377157#Comment_122377157

Yes but the bleeding hearts and Sybil Liberdees groups would be jumping up and down over it.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122377084#Comment_122377084

They are super anal about it...

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122378001#Comment_122378001

Gun safety? Isn't that a good thing?

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122378027#Comment_122378027

Are you just looking to point out the obvious or are you confused or what

People accidentally shoot themselves and others all the time…

This is why responsible gun owners are so anal about gun etiquette

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122378049#Comment_122378049

I'm wondering about your motivation as to why you are using the word Nazi when describing responsible gun owners who are taking precautions to ensure they and others don't get shot? Seems strange.

Donald Trump

Any truth to the rumour that that was Padraig Nally's John Deere in the background? Maybe he thought he was being robbed again. Seems a bit too big of a machine for a Mayo man though.

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376927#Comment_122376927

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122377378#Comment_122377378

Sure ,no problem.Would you like a 5 to 10% income tax hike to pay for all this? Like the overcosting and over time estimate to deliver of the project by 100% as seems to happen with most govt/private partnership projects in Ireland? Then to pay for the Warders, medical staff, etc etc you need to staff and run these multiple jails?

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122376927#Comment_122376927

Yes indeed it does say this.BUT point is,are you willing to bet your farm and freedom a judge, jury and State prosecutor is going to see it that way when it involves material possessions? Stuff can be insured and replaced, human life is not so much. Sure, you might be 100% in the right with the law,but its going to need a trial to prove this, whenever that might be with our judicial systems and backlogs. Meantime you and your family are now going to be in the glare of full media attention as the "farmer who shot an ethnic minority member of the travelling community while going about his legal business of robbing the place!" You are going to be under extreme emotional and mental pressure from this trauma,you are going to find out real quick who your friends are and those who will run a mile from knowing you. Your shooting irons are gone for the duration of the trial, and will be a job to get them back too even if you are declared 100% innocent, so what are you going to use for defence if said ethnic minority decide to come back for some retribution?

Firing at a fleeing van…Where was the threat to the man's life at this point? They are "Fleeing" the scene so the threat is minimal to non-existent to justify the use of deadly force,unless they were deliberately trying to run him down or were waving a firearm out the window at him? Be the first question I would be asking as the prosecution.

Having had a bit of experience of these cases in Ireland,i can tell you it is a case of playing 3-dimensional chess, blindfolded in a tumble dryer. Not one self-defence case especially using weapons of all sorts is the same as the next. What you think might be a utter guilty case can be decided on as justified and one that is seemingly clear cut as the self-defence has the defendant going down for a stretch.

Things like; defining reasonable [and justifiable] force IE proportionality esp when using deadly force definitions of this in the law so even brandishing a firearm might be seen as excessive force in this case.

To conclude. What I'm saying is this.IF you are going to use a gun for self-defence in Ireland for your property or yourself and family.You need to sit down and THINK, long& hard of the consequences, the legal implications and ramifications to you and yours long before you get to the point of having to drop the hammer on someone breaking into your house or property. This involves also going to have a chat with a lawyer who has some specialist knowledge in both firearms law and self-defence and ignoring the bar stool and internet experts or even some lawyers like former lawyer Joe Biden, whose advice of "firing a shotgun through the door " is going to get you in VERY serious trouble.I wont even go into what sort of training you need just to be able to use a firearm effectively in a home defence situation and that most firearms in Ireland are useless if not downright dangerous for home defence in reality.No wonder using a firearm for self-defence is called in the gravest extreme for a good reason.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122380356#Comment_122380356

Well I couldn't really do much more than skim that rant. The law is the law and judges implement the law. If the law allows you to use reasonable force as you honestly believe - up to and including fatal force - to protect your dwelling then that is the law. A judge cannot say "well actually you were within your legal rights to do this but I don't like the law so I'm going to convict you anyway".

As for "fleeing van" now you are making stuff up. Nobody every mentioned any van fleeing. In this case the man fired at the van, perhaps to disable it, or perhaps just to frighten them, while the thieves were trying to pack stuff in the back. Quite a smart move - as evidenced by the fact that they were not able to make good their getaway in said van. Far smarter than the post I was responding to - which I presume you are supporting given your rant against my response - which suggested it would be preferable to have confronted the first man and held him at gunpoint and took the chance on an unknown number of his buddies arriving at any point - who themselves might have been armed. So I would not be taking your advice or advising anyone else to pay it much heed. There was a man in the news last year (case pending who did directly confront intruders to his land and we all know how that ended.

Eudaimonia

I’m not one for conspiracies but the attempt on here to move the dial from international issues to domestic crime is irritating me. The other thread that comes to mind amongst others is the cocaine destroying rural Ireland thread.

Do the crime aficionados on here think moving the attention of posters way from far more pressing and dangerous concerns away from international issues to domestic ones will succeed? It’s like comparing the danger of a chihuahua to a Rottweiler. One is isolated and on a micro level the other is far more existential and larger.

Finally, it appears to me the SF supporters on here seem to think their love affair with crime and the rogue like spirit of Irish criminals compares to international crime. It pales in comparison and doesn’t legislate for the gulf in danger between the two. That’s not to say some or many of them are involved in international crime but when it hits state level like in the case of Hamas and Israel it rings alarm bells.

I wish said posters across many threads would desist with their macho attempts to portray the Irish crime as somewhat comparable to international crime.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122380356#Comment_122380356

You are incorrect in your interpretation of the law if I remember right. Pursuit is allowed. There was a case about ten years ago where a hone owner pursued a thief and beat the crap out of him with a golf club. The gardai charged him with assault but the judge ruled he was covered but the 2011 act. Not only was non retreat allowed but pursuit to recover property was allowed

Witcher

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122381123#Comment_122381123

There was no such case.

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122380537#Comment_122380537

As for "fleeing van" now you are making stuff up. Nobody every mentioned any van fleeing. In this case the man fired at the van, perhaps to disable it, or perhaps just to frighten them, while the thieves were trying to pack stuff in the back.

That is called "Reckless discharge of a firearm" under Irish law and is punishable by 18 months or an 8thousand euro fine. You do not discharge firearms as a frightener or a threat as it is use of deadly force, operative word "deadly" IOW the threat has to be grave and no other option that your or yours is under immediate and deadly intent of harm. Any prosecutor will simply say"so you feared for your life and belived deadly harm was going to be used against you,Why didnt you shoot to kill then? as it obviously wasnt that a serious a situation that you believe a "warning shot" was justified?"

Really??? Explain please Don where was the use of deadly force was justified in shooting at the van fleeing or not. Which BTW has been reported as such since they drove away from the crime scene until the van gave out from the gunshot. One shot was aimed directly into the drivers side of the windscreen. It would have been a killing shot if he had been using heavier shots like 00 or 000 buckshot. Where was the threat to this man's life that required such action?

The law is the law and judges implement the law. If the law allows you to use reasonable force as you honestly believe - up to and including fatal force - to protect your dwelling then that is the law. A judge cannot say "Well actually you were within your legal rights to do this but I don't like the law so I'm going to convict you anyway".

Correct ,but he also has to judge on the evidence provided by both parties and what happened at the time. First question that you obviously missed in my post you "skimmed over"is to define" reasonable/ justifiable force" in this case. Is someone using reasonable or excessive force in firing two shots into a vehicle to stop the theft of their property? One clearly intended to incapacitate the driver and the second to disable the vehicle. That is what the crux of a self-defence argument is here,add onto this can he claim he was in fear of his life when he fired these two shots and would any "reasonable person" be acting the same manner .On the outside of this case it looks like no he wasn't in fear of his life, wasn't being threatened and these people were leaving the scene of the crime. Hard to justify self-defence IMO

But hey,maybe you are some hotshot lawyer who deals with this kind of cases on a day-to-day basis in Ireland. So maybe you can explain how reasonable or excessive force is defined in an Irish court? Because if you can then I'll hire you as my personal legal brief as you have cracked the legal point of ambiguity that has plagued these cases for years.

I would not be taking your advice or advising anyone else to pay it much heed. There was a man in the news last year (case pending who did directly confront intruders to his land and we all know how that ended.

Well you would be pretty much a dumbass to take anyone's advice off the internet. Another point you missed while "skimming over my rant".I did say if you intend to use a gun for self-defence to go and get lawyered up on the law and the consequences of using potentially deadly force when you decide to go play Rambo.

As for that case you allude to. Boards.ie rules prohibit us from commenting on current cases before the courts for fear of prejudicing the outcome by media commentary[Yes Boards is considerd such].So lets leave that one out of it until it is dealt with by the courts.

Manic Moran

Grizzly's position seems to be most correct. Though there may be a matter in application, however, I'm less convinced by his exhortations against the use of a firearm as a matter of law.

The Defence of the Dwelling Act largely codifies the judicial opinion of Judge Hardiman in DPP vs Barnes about five years prior. There are a few tweaks, for example the act specifically includes some exterior areas adjacent to the dwelling, but overall, the verbiage is very similar to that used in the court case. One item which is identical is that the standard is not "reasonable force", but instead "reasonable as the person deemed it to be", but this was expanded upon in Barnes more than the Act does. Judge Hardiman observed that the position of the homeowner is not that of a juror making a calm assessment after the fact, and that the burglar "must take the homeowner as he finds him." He goes on to explain that a person is not likely to be thinking particularly rationally when faced with a malfeasant and that it would take evidence of actual malice to fix the homeowner with culpability. So if the homeowner happened, for whatever reason, to have a firearm to hand at the time, there seems little, per se, to affix particular blame just because he used a firearm.

However, Grizzly is, of course, also entirely correct that each case is taken on its individual merits. One thing which is different between Barnes and a the Act is the the Act specifically authorizes the use of force to protect property (this was not addressed in Barnes), so the mere fact that the van was fleeing need not make it an open and shut case. Plus the fact that the hole is in the direct front of the van's hood may also bring to question the direction the van was fleeing in. There are so many variables, as he points out, it's going to take a full "report" at least, if not trial, to know whether or not the man was legally "right".

sock.rocker*

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122377378#Comment_122377378

Billions in surplus. The best thing the state could possibly spend that on would be around 20,000 new prison beds, effectively multiplying the current capacity by 5x / 6x. Mandatory five years minimum for any violent crime, and life in prison for repeat offenders.

My mother lives alone in the countryside and has had people scouting the place out to rob. She spent a fortune on alarms and cameras and lives there in fear of something happening.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122382055#Comment_122382055

This case is unlikely to go to court. The precedence of the Nally case as well as the case of the bike delivery lad who was charged with murder in Dubin over a year ago. In both cases the jury delivered not guilty verdicts.

Yes if he had ammunition for the shotgun that required a permit he may be charged with that. However it is quite possible he could have had a permit for it for deer which are quite prevalent in Mayo.

It's immaterial whether the van was fleeing or not they were loading possessions belonging to him into there van. He fired shots to get them to cease and desist.

I would consider it reasonable for a 62 year old lone person faced with two probably young hefty type individuals to act first and ask questions after.

If he gave warning ( and we cannot be sure he did not) or did not in a jury member mind would it be reasonable for him to use the shotgun to prevent these individuals from stealing his property.

The DPP has lost all similar type cases this is not going to court unless over the ammunition not over the actions of the farmer especially when the two robbers were not carried out in body bags and probably not even if.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122382346#Comment_122382346

It won't be going to court, because what would he be charged with? Criminal damage? Are the injured parties going to make a statement of complaint? I doubt it!

Unless he has committed some minor offence under the firearms acts, he won't be going to court. He won't see the firearm back though, I'd be fairly sure

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122382653#Comment_122382653

The gun was seized as part of the investigation. However unless he is convicted of an offense there is no reason he cannot apply for it back. If refused he can challenge that. If he challenges it he get it back IMO

Grizzly 45

Reckless discharge of a firearm is NOT a minor matter under the firearms act .It's taken seriously by AGS and there are numerous prosecutions of it too.

Charges He could face,

Reckless discharge of a firearm with intent to endanger life.Possible attempted manslaughter charge firing at the driver.Going by the shot into the radiatior and type of liscense he posses for the firearm a possible charge of possession of restricted ammonium (shotgun slugs).Use of unwarranted excessive force.

Yes,it is very open for those two to make a formal complaint to AGS on his actions in the fact that they feared for their lives.AGS would be duty bound to investigate any such formal complaint to see if charges are warranted or not.

Whether he is liscensed again ,will be up to his local garda Superintendent,but you are more than likely right,he will bemore than likely revoked.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122382060#Comment_122382060

Grizzly's position seems to be most correct.

No. You'd be best advised ignoring those posts - especially given his own projections about "barstool lawyers". He is focused in on firearms legislation when it was already made clear at the start of the thread that people were talking about the self-defence aspect and that firearms themselves were additional and separate.

If I am walking down the street, I see you, a random person, and I suddenly pull a knife and stab you in the leg with it, then there are a number of charges which I could be charged with in relation to that act of stabbing. for example, Section 3 assault causing harm. However, if it is you that randomly attacks me and I pull out that knife and stab you in order to save myself, I will not be done for assault causing harm etc. That does not mean I could not be done for carrying the knife without a lawful reason. The point being that the legality of the source of the force used is not considered with considering the self defence aspect.

This particular back-and-forth started when I pointed out that it was entirely incorrect to imply that the court would not allow self defence when there was only "material possessions" at risk. That is wrong and no amount of ranting changes that. The standard is subjective rather than objective and is not directly related to the items or persons being defended. The force you use has to be reasonable as you believe it to be. The belief itself does not have to be objectively reasonably, it merely has to be honestly held. However , as my old criminal law lecturer used to reiterate over and over, the more objectively reasonable a belief is, the more likely it is honestly held.

To illustrate the above, suppose your neighbour is regularly moving your bins 1' to the side to piss you off, and you lay in wait for him one night and batter him unconscious with a hurley. You would have not have to convince the court that what you did was objectively reasonable, you have to convince the court that you honestly believed it was reasonable. It would obviously be more difficult to do that for something that was objectively unreasonable. But, in theory, if you could prove to the court that you honestly believed it was reasonable for you to batter him unconscious, then you would be found not guilty. So the only way the "material possessions" comes into play is indirectly in determining whether you honestly believed your actions were reasonable. Disabling a van and frightening away thieves would be something that would not be difficult to convince a court that you honestly believed were reasonable acts to protect your property from being stolen. Your method of doing so might cause other issues, but as said above in this post, and earlier in the thread, those are separate issues.

As an aside, and back to his posts, as already pointed out the "fleeing" part of "fleeing van" is something he made up and inserted himself.

What I would say is particularly troublesome is his support of the advice that it would have been better to confront the first thief and hold him at gunpoint. It is troublesome from a practical common-sense point of view alone. He may see himself as a cross between Charles Bronson and Batman, but it is quite silly advice from someone who appears to give advice to those trying to fill out firearm licence applications. Especially given the person in this case appears to have been an older man. I did refer to an incident - not to discuss details or legalities of that case - but just to highlight that when a firearm is pointed at someone, death is not an impossibility. It could be the thief or it could be the owner of the gun. So it is quite foolish advice from a common sense perspective.

What I will add finally, and it is something I already said above, in general, for self defence, belief that force used is reasonable is what is under S18 of the 1997 Not Fatal Offences against the person Act. But in the case of fatal self defence, the standard is "necessary" rather than belief it was reasonable. However, if you kill someone, and you honestly believed you were using reasonable force, but it was not necessary to use that force, you won't be done for murder but you could be done for manslaughter.

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122382346#Comment_122382346

Nally is a very bad case to use in self defence arguements,as Nally admitted to and was convicted for using excessive force on Ward after he had shot him [in the back] while fleeing his property.Like the Tony Martins case in the UK, despite Martins having an unlicensed shotgun he was done for excessive force and manslaughter for shooting three travellers in his house as they were fleeing the premises. What Nally's case did however give us was an Irish version of the Castle doctrine which codified the situation where as stated there is no duty to retreat and you can use force to defend life and property.BUT it is not a shoot-to-kill liscense as some think it is. As for the bike courier in Dublin George Bento,totally different case to theft of property it was a self defence

An acquittal on a murder charge on the basis of a defence of self-defence is rare and, as with every criminal prosecution, much depends on the factual scenario of an individual case.

Self-defence can be either a full defence to a murder charge, leading to acquittal, or a partial defence that, if accepted, results in a verdict of manslaughter.

When an accused raises a defence of self-defence, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove that on the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

If a jury finds the prosecution has proven that an accused knew the force they used in response to an unlawful attack was disproportionate to the attack, and that a reasonable person would also consider the force excessive, that is murder.

If a jury finds the prosecution has failed to prove that an accused did not honestly believe that the force they used was necessary for self-defence, but has proven that a reasonable person would consider the force used was disproportionate, that is manslaughter.

An acquittal arises when a jury finds the prosecution has failed to prove that an accused did not honestly believe the force they used in response to an unlawful attack was necessary for self-defence and has also failed to prove that a reasonable person would not have reached the same conclusion.

So there is an entire legal minefield there. That is going to involve a jury trial and your life being turned upside down because you decided to use a gun in the spur of the moment?IS that stuff you have been stolen worth that much hassle to you?

Shotgun slugs require a restricted liscense to possess and use, and they are prohibited for hunting deer under the Wildlife Act 1976 in Ireland. So they can only be used for target shotgun competitions on approved ranges. So if this was a slug that was used a case could also be made that he was premeditating using one in a situation like this by acquiring such.

Cease and desist and giving warnings…was he an armed Garda officer in the course of his duties? A civilian is not required to fire warning shots for a start,and even AGS is on VERY shakey ground doing that,as again the defence will question the use of leathl force and why you considerd those shots as warnings necessary,and where did you fire them?up in the air, into the ground at their feet etc.From the pictures of the van they were frontal shots and one was clearly fired at the drivers side windscreen The slug or very close birdshotshot into the van engine compartment would be justifiable,more or less,but deliberately shooting at the driver is one that needs explaining.

You and I might consider it a reasonable action of a 62-year-old man. [Not exactly a frail age these days either.] But will a guy in a wig and 12 good men and women, consider it as such on weighing up the evidence presented to them? Esp if they hear the sob stories from the poor innocent travellers from the witness box going about their ethnic minority traditions of stealing stuff from farmers.

Lets wait and see if it does or does not warrant a file to the DPP.Because it is they who decide on the reports from AGS as to whether there is a charge answeravle or not.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122382762#Comment_122382762

Wont happen, imo

Grizzly 45

Hopefully not.But lets wait and see.

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122382775#Comment_122382775

Not even going to bother going into this utter lunacy posing as legal wisdom .Except to say it certainly proves the adage a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122383291#Comment_122383291

Not as dangerous as zero knowledge though. Which is what you have displayed.

Do not take this as an invitation to debate. There is a reason why I did not respond to your "bar stool" rants. It is not a debate. I only deal in facts. Not your feelings on how you think things are or should be.

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122383295#Comment_122383295

Yeh,coming from an internet expert lawyer like yourself thats a compliment. Have you any actual legal training?

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122383303#Comment_122383303

A little bit of knowledge for you regarding your claim that

An acquittal on a murder charge on the basis of a defence of self-defence is rare

https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/first-murder-case-defended-defence-dwelling-act-ends-acquittal

given we are talking about that Act I presume you aren't talking about general cases

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122383219#Comment_122383219

Nally was acquitted. The judge I think it was Carney refused to allow the jury to acquit in the first case he only left the options of murder and manslaughter open to the jury. This was overturned on appeal and Nally was acquitted at the retrial which was moved to Dublin to try to get a conviction.

The judge did his best to get Nally convicted but failed. No jury of 12 will convict in such a situation. There may not acquit but they will no convict.

The George Bento was a hot pursuit case. The parties were trying to recover a stolen bike and were attacked by his friends. The prosecution tried to push the narrative that he was not entitled to pursue as the bike was not his and because he had a knife with him it's showed intent.

The jury bought neither fairy tale from the prosecution.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122383303#Comment_122383303

You are the one quoting legislation without understanding what legislation is applicable

Grizzly 45

Well all I can say to you two "Go **** around and find out!"If you think all these are simple cut and dried black-and-white issues.Because you two have a LOT to learn of what happens in real life in a courtroom and in real life shots fired .I've only been involved in 3 such cases in Ireland,so sorry my "rants" and contrarian opinion and experiance dont count for anything in your eyes.

Deebles McBeebles

I'm well-versed in bird law if anyone needs me.

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122383313#Comment_122383313

Your point being? You are just still proving my point of the variations and possible outcomes in these cases and that you dont seem to understand the difference,yet of using deadly force in a case of burglary and the defence of the person as the above posted link. If you are a lawyer,you should know no matter what,going into a courtroom is still a 50/50 option of you winning or losing no matter how good your case might be or how well you know the law.

Also, ask Bento if his actions were worth the consequences of what happened to his life in the aftermath?

Quitelife

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122382757#Comment_122382757

Its a medal this farmer should get facing these evil travelling criminals the lowest of the low!

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122387444#Comment_122387444

Look, I'm not bothered with this any more. It has been explained to you already. The 2011 Act is not a licence to kill - you appear to be trying to create the strawman that others are saying it is. Nobody is saying that.

If you wish to question anything that I have posted, you may ask a specific question and I will give you a source.

If you want, in return, you can try to provide an authority for your assertions regarding material possessions - as the rebuttal of that assertion appears to have been what annoyed you the most. Note though that that any such "authority" will conflict with S2(i)(b)(ii) of the above Act which explicitly provides for the defence of property (And also S2(i)(b)(iii) which pertains to the prevention of the commission of any crime generally). I have already explained that the nature of what was at risk will come into things indirectly when a defendant is trying to convince the court that they believed their actions were reasonable when they committed them.

Grizzly 45

Look, I'm not bothered with this any more. It has been explained to you already. The 2011 Act is not a licence to kill - you appear to be trying to create the strawman that others are saying it is. Nobody is saying that.

Neither am I or ever did.Maybe you need to read peoples posts rather than just "skimming over their rants" perhaps? I simply stated that IF you intend to use deadly force in any circumstances have a plan and know the damn law on self-defence and protection of property.Simply because and others here are interpretating that its ok to shoot or beat the crap out of people that are stealing your stuff is okey dokey because there is an act that says so.

You chose to ignore the facts that claiming self-defence is [1] A tough sell in an Irish court as the argument of reasonable and proportional force is not defined in law when it is about you defending your own self,not minding your possessions.

[2] Evidence of the case will decide how and where the law is applicable. If you were to use your cut-and-dried interpretation of the law.I could go out and batter a bunch of drunk teens to death in the street with a pick handle because they stole my garden ornaments for a laugh when they were drunk one Saturday night. I was in pursuit of my stolen property and feared for my life as the teens told me to "fuk off home granddad or we'll wet you" and it transpired later one of them did have a blade on them,butit was discoverd it only after I fractured his skull with the pickaxe handle? Do you think my lawyer quoting the act on "defence of property" is going to convince a jury let alone the judge of my innocence?

[3] Define the "defence of property" in the act. Its ambiguous at best.Same as "reasonable force" Does it say you have the right to persue persons who are helping themselves to your stuff? How far can you pursue them?To the extent of your property boundary? Onto a public road?How far down that road? Can I rig up a shotgun with a tripwire to cover an open window in my house when I go out to town as I am defending my property?

If you wish to question anything that I have posted, you may ask a specific question and I will give you a source.

Thanks,but if I need a proper interpretation of the law I'll email my qualified lawyer or barrister and ask them, not some random person on an internet chat group called "Donald Trump."…No offence.

Heckler

Where a person will get into serious trouble also is the access to their firearms. I own a rifle and a pistol. If i'm woken in the middle of the night by some noise or whathave you, groggy, afraid etc. access isn't fast even if it was an option I'd consider. To orientating myself, getting my safe keys, turning off the house/gun safe alarm, opening it, opening the separate lock box for slide/bolt, loading a magazine and readying a firearm while trying not to piss myself and get hurt/robbed in the meantime ?.….Ain't happening. House alarm fob has a big red button that activates a silent alarm directly to the Guards. Little solace if someones already in the house but hopefully the blaring alarm would already send them off.

If I decided to sleep with a loaded firearm on the bedside locker and ended up using it then I would have some serious explaining to do. Even a non fatal discharge would possibly be prison for violating all the clauses on the license conditions and never being allowed to have a firearm again.

I have absolutely zero compassion or sympathy for anyone who intrudes on a persons home or property with bad intent getting messed up but would hate to see any kind of US style of gun ownership becoming the norm here. Anyone here can rightly apply for a firearm licence with just cause as over 250,000 (well a bit less, with many having multiples) have. I think we pretty much strike a good balance although I disagree with a lot of the legislation. CF pistol ban apart from grandfathering/mag plugs etc, etc.

I think a previous poster when they mentioned Nazis as regard gun etiquette meant it in a good way as in safety on irish ranges, definitely any iv'e been to it is always paramount. Seen people put off ranges for poor discipline and rightly so. Its the reason its the safest sport in the country and we should be proud of that.