Should we be allowed to use force to protect our homes?

the_syco

Linkie

LONDON (Reuters) - Householders should be allowed to use extreme force to protect themselves against intruders even if it results in the death of a burglar, senior police chief Sir John Stevens has been quoted as saying.

So... should we be allowed todefend ourselves. Too often, if the buglar gets hurt when robbing the house, the house owner, by law, is @ fault, and must pay the burgular compansation. Should this happen? Should we not only fear being burgulared, but also fear a lawsuit if we try to defend our property?

Or should we be abe to use "reasonable force" to stop them? And "reasonable force" would be kicking the **** out of the burgular while they're in the house.

joejoem

yes. Definitly yes. Of course in this country the law protects the criminal, they have learnt to twist the laws to suit themselves. We need a reformation of our laws. Im not saying you should be allowed murder someone like texas law, but if someone broke into my house in the middle of the night and I was protecting a wife or child and hit them with a bat or club, I would not like to get sued. This person is breaking the law and by being on my property is threatening me and my family, it should be self defence. I would feel bad if he died, however that should be punishment enough, it is not premeditated.

Blisterman

Yeah I agree. Reasonable force though, not just walking in and shooting the guy.

pwd

We are, in all practicality, already allowed to. you can say the burgular attacked you and you were forced to torture him to death in self-defence. It's your word against the reputation of a proven criminal. You will be let off.

In Waterford, I heard that a bunch of students chased after someone who robbed their house and knocked him about with hurls. Apparently the policeman who dealt with the issue said well done to them for it.

In theory, the law is that you can only ask someone to leave if they are burgularing you and not posing a threat to your person. If they attack you you can use reasonable force to protect yourself. If they enter your bedroom, they are consdiered a threat to your person, and you may use reasonable force without them attacking you first.

JackKelly

Yes.Of course, without a doubt, necessary force should be allowed.As said, not to the extent of death though. What is the law as a matter of intrest? We should just stand there and wait for the police to arrive and not intervene?

joejoem

what I would like to do if there was a burgaler (not the hamburger kind) is go town to the stereo and put on something intimidating like the black rebel motercycle club - love hurts, and crank it up and turn on the lights. When they turn around they see the door locked and four of you standing there with swords and iorn bars. Your fukced lads, your absolutly fukced

Blisterman

What if he had a gun?

seamus

TimAy wrote:

What is the law as a matter of intrest? We should just stand there and wait for the police to arrive and not intervene?

Afaik, there's nothing in law giving any any kind of rights as regards protection of their property, but I could be wrong.

Legally, you should only use force where you believe your life/health, or another person's life is in danger. Which is a reasonable belief if an intruder is in your home, regardless of their actual intent.
The force is supposed to be reasonable, but nobody seems to know what reasonable means. In fact, you have a duty to prove that the force was reasonable - it's automatically assumed any force was unreasonable until proven otherwise. This means that by pointing out an alternative action that could have been taken, a barrister/solicitor can decimate your argument and have you thrown in the slammer.

I'm not sure what the best course of action is. Obviously nobody should be liable if someone injures themselves in a person's home. That should apply across the spectrum, not just for criminals. It's just common sense.

But as for allowing "any force", I'm not sure. It would just mean that burglars would become more desperate, will do more to defend themselves if they're discovered, and will probably start carrying weapons to defend themselves.

In the US, people who wield guns for protection, more often than not have the weapon turned and used against them by their assailant.

I'd like to se legislation cover homeowners for any kind of force, so long as it doesn't leave the assailant permanently crippled or dead (that is intentionally - if a person breaks a guys legs in self defence, and this causes complications with another medical issue that leaves the burglar permanently crippled, then tough **** really). If it does, then they should have to justify their used force.

rickdangerous

Its quite simple, if someone unlawfully breaks into your property with the intention of committing a crime you should have the right to savagely beat him/her to death with a golf club-no questions asked. Criminals have too many "rights" these days
Everyone where I live (in the country,near a major town) knows the guards like to pick up local drug dealers and smack em around a bit.As far as I'm concerned this sort of thing should be encouraged

Bass.exe

You should be allowed to incapacitate them, at the very least.
Killing is a bit extreme, but if it happened while in serious personal jeopardy, then it should be ok. I mean, if someone attacks you with a knife, and you stab them and kill them, would you not agree that that is "Se Defendo"?

Chad ghostal

rickdangerous wrote:

Its quite simple, if someone unlawfully breaks into your property with the intention of committing a crime you should have the right to savagely beat him/her to death with a golf club-no questions asked. Criminals have too many "rights these days"

i agree with the above. apart from the no questions asked bit, As long as you can Prove they were breaking in etc etc then bat away.

D!ve^Bomb!

joejoem wrote:

it should be self defence. I would feel bad if he died.

i wouldn't

Capt'n Midnight

pwd wrote:

In theory, the law is that you can only ask someone to leave if they are burgularing you and not posing a threat to your person. If they attack you you can use reasonable force to protect yourself. If they enter your bedroom, they are consdiered a threat to your person, and you may use reasonable force without them attacking you first.

Could you not make a citizens arrest instead of asking them to leave, on the grounds of tresspass (in case they haven't used forceable entry or haven't picked up anything yet). Now the question is - what resonable force would you be entitled to use if the attempt to resist or attempt to leave the scene of the crime ?

seamus

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Could you not make a citizens arrest instead of asking them to leave, on the grounds of tresspass (in case they haven't used forceable entry or haven't picked up anything yet). Now the question is - what resonable force would you be entitled to use if the attempt to resist or attempt to leave the scene of the crime ?

None. A citizen's arrest does not confer any rights of seizure, capture or search on the arrester.

Rattlor

If a burglar enters your home, you should be allowed to kill them. Why not? It's their choice. Stay away if they don't want to take the risk.
The right to protect my home and family at all costs is something I feel very strongly about.

mad m

Yup i suppose if the Burgulars knew that they had a chance of being killed while in a house,they might think otherwise...But i suppose running across a busy road you could be killed also but many people still do it....

Im all for doing the Pigs in if they set a toe inside someones house!Especially mine.

Blisterman

Do you mean the burglers or the police.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

seamus wrote:

None. A citizen's arrest does not confer any rights of seizure, capture or search on the arrester.

what (if any) use is it then?

mad m

Blisterman wrote:

Do you mean the burglers or the police.

you know what i mean.. :rolleyes:

Canis Lupus

i reckon once a person steps onto/into yur property they should be considered fair game with exception of killing said person unless the situation demanded it. I believe the criminal should have no legal rights against the homeowner in terms of suing for damages etc.

Jeez did u see in the paper the other day where an 18 year old walked out infront of a car over in England, was knocked down and killed. The inquiry cleared the driver over any wrongdoing (fault of kid) and then the driver sued the parents of the child (under some home & contents insurance or some **** as kid was living at home) for emotional stress and the parents had to settle out of court. I personally think that to be one of the lowest things I have ever heard one person do to another......

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote:

None. A citizen's arrest does not confer any rights of seizure, capture or search on the arrester.

so a citizens arrest is of no use since the person you are trying to arrest can simply walk away...

http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6327
CRIMINAL LAW ACT, 1997 SECTION 4

seems like a starting point for a bit more research on needed

Naos

yup, pretty low all right lupis.

As for main topic, I agree with most of the above, only taking out the unneccesary killing comments. Couldnt you claim 'temporary insanity' if you killed a burglar though? If you see someone standing over your kids bed holding a knife, you will not think about holding him down, maternal/paternal instincts and adreniline would kick in and you would "go for the kill" ..

Reminds me of that Old man in england who was jailed for shooting + killing one of these scumbags who kept breaking into his house..

elivsvonchiaing

I think in the absence of a gunholders licence more or less anything goes - so long as your not a nut who bludgeons someone to death after pathologists can determine they were already down!

Gunholders should simply ensure that I'm not there to egg them on!

Musashi

"Limerick man was protecting family, court hears

A Limerick father-of-five, who was trying to protect his family, shot three men outside his home killing one of them, a court heard earlier today.

Christopher McCormack, (aged 44) from Byrne Avenue, Prospect Limerick, admitted at Limerick Circuit Court yesterday to shooting 29-year-old David Noonan in the back outside his home four years ago.

The court also heard that the accused had injured Derek Hayes, (aged 36), and had shot dead Billy Power who was aged 29 at the time, in the same incident.

However, The DPP instructed that no charges be brought against Mr McCormack in relation to the shooting of Hayes and Power, the court heard.

Mr McCormack pleaded guilty today to assaulting David Noonan, causing him harm at Byrne Avenue Prospect on June 19, 2000.

Limerick Circuit Court heard that the father-of-five shot Mr Noonan in the back after he called to his house with two other men - the late Billy Power and Derek Hayes - shortly after 9pm.

Judge Carroll Moran was told that the three men were armed with a knife, a stick and a hammer and that Mr McCormack believed they were also armed with a handgun.

Mr McCormack - who was at home with his wife and two of his younger children at the time - told gardaí that the three men came to his home looking for his son Damian “Shakey” McCormack, whom they said they were going to kill.

Judge Carroll Moran was told that there had been two previous incidents involving “Shakey” McCormack and Mr Noonan.

In both of those incidents gardaí said the accused man’s son had “gotten the better” of Mr Noonan who had suffered a black eye in the most recent incident.

The court heard that Mr McCormack has also been threatened by the three men and that he fired at them with a legally held shotgun that he had in his home.

The accused - who had no previous convictions - told gardaí that the men said his son was “dead” and that they threatened to shoot him too.

“I had to protect my family. I did what I had to to,” Mr McCormack told gardaí.

The father of five said he took out his shotgun and cartridges after his daughter had come home and told him that three men were looking for the McCormack home and that one of them had a handgun.

The court heard that no handgun was found at the scene but a knife, a hammer and a stick were recovered.

Counsel for the State John O’Sullivan, BL, said that Mr Noonan suffered a gun shot wound to the buttock and rear thigh area and that Mr Hayes suffered two gun shot wounds to his abdomen and a further wound to his right upper thigh.

Judge Carroll Moran was told that Mr Power died as a result of his injuries.

Mr O’Sullivan went on to explain that after considering the matter the DPP did not bring any charges against Mr McCormack in respect of the fatal injuries suffered by Mr Power or the injuries suffered by Mr Hayes.

Defence counsel for the accused Mark Nicholas, BL, said his client who is currently unemployed, had no mobile phone at the time of the incident and no land line to call the gardaí and that he felt “extremely trapped”.

Mr Nicholas said his client expressed sorrow and remorse in all of his interviews with gardaí over what happened that night and that he has had a hard time dealing with what happened over the last four years.

Before sentencing the accused, Judge Carroll Moran offered his condolences to Billy Power’s mother Theresa who was in court today and said he could imagine the trauma she has suffered.

“This is a dreadful case - a very sad case. It’s a lose-lose situation. Everybody loses, the unfortunate Mr Power lost his life but he is not the subject of this prosecution,” said Judge Moran.

The judge said the DPP had ruled that no charges be brought against Mr McCormack in relation to the unlawful killing of Mr Power “presumbly because he felt that a jury would acquit him because he acted in self defence”.

However, Mr Noonan was shot in the back running up hill trying to retreat and self defence was not a defence here, added Judge Moran.

“What I cannot do in this case is punish Mr McCormack for what he is not charged with. I cannot punish him for the fact that he has killed someone,” said Judge Moran.

Judge Moran said he had to take into account Mr McCormack’s guilty plea and the fact that he had no previous convictions.

He imposed a three-year suspended sentence."



So there ya go, we are allowed to defend ourselves up to and including killing someone if our lives or the lives of those in our care are in danger.Fair play too!

The_B_Man

the law should be that if somebody is breaking the law, then anything you do to them cannot be classed as illegal.

clearz

The_B_Man wrote:

the law should be that if somebody is breaking the law, then anything you do to them cannot be classed as illegal.

So if someone walks into my bedroom now and sees me downloading the latest mp3 of kazaa they should be alowed to put a bullet in head.

ferdi

yes, but no guns.

ixoy

clearz wrote:

So if someone walks into my bedroom now and sees me downloading the latest mp3 of kazaa they should be alowed to put a bullet in head.

Yup. And continuing on that logic, if someone else sees them do it, then they can put a bullet in your killer's head right after you've died. In turn, a passing neighbour, witnessing this second crime, could dispense his/her justice and so on...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

ah, but the neighbour would be making an illegal killing, because the first guy was making a legal killing..

ixoy

Mordeth wrote:

ah, but the neighbour would be making an illegal killing, because the first guy was making a legal killing..

Meh. You're ruining my bloodbath.

clearz

Mordeth wrote:

ah, but the neighbour would be making an illegal killing, because the first guy was making a legal killing..

Not quite true. The killer would be on my property if he/she was in my bedroom which brings us back to the title of the thread. Therefore my neighbour would have every right to kill the killer so long as they didnt come onto my property

Trojan

It's nice and simple here in TX... shoot 'em in the back as they run, then drag their steaming corpse back onto your property. That's all there is to it.

ionapaul

Trojan wrote:

It's nice and simple here in TX... shoot 'em in the back as they run, then drag their steaming corpse back onto your property. That's all there is to it.

Often heard this advice while I lived in the States (California) - a cop told a friend of the family (who had a legally-held handgun in his home for protection) that if he ever shot and killed an intruder, just drag the body into the house if possible. No questions would be asked if the intruder turned out to be a known felon.
Although 'natural law' should not serve as a guide for our legal and justice system, the urge to defend your home and your family should be too strong for would-be-burglers / rapists / kidnappers to ignore.

elivsvonchiaing

ionapaul wrote:

Often heard this advice while I lived in the States (California) - a cop told a friend of the family (who had a legally-held handgun in his home for protection) that if he ever shot and killed an intruder, just drag the body into the house if possible. No questions would be asked if the intruder turned out to be a known felon.
Although 'natural law' should not serve as a guide for our legal and justice system, the urge to defend your home and your family should be too strong for would-be-burglers / rapists / kidnappers to ignore.

This would give a whole new flavour to the "drink milk" ad campaign (a friend of mine has 4 daughters - I visualise what this would be like - it ends up here)

Hagar

I am not a violent man but there is a point where a stand must be made.There can be no such thing as restraint in a situation where you are defending you home and your family. Take no prisoners. If anybody breaks into my home, one of us will be leaving in an ambulance.

I will swear on any numbers of bibles that I feared for the lives of my wife and children. I'll let the courts decide the rights and wrongs later, in the meantime I will defend my home.

Tommy Vercetti

ionapaul wrote:

Often heard this advice while I lived in the States (California) - a cop told a friend of the family (who had a legally-held handgun in his home for protection) that if he ever shot and killed an intruder, just drag the body into the house if possible. No questions would be asked if the intruder turned out to be a known felon.

Over here if you shoot someone in your house, you should always fire another shot into the ceiling which will be your warning shot when you're in court, best to shoot them in the chest as well, the old back of the head can trip you up in court.

If I ever catch anyone in my house, I will beat them to death with a golf club, or if I am downstairs, I will cut their throat with a meat cleaver. I don't care what the consequences are because I am right and that's all that matters.

civdef

None. A citizen's arrest does not confer any rights of seizure, capture or search on the arrester.

Incorrect.

If any person witnesses another committing or attempting to committ an arrestable offence (trespass isn't, burglary / theft is), they can arrest them if the person would otherwise escape. The arrested person must be handed over to the Gardai as soon as possible, so no torturing them in the basement for a couple of days first:)

A court case a couple of weeks ago ruled that you must tell the arrested person that you are arrresting them and what for.

Blisterman

I think only whatever force is nessasery to stop them getting away or hurting someone should be allowed used, so sadistic people won't torture them or something.

Tommy Vercetti

Blisterman wrote:

I think only whatever force is nessasery to stop them getting away or hurting someone should be allowed used, so sadistic people won't torture them or something.

I find someone breaking into my house and taking my stuff to be pretty torturing so tough ****ing ****. People who work and buy stuff need not worry

pwd

They're probably as likely to be tortured in prison as they are by someone who captures them in their house. This country is not able to punish most criminals to a harsh enough extent to be a sufficient deterent. There is not the funding for keeping them in prison long enough to suit their crimes. Some burgulars won't actually go to prison at all, apart from after their arrest. A more immediate and severe deterent is required to decrease crime. The risk of physical violence is such a deterrent.
On the other hand burgulars who are not put off by the idea may be encouraged to pre-emptively attack people they are robbing, or arm themselves for protection. Making violence legal in more cases is just raising the stakes really.

aidan_dunne

As far as I'm concerned, if a burglar or someone threatening myself or my family walked onto my property (outside, inside, doesn't matter), then they're fair game and to hell with the consequences. And if I had a gun, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to use it. I'd probably just shoot the f**ker in the legs or something in order to incapacitate him but I wouldn't hesitate. No "Stop or I'll shoot!" or "Get out of my house or I'll shoot you!" with me. No, quite simply, BANG!, take that you little f**king scumbag, now let's see you try and run away, before I'd call the guards. I wouldn't even bother calling an ambulance for him, let the cops deal with the little sh!t! Scumbags getting away with f**king murder these days, sueing people who were defending themselves from them, all that stuff makes my f**king blood boil! :mad:

As you can probably guess, this is something I feel really strongly about!

Xcom2

aidan_dunne wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, if a burglar or someone threatening myself or my family walked onto my property (outside, inside, doesn't matter), then they're fair game and to hell with the consequences. And if I had a gun, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to use it. I'd probably just shoot the f**ker in the legs or something in order to incapacitate him but I wouldn't hesitate. No "Stop or I'll shoot!" or "Get out of my house or I'll shoot you!" with me. No, quite simply, BANG!, take that you little f**king scumbag, now let's see you try and run away, before I'd call the guards. I wouldn't even bother calling an ambulance for him, let the cops deal with the little sh!t! Scumbags getting away with f**king murder these days, sueing people who were defending themselves from them, all that stuff makes my f**king blood boil! :mad:

As you can probably guess, this is something I feel really strongly about!

I Agree 100%


X

deadduck

aidan_dunne wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, if a burglar or someone threatening myself or my family walked onto my property (outside, inside, doesn't matter), then they're fair game and to hell with the consequences. And if I had a gun, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to use it. I'd probably just shoot the f**ker in the legs or something in order to incapacitate him but I wouldn't hesitate. No "Stop or I'll shoot!" or "Get out of my house or I'll shoot you!" with me. No, quite simply, BANG!, take that you little f**king scumbag, now let's see you try and run away, before I'd call the guards. I wouldn't even bother calling an ambulance for him, let the cops deal with the little sh!t! Scumbags getting away with f**king murder these days, sueing people who were defending themselves from them, all that stuff makes my f**king blood boil! :mad:

As you can probably guess, this is something I feel really strongly about!

too right mate

OLDYELLAR

yes extreme force should be used on the basta*ds!they shoud`nt be in your home , "the law is an ass" how true , first they break in an then just because you happen to disturb them and rightly try to stop them , they can sue you , wtf??

Doper Than U

I heard a great story a while ago about this guy who came downstairs to find a burglar in his house. He beat the ever-loving sh1t outta the burglar, and then dragged him down the street and left him around the corner. Next morning the burglar brings the police around to the house complaining that he had been beaten, but the guy just stood there and said that his house had not been broken into, that everything was fine, that he had never seen the burglar in his life and that he must be mistaken, and that was it... police just left it. Must have been so damn satisfying.

If they break into your house, then they have taken the risk that they may be caught and killed. It's their choice, no-one forced them to break in..and tough sh1t if the owner happens to be built like a brick-sh1thouse and more than happy to cleave them in two.

Hugh Hefner

No way we should be allowed to kill them but nor should they get compensation if injured while 'on the job' so to speak. I'm still not completely convinced we should be allowed to if they're trying to kill us. I certainly woouldn't. Hell, there are a lot of ways to stop someone from killing you other than killing them. Guns should not be allowed. Mace and peper sprays are good. If you kill an intruder while using force but you didn't mean to kill them then that's okay. e.g. Trying to knock someone out.

Reminder: It's just a house and only property. We shouldn't use force to protect it.

I wouldn't feel bad crippling someone or taking a limb or two because they still have a life and can achieve great things but I think I'd rather die than kill someone (accidentally is fine).

elivsvonchiaing

If I walked in on someone raping my anyone I would feel compromised if the judicial system did not see me right if most of the forensics were there - including his organs.

The idea that you beat the sh1t out of someone you find in your home, who you assume in a split-second is going to kill your entire family - them sueing is just - quite frankly disgusting!

Luckily anyone that cases me/my place is afraid of me :cool:

Terra

Why are stun guns and the like banned in Ireland.

I think they would be ideal for dealing with a burglar and it would be resonible force would it not.

bounty

shot all burgulars dead, and dont forget to drag the corpse into your bedroom and plant some weapons on it

Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe

i was working 1 day, at a texaco station, and someone tried to rob us.
we both pressed the red panic button to notify the police.

34 mins later a guard pulled up, and said everythin ok lads?
the 2 of us stood there and said thats not right....

we wrote a letter to the guarda head office for complaints.
we got a responce a few weeks later.

basically it said,
sorry for the loss of stock to your business.
but at that current time, there was several incidents in the local area, that prevented a guard being able to respond to your problems at that time...


if the law was different, we would have bet the **** out of him and then called the guards.

Spalk0

Too right!!!

If i cought someone breaking into my house with the possible danger of my family i wiould kick the sh*t out of em!And id be the one to get in trouble over it! :rolleyes: ah theirs something about the 'burglars rights' that bothers me!