Italian lawmakers OK use of lethal force to protect property.

Manic Moran

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4645228.stm

The Italian parliament has passed legislation allowing people to shoot robbers in self-defence.

The law permits the use of guns and knives by people in homes or workplaces to protect lives or belongings.

(Continues on website)
_____________
Good for them. I wonder what that will do to the burglary rate? Probably depends on what the weapon ownership rate is in Italy. Nothing like a bit of deterrent to keep people in line, eh?

NTM

pete

Manic Moran wrote:

I wonder what that will do to the burglary rate?

I wonder what it'll do for the burglar-to-murderer conversion rate.

Right wing governments = relaxation on gun control.

Thank Christ Bertie's a socialist...:eek:

JohnK

Personally, I'm all for the killing of burglars. If some scum comes into my house (s)he looses all rights to exist. Unfortunately, this will probably have the effect of more burglars killing the people they are robbing.

JohnK

JohnK wrote:

If some scum comes into my house (s)he looses all rights to exist.

You should get a rocking chair and sit on the porch clutching a shotgun.

If it transpired that the person only wanted a glass of water, how many cartridges would you onload in them for coming into your house?

JohnK

Deleted User wrote:

You should get a rocking chair and sit on the porch clutching a shotgun.

I just might. I could do with a nice chair

Deleted User wrote:

If it transpired that the person only wanted a glass of water, how many cartridges would you onload in them for coming into your house?

Just the two. One warning shot. One killing shot

JohnK

JohnK wrote:

Just the two. One warning shot. One killing shot

I don't know whether to call you JohnK or Billy the Kid...;)

Rovi

Deleted User wrote:

If it transpired that the person only wanted a glass of water, how many cartridges would you onload in them for coming into your house?

If I found myself stuck for a glass of water and my only recourse was to approach someone's house for said water, I'd knock at the door or ring the bell, and ask for what I wanted when someone opened the door/granted me entrance.
If I took it upon myself to enter through the window, I couldn't expect to complain about any consequences that befell me.

If I was utterly desperate for a drink, and someone's door was wide open, and I could see a frosty chilled glass of purest spring water on their kitchen counter, I MIGHT enter their house; but it would be to the accompaniment of a lot of knocking on doors and calling out: "Hello, hello, anyone home?"

Burglars aren't usually known to do that sort of thing.

.

Rovi

Rovi wrote:

Burglars aren't usually known to do that sort of thing.

Is there a standard burglar?

I would have thought they'd vary for some kid who chances his arm nicking a DVD player for his next hit, to the career housebreaker, to the person who is not afraid to use violence.

Frankly, I'm the type who'd tell them to take the DVD and I'd go out and get a new one, rather than look down the rifle sight at the spot between his eyes...

Rovi

Deleted User wrote:

I would have thought they'd vary for some kid who chances his arm nicking a DVD player for his next hit, to the career housebreaker, to the person who is not afraid to use violence.

And at 4 in the morning when you awake to find one (or more) of these characters moving about your house, you'll tell the difference, how, exactly?

.

Manic Moran

I think there is probably a fair compromise of caution.

Even the most good-natured homeowner should work on the worst-case assumption that the chap in his home is willing to cause him harm. (Some jurisdictions have a legal presumption of just that)

Even the least professional burglar, just out to get a playstation should work on the worst-case assumption that the homeowner whose house they are burlaring has a shotgun/pistol and both knows how and is willing to use it without asking him his intentions.

Everyone suddenly gets a lot more careful.

NTM

The_Minister

Deleted User wrote:

Is there a standard burglar?

I would have thought they'd vary for some kid who chances his arm nicking a DVD player for his next hit, to the career housebreaker, to the person who is not afraid to use violence.

Frankly, I'm the type who'd tell them to take the DVD and I'd go out and get a new one, rather than look down the rifle sight at the spot between his eyes...

Given the support for Patrick Nally (murdered man in cold blood) Id say this would be popular in Ireland.

Manic Moran

Deleted User wrote:

rather than look down the rifle sight at the spot between his eyes...

Shows that you're not qualified to use a firearm in your defense anyway. Rifles are the least-suitable of all firearms for home defense, and you shouldn't be aiming at their head.

NTM

Red Alert

I agree with this bill, as long as it extends to private residences only. (So tesco for example couldn't shoot me for happenning to be in their boiler room for example).

The use of non-lethal weapons like Tasers should also be considered.

Manic Moran

The law as it stands says one can use 'reasonable force'. I really can't see how it gets fairer than that. What force can be more reasonable than reasonable force? That means the guy coming at you with the knife is entitled to get the legs blown off him, but the kid sneaking out the window with the DVD isn't going to get two cartridges unloaded into his back over a €69.99 machine. It certainly doesn't give a carte blanche to the Nallys and Martins of this world who saw travellers as appropriate target practice...

Manic Moran wrote:

Shows that you're not qualified to use a firearm in your defense anyway. Rifles are the least-suitable of all firearms for home defense, and you shouldn't be aiming at their head.

So the law would be that one could shoot an intruder ah but sure Jaysus now don't be aimin' fer the head or nuttin' like that sure aim for the right knee if he's right footed but go for the other wan if he's left footed like...

Shooting is shooting. I suspect that it would be in the lap of the Gods as to how the target fares at 3 or 4 in the morning with a houseowner in a panic...

JohnK

Deleted User wrote:

So the law would be that one could shoot an intruder ah but sure Jaysus now don't be aimin' fer the head or nuttin' like that sure aim for the right knee if he's right footed but go for the other wan if he's left footed like...

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he ment don't aim for the head because its a smaller target so you're more likely to miss. Aim for the torso. Its bigger so easier to hit and can still cause some serious damage

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote:

I would have thought they'd vary for some kid who chances his arm nicking a DVD player for his next hit, to the career housebreaker, to the person who is not afraid to use violence.

Personally I'd shoot all the varieties TBH. Having seen the really traumatic effect burglary can have on people, especially the elderly, I'd have little guilt in removing one of these muppets from the gene pool.

Frankly, I'm the type who'd tell them to take the DVD and I'd go out and get a new one, rather than look down the rifle sight at the spot between his eyes...

Frankly I'd shoot them if they tried to take the disk, never mind the player.

Shooting is shooting. I suspect that it would be in the lap of the Gods as to how the target fares at 3 or 4 in the morning with a houseowner in a panic...

And why, pray tell, is the houseowner in a panic? Sod the target, they lost all rights when they entered uninvited with intent to rob or worse.

KTRIC

As far as I'm concerned when someone enters my house without permission they're mine, simple as. I'd f**king destroy them and dump them out on the street. What are they going to do ? , go to the Gardai and complain that they got the sh!t kicked out of them when they broke into a house !!

JohnK

K-TRIC wrote:

As far as I'm concerned when someone enters my house without permission they're mine, simple as. I'd f**king destroy them and dump them out on the street. What are they going to do ? , go to the Gardai and complain that they got the sh!t kicked out of them when they broke into a house !!

But that is what they do. Then they sue you for it like the bastards they are.

KTRIC

JohnK wrote:

But that is what they do. Then they sue you for it like the bastards they are.

I know and I'd see them all the way to court. We need to stand up to this scum and not let them away with it.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

Sod the target, they lost all rights when they entered uninvited with intent to rob or worse.

True, but then you are far far more likely to blow yourself or a family member away with your gun than the robber.

All this is going to do is make sure robbers come armed to the teeth and kill you first before they rob you.

JohnK

K-TRIC wrote:

I know and I'd see them all the way to court. We need to stand up to this scum and not let them away with it.

That’s all well and good but when it gets to court the Judges generally only look at one single fact: Was the person on your property when they were injured? If yes, your liable. They don’t seem to give a damn as to why the person was there in the first place :mad:

KTRIC

JohnK wrote:

That’s all well and good but when it gets to court the Judges generally only look at one single fact: Was the person on your property when they were injured? If yes, your liable. They don’t seem to give a damn as to why the person was there in the first place :mad:

You're forgetting one thing, if the person doesn't make it to the Gardai then who's to know

Manic Moran

JohnK wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he ment don't aim for the head because its a smaller target so you're more likely to miss. Aim for the torso. Its bigger so easier to hit and can still cause some serious damage

Bingo. Aim center mass.

NTM

Manic Moran

Wicknight wrote:

True, but then you are far far more likely to blow yourself or a family member away with your gun than the robber.

That suggestion is debateable, to say the least. That accidental shootings of family members have occured is true. That the numbers of such outweigh the effect on burglars is less so.

All this is going to do is make sure robbers come armed to the teeth and kill you first before they rob you.

The relationship between the increase/decrease of armed homeowners to the decrease/increase of home invasions while the resident is present is pretty much proven at this point.

I am not willing to bet my life solely on the good nature of the criminal currently in my home to not kill me. Such killings occur in Ireland/UK with the current defense laws. If the guy -may- cause me harm, that's good enough for me. I only get one life, I've no intention of parting with it cheaply on a mistaken estimate of character.

NTM

Zombrex

Manic Moran wrote:

That suggestion is debateable, to say the least. That accidental shootings of family members have occured is true. That the numbers of such outweigh the effect on burglars is less so.

Well the statistics are quite clear, if you own a gun you are more likely to be shot by your own gun in a home invasion than by the gun of the robber.

Manic Moran wrote:

The relationship between the increase/decrease of armed homeowners to the decrease/increase of home invasions while the resident is present is pretty much proven at this point.

Which statistics would those be. The only ones I've ever seen show the murder rate during home invasion is higher in countries that allow use of deadly force (ie shooting someone) in defense of home

Manic Moran wrote:

I am not willing to bet my life solely on the good nature of the criminal currently in my home to not kill me.

But you are happy to have a loaded weapon under your pillow?

Manic Moran

But you are happy to have a loaded weapon under your pillow?

It's actually in the drawer under my bed. Pillow gets a bit uncomfortable, and it can fall down behind the headboard which is annoying.

There are several criteria to responsible firearms ownership for defensive use.

The first is that you must know how to use the thing, both mechanically and tactically. Usually people figure the mechanical bit out, particularly if they own a revolver, Glock, SIG or some other such firearm which has no safety catch that people might forget about in time of stress. This is fixed through training. Tactically, people need to forget about what they see in the movies, no 'putting a gun to the head' and so on. Again, fixed through proper training. You don't drive a car without taking driving lessons, similarly shooting lessons are a good idea.

The second is that you must be willing to use it. People thinking "I'll get a gun, and scare the burglar off" are quite liable to end up dead. As a result, people who wish to use a firearm as a defensive weapon must have convinced himself/herself that he's willing to kill before he even buys the thing.

So, in my case, I meet both criteria. I know how to use my weapon, and I know I can shoot people if I have to, since I've done it before.

Which statistics would those be. The only ones I've ever seen show the murder rate during home invasion is higher in countries that allow use of deadly force (ie shooting someone) in defense of home

I note you use 'murder rate' and not 'death rate'. The implication being that you are looking solely at unjustifiable homicide, unfortunately, if you're comparing figures between the UK and the US, the FBI requires that all killings, whether justifiable or not be listed as 'homicides', while British reporting systems look (more sensibly, I think) at the outcome of the investigation/trial.

Even then, there's some factors of note. For example, after the Australian ban came into effect, the State of Victoria saw a 300% increase in firearm homicides the first year. Firearms murders in London went up 87% between 2000 and 2001.

Let's have a look at Kennesaw, GA, which is a suburb of Atlanta: There is a law in effect there which states that every household must have a firearm. Burglary rates dropped 89% after that law passed in 1982.

"Hot" burglaries, where the homeowner is present at the time, are at about 55% in the UK, and around 12% in the US. If the burglar prefers to choose a time when you're not around, it's a lot harder to get killed by him.

Ultimately, I think it's an issue of personal choice.
Let's say that you are in the house, and only one in, oh, 100 burglars are willing to cause you harm if they know you're there. (and if they know you know they are there). I'm betting my life on a 99% chance which is entirely out of my control. Wasn't there a nun murdered in a home invasion in Ireland last year? I seem to recall hearing about it on the radio. If someone is willing to kill an old nun, I don't think he'd be worried about me. Even if, and I dispute the contention, my life is on a 95% chance due to my owning a firearm, at least I have some input over what goes on.

NTM

Wibbs

Couldn't agree more with Manic Moran.

As I said before, I've seen what is thought of by many as a petty crime destroy lives. It does not get the attention it deserves from our politicians, police or judiciary. I knew one elderly gentleman who took his own life after he was burgled twice. The cops could do fu*k all* to either protect him or prosecute the junkie scum who were known to them. In fairness their hands are tied more often than not, even if they catch the scum. Longer prison sentences, drug rehab, etc allied with much stronger protection in law for the homeowner would go some way to stopping these "people".

I appreciate that something must be done, I just don't feel I can make the judgement that life is cheaper than material possessions, no matter how scummy the intruder...

The_Minister

JohnK wrote:

But that is what they do. Then they sue you for it like the bastards they are.

My friend's father's friend was visiting my friend's father when he saw someone outside in his car. He rushed out, grabbed the guy and kicked him in the yarbles.
He had to pay medical bills

Rovi

Deleted User wrote:

I appreciate that something must be done, I just don't feel I can make the judgement that life is cheaper than material possessions, no matter how scummy the intruder...

If you're willing to gamble the lives/health of your spouse/partner, children, elderly parents, etc, etc, on the possibility that the intruder(s) in your home at 3 in the morning are merely 'misguided youths' who have been 'failed by society' and who 'wouldn't hurt a fly', and you're okay with them breaking your windows or doors and making off with your expensive electronic consumer items (paid for with your hard earned money), then you're a better man than I.

Good luck with the 'hugs and kisses' and 'I feel your pain' approach.

.

JohnK

Rovi wrote:

If you're willing to gamble the lives/health of your spouse/partner, children, elderly parents, etc, etc, on the possibility that the intruder(s) in your home at 3 in the morning are merely 'misguided youths' who have been 'failed by society' and who 'wouldn't hurt a fly', and you're okay with them breaking your windows or doors and making off with your expensive electronic consumer items (paid for with your hard earned money), then you're a better man than I.

Good luck with the 'hugs and kisses' and 'I feel your pain' approach.

.

I'd perfer to make them feel my pain

Lemming

Wicknight wrote:

All this is going to do is make sure robbers come armed to the teeth and kill you first before they rob you.

Nail.Hammer. Head.

Whatever you might argue about morals, this is a fundamental point. All this means is that the matter will escalate. Burgalers will soon start to carry weapons and be prepared to use them without hesitation against home-owners.

Add to the point that as soon as you pull a weapon in any situation you are committed to using that weapon whether you are really prepared to or not. If you're not, then you've just given the burglar another weapon. And nobody here can pull the macho bullsh*t "oh yeah no f*cking problem they're scum" line on this because the simple fact is that you. do. not. know. what you would do when push came to shove.

If you wnat to argue that it'll instill fear, I'm afraid you're going to be wrong. If you want a prime example, take a look across the pond to the US. The police are armed. The criminals are armed. The home owners are armed. And it's like a miniature civil-war there every night with each city having a score of shootings every single night.

stevenmu

Both the pro and the anti gun lobbies have so many different statistics supporting their cases that statistics begin to be a bit meaningless. At the end of the day, I'm not a statistic, my family aren't statistics, and anyone who chooses to invade our home isn't a statistic. If someone breaks in and threatens me or my family, I'm not going to sit there and think "Thank god I don't have a gun, statistically I'd be more likely to blah blah blah".

In any situation a person needs to evaluate the risks and the possible options to decide on the best course of action for that situation. It may be best to just wave bye-bye to your DVD player as some little scumbag jumps out the window with it, it may be best to shoot some guy standing over your little daughters bed in the back of the head (or torso ), when outdoors it's more often than not best to just run like f**k.

Ideally the law should allow for people to take whatever options seem reasonable given the circumstances, taking into account the time and emotional stresses someone will be under in these situations, and punish those who take unreasonable actions. One problem with this is that it's very hard to define in specific legal terms what is 'reasonable' and what is not.

Wibbs

Lemming wrote:

And nobody here can pull the macho bullsh*t "oh yeah no f*cking problem they're scum" line on this because the simple fact is that you. do. not. know. what you would do when push came to shove.

Well I have a fair idea. I once had an occasion when a gurrier climbed over the back wall of a friends house I was looking after while he was away, bold as brass with obvious intent to do what scumbags do. I went up and got my mates crossbow, ran back down and challenged him. His response was along the lines of "it's ok buud Im doinnn nathin ri'", while all the while walking towards me. His next line "I got a blaaade", didn't go at all well with me so I shot at him. Now I must point out I missed(stress, bad sights, distance an' all that), but I had little compunction in shooting at him and would do the same to his like again. Now I'm about as macho as julian clary at a flower arranging festival, but in situations like that you would be surprised at your response.

If you want a prime example, take a look across the pond to the US.

Now no one wants the same as the US model, but there is a happy medium, where the homeowner has more rights under law to defend themselves.

Johnee

JohnK wrote:

That’s all well and good but when it gets to court the Judges generally only look at one single fact: Was the person on your property when they were injured? If yes, your liable. They don’t seem to give a damn as to why the person was there in the first place :mad:

Yeah, that's exactly what they look at. :rolleyes: Glad to see the boards tradition continues of not needing to have a clue what you're talking about to state something as fact.

Or do you have a friends friends friend who this happened to to prove your point?

Or could it be this happened in a case in the US where a jury made this decision? But sure all courts are the same, right?

Rovi

stevenmu wrote:

Ideally the law should allow for people to take whatever options seem reasonable given the circumstances, taking into account the time and emotional stresses someone will be under in these situations, and punish those who take unreasonable actions. One problem with this is that it's very hard to define in specific legal terms what is 'reasonable' and what is not.

This is pretty much the situation we have here right now.
Mr. Nally went to jail because he reloaded and took a second shot at a fleeing man. In all likelihood, he would have gotten away with the first shot and the beating.

The only difference this sort of law would make here is, it would accept 'personal defence' as a valid reason for application for a firearms licence.
Currently, hunting and target shooting are the only acceptable reasons.


.

Sparks

K-TRIC wrote:

I know and I'd see them all the way to court. We need to stand up to this scum and not let them away with it.

Actually, you mean you'd see them all the way to jail. Which is where you'd end up. There's a line between honest self-defence or defence of property and what you're describing, and it's usually obvious when it's crossed. That stout citizen in the UK, for example, who surprised a burglar, knocked him unconcious, tied him up and then proceeded to set him on fire as punishment.

Remember, what you're talking about is something we've had a term for for the past 20-odd years - "punisment beatings".

The relationship between the increase/decrease of armed homeowners to the decrease/increase of home invasions while the resident is present is pretty much proven at this point.

Actually, it's nothing of the sort. Lott's statistics on this have been shown by the NAS to be wholly unreliable.

Well the statistics are quite clear, if you own a gun you are more likely to be shot by your own gun in a home invasion than by the gun of the robber.

And those statistics are in no way reliable either, according to the NAS. As it stands right now, we have no studies to prove or disprove either assertion.

I am not willing to bet my life solely on the good nature of the criminal currently in my home to not kill me.

And yet, you're willing to be it on a large number of other, far worse risks than a policy of minimum contact with criminals; the reaction of another member of your family with the firearm on your late return home, for example, or not seeing the burglar's accomplice as you attempted to incapacitate the burglar.

There are several criteria to responsible firearms ownership for defensive use.

And the first is that you not live in Ireland. Let me be clear. From the Dept. of Justice website:

Firearms certificates are only granted for recreational or sporting purposes. You will not be granted a licence for any weapon for the purposes of personal protection, protection of others or the protection of property.

Rovi

Rovi wrote:

If you're willing to gamble the lives/health of your spouse/partner, children, elderly parents, etc, etc, on the possibility that the intruder(s) in your home at 3 in the morning are merely 'misguided youths' who have been 'failed by society' and who 'wouldn't hurt a fly', and you're okay with them breaking your windows or doors and making off with your expensive electronic consumer items (paid for with your hard earned money), then you're a better man than I.

What is the gamble? How many lives of partners, children or elderly parents have been taken by intruders? On the other hand I can think of one intruder's life taken by a man with a shotgun. And frankly yeah, I would rather they broke a door and took a DVD than having their brains spattered all over my sitting room wall...

Manic Moran

Sparks wrote:

And yet, you're willing to be it on a large number of other, far worse risks than a policy of minimum contact with criminals; the reaction of another member of your family with the firearm on your late return home,

I do intend to have minimal contact with criminals. If the contact lasts more than, oh, two seconds, something's gone wrong.

for example, or not seeing the burglar's accomplice as you attempted to incapacitate the burglar.

A risk I'm willing to take. I would know the layout of my house, and I have a pretty reasonable idea on how to move around in it without excessive vulnerability. Granted, in my particular case, the best defense for my personal safety is to stay in my room, as the door leads directly and in line to a two-walled straight staircase. Basically, it's shooting down a funnel. Anyone who starts to move up will be shot. Period.

And the first is that you not live in Ireland. Let me be clear. From the Dept. of Justice website:

Well, technically, that's just for the issuance of a license. The use of the firearm is another matter, I believe Irish law still provides for a killing in self defense argument.

What is the gamble? How many lives of partners, children or elderly parents have been taken by intruders?

Well, I don't know the number, but on the RTE website, I only had to go four days back in the archives before reading about 19-year-old Rebecca Kinsella who was beaten to death by a 16-year-old in her house in Cellbridge.

21 January, two men entered a flat in Limerick, shot the resident in the forehead. That could have just been a 'hit' though.

30 Dec, Sam Smith shot at his home in Sligo. Could also have just been a 'hit'

01 January. Man assaulted in his house in Co Meath.

I didn't go back any further than Jan 1 in the archives, and didn't bother clicking on links where bodies were found outside of houses. So in one month in Ireland, there are two probable assasination attempts, one unknown, and I'm not sure about the Cellbridge incident's details.

No incidents of people being accidently killed, other than car accidents.

NTM

KTRIC

Sparks wrote:

Remember, what you're talking about is something we've had a term for for the past 20-odd years - "punisment beatings".

You say that like its a bad thing

Sparks

Manic Moran wrote:

I do intend to have minimal contact with criminals. If the contact lasts more than, oh, two seconds, something's gone wrong.

There are burglars in your house. Something's already gone wrong. Me, I'd be planning on not letting anything else go wrong, and you do that by minimising your risk. Staying upstairs is the least-risk option, assuming your family is there. Or do you think your TV is worth more than their health?

Well, technically, that's just for the issuance of a license.

And you're planning on getting the firearm, how?

The use of the firearm is another matter, I believe Irish law still provides for a killing in self defense argument.

Yes, if in extremis. Shooting someone for stealing your telly is not legal as your life is not under threat and shooting someone for theft is not reasonable force. You would go to jail. And if you get the firearm through illegal means, you wouldn't be charged with shooting someone with an illegal firearm (if it was in self-defence); but you would be charged with possession and trafficing.

So in one month in Ireland, there are two probable assasination attempts, one unknown, and I'm not sure about the Cellbridge incident's details.
No incidents of people being accidently killed, other than car accidents.

It's not a valid comparison as we don't have firearms available for use in defence of life or property. It sounds to me like you're making an emotive argument based on the outrage at someone invading your home. The outrage is justified; but the degree of punishment you're suggesting most certainly is not. You are not the judge and jury and executioner all rolled into one, and there's a reason for that - go down the road of vigalantism and pretty soon, we don't have Gardai, we have the 'ra running protection rackets.

Wouldn't a good security system be a lot less hassle and less risky than playing Rambo in the sitting room? Plus, it would be much cheaper than paying a good defence lawyer...

Xterminator

... It sounds to me like you're making an emotive argument based on the outrage at someone invading your home. The outrage is justified; but the degree of punishment you're suggesting most certainly is not....

At the moment if you even grab a burglar, you can be done for assault.
There have even been cases where burglars have sued for injury while on a victims premises!

The balance of rights is too far in protection of the criminal. i think thats obvious.

I believe that a burglar, who enters someones home should forfit all protection of the law, while commiting an act against the law.

So if they are beaten, injured or even shot they cannot then use the law as a shield.

Thats not to say i have to kill a burglar, if i detect one, rather that i could choose to do so. That alone would make burglary a less attractive employment option. I dont see how that can lead to breakdown in law and order. After all most people wont have a gun in their home for various reasons, but the burglar wont know that!

Can you think of a good reason why they should be able to claim the protection of the law, while engaged in breaking it?

X

Nuttzz

he fell onto my hurley a number of times your honour....

Sparks

Xterminator wrote:

At the moment if you even grab a burglar, you can be done for assault.

Depends on what you did. If you tell him to stop and grab him if he runs, that's a different matter. Quite why you'd want to grab someone who's desperate to escape and could be armed, I'm not sure, however.

There have even been cases where burglars have sued for injury while on a victims premises!

Yes, but not in cases where whatever caused the injury could only have injured a burglar, as I understand it.

The balance of rights is too far in protection of the criminal. i think thats obvious.

I think that it's nothing of the kind. There is no "balance of rights", there is equal protection of rights for all until due process is applied.
In other words, just 'cos I say you were burgling my home is not sufficient justification for my killing you. Otherwise, I could make a small list of those I didn't like, invite them to my home, then kill them and claim they were a gang of burglars...

/I believe that a burglar, who enters someones home should forfit all protection of the law, while commiting an act against the law.

The right to not be killed can't be rescinded because of an act of petty theft!

So if they are beaten, injured or even shot they cannot then use the law as a shield.

And if knocked unconcious, tied up and then set on fire?
Where exactly do you want to draw that line?

[qutoe]Thats not to say i have to kill a burglar, if i detect one, rather that i could choose to do so. That alone would make burglary a less attractive employment option.[/quote]
You're assuming it's a career choice. In most cases, it's opportunistic, driven by some form of motivation that doesn't respond to such deterrents (or else you'd see no burglary anywhere in the US!).

I dont see how that can lead to breakdown in law and order.

Then you need to think about it more.

Can you think of a good reason why they should be able to claim the protection of the law, while engaged in breaking it?

Tony Martin, Patrick Nally, and dozens of cases like them.

ionapaul

If I'm particularly attached to my DVD, given that I worked hard to pay for it, and don't want to see it removed from my home under the arm of an opportunistic burglar, what exactly are my options if I want to keep my DVD? Options that are legal in Ireland, I mean? Say in a circumstance where I cannot see any weapon in the burglar's possession, nor do I suspect him to have access to one.

Sparks

what exactly are my options if I want to keep my DVD? Options that are legal in Ireland, I mean?

Lock your doors and windows. Have an alarm system. Keep it in a locked cabinet. And so on. And none of these require that you risk your health.
Remember - most burglary is opportunistic. And by most I mean over 90%. And by opportunistic I mean that if the burglar sees an open door or a window, you're a target; if s/he doesn't, they'll move on to the next house.

ionapaul

So are there no legally allowable means to physically restrain the burglar / remove the DVD from his temporary possession, even while on your property?

Sparks

You mean, can you lay into him and beat him senseless with a hurley for daring to touch your stuff?

ionapaul

Physically restrain him in any way? Grab your DVD player back from him, trying not to injure him of course? (unless previously insured against accidential injury to burglars while protecting property doubt Lloyds of London offers any policies on this!) Or does the law stipulate / encourage resignation on the part of the DVD owner - let your property go and be glad nothing worse came of the instrusion?