What is the deal with protecting your home ?

super_metroid

if a robber breaks into my house and i beat him up

can i be charged with assault and sued

i was watching the midday show on tv3 and one of the woman said that i can beat up a robber and as long as the guards don't find him on the premisis i won't get into trouble

so i could beat up a robber and throw him out on the street and then i will be ok

what is the position ?

slimjimmc

This was discussed on the Matt Cooper show this afternoon. One of his guests claimed you may use reasonable force to ward off a tresspasser but you certainly can't just beat the living cr*& out of them. Her view was that this was to prevent assaults on non-violent tresspassers such a gate-crasher to a party, or just a visitor you invited in but who hangs on a bit after you asked him to leave. Another guest claimed you can't even do that.

maidhc

I really thing the most sensible thing for people is not to put themselves in a position where they might end up a murder victim.

I'd be more inclined to let the robber take what they want and the insurance deal with the aftermath to be honest.

But, yes, you can use reasonable force if being the hero is your thing.

cushtac

maidhc wrote: »

I really thing the most sensible thing for people is not to put themselves in a position where they might end up a murder victim.

I'd be more inclined to let the robber take what they want and the insurance deal with the aftermath to be honest.

But, yes, you can use reasonable force if being the hero is your thing.

You're assuming a burglar is going to give you the chance to hide. My in-laws were broken into several years ago, the burglars came up the stairs carrying knives they took from the kitchen in an effort to get the car keys & the only thing that put them off was the sight of the da at coming out of his room with a hurl. Several years before that an elderly man I know of was dragged out of his bed & tortured with a cigarette lighter for his pension money.

It's a bit glib to suggest someone who confronts an intruder in their home is trying to be a hero.

hedgeh0g

cushtac wrote: »

You're assuming a burglar is going to give you the chance to hide. My in-laws were broken into several years ago, the burglars came up the stairs carrying knives they took from the kitchen in an effort to get the car keys & the only thing that put them off was the sight of the da at coming out of his room with a hurl. Several years before that an elderly man I know of was dragged out of his bed & tortured with a cigarette lighter for his pension money.

It's a bit glib to suggest someone who confronts an intruder in their home is trying to be a hero.

Anyone breaking into my house will be lucky to leave alive.

skelliser

this reminds me of the incident with ex-footballer duncan ferguson, two scumbags broke into his house, duncan wasnt pleased, one of them spent 3 days in hospital!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Ferguson#Burglaries

green123

so the house owner is charged with assault and goes to court.
does he have a choice of a jury or would it be a judge ?
most normal people on a jury would not convict somebody who beat up a burgular surely ?
i certainly wouldnt.

maidhc

cushtac wrote: »

You're assuming a burglar is going to give you the chance to hide. My in-laws were broken into several years ago, the burglars came up the stairs carrying knives they took from the kitchen in an effort to get the car keys & the only thing that put them off was the sight of the da at coming out of his room with a hurl. Several years before that an elderly man I know of was dragged out of his bed & tortured with a cigarette lighter for his pension money.

It's a bit glib to suggest someone who confronts an intruder in their home is trying to be a hero.

No, my point is it is more rational to give them the keys of the car, money, whatever...

cushtac

maidhc wrote: »

No, my point is it is more rational to give them the keys of the car, money, whatever...

You're assuming that they're going to give you a chance to hand over your goods, then leave when they're done. That poor man was tortured for hours, even after they got the money.

Rationality is rarely a factor in an aggravated burglary.

maidhc

cushtac wrote: »

You're assuming that they're going to give you a chance to hand over your goods, then leave when they're done. That poor man was tortured for hours, even after they got the money.

Rationality is rarely a factor in an aggravated burglary.

Are we talking about self defence or protecting property? The legal principles are very different. Are we talking about aggravated burglar or just some guy robbing the TV?

The law gives far more latitude to protect human life than it does to protect property for very obvious reasons.

dermot_sheehan

You can use force to resist a burglar but can no longer simply kill them for being a burglar. The law was set out by the Court of Criminal Appeal in DPP v. Anthony Barnes [2006] IECCA 165


http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/aded5c6b04f391478025725d00516c14?OpenDocument

Every burglary in a dwellinghouse is an act of aggression. The circumstances may make this element of aggression more or less patent but the violation of a citizen’s dwellinghouse is just that, a violation and an act of aggression no matter what the other circumstances.

A person who commits such a violation exposes himself to various legal penalties, if he is detected and convicted. But that is not the limit of his exposure. Although he is not liable to be killed by the householder simply for being a burglar, he is an aggressor and may expect to be lawfully met with retaliatory force to drive him off or to immobilise or detain him and end the threat which he offers to the personal rights of the householder and his or her family or guests. And this is so whether the dwellinghouse which he enters is, or appears to be, occupied or unoccupied when he breaks into it.

The propositions just set out derive from the nature of the dwellinghouse itself, and its constitutional standing as a place required by the dignity of the human person to be inviolable except in accordance with law. Though a dwellinghouse is property and often indeed the most valuable piece of property an individual citizen possesses, it would be quite wrong to equate it with other forms of property such as money or moneys worth or other pieces of personal property. Though these may have a sentimental as well as a cash value, and may in certain circumstances be important or even essential for the individual who owns them, a dwellinghouse is a higher level, legally and constitutionally, than other forms of property. The free and secure occupation of it is a value very deeply embedded in human kind and this free and secure occupation of a dwellinghouse, apart from being a physical necessity, is a necessity for the human dignity and development of the individual and the family.

Tom Young

Nally? http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/288acee47cb5c08780256eb70031e0ea/c11ac1afe2f4ab1d80257205003cb715?OpenDocument

green123

green123 wrote: »

so the house owner is charged with assault and goes to court.
does he have a choice of a jury or would it be a judge ?
most normal people on a jury would not convict somebody who beat up a burgular surely ?
i certainly wouldnt.

anybody know ?

Tom Young

This is nuanced.

Depending on whether the case is prosecuted summarily or on indictment. The person might have the ability to elect.

2001 CJ TFA.

PART 8

Trial of Offences

Summary trial of indictable offences.

53.—(1) The District Court may try summarily a person charged with an indictable offence under this Act if—
(a) the Court is of opinion that the facts proved or alleged constitute a minor offence fit to be tried summarily,
(b) the accused, on being informed by the Court of his or her right to be tried with a jury, does not object to being tried summarily, and
(c) the Director of Public Prosecutions consents to the accused being tried summarily for the offence.
(2) On conviction by the District Court for an indictable offence tried summarily under subsection (1) the accused shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both such fine and imprisonment.

cushtac

maidhc wrote: »

Are we talking about self defence or protecting property? The legal principles are very different. Are we talking about aggravated burglar or just some guy robbing the TV?

If an intruder approaches you in your home how long do you wait to find out which is which?

maidhc

cushtac wrote: »

If an intruder approaches you in your home how long do you wait to find out which is which?

You use your common sense!

Jo King

maidhc wrote: »

You use your common sense!

Common sense is not very common!

BravoMike

What is considered reasonable force?

jt123456

The key is reasonable force. It must be proportional to the threat. Otherwise any judge or jury will see you (the homeowner) as the aggressor.

If a little child sneaks into your garden to pick the daffodills from your flowerbed then its not appropriate to hit him on the head with a bat to defend your property. But if someone broke into your home and held a gun to your partners head then you would be entitled to shoot them first if you genuinely believed that your partner was going to die. They are extreme examples but you get the drift.

So by all means you are entitled to protect yourself and your property but do not turn it into a vigilante session.