Yet another Home Defence Bill

johnnyskeleton

Sunday Business Post wrote:

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/draft-legislation-to-strengthen-homeowners-defence-rights-46236.html
Justice minister Dermot Ahern will tomorrow publish draft legislation to strengthen the rights of homeowners to defend themselves from burglary and assault.

The legislation will be published alongside a report by the Law Reform Commission on the subject.

The report and draft bill will provide a legal framework to clarify and fortify laws on the level of reasonable force a householder can use in defence of their home.

This is the Third Home Defence Bill in as many bills (that I'm aware of, there could be more). From what is in the newspaper, and based on the previous attempts, they don't actually change the law. Indeed it suggests that the bill is to "clarify and fortify laws" on self defence in the home.

But the Supreme Court ruled 3 years ago that if A breaks into the house of B and B puts up a fight which results in them being killed, A cannot defend a murder charge on grounds of self-defence. The law being, as I understand it, that to invade another person's home is itself an aggressive act similar to starting a fight, and also (not specifically mentioned but I believe it follows) that a homeowner cannot reasonably be expected to flee from someone invading their house and is perfectly entitled to stand and fight.

I am increasingly of the view that our government passes a lot of laws that sound tough on crime but are of little or no actual effect but merely appease the calls for the government to get tough on crime. For example, people complain that criminals can remain silent and avoid convictions. Government's solution is to bring in legislation (which already existed for a number of offences) to counteract this. But the reality is that the Gardai rarely invoke these provisions because they are too cumbersome.

This new bill seems to be more of the same. Essentially the government saying "we will not stand idly by while the country gets overrun by crime". In this instance the two tragic instances referred to in the SBP are the spur to bring in this legislation. But I'm not sure it will actually change the law because the only further step that could be taken is a law that anyone who invades your house is fair game for whatever punishment you wish to dole out, which would be a disaster.

I suppose the point I'm trying to get at is that now when there is little or no chance of further funding for the Gardai/DPP/Prisons/Courts etc should we tolerate more useless legislation, or should people actively oppose these half hearted efforts by our politicians as the only way to get them to take some real steps in crime prevention?

thebman

They'll have to move eventually IMO but yeah it seems we keep getting told the goal posts are being moved and yet they are in the same place when you look at actual judgements.

However, personally I don't have a problem with not defending myself if someone breaks in as I'd never do it anyway. I'd just claim off the insurance. Its unlikely someone would break into my house without having a weapon to attack me with and I'd rather get away healthy than with my stuff.

Zambia

The law already is very clear on self defence in ireland unless something changed.

You can use a reasonable amount of force to defend yourself and others till the threat is gone. Or you can safley escape the threat.

If it has been made clear in legislation that you do not have to flee your own home or where you are secured, office, factory etc then than that should be enough for anyone.

Criminal A breaks in , you tell him to shove off . He does not (he so will though) a fight ensues you overcome A by breaking his arm. As long as you did not break his arm while he was incapacitated I see no foul. As long as you broke his arm while defending yourself from what you can only describe as a real threat of harm.

If you break his arm while he was crawling away out the door in a sort of "Break into my house will ya" sort of thing well then thats different.

What would be usefull is the adage that you can use whatever you have in your house to defend yourself, including firearms. Regardless of the weapon status of the offender.

Bearing all this in mind the most usefull weapon you have against burglars is noise and light. Burglars are cowardly little B*stards that sneak around and like to think they are ghosts. They run pretty quick when they realise they are discovered, do not get between them and the exit and you will never have an issue. Unless your are elderly or infirm.

In essence if you are creating a law for Joe Public to use it better be pretty simple and clear cut.

bonzos

Zambia232 wrote: »

The law already is very clear on self defence in ireland unless something changed.

You can use a reasonable amount of force to defend yourself and others till the threat is gone. Or you can safley escape the threat.

If it has been made clear in legislation that you do not have to flee your own home or where you are secured, office, factory etc then than that should be enough for anyone.

Criminal A breaks in , you tell him to shove off . He does not (he so will though) a fight ensues you overcome A by breaking his arm. As long as you did not break his arm while he was incapacitated I see no foul. As long as you broke his arm while defending yourself from what you can only describe as a real threat of harm.

If you break his arm while he was crawling away out the door in a sort of "Break into my house will ya" sort of thing well then thats different.

What would be usefull is the adage that you can use whatever you have in your house to defend yourself, including firearms. Regardless of the weapon status of the offender.

Bearing all this in mind the most usefull weapon you have against burglars is noise and light. Burglars are cowardly little B*stards that sneak around and like to think they are ghosts. They run pretty quick when they realise they are discovered, do not get between them and the exit and you will never have an issue. Unless your are elderly or infirm.

In essence if you are creating a law for Joe Public to use it better be pretty simple and clear cut.

Only in ireland would you have a situtation where a home owner can only use force to "safley escape the threat" in their own home what a joke! if your a scumbag or a bigshot in this country the law is there to protect you.....the ordinary person who pays their taxes is only needed for their vote every 4 years and pay tax to support the free legal aid and bail out the rich

Liam Byrne

Just heard that they're objecting to the proposed change in the law that you can defend yourself, your family and your property.

Why ?

Because it's "safer to retreat" and that's what they should do.

Yeah, and let some scumbag take all your stuff unchallenged! :mad:

What about the "civil liberty" to feel safe (particularly in your own home) and to not have some scumbags impose their unlawful wishes on our civil liberties ?

Riskymove

while I usually have little time for a lot of what they go on about

I do have concerns here

while I have sympathy for people worried about intrusions, you only have to look at cases here and elsewhere where terrible tragedies have occurred

...homeowners having a go and ending up hurt or killed (sometimes by having their weapons taken off them by intruder)

...people shooting neighbours/family members in fear etc


a proliferation of weapons for self defense will usually result in these sort of things

bmaxi

Riskymove wrote: »

while I usually have little time for a lot of what they go on about

I do have concerns here

while I have sympathy for people worried about intrusions, you only have to look at cases here and elsewhere where terrible tragedies have occurred

...homeowners having a go and ending up hurt or killed (sometimes by having their weapons taken off them by intruder)

...people shooting neighbours/family members in fear etc


a proliferation of weapons for self defense will usually result in these sort of things

It's not compulsory. It's just giving the homeowner the protection of the law if, he chooses to defend himself or his property.

Riskymove

bmaxi wrote: »

It's not compulsory.

that's a bit naive I think

I thinks its fairly logical that if it becomes legal to use force, that more people will be thinking along those lines, more will prepare for that eventuality...especially in cases where they feel vulnerable

johngalway

The law should be a simple, burglar beware. It's well past time to take the protection away from the criminals instead of reinforcing their bloody "human rights".

SeanW

johngalway wrote: »

The law should be a simple, burglar beware. It's well past time to take the protection away from the criminals instead of reinforcing their bloody "human rights".

Damn straight!

spank_inferno

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Just heard that they're objecting to the proposed change in the law that you can defend yourself, your family and your property.

I am jacks complete lack of surprise.

Here is another organisation I'd love to see rode out on a rail.

Rb

I was delighted when Nally got off for killing Frog Ward. Criminals are becoming more dangerous these days, sure even petty theft is turning into stabbings, and we can't be expected to just hand our stuff over to anyone who has enough motivation to come into our houses.

If someone breaks into your house, and you kill them (no matter how you kill them), you should walk. Simple as really. They've entered your house uninvited with the intentions to, at the very least, rob your stuff so they should run the risk of having a weapon used on them and possibly losing their lives over it.

I, for one, will be straight out to buy a gun should the legislation change to allow me to defend my house with one. Every day in this country were seeing criminals being defended and getting off lightly, while the innocent citizens are the ones who are punished (victimised initially, then having to go to court and face the criminal, then finding out said criminal will be out before the next election).

I wouldn't want things to get to the extent it has in the states such as being able to carry concealed and revealed weaponry in public, but I would absoutely be in favour of being allowed to kill trespassers on your private property.

dlofnep

You should be able to defend yourself and your home. If someone enters, then they made that decision. Still - in regards to Nally, he may have gone a bit overboard as he shot Ward in the back as he retreated. That's not defense, that's offense. Anything prior to that would have been perfectly OK in my book.

thebman

dlofnep wrote: »

You should be able to defend yourself and your home. If someone enters, then they made that decision. Still - in regards to Nally, he may have gone a bit overboard as he shot Ward in the back as he retreated. That's not defense, that's offense. Anything prior to that would have been perfectly OK in my book.

IMO Ward was probably going to get back up and coming back for blood.

There is a fine line there and its easy to imagine if someone is willing to break into your house and threaten to attack you that they are willing to come back to outnumber you if you try to fight back.

Where does it end? "cause at the end of the day, long as there's two people left on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead."

Its not as simple as Ward was in retreat because we don't know if he wasn't intending on coming back.

I honestly don't even know which side I'm on in this debate. On one hand, I think people should have the right to defend themselves and on the other hand, things can easily get out of hand if they are given that massive responsibility to not take it too far.

dlofnep

thebman wrote: »

IMO Ward was probably going to get back up and coming back for blood.

No, he was running away. It's quite clear that he was not going to come back for blood.

However, if you are suggesting that he would have come back for blood at a later date - then that was for An Gardaí to resolve. If you look at that scenario in any other circumstances (Person A is a threat to Person - it does not give them the right for Person A to kill Person B. The standard protocol would be to get a restraining order, or so forth.

So the issue here is - Ward was no longer a danger at that moment in time. Nally had scared him off with a shot, and had seriously injured Ward. The standard procedure would have been for Nally to call the Gardaí - Explain what happened, that he expected them to return at a later date, so that the Gardaí could handle it.

In my opinion, Ward was in the right to defend his home - but the defense was already done with the first shot - and the shot to the back of Ward as he tried to flee was unnecessary and was wrong.

Liam Byrne

dlofnep wrote: »

In my opinion, Ward was in the right to defend his home - but the defense was already done with the first shot - and the shot to the back of Ward as he tried to flee was unnecessary and was wrong.

I would agree, to an extent, but given that Nally had reported repeated crime and intimidation, and was at his wits end because he wasn't being protected, this is a grey area.

Living in fear because of some scumbag is not on.

Bottom line is that while the gist of your thought is true (in an ideal setup), Ward is dead because of his own unacceptable actions.

If he hadn't broken in, he'd be alive.
If he hadn't intimidated Nally, he'd be alive and Nally would be living contentedly.

johngalway

dlofnep wrote: »

No, he was running away. It's quite clear that he was not going to come back for blood.

However, if you are suggesting that he would have come back for blood at a later date - then that was for An Gardaí to resolve. If you look at that scenario in any other circumstances (Person A is a threat to Person - it does not give them the right for Person A to kill Person B. The standard protocol would be to get a restraining order, or so forth.

So the issue here is - Ward was no longer a danger at that moment in time. Nally had scared him off with a shot, and had seriously injured Ward. The standard procedure would have been for Nally to call the Gardaí - Explain what happened, that he expected them to return at a later date, so that the Gardaí could handle it.

In my opinion, Ward was in the right to defend his home - but the defense was already done with the first shot - and the shot to the back of Ward as he tried to flee was unnecessary and was wrong.

Ara would ya stop. A restraining order? You gonna hold that up to a few lads come around in the dark, living in the middle of nowhere to kick your head in?

The way that scenario ends is with a very dead Padraig Nally, found most likely in the remains of his burnt out house.

'Sake.

thebman

dlofnep wrote: »

No, he was running away. It's quite clear that he was not going to come back for blood.

However, if you are suggesting that he would have come back for blood at a later date - then that was for An Gardaí to resolve. If you look at that scenario in any other circumstances (Person A is a threat to Person - it does not give them the right for Person A to kill Person B. The standard protocol would be to get a restraining order, or so forth.

So the issue here is - Ward was no longer a danger at that moment in time. Nally had scared him off with a shot, and had seriously injured Ward. The standard procedure would have been for Nally to call the Gardaí - Explain what happened, that he expected them to return at a later date, so that the Gardaí could handle it.

In my opinion, Ward was in the right to defend his home - but the defense was already done with the first shot - and the shot to the back of Ward as he tried to flee was unnecessary and was wrong.

No I'm suggesting he may have been back in 10 minutes with about 15 others looking for blood. No time to go to guards in the middle of nowhere if that was what was about to go down.

I don't think what he did was wrong TBH under the circumstances he was still genuinely in fear of his life. You could argue he was acting irrationally because of his fear but he was afraid and it was Wards fault that he was afraid.

dlofnep

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would agree, to an extent, but given that Nally had reported repeated crime and intimidation, and was at his wits end because he wasn't being protected, this is a grey area.

I'm not disputing his reasoning for doing it. My point was that it was morally wrong.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Living in fear because of some scumbag is not on.

Don't dispute this either.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Bottom line is that while the gist of your thought is true (in an ideal setup), Ward is dead because of his own unacceptable actions.

Once again, you're preaching to the preached. I'm not disagreeing with you. But in terms of the law, and morally speaking - the second shot wasn't nessescary.

johngalway wrote: »

Ara would ya stop. A restraining order? You gonna hold that up to a few lads come around in the dark, living in the middle of nowhere to kick your head in?

The way that scenario ends is with a very dead Padraig Nally, found most likely in the remains of his burnt out house.

'Sake.

So why haven't a few lads come around in the dark as of yet then John? He has an entire family which could have theoretically seeking revenge. Killing John would have given them more of a reason for revenge, then shooting him and letting him be.

If Ward was a single man, with no family, no friends and no community behind him - then what you're saying might be true.

dlofnep

thebman wrote: »

I don't think what he did was wrong TBH under the circumstances he was still genuinely in fear of his life. You could argue he was acting irrationally because of his fear but he was afraid and it was Wards fault that he was afraid.

I agree with you as to why he did it - He was either totally in fear, or totally full of adrenaline. In anycase, I don't feel that the second shot was required. Unless the traveller's lived within a 5 minutes walk of Nally. Are you familiar with the geography of the area?

johngalway

dlofnep wrote: »

So why haven't a few lads come around in the dark as of yet then John? He has an entire family which could have theoretically seeking revenge. Killing John would have given them more of a reason for revenge, then shooting him and letting him be.

If Ward was a single man, with no family, no friends and no community behind him - then what you're saying might be true.

Exactly the opposite, as Nally didn't shoot at any of them. Who's to say they weren't delighted to see the back of him, given what we know about the individual.

As for people coming to get Padraig Nally, there are things that aren't public knowledge about that.

The law is all well and good, but, when you live alone in the country a lot can happen that even if you have a close by neighbour they won't hear. Let me tell you this much, the Gardai do a difficult job, but they can't be everywhere at once and I can tell you from personal experience how little they're in very rural areas. Those people are not afraid of any law. How many convictions had the two of them? You seriously think they'll quake in their boots in front of a judge, they will on their arse.

In all practicality the only person you can count on in such a situation is yourself, and there's nothing morally wrong about taking that course of action, in that situation.

From Carrowbrowne to where Nally lives is not much of a spin.

dlofnep

johngalway wrote: »

Exactly the opposite, as Nally didn't shoot at any of them. Who's to say they weren't delighted to see the back of him, given what we know about the individual.

I'm sorry, but you were the one who originally suggested "some lads coming around on a dark night". You can't change the argument to suit you. There was nothing to stop them coming, after Ward was killed.

johngalway wrote: »

As for people coming to get Padraig Nally, there are things that aren't public knowledge about that.

So you would agree - that it was possible for him to be in danger whether he killed Ward or not, and that killing Ward did not truly protect him. Unless you consider someone who was shot at close range, who was running away to be still a physical threat.

Which is my point - the first shot had scared Ward off. The job was done. The second shoted was not required to defend his home. The chances of there being retaliation were the same, if not more with Ward being killed.

johngalway

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you were the one who originally suggested "some lads coming around on a dark night". You can't change the argument to suit you. There was nothing to stop them coming, after Ward was killed.



So you would agree - that it was possible for him to be in danger whether he killed Ward or not, and that killing Ward did not truly protect him. Unless you consider someone who was shot at close range, who was running away to be still a physical threat.

Which is my point - the first shot had scared Ward off. The job was done. The second shoted was not required to defend his home. The chances of there being retaliation were the same, if not more with Ward being killed.

Hold on there now a second, read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote.

I talked of Ward et al coming back to get Nally. The "some lads" included Ward.

I consider Frog Ward to have been a very real threat to people living in rural areas, if you don't then I hope it stays fine for ya.

The only mistake Nally made was buying a bloody single barrel shotgun.

thebman

dlofnep wrote: »

I agree with you as to why he did it - He was either totally in fear, or totally full of adrenaline. In anycase, I don't feel that the second shot was required. Unless the traveller's lived within a 5 minutes walk of Nally. Are you familiar with the geography of the area?

No but the geography of the area isn't really the point unless we are going to have different laws depending on the geography of an area.

I don't think there is anyway you could assume if your in that situation that there isn't a group of people waiting to be given the all clear to come in and help take all your stuff that could be called on if the person breaking in got in trouble.

I'm just looking at it as if I was breaking into someones house. I'd break in but have back up at the ready in case the situation got out of hand. I'd be hoping for a stealthy intrusion to get the person off guard and take them out leaving me free to call the others in.

If that didn't go to plan, I'd retreat and get my back up and if it was only one person, we could approach from several angles maximising the potential that someone will get an angle to get him off guard.

That is how I'd logically see myself planning it if I was going to do such a thing and I think anybody else would behave similarly to myself as people tend to think like that.

So if it was me, I'd have taken him out so he couldn't call for his back up which would give me extra time to call the police and await their arrival and also hopefully freaking the others out as to what happened to their mate and hoping they would be too afraid to backup their mate. I'd try to find a location that minimised angles of attack and try to hold out until the police arrived in case they rest of the group had the balls to come into the house.

That would be my self-defense tactics and how I'd see the intruders tactics in that situation so I'd have to react like that if I was going to react. More likely than not though, I'd just **** myself and hide in the corner and let them take my stuff and claim off insurance if possible.

dlofnep

Sorry, but you're stepping all over yourself. Let's have a look at what you said. Firstly, and I quote:

Ara would ya stop. A restraining order? You gonna hold that up to a few lads come around in the dark, living in the middle of nowhere to kick your head in?

When I asked, what was the difference between them coming around with or without the second shot - you said:

Exactly the opposite, as Nally didn't shoot at any of them. Who's to say they weren't delighted to see the back of him, given what we know about the individual

The implication being that Ward could not gather support from other friends.

So he either did or did not have friends/associates who cared enough to come back. And if he did, then killing Ward is going to make them angrier and give them even more of a motive to attack Nally.

Sorry

oscarBravo

Is there any chance we can discuss the proposed legislation instead of rehashing the Nally case?

dlofnep

No problem.

Zambia

in 99% of cases it just you and the offender.

If you ever smack a offender.

State I was in fear for my life and he came at me so I struck the guy. The state has to prove assault beyond reasonable doubt.

Not an easy thing to disprove self defence in your own Home. I doubt the state would try unless you did actually want a piece of him. thus beat him severely in the process. I also doubt the gardai would drag you over the coles.

I heard of a case where two guys came home to find two thieves in the house. They threw them out the 1st floor window. when the police arrived to find the scumbags on the drive in bits cliaming assualt. blokes looked at the gardai and said they saw us and jumped out the window themselves.

No one could prove otherwise. Its a urban myth but the logic is sound.

You can always defend your home. Simply state you could not get away.

Criminals use the law against us , with a bit of cop on its a great tool against them.

jmayo

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Just heard that they're objecting to the proposed change in the law that you can defend yourself, your family and your property.

Why ?

Because it's "safer to retreat" and that's what they should do.

Yeah, and let some scumbag take all your stuff unchallenged! :mad:

What about the "civil liberty" to feel safe (particularly in your own home) and to not have some scumbags impose their unlawful wishes on our civil liberties ?

Well said.
I am tried of the lily livered excusers of every scum bag that walks on two feet.

Does that organisation ever, ever consider the real victims, you know the ones that are beaten, the ones that are tied up and tortured, the ones who live in fear, with their bedroom doors bolted and a lump hammer, slash hook or shot gun under the bed in case some one of these scumbags break in ?
Do they f**k.

The law and the courts are too lenient.
Look at the scumbags on Primetime the other night, the ones who are career criminals.
One had 26 previous convictions and he gets a suspended sentence :rolleyes:

As well as bringing in the right to defend oneselves in ones home and to defend ones property, there should be Singapore style punishments for all the little junior scumbags that start off with their unsocial behaviour.
It's about time decent people had the right ot live in peace rather than live in fear and have to cower in their own homes.

dlofnep wrote: »

You should be able to defend yourself and your home. If someone enters, then they made that decision. Still - in regards to Nally, he may have gone a bit overboard as he shot Ward in the back as he retreated. That's not defense, that's offense. Anything prior to that would have been perfectly OK in my book.

As a Mayo man I stand firmly behind Padraig Nally.
We need more like him and not those on the council for civil liberties.

dlofnep wrote: »

No, he was running away. It's quite clear that he was not going to come back for blood.

However, if you are suggesting that he would have come back for blood at a later date - then that was for An Gardaí to resolve. If you look at that scenario in any other circumstances (Person A is a threat to Person - it does not give them the right for Person A to kill Person B. The standard protocol would be to get a restraining order, or so forth.

So the issue here is - Ward was no longer a danger at that moment in time. Nally had scared him off with a shot, and had seriously injured Ward. The standard procedure would have been for Nally to call the Gardaí - Explain what happened, that he expected them to return at a later date, so that the Gardaí could handle it.

In my opinion, Ward was in the right to defend his home - but the defense was already done with the first shot - and the shot to the back of Ward as he tried to flee was unnecessary and was wrong.

He may not have been a danger at that point, but Nally was just making sure he wouldn't be a threat in the future.
Nally at that point was probably not thinking very rationally as he had reached breaking point, which was all due to ward's continous hounding and beligerence.

Sorry for going off topic, but I will gladly defend Nally's actions.

The right to defend oneself, ones family and ones private property should be enshrined in the law.
FFS it has been the case where if a burgular breaks into your home and injures themselves they could sue you the owner.
If anyone can stand over such a situation they deserve an award for stupidity.

Dr Galen

jmayo wrote: »

FFS it has been the case where if a burgular breaks into your home and injures themselves they could sue you the owner.
If anyone can stand over such a situation they deserve an award for stupidity.

i've heard of this but thought it was more of urban legend type territory tbh. Surely this can't be the case?

jmayo

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

i've heard of this but thought it was more of urban legend type territory tbh. Surely this can't be the case?

AFAIK it is flip side of the same laws that apply where if I was a walker on your land and I trip going over a fence or fall off a stonewall then the landowner was liable.
Not sure if this was amended or not ?
One of the reasons farmers didn't want walkers on their land, aside from fact some eejits think that farm gates are for ornamental purposes and not meant to be shut.

Also noticable how signs are up that owners not legally liable for any damage or injury incurred while on property.