Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Allowed to defend against intruder?

  • 10-01-2010 3:53pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 187 ✭✭


    Just saw an interesting article about Myleene Klass on Yahoo!'s homepage. Apparently she tried to frighten off teenagers in her back garden that we're looking in her window by waving a knife at them.

    Now as silly as that sounds, she got warned by the police that not only is that illegal, but even if an intruder breaks into your house, you are not legally allowed to defend yourself. wtf? But, that's in Britain. Just wondering what the story is in Ireland? eg. If a man breaks into my house and tries to subdue my family, am I allowed to throw a punch?


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Not 100% positive, but if someone breaks into your house, you can only defend yourself with something similar to what they are attacking with. Again, not definite on that. Stupid that, IMO. It shouldn't be a duel-type scenario, its about trying to protect yourself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    You first and formost have to retreat, even in your own home. I've heard Gardai swear blind that you don't have to in your own home, but a few weeks ago there was a chap from the law reform commission on RTE who outline the present law clearly and moves to allow you to defend your home and property rather then retreat.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,580 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    The most important thing is to act reasonably. Phoning the police is reasonable, installing an alarm system and putting anti-climb paint on your garden walls is probably reasonable, waving knives at giddy teenagers probably isn't.

    Hitting someone who has hit you or your family is reasonable. Shooting the paramedic who broke into the wrong house looking for granny who has had a fall isn't.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6 stephenhealy1


    McDowell was to introduce a Bill allowing the use of reasonable force which was then knocked on the head by Brian Lenihan when he took over Justice. It would appear from the Padraig Nally case that some level of reasonable force might be allowed, however, this area lacks legal certainty. I imagine that there is a bill floating around somewhere in relation to this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭taram


    So if I retreated into the spare room which has no way out besides breaking my legs jumping out the window, and the intruder follows me in, does that mean I can attack him/her then as I have no place to run?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭dermot_sheehan


    Law for using force against burglars is setout 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.

    Essentially you can not use lethal force against a burglar simply because he is a burglar, (although that was the position at common law), you are however entitled to a great degree of deference if the force you use turns out to be lethal since a burglar is by definition an aggressor in your home and you have no obligation to retreat.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,795 ✭✭✭Worztron


    Does the new law only apply to home-owners or can people in rented houses also defend/attack against burglar dirt bags?

    Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    If you look at the judgment quoted it refers to a citizen's dwellinghouse. So yes, it applies to non-homeowners. Any other systme would be madness.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,795 ✭✭✭Worztron


    234 wrote: »
    If you look at the judgment quoted it refers to a citizen's dwellinghouse. So yes, it applies to non-homeowners. Any other systme would be madness.

    Thank you 234. I just wanted to check as the law in this country is so daft, I wouldn't put it past them.

    Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 135 ✭✭Contra Proferentem


    Reasonable force is the key here. You can't murder someone for burglary, your response has to be proportionate to the threat. By the same logic, you have to be judicious in deciding whether or not to use force in pursuing burgular, as you're not longer under threat if he is retreating.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,795 ✭✭✭Worztron


    Reasonable force is the key here. You can't murder someone for burglary, your response has to be proportionate to the threat. By the same logic, you have to be judicious in deciding whether or not to use force in pursuing burgular, as you're not longer under threat if he is retreating.

    I think any burglar should lose all rights once they break into someone's home.

    Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    Worztron wrote: »
    I think any burglar should lose all rights once they break into someone's home.
    So once they break into your home you should be allowed to tie them up in your basement for years and subeject them to daily torture and rape, eventually chopping them up while still alive and burying their corpse in your back garden?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Worztron wrote: »
    I think any burglar should lose all rights once they break into someone's home.

    I'm 6'4''.

    A 5'5'' 15-year-old breaks into my house on a dare, thinking the house is empty, and comes across me by accident.
    I punch him, knocking him to the ground.

    Do you think I should then be entitled to beat him to death, after he is no longer a real threat?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,102 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    234 wrote: »
    So once they break into your home you should be allowed to tie them up in your basement for years and subeject them to daily torture and rape, eventually chopping them up while still alive and burying their corpse in your back garden?

    Classic. Would save on building any new jails
    I'm 6'4''.

    A 5'5'' 15-year-old breaks into my house on a dare, thinking the house is empty, and comes across me by accident.
    I punch him, knocking him to the ground.

    Do you think I should then be entitled to beat him to death, after he is no longer a real threat?

    Yes. We should have the castle law here. Breaking into a house ,even on dare, is still a criminal act. What happens if the 15 year old breaks into a house with a 100 year old infirm granny and frightens her to death.

    "You but the 1st bullet in the person and the 2nd in the wall"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,002 ✭✭✭dev100


    I'm 6'4''.

    A 5'5'' 15-year-old breaks into my house on a dare, thinking the house is empty, and comes across me by accident.
    I punch him, knocking him to the ground.

    Do you think I should then be entitled to beat him to death, after he is no longer a real threat?



    In fairness Your not goin to beat someone to death if they are down on the floor if they make a run for you well then Its either him or me or my family consequenceswho will suffer the consequences.
    No one should have the right to break into your property whether their 5.5 or 15 or a drug addict etc Simple fact they are there to do mischief and they know of the potential if you are in your house at the time. If there is no law to protect people in their family home then the guards should be there to protect people. Dont know where you live but in most rurals areas is we ll have some one there as soon as we can maybe an hr later. I have been told to get a speedy response time is The double barrel is locked and loaded ready for use . I know myself Id rather be alive standing infront of a judge explaining myself than be 6 ft under


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,300 ✭✭✭CantGetNoSleep


    Del2005 wrote: »
    Classic. Would save on building any new jails



    Yes. We should have the castle law here. Breaking into a house ,even on dare, is still a criminal act. What happens if the 15 year old breaks into a house with a 100 year old infirm granny and frightens her to death.

    "You but the 1st bullet in the person and the 2nd in the wall"
    The CCA referred to the Castle Doctrine in the case of that dirty scumbag Anthony Barnes which was mentioned above


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,795 ✭✭✭Worztron


    234 wrote: »
    So once they break into your home you should be allowed to tie them up in your basement for years and subeject them to daily torture and rape, eventually chopping them up while still alive and burying their corpse in your back garden?

    Don't be ridiculous. I mean the burglar should never be in a position to sue the occupant because they fell down the stairs or for assault because they were immobilised by a few thumps until the police arrived.

    Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,795 ✭✭✭Worztron


    I'm 6'4''.

    A 5'5'' 15-year-old breaks into my house on a dare, thinking the house is empty, and comes across me by accident.
    I punch him, knocking him to the ground.

    Do you think I should then be entitled to beat him to death, after he is no longer a real threat?

    Why would you beat him to death? Sure, punch him and make sure he doesn't get away. Then call the cops.

    Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    Worztron wrote: »
    Don't be ridiculous. I mean the burglar should never be in a position to sue the occupant because they fell down the stairs or for assault because they were immobilised by a few thumps until the police arrived.
    Well then don't make ridiculous statments saying that you don't think burglars should have any rights once they enter your house. FYI, as regards occupiers liability you only owe them a duty not to intentionally harm them (viz-a-viz the state of the premises) and you are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force in defence of your self/family/property. You can do all of this and most of the burglars rights remain intact, as they should.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,102 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    234 wrote: »
    . You can do all of this and most of the burglars rights remain intact, as they should.

    What about my right not to have a thieving scumbag break into my house and threaten my family or steal my property? They aren't respecting my rights so why should I respect their rights not kill them?

    The Gardaí are doing their best but the courts are letting us all down.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    Don't be so absolutist. You can kill an intruder if that is reasonable in the circumstances. If he comes at you with a knife then shoot him in the chest. This probably would amount to reasonable force unless it was later found that you were setting up some kind of trap. However, if a 13 year old scumbag breaks into your house, sees you and tries to run away you shouldn't be entitled to shoot him in the back.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,795 ✭✭✭Worztron


    234 wrote: »
    most of the burglars rights remain intact, as they should.

    When you say words like 'burglars rights' it makes me fume. What about the rights of the unfortunate people that were killed by burglars? Thugs are victimising people (mostly elderly) all over the countryside, I don't think reasonable force should apply to them (I see no problem in an elderly farmer blasting them with a shotgun out of fear for his own life). If someone dies in their home (for example Kieth Barry's grandfather), the burglar should be locked up for manslaughter or even murder. I am sick of the law always going easy on criminals.

    Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    Worztron wrote: »
    When you say words like 'burglars rights' it makes me fume. What about the rights of the unfortunate people that were killed by burglars? Thugs are victimising people (mostly elderly) all over the countryside, I don't think reasonable force should apply to them (I see no problem in an elderly farmer blasting them with a shotgun out of fear for his own life). If someone dies in their home (for example Kieth Barry's grandfather), the burglar should be locked up for manslaughter or even murder. I am sick of the law always going easy on criminals.
    The "unfortunate people" have more rights thana burglar in this situation. They have a right to defend themselves and their property. However the burglar has already limited his rights by trespassing for the purposes of committing a crime. So the law already sides with the occupier of the home. If a burgalr kills somebody then they will be prosecuted. What cannot be allowed is a situation where a homeowner decides to shoot a burglar in the head when a shot in the air would scare him off and remove the threat.
    If by "the law going easy on criminals" you mean sentencing then that is a political issue. Judges have to sentence in accordance with precedent and legislation. If the government wanted to impose more mandatory sentences or increrase those that already exist then they could have ages ago. They choose not to on an ongoing basis. A good example is murder. A guitly conviction for murder carries a mandatory life sentence. However, the minister for justice can release you on licence when ever he wants. This is how murderers get out of prison after 14 years. A political decision, not a legal one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,102 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    234 wrote: »
    What cannot be allowed is a situation where a homeowner decides to shoot a burglar in the head when a shot in the air would scare him off and remove the threat.

    ;);)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,624 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    You can quote the law until the cows come home, the fact is that the Nally man was convicted by a rural jury (in Co. Mayo) and on the retrial in Dublin he was acquitted, despite the fact that he shot the (unarmed) traveller in cold blood with a shotgun.

    If the reverse had happened we'd never have heard the end of it from the likes of Jackie Hely-Rae - townies don't understand the ways of the country folk etc. etc.. I don't remember anybody highlighting the fact that a rural bachelor living alone on a remote small farm was dragged up to Dublin for a second trial and was acquitted after his own people had convicted him.

    They still need to find a jury to convict you, regardless of what the law says.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,647 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    The CCA referred to the Castle Doctrine in the case of that dirty scumbag Anthony Barnes which was mentioned above

    That said, Hardiman fell short of stating that it applied in Ireland. A true castle doctrine not only removes immunity from the homeowner from criminal prosecution, but it also provides immunity from civil suit if there was no criminal liability. It is not universal across the US.

    The rule at the end of Barnes is that you may use the appropriate amount of force to end the threat to your home given the circumstances as you perceive them to be at the time. It specifically says that you are under no duty to retreat.

    NTM


Advertisement