Change in our law concerning...

Darren Mahony

...defending your live in your home, defending the people there in and defending the property itself! Opinions???

Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Bill 2010 relating to the liability of a person regarding the use of force by him or her in his or her dwelling or in a dwelling in which he or she is a lawful occupant against a person who enters the dwelling; to amend the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997; and to provide for related matters.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/b...210/B4210D.pdf


The key Section 2 provides-


it shall not be an offence for a person who is in his or her dwelling, or for a person
who is a lawful occupant in a dwelling, to use force against another
person or the property of another person where

(a) he or she believes the other person has entered or is
entering the dwelling as a trespasser for the purpose of
committing a criminal act, and

(b) the force used is only such as is reasonable in the circumstances
as he or she believes them to be
(i) to protect himself or herself or another person present
in the dwelling from injury, assault, detention or
death caused by a criminal act,
(ii) to protect his or her property or the property of
another person from appropriation, destruction or
damage caused by a criminal act, or
(iii) to prevent the commission of a crime or to effect, or
assist in effecting, a lawful arrest.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the person uses force
against

(a) a member of the Garda Síochána acting in the course of
his or her duty,
(b) a person assisting a member of the Garda Síochána acting
in the course of his or her duty, or
(c) a person lawfully performing a function authorised by or
under any enactment.

(3) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the person using the force
engages in conduct or causes a state of affairs for the purpose of
using that force to resist or terminate an act of another person acting
in response to that conduct or state of affairs, but subsection (1) may
apply, if the occasion for the use of force arises only because the
person using the force concerned does something he or she may lawfully
do, knowing that such an occasion will arise.

(4) It is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is
honestly held but in considering whether the person using the force
honestly held the belief, the court or the jury, as the case may be,
shall have regard to the presence or absence of reasonable grounds
for the person so believing and all other relevant circumstances.

(5) It is immaterial whether the person using the force had a safe
and practicable opportunity to retreat from the dwelling before using
the force concerned. [...]

(7) The use of force shall not exclude the use of force causing
death.

Khannie

Darren Mahony wrote: »

(b) the force used is only such as is reasonable in the circumstances
as he or she believes them to be

Well...what two people believe to be reasonable will vary wildly. What I consider reasonable defence of my wife and children might be entirely unreasonable in another persons eyes. That sounds like once I'm happy that I did the right thing I should be ok, no?

unknown13

I find it a bit strange that reasonable force can include death in some cases.

onlyasuggestion

unknown13 wrote: »

I find it a bit strange that reasonable force can include death in some cases.

well if, say, someone attacked with a knife and in defending yourself you fatally stabbed them would you not consider it reasonable force? doesn't seem that strange to me.

Greenmachine

unknown13 wrote: »

I find it a bit strange that reasonable force can include death in some cases.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

ColinJennings

Most of this isn't new law, it is a restatement of the existing lawful use of force jurisprudence, which has for many years accepted that the lawful use of force can include fatal force. The exception is that the curtilige is included in the definition of a dwelling, so if someone is in your garden they are treated as if they are in your house for the purpose of you having an opportunity to retreat. Previously if you were in the doorway and you tried to rely on the lawful use of force, you would have a hard time trying to convice someone that you did not have an opportunity to retreat from the situation.

Khannie wrote: »

Well...what two people believe to be reasonable will vary wildly. What I consider reasonable defence of my wife and children might be entirely unreasonable in another persons eyes. That sounds like once I'm happy that I did the right thing I should be ok, no?

What is reasonable is still a matter for the jury to decide.

If two or more people on a 12 man jury believe that what you did was reasonable, then you won't be convicted, although you may be retried as there was not a unanimous or majority verdict.

If 10 or more on a 12 man jury believe that what you did was reasonable, then you will be acquitted.

Dave Joyce

To be honest I think its a load of bollocks that you are curtailed in ANY WAY from defending your home if a stranger enters it unlawfully. If THAT was the law then there would be far less of these (w)ankers EVEN TRYING it in the first place. I mean are there homeowners out there TRYING to entice people into their home in order to beat the dog shi'te outta them?????!!!!!!

Simple, YOUR property, they have NO RIGHT to be there!

Craptacular

ColinJennings wrote: »

Most of this isn't new law, it is a restatement of the existing lawful use of force jurisprudence, which has for many years accepted that the lawful use of force can include fatal force. The exception is that the curtilige is included in the definition of a dwelling, so if someone is in your garden they are treated as if they are in your house for the purpose of you having an opportunity to retreat.

The change also removes the obligation to retreat if an opportunity to do so presents itself.

arybvtcw0eolkf

:pac:

Niall Keane

I hope not too much is made of this law, i.e. that it doesn't become a front-page issue and get exaggerated, and provoking a reaction, as it would be unfortunate if its introduction brought about the escalation of violence in crime, burglars starting to carry shooters to cope with a perceived knife wielding murderous home-owner, and every homeowner suddenly becoming members of a gun club with shotgun lockers at home due to a few burglars shooting hard working fathers and mothers.

Sid_Justice

I was in the pharmacy today and they had the radio on with some woman who had been burgled and felt this was a great law because she felt she had free reign to do what ever she wanted to defend herself. When pushed to explain what she exactly meant by this she was basically clueless. Like did she think all of a sudden she'd be able to chop people up with clevers or knock people out with frying pans because the law has changed? Or is she going to get a gun and shoot them.

I think the law change is fair, in my understanding, previous legislation basically protected the intruder from confrontation - if you spot a burglar you were basically supposed to ring the police and hide in your bathroom. Now if you do confront (not saying you should) at least you covered what happens next (presuming you don't go bat****).

theT

Does anyone know if this change in the law allows for the use of weapons. And no I'm not talking about going ape **** with a knife. I probably like alot of people in Ireland own a hurl and would think nothing of picking it up and using it on someone who broke into my home. Thje question is would this be considered reasonable?

ScareGilly

theT wrote: »

Does anyone know if this change in the law allows for the use of weapons. And no I'm not talking about going ape **** with a knife. I probably like alot of people in Ireland own a hurl and would think nothing of picking it up and using it on someone who broke into my home. Thje question is would this be considered reasonable?

I'd imagine since killing someone is sometimes considered reasonable, I see no reason why giving them a few belts with a hurl wouldn't be.

ColinJennings

ScareGilly wrote: »

I'd imagine since killing someone is sometimes considered reasonable, I see no reason why giving them a few belts with a hurl wouldn't be.

There is caselaw that states that using a gun is reasonable... it all depends on the circumstances.

cletus

ScareGilly wrote: »

I'd imagine since killing someone is sometimes considered reasonable, I see no reason why giving them a few belts with a hurl wouldn't be.

It's my (limited) understanding that you would have to have a valid reason, other than hockeying the sh1te out of the fellah, to have the hurley in your hand in the first place

Niall Keane

It's my (limited) understanding that you would have to have a valid reason, other than hockeying the sh1te out of the fellah, to have the hurley in your hand in the first place

Im sorted so, practicing "useless" sword forms.

Dermighty

cletus wrote: »

It's my (limited) understanding that you would have to have a valid reason, other than hockeying the sh1te out of the fellah, to have the hurley in your hand in the first place

Tell the jury that you were using the hurley as a phallic object to insert into the rectum of your blow up doll when some guy broke into your house and you had to other choice but the cleave him in twain with it.