Irish People Should Be Allowed To Defend Themselves

ChuckNorrisgod

I think that Irish People Should be allowed too Defend themselves....

How Many People have been attacked on the streets raped, mugged, beaten up, killed during these Assaults ?

I myself have been attacked twice in Dublin in ten years.

Also Nearly Handcuffed by a scumbag then chased with my Girlfriend at Jervis Middle Abbey St Luas Stop 2 years ago.

We should be able too carry defensive weapons just encase we were attacked.

In Other Country's you are aloud too carry these weapons and too prevent such crimes.

I'm not talking dangerous weapons just ones that are easy too carry and help victims that have gone threw such ordeals.

These weapons are promoted in mostly ever other country for women and men and for using a these in Ireland you could get fined or prison.

What I'm saying is people should be able too defend themselves if needed that's all.

Women should be able too feel safe when they walk down the street.

How Can We Change the Law....

If you have been attacked mugged or something like this
Please Leave your comment and your thoughts on this......

MrPudding

You are allowed to defend yourself. You are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force to defend yourself and others.

With respect to weapons that would be very dangerous ground. First of all, the average scumbag is likely to be better at fighting than the average punter, so if you had a weapon there is a pretty good chance it would be taken off you and used against you.

More importantly, if you allow people to carry weapons then you are likely to begin to see an escalation in the amount of force a person uses to defend themselves. This could cause problems. For example, someone tried to mug you simply using threaten behaviour and no weapon, you defend yourself with a weapon. There is a pretty good chance the amount of force you have used is not proportional to the risk you faced, so self defence would not be open to you as a defence.

I know a lot of people believe that people who make a habit out of attacking people deserve whatever they get, but that is not really a good way to run a society. There is probably no perfect way to deal with crime of this type, and there is no doubt that the way things currently are is less than ideal, but allowing people to carry weapons and have free reign to defend themselves as they see fit would be in no way better.

MrP

MagicSean

Not really such a thing as a defensive weapon. All weapons can be used offensively and a law allowing you to carry them would just result in every scumbag being armed.

MrPudding

k_mac wrote: »

Not really such a thing as a defensive weapon. All weapons can be used offensively and a law allowing you to carry them would just result in every scumbag being armed.

Probably a bit of an arms race with respect to what the scumbags carry as well. As the victims become more heavily armed the scumbags need better weapons to cover what they might encounter.

I really don't think it could end well.

MrP

Sparks

Quick question for those who've read it in more detail - what precisely does this bill add to the mix that DPP -v- Barnes didn't? Or is it just that it's putting extant case law into statute law?

Sparks

MrPudding wrote: »

Probably a bit of an arms race with respect to what the scumbags carry as well. As the victims become more heavily armed the scumbags need better weapons to cover what they might encounter.
I really don't think it could end well.
MrP

Given that they're now confiscating rocket launchers, and given that most of the weapons that are being seized are used on other rival gangs, I think that (a) it's well past the escalation stage, and (b) we've not really seen any escalation anyway. The firearms used by these gangs against ordinary people who have no contact with them are generally being used in tiger kidnappings and the like, and they're the same firearms that were used in the tiger kidnappings the IRA carried out since the 1980s or so in Ireland.

It's really the rounds that the gangs miss with that I worry about.

MagicSean

Sparks wrote: »

Quick question for those who've read it in more detail - what precisely does this bill add to the mix that DPP -v- Barnes didn't? Or is it just that it's putting extant case law into statute law?

I think the difference is that before the bill there was an onus on you to retreat to safety if that option was available.

sean corcoran

i think provided the person is a scumbag you should be allowed to use lethal force, therefore giving the garda less work to do which in turn lowers taxes. in all kill scumbags end recession

Sparks

k_mac wrote: »

I think the difference is that before the bill there was an onus on you to retreat to safety if that option was available.

That's not what Barnes said:

A person who commits [burglary] 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.

There are consequences of the special status of the dwellinghouse and of its importance to the human dignity of its occupants. Amongst the most relevant of these is that, as has been held by the Courts of Common Law for centuries, a person in his dwellinghouse can never, in law, be under an obligation to leave it, to retreat from it or to abandon it to the burglar or other aggressor. ... It is of course common experience that there will be occasions when a person might well be advised to flee, but that is a matter for his own discretion and he can never be under a legal obligation to do so. Equally, there will be other occasions when a person might be ill advised to flee, perhaps because of exterior conditions or perhaps because of the fear of meeting an accomplice of the known aggressor, or being pursued by the latter, and attacked when he is outside his dwellinghouse and to that extent in a worse or more dubious position.

It is, in our view, quite inconsistent with the constitutional doctrine of the inviolability of a dwellinghouse that a householder or other lawful occupant could be ever be under a legal obligation to flee the dwellinghouse or, as it might be put in more contemporary language, to retreat from it. It follows from this, in turn, that such a person can never be in a worse position in point of law because he has decided to stand his ground in his house.

sean corcoran

sean corcoran wrote: »

i think provided the person is a scumbag you should be allowed to use lethal force, therefore giving the garda less work to do which in turn lowers taxes. in all kill scumbags end recession

You are looking for this forum I reckon.

Bosco boy

There's an old saying "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" think it's fairly relevant if you find yourself in a situation where you may have to use lethal force to defend yourself.

ChuckNorrisgod

What I'm Saying is that we should stand up change the Law and stop being walked over by ever country is allowed too defend themselves expect Ireland.

I'm not saying that carrying is the answer this if needs must then at least we have a choice too carry if we want.

Stop letting ourselves be walked over.

If We stand up for ourselves it would stop.

When I rang the guards after some scumbag bumped into me pretending too be a drunk and tried too slap a handcuff around my arm and then he chased after me.

You Know what the guard said....Are you sure it was not a guard that tried too handcuff I said too him what do you really think Id be ringing you if that was the case.

Too many people have ended me in hospital or died in these attacks its not right and it can't continue.

ChuckNorrisgod

What I'm Saying is that we should stand up change the Law and stop being walked over by ever country is allowed too defend themselves expect Ireland.

I'm not saying that carrying is the answer this if needs must then at least we have a choice too carry if we want.

Stop letting ourselves be walked over.

If We stand up for ourselves it would stop.

When I rang the guards after some scumbag bumped into me pretending too be a drunk and tried too slap a handcuff around my arm and then he chased after me.

You Know what the guard said....Are you sure it was not a guard that tried too handcuff I said too him what do you really think Id be ringing you if that was the case.

Too many people have ended me in hospital or died in these attacks its not right and it can;t continue.

MagicSean

ChuckNorrisgod wrote: »

What I'm Saying is that we should stand up change the Law and stop being walked over by ever country is allowed too defend themselves expect Ireland.

I'm not saying that carrying is the answer this if needs must then at least we have a choice too carry if we want.

Stop letting ourselves be walked over.

If We stand up for ourselves it would stop.

When I rang the guards after some scumbag bumped into me pretending too be a drunk and tried too slap a handcuff around my arm and then he chased after me.

You Know what the guard said....Are you sure it was not a guard that tried too handcuff I said too him what do you really think Id be ringing you if that was the case.

Too many people have ended me in hospital or died in these attacks its not right and it can;t continue.

So what should you have been able to do in your own opinion?

johnnyskeleton

Sparks wrote: »

Quick question for those who've read it in more detail - what precisely does this bill add to the mix that DPP -v- Barnes didn't? Or is it just that it's putting extant case law into statute law?

A) the person's belief that the force is necessary need not be reasonable by reference to objective factors if it is "honestly held";

OR

it's just another way for politicians to say that they are tough on crime. More importantly, the Minister for Justice is supporting this because if he doesn't FG will put in a PMB and it's a bit of a vote winner with the Nally supporters.

ChuckNorrisgod

Do Something anything but letting theses attacks continue on these young men and women.

And when you go too the guards they say too you don't bring this too the courts cause they wont see you as the victim.

I got Kicked around a year and a half ago by a random person and that's what the guard told me oh he said I'm just giving you advice I'm not telling you not too press charges.

This is just me saying this what about the women and men that get attacked ever year.

If that's being said too me what is being said too them.

Funny Idea Say you are attacked in America the land of dream some guy starts a fight you take out a Ninja Star and say do you really want too fight.

He would run off or Croc Dundee you call that a Knife...

Do you get my drift at least give us the option.

Found this article online from a u.s site

So, you know that carrying a concealed self defense weapon is a crime. However, having a concealed weapon can be a great self defense tool, handy for disabling any attacker that may have a weapon himself.

Since you can't carry a gun or a knife in public, I would like to show you a few valuable little household objects you• can use to disable a violent thug. These self defense weapons are nothing other then common things you probably have lying around the house anyways. They are small, compact and concealable.

What am I talking about?

Self defense weapon #1 - Carry a metal pen in your pocket at all times. Metal pens are primarily used for writing, but they can be used as a stabbing weapon, and they are smaller and more concealable than knives and carry alot less legal penalties in court cases if you end up getting charged with assault using a weapon.

k_mac wrote: »

So what should you have been able to do in your own opinion?

MagicSean

ChuckNorrisgod wrote: »

Do Something anything but letting theses attacks continue on these young men and women.

And when you go too the guards they say too you don't bring this too the courts cause they wont see you as the victim.

I got Kicked around a year and a half ago by a random person and that's what the guard told me oh he said I'm just giving you advice I'm not telling you not too press charges.

This is just me saying this what about the women and men that get attacked ever year.

If that's being said too me what is being said too them.

Funny Idea Say you are attacked in America the land of dream some guy starts a fight you take out a Ninja Star and say do you really want too fight.

He would run off or Croc Dundee you call that a Knife...

Do you get my drift at least give us the option.

Found this article online from a u.s site

So, you know that carrying a concealed self defense weapon is a crime. However, having a concealed weapon can be a great self defense tool, handy for disabling any attacker that may have a weapon himself.

Since you can't carry a gun or a knife in public, I would like to show you a few valuable little household objects you• can use to disable a violent thug. These self defense weapons are nothing other then common things you probably have lying around the house anyways. They are small, compact and concealable.

What am I talking about?

Self defense weapon #1 - Carry a metal pen in your pocket at all times. Metal pens are primarily used for writing, but they can be used as a stabbing weapon, and they are smaller and more concealable than knives and carry alot less legal penalties in court cases if you end up getting charged with assault using a weapon.

One of the worst posts i've ever read. Taking out a ninja star if you are attacked will not make you crocodile dundee. If you have so much energy you run away to safety. Thats the best form of defence and the one least likely to end in injury.

MrPudding

k_mac wrote: »

Thats the best form of defence and the one least likely to end in injury.

Or prosecution.

MrP

reunion

chuck seriously? Are you saying everyone should be able to carry weapons everywhere?

Imagine the senario you just said, what happens when that guy comes up to you with a ninja star?

What ever you say you can use to defend yourself can be used in reverse too to attack someone.

It may or may not reduce or increase the amount of crimes but it would increase force during these crimes as attackers would then become more easily provoked (a reach for a wallet in a pocket could then be considered a reach for a conceiled weapon (like the pen you stated)).

Also it seems that you have a problem with the gardai.

My friend had a similar problem with the gardai, our friend got beaten up but they never persuded it because he was on a night out and had been drinking. They wouldn't even check the cameras at the nightclub or follow up in anyway, as it wasn't a big concern for the gardai! Having said that, having a knife probably wouldn't have made the situation anyway better (might have gone to a level of concern for the gardai tho).