Should lethal force in defence of your home be justified?

Tippgal93

Just a thought. . Should lethal force in defence of your home be allowed. I dot think it should as i dont believe anyone has the right to take another persons life. What's everyone else thoughts on the topic?

Jo King

Tippgal93 wrote: »

Just a thought. . Should lethal force in defence of your home be allowed.

Who says it is not?

ChocolateSauce

In defence of your home or property, no absolutely not. In defence of your life or health, absolutely.

CorkMan

If some scumbag comes through my front door, I won't hesitate to use deadly force.

I wouldn't get out of bed thinking "I am going to kill this thing". For example if I catch him in a corner and he cannot escape, it depends what he does, cos I know he would come at me, or if there are 2/3 of them they'd be after my neck. If he can escape out the door, and would choose to, I would let him. If not, there is the possibility of dire consequences. He is the one who broke into my house deliberatively, I know he is capable of severely injuring/killing me, and wouldn't hesitate to.

Another possibility, if he came at me with a weapon I would aim to injure him to stop him harming me. The injury would highly likely be very serious, probably leading to death, but i'd do it without hesitation. If one of them went after a family member I would seriously injure them without a moments hesitation, there wouldn't be time for one.

I-Shot-Jr

In theory yes I reckon so. They have no place in your home and given the fact your life may very well be at risk there should be no reason why their's shouldn't.

That said if someone broke in my house I reckon I'd brick it. I'm a big guy but have no formal fighting training whatsoever. Unless a sudden urge of anger and adrenaline were to kick in I'd probably just kack my pants and weep.

chucken1

Tippgal93 wrote: »

Just a thought. . Should lethal force in defence of your home be allowed. I dot think it should as i dont believe anyone has the right to take another persons life. What's everyone else thoughts on the topic?

Yes! I wil defend my self ,my family,my house,my dogs and cats by any means now.I used not think like that but I do now.

drkpower

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

In defence of your home or property, no absolutely not. In defence of your life or health, absolutely.

While I agree wioth that fundamentally, the problem is that it is often difficult to ascertain whether the criminal who enters your home is intent on stealing the DVD only or whether they also intend to give your wife or kid a kicking to keep them quiet.

In those circumstances, a householder should be entitled to strike pre-emptively to incapacitate the criminal and as long as they acted reasonably, if the criminal dies as a result of such action, they should not be liable.

Mr. Presentable

Absolutely should. An invader to your home should leave any rights at the door. By having freedom of action for the householder you will reduce the likelihood of it ever being needed.

southsiderosie

I think lethal force is justifiable if someone is in your home. You do not know what their intentions are.

For me, where it gets fuzzy is when they are caught, or try to make a run for it. I don't think that people should, for example, be shot in the back as they are running away, although if my dog got loose and chased them down, I wouldn't call him off.

If you invade someone else's property, you do so at your own risk.

mrgaa1

The way I look at it is if a visitor comes to my front door and I say "come on in" then I've given them an invitation into my home.
When someone enters your home without invitation then as other posters have said all rights are left at the door.
IMO lethal force should only be considered if the person or persons attempts to inflict serious harm.
But I would not hesitate in handing out a good beating - my home is my castle and do not come into my home where my family and I live.

pH

What about in your garden? Or your attached garage or even your unattached garage or shed, can you kill intruders in those too?

What about in your caravan, boat or motorhome do you have carte blanche to kill anyone you find there also?

As an aside, for completely unrelated reasons I came across a story about a man misidentified for murder, however when reading the story I was shocked (yea it's the US I know), MURDER, I mean I was really shocked.

On September 23, authorities say two teenaged boys broke into a home in Davenport, while two other teens waited outside. One of the homeowners, Jose Oyola-Aponte, was able to grab his gun and shot one of the burglars, 15-year-old Otilio Rubio. He later died.

Because the death occured during commission of a felony, all three surviving teens were charged with murder.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=159559&catid=250

southsiderosie

pH wrote: »

What about in your garden? Or your attached garage or even your unattached garage or shed, can you kill intruders in those too?

What about in your caravan, boat or motorhome do you have carte blanche to kill anyone you find there also?

As an aside, for completely unrelated reasons I came across a story about a man misidentified for murder, however when reading the story I was shocked (yea it's the US I know), MURDER, I mean I was really shocked.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=159559&catid=250

I think it's stupid to charge everyone else involved in the crime with murder, but the more shocking thing to me about that story was the fact that the perpetrators were 15. WTF? Where are their parents?

Whenever something like this happens in the US, the parents are always crying on television about "my baby never hurt nobody". Well, your baby had no business breaking into someone's house at 3am...and fifteen year olds don't need to be out on the streets at 3am anyway.

As for killing intruders, I don't think people should kill trespassers on their property (although my father did once set the dog on a man stealing tomato plants and a hose out of our garden), but once you are in someone's house, lethal force is justifiable. The thing is, you don't know if someone is armed, or what they are actually planning to do once in an enclosed area. If someone is rummaging around outside though, you can lock yourself in the house and call the cops.

I think this is trickier in rural areas though.

Manach

The following published bill allows lethal force in some circumstances in defence of a home. http://irishexaminer.com/ireland/bill-lets-public-use-lethal-force-on-intruders-125602.html
However, AFAIK, it has not been signed into actual law, and may not make it into this Dail's session.

LittleBook

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think it's stupid to charge everyone else involved in the crime with murder

It's the law in the US and used to be in the UK/Ireland until the 50s/60s.

Dades

I have a medieval sword beside my bed upstairs and a baseball bat (hidden) downstairs.

Anyone breaking into my home will be offered one opportunity to leave, after that it's sayonara.

dlofnep

Yes it is. Every man, woman and child should have the right to feel protected in their own home. Nobody forces an intruder to enter someone else's home. If someone broke into mine, I'd be quick to crack their skull open with a hurley - And I wouldn't think twice about it.

Zombrex

The discussion is getting a bit muddled.

Defense of your home (the castle doctrine) means the right to defend not just yourself in the house but your property itself.

This is what is common in countries like the USA. You can shoot someone in your house even if they are not directly threatening you (ie you have an escape out the back door while they are lifting your TV out the front door).

This is different to the laws we have here in Ireland. You can use force if you are directly threatened but you cannot use force to protect your property.

I agree with this more than the former. I think unless someone is directly threatening you are not justified in attacking them or using deadly force against them.

looksee

If I found someone in my house and I had the resources to defend myself, I wouldn't hang about to ask were they just pinching my telly or did they intend to threaten me! Actually more likely that I would hide or do a runner till they were gone!

Eliot Rosewater

Interestingly, the new Irish legislation in this area does not require that the use of force be justified; it merely requires that the home owner thinks, at the time of the break in, that it is justified.

ChocolateSauce

drkpower wrote: »

While I agree wioth that fundamentally, the problem is that it is often difficult to ascertain whether the criminal who enters your home is intent on stealing the DVD only or whether they also intend to give your wife or kid a kicking to keep them quiet.

In those circumstances, a householder should be entitled to strike pre-emptively to incapacitate the criminal and as long as they acted reasonably, if the criminal dies as a result of such action, they should not be liable.

Yeah I can see the problem.....perhaps there should be some legal protection whereby if you try to incapacitate an invader and accidentally kill him, allowances can be made if excessive force was not used. I'm just worried that someone will wake up, find some 16 year-old kid robbing things, and will kill him, despite there being no intention to harm the occupants of the house. It's happened before, many times.

drkpower

Wicknight wrote: »

This is different to the laws we have here in Ireland. You can use force if you are directly threatened but you cannot use force to protect your property.

I agree with this more than the former. I think unless someone is directly threatening you are not justified in attacking them or using deadly force against them.

Again, as with ChocSauce, I agree with the thrust of this point. But how is one to accurately determine, in a state of high stress, what is a direct threat to the person/another person and what is merely a direct threat to property. For instance, isnt the very presence of a criminal in your home, while you and your family are there, in and of itself, a threat to you and your family? I would argue that it is, in all but the most unusual cases.

drkpower

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Yeah I can see the problem.....perhaps there should be some legal protection whereby if you try to incapacitate an invader and accidentally kill him, allowances can be made if excessive force was not used. I'm just worried that someone will wake up, find some 16 year-old kid robbing things, and will kill him, despite there being no intention to harm the occupants of the house. It's happened before, many times.

I hear you but given how easy it is for a relatively well prepared criminal to figure out when noone is at home, and break in then, i dont have a whole lot of sympathy for one who breaks into an occupied home. As far as i am concerned, breaking into an occupied home is, by its very nature, and should be construed in law to be an intention to commit an assault (without evidence to the contrary).

irishh_bob

Jo King wrote: »

Who says it is not?

guy ( bad neighbour ) trespassed onto my property once and gave me a black eye , we were both summonsed to court yet i was the only one who got a conviction for assault , ironically the same idiot judge who let the other guy off , was in the national media a year later for saying he would blow the head of an intruder if they entered his premsises

mikemac

CorkMan wrote: »

If some scumbag comes through my front door, I won't hesitate to use deadly force.

The truth is nobody knows how they will react until they are in that situation.

Some people will freeze and be incapable of doing much at all.

Just hope you are never put in that situation but if you ever do, your detailed post and plan might not happen. You might freeze with fear

niallers1

It's all well and good saying how you would defend your home but this is the flip side..What to you do when the person breaking into your home is armed and dangerous..

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0304/breaking16.html

Aparently he caught somebody breaking into his house.

Freddie59

Tippgal93 wrote: »

Just a thought. . Should lethal force in defence of your home be allowed. I dot think it should as i dont believe anyone has the right to take another persons life. What's everyone else thoughts on the topic?

100% yes.

Manic Moran

don't think it should as i dont believe anyone has the right to take another persons life.

That's OK. The burglar doesn't have a right to enter anyone's home. It's even in the Constitution (art 40 s5). So it's a fair trade.

In those circumstances, a householder should be entitled to strike pre-emptively to incapacitate the criminal and as long as they acted reasonably, if the criminal dies as a result of such action, they should not be liable

That is actually the state of the law in Ireland and the UK right now.
Quoting Judge Hardiman in DPP v Barnes:

“When the householder finds himself in the presences of a burglar in the still of the night, his position is exactly the same as it was for his nineteenth eighteenth or even sixteenth century ancestors. The police force is of no service. If he has a telephone, the noise made in operating it will probably alert the burglar, who may well be of a violent disposition. The householder knows that he must make the choice between attempting to arrest or scare off the burglar in which case he may find himself in serious danger, if the burglar turns out to be violent, and attacking the burglar first without a warning and possibly by inflicting death thus ensuring the safety of himself and his family”. (See Lanham Defence of Property in the Criminal Law [1966] Crim. L.R. 368.

I think it's stupid to charge everyone else involved in the crime with murder

It has some logic to it. You choose to do something illegal, and someone dies who wouldn't have died had you stayed within the law, why shouldn't you be culpable for the death?

The following published bill allows lethal force in some circumstances in defence of a home. http://irishexaminer.com/ireland/bil...rs-125602.html
However, AFAIK, it has not been signed into actual law, and may not make it into this Dail's session.

That pretty much just codeifies the current caselaw in Ireland. The first paragraph of the article, stating that there is a duty for the homeowner to retreat, is factually inaccurate. Again, from DPP vs Barnes:

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.

This is different to the laws we have here in Ireland. You can use force if you are directly threatened but you cannot use force to protect your property

Actually, not so.... Back to Hardiman...

“… the making of an attack upon the dwelling, and especially at night, the law requires as equivalent to an assault on a man’s person; for a man’s house is his castle, and therefore, in the eye of the law, it is equivalent to an assault…”

<snip>

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

Note: Personal rights, not personal safety. A burglary is not a robbery or a mugging. It is an invasion of the person.

Interestingly, the new Irish legislation in this area does not require that the use of force be justified; it merely requires that the home owner thinks, at the time of the break in, that it is justified.

Again, codeifying existing caselaw.

The victim of a burglary is not in the position of an ordinary reasonable man or woman contemplating what course of action is best in particular circumstances. He may be (and Mr. Forrestal actually was) aging, alone, confronted with numerous and/or much younger assailants (Barnes was almost exactly fifty years younger than his victim). In almost every case the victim of burglary will be taken by surprise. The victim will, therefore, be in almost every case shocked and surprised and may easily be terrified out of his wits. To hold a person in this situation to an objective standard would be profoundly unjust.

<snip>

But even apart from that it would be observed that the statutory formula itself partakes of both a subjective element - force “such as is reasonable in the circumstances as her or she perceives them to be…” and an objective element - the provisions of s.1(2) of the 1997 Act which require a court or jury to have regard to the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the belief that the level of force used was no more than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances. But it must always be borne in mind that the burglar must take the occupant as he finds him and that in many cases it will in practice take the deployment of grossly disproportionate force, or evidence of actual malice (as in the well known Martin case in Great Britain) to fix the householder with liability. He or she has, after all, been deliberately subjected to an experience which will shock even the most robust and might make many irrational with terror.

I hear you but given how easy it is for a relatively well prepared criminal to figure out when noone is at home, and break in then, i dont have a whole lot of sympathy for one who breaks into an occupied home.

Neither do we in the US. Burglaries in the US happen about as often as anywhere in Europe, according to the statistics. However, incidents of people (either burglar or resident) being injured as a result of burlglar/homeowner encounters are very low. Since burlgary can quite easily get you shot around here, the burglars take pains to ensure they're breaking into an unoccupied dwelling. If anyone's curious, only about one in ten burglaries in the US happen when the home is occupied, compared to somewhere just over half in the UK.

At the most basic level, however, the homeowner's primary duty is to his own safety. He has no idea if the burglar is just out for the DVD player, or is like this chap from last week.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Savage-burglar-cut-off-artists-fingers-117394843.html

A thief who cut a number of fingers from an artist’s hand during a burglary is to be sentenced at Dublin Criminal Court in July.

James Kenny forced his way into the woman’s apartment wearing a balaclava and stole items before binding and gagging the woman and later attacking her. He later told police he had no motive for attacking the woman but that he had a problem with painkillers and needed money.

<snip>

Both her ring and baby finger had been amputated at joints and her middle and index finger were practically amputated. Doctors managed to amputate her middle finger, but she lost the other finger portions. Her facial scars are still visible

And there's no way of knowing what sort of burglar you're dealing with ahead of time.

NTM

Daegerty

Defence of one's property should also be a valid reason for being given a license for a rifle or shotgun.

Cavehill Red

Padraig Nally defence for the win.
If I find someone uninvited in my house, I'll take my chances in a courtroom later. They won't be getting a second chance, however.
Some people may have noticed my thread about my mate who had his gaff cleaned out by pondlife junkies and his laptop stolen with the only copy of his thesis on it. Just thinking about what that lad has lost so that scum can get high for a couple of days makes me enraged beyond belief.
How dare they think they have the right to take other people's property, when they themselves refuse to do anything constructive with their lives?
I hope that the new Justice Minister sits up and takes notice of the threefold increase in burglary and mugging in the Dublin area in the past three years and legislates accordingly. There is effectively little or no disincentive for scum to thieve, because so few get caught and sentences are so light.
Without much better detection and much stronger penalties, more and more people are going to go the Padraig Nally route when they find filth breaking into their home or trying to mug them, and I don't blame them at all. If the state won't be a disincentive, then the people themselves will have to.

Edit: as for legislation, I'd like to see some of the following brought in -

1. Garda bonuses for successful prosecution of burglars, thieves, muggers and rapists, with pay reductions for failure to detect culprits in less than 20% of their investigated cases. Quit eating donuts and catch some effing criminals, why don't you?
2. Escalating penalty system. It shouldn't be possible for someone to be walking around with 40 odd convictions. Someone should be banged up for life long before that.
3. Jail for all theft, no excuses. White collar fraud included.
4. Mandatory minimum sentences.
5. Loss of access to all welfare or benefits for life once convicted and jailed.
6. The ability to produce a property search warrant on the approval of a Garda Inspector.

Dublinman12

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Padraig Nally defence for the win.
If I find someone uninvited in my house, I'll take my chances in a courtroom later. They won't be getting a second chance, however.
Some people may have noticed my thread about my mate who had his gaff cleaned out by pondlife junkies and his laptop stolen with the only copy of his thesis on it. Just thinking about what that lad has lost so that scum can get high for a couple of days makes me enraged beyond belief.
How dare they think they have the right to take other people's property, when they themselves refuse to do anything constructive with their lives?
I hope that the new Justice Minister sits up and takes notice of the threefold increase in burglary and mugging in the Dublin area in the past three years and legislates accordingly. There is effectively little or no disincentive for scum to thieve, because so few get caught and sentences are so light.
Without much better detection and much stronger penalties, more and more people are going to go the Padraig Nally route when they find filth breaking into their home or trying to mug them, and I don't blame them at all. If the state won't be a disincentive, then the people themselves will have to.

Edit: as for legislation, I'd like to see some of the following brought in -

1. Garda bonuses for successful prosecution of burglars, thieves, muggers and rapists, with pay reductions for failure to detect culprits in less than 20% of their investigated cases. Quit eating donuts and catch some effing criminals, why don't you?
2. Escalating penalty system. It shouldn't be possible for someone to be walking around with 40 odd convictions. Someone should be banged up for life long before that.
3. Jail for all theft, no excuses. White collar fraud included.
4. Mandatory minimum sentences.
5. Loss of access to all welfare or benefits for life once convicted and jailed.
6. The ability to produce a property search warrant on the approval of a Garda Inspector.

I totally agree with you there mate...

you will have the wooly bleeding hearts posting soon about the human rights of the burglar and how hard a life he had etc....

I have first hand experience of scum breeaking into my home and its a disgusting feeling....

Either rehabilitate the prisoner or lock them up for a long time...one or the other or both....neither is happening here....the courts are so out of touch and claim that they have nowhere to put them due to overcrowding...so what do they do?...Let them back out to break into peoples homes at will...until they kill somebody and then they get manslaughter:rolleyes:

Cavehill Red

I've been wondering about the success of the motoring penalty points system and the possibility of introducing similar in relation to criminality and benefits.
We need to save some cash on the welfare bill, right? How about rewarding good citizens and penalising scumbags?
Every conviction should reduce the amount of benefits you're entitled to, moving swiftly towards zero, and further convictions or serious convictions should lengthen the amount of time you are unable to claim.
So, caught pissing in the street? Down a giver on potential or claimed benefits for the next year. Reinstated if you don't offend. But accumulating if you do reoffend in any way at any time in the future.
Caught raping or murdering? No benefits ever again.
First burglary? Half benefits for the first two years when you get out. Next offence quarter benefits for five years. Third offence, no benefits for five years.
Hit the scum where it hurts. They treat Mountjoy like a free holiday where they get to meet up with all their old pals and get fed well.

Freddie59

Dublinman12 wrote: »

I totally agree with you there mate...

you will have the wooly bleeding hearts posting soon about the human rights of the burglar and how hard a life he had etc....

I have first hand experience of scum breeaking into my home and its a disgusting feeling....

Either rehabilitate the prisoner or lock them up for a long time...one or the other or both....neither is happening here....the courts are so out of touch and claim that they have nowhere to put them due to overcrowding...so what do they do?...Let them back out to break into peoples homes at will...until they kill somebody and then they get manslaughter:rolleyes:

You might be interested in THIS THREAD.

carlybabe1

In my personal opinion, and experience, its a really freaky feeling to discover someones been creeping round your home while you and ur kids slept upstairs, and the puzzling thing of who ate the yoghurts out of the fridge (I know there was 6 there yesterday, am i goin mental??) Wheres my smokes......why cant i find my keys....****.. the telly..

Numerous amounts of sleepless nights wonderin how the hell they did it so quietly, and wat if they had come up the stairs..if I didnt hear them downstairs then how would i hear them creepin up them?.... so I reckon fear has a large part to play. If i woke and heard them downstairs, i would make just enough noise to let them know i was awake but not necessarily aware that they are there (their Que to leave), if however i heard them on the up, i reckon fear would kick in, and id do watever necessary to stop them getting to my kids...

calex71

If someone broke into my home even as a grown man I'd have a big sense of fear, what if they have a knife etc. I'd fear for my safety, and it's just a telly or laptop that can be replaced.

Things change if I was to be directly threatened I'd have no choice to defend myself.

Agree with others though they leave all rights at the door.

What would scare me more is the law's / legislation / loopholes / inconsistencies in implementing them, whether the judge has a hangover or is in a bad mood on the day, if I was to be put in front of one for killing or hurting an intruder in my home.

carwash106

Is there a forum on boards that deals with home security and alarm systems etc, if so where is it because i have looked although it might be ovious and if not then I think it would be a good idea.

How to burglers break into houses that have their doors and windows locked up anyway. We have strong doors and strong windows at home but i wonder if an experience burgler could get in.

Not that weak doors and windows is a justification or an excuse for burglers to break into peoples houses or anything, because it certainly is not.

irishh_bob

someone broke into my brothers farmyard in the past number of weeks , stole thousands of euros of equipment , had my brother woken , it would have been out with the 12 gauge quicker than you can say intruder alert

caseyann

I heard something of the sort,if they enter your bedroom then its allowed.
Not sure how true it is.
And in answer to question for items of material value they can take it and go.
And deadly force can lead to bad for you after,in the likes of revenge from their family and friends.
However if they put you or your families lives at risk,what needs to be done will be done.

Wibbs

carwash106 wrote: »

Is there a forum on boards that deals with home security and alarm systems etc, if so where is it because i have looked although it might be ovious and if not then I think it would be a good idea.

here ya go http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1366

How to burglers break into houses that have their doors and windows locked up anyway. We have strong doors and strong windows at home but i wonder if an experience burgler could get in.

Burglars get in quite easily if your house has double glazing. The old style single puttied in glazing was harder to do without making noise. With the majority of duoble glazing windows out there you can remove the entire window panel from the outside. Yep daft or what? great bloody design feature there. So called "security" glazing is just mounted from inside the house. So basically they can take out an entire pane of glass and in they go.

Secondly most people even if they've an alarm don't arm the thing at night. Stupid.

Not that weak doors and windows is a justification or an excuse for burglers to break into peoples houses or anything, because it certainly is not.

No it's not, but people's lack of vigilance does add to the problem. Like with car theft, there is a lot of "ah sure if they want it they'll take it. Sure they're experts you know?". No they're not. Most scum criminal types of this nature are pretty dense. Consistent studies have shown these people to below the average in IQ. Raffles the gentleman cat burglar is a major rarity. More like anto the dribble nosed junkie. So they can be delayed, put off and even beaten. Number one a big dog. Hence middle level drug dealers have them. As do a lot of cops and other security experts. Scum won't get around a well trained doberman to easily.

As far as lethal force? Personally if I got the upper hand with an intruder, yes I would not lose sleep if for some reason he ended up not breathing anymore. I've seen the terrible results of burglary. To some its very akin to the rape of their home, their sanctuary. I've seen a wonderful elderly lady, an asset to her friends family and community, waste away and finally take her own life because of these scum. I'd happily extinguish their miserable "lives". I am however a bit of a Nazi in this.

tawnyowl

LittleBook wrote: »

It's the law in the US and used to be in the UK/Ireland until the 50s/60s.

I think that under common design in Ireland, if one member of a group committing a crime kills someone, the others can also be charged. I think it was used in the case of the killing of Garda McCabe.

1995sarah

Yeah, I would just grab the kitchen knife and stab' em. Any scumbag come near me or my home," my santuary," I wouldn't think twice bout it.
Man I wish we could bear arms in this country. A nise 9mm semi into the head 3 times, make sure the job is done right.
Scumbags deserve it. Cops in America tell yeah in High School your rights, right to bear arms ect.
Three shots are recommended to finish the job, so the scumbag can't come back and sue yeah, loophole in the law there. So you have to kill. Hell, people are killed there every week trying to break into houses, the cops just right it off as self-defence.
Here, people don't have these same rights unfortunately. Hell, there are a lot of rights we don't have here.

barry711

I would and I think people who would not should really consider the following.

1. You do not know what the intentions are of this person.
2. You do not know how this person will behave one they are caught or disturbed.

You have a 50-50 chance that they will either "flight or fight" if they are disturbed or caught by you. A lot of animals fight in these conditions when they are threatened or cornered. This being a primitive thing in all of us it is still activated in such situations. So with this in mind I wouldn't give them the opportunity to make any choice they would be out cold with a lump hammer to the head before the knew what hit 'em.

barry711

1995sarah wrote: »

Yeah, I would just grab the kitchen knife and stab' em. Any scumbag come near me or my home," my santuary," I wouldn't think twice bout it.
Man I wish we could bear arms in this country. A nise 9mm semi into the head 3 times, make sure the job is done right.
Scumbags deserve it. Cops in America tell yeah in High School your rights, right to bear arms ect.
Three shots are recommended to finish the job, so the scumbag can't come back and sue yeah, loophole in the law there. So you have to kill. Hell, people are killed there every week trying to break into houses, the cops just right it off as self-defence.
Here, people don't have these same rights unfortunately. Hell, there are a lot of rights we don't have here.

Seems you have a bloodlust to kill a "scumbag"

Bagenal

I find the notion that a property owner should not make a stand against an intruder when he (the owner) has a means of escape e.g. back door, a nonsensical idea. In my opinion if someone intrudes on anothers property and when challenged does not make good their escape then that intruder is leaving the owner with little choice but to protect themselves, their family, their property and their belongings. Why should a property owner leave their premises to the intruder to rob or smash the place up? Fair enough it would be best to do this if you were elderly or physically incapable of not being able to do anything.

As for the question of whether one should be allowed to use all and/or any neseccary force to proctect any property/belongings outside of the dwelling house such as sheds, tools or equipment, my view is yes it should be alowed. I live in the country and my piece of ground amounts to .75ac approx. on which I have a shed behind my dwelling, if I come accross someone on that piece of ground without my permission or invitation I will do whatever I consider nessesary to remove them, starting with a verbal request to leave, a phone call to the an Garda if I am in a position to do so, if i am threathened or feel so I will use all force or weapons at my disposal to protect myself and my belongings.

The intruder should be aware of the risk that he/she could be seriously injured or killed if he/she has intentions of stealing or causing harm if entering somewhere illegally.

deisedave

Wibbs wrote: »

here ya go http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1366
Burglars get in quite easily if your house has double glazing. The old style single puttied in glazing was harder to do without making noise. With the majority of duoble glazing windows out there you can remove the entire window panel from the outside. Yep daft or what? great bloody design feature there. So called "security" glazing is just mounted from inside the house. So basically they can take out an entire pane of glass and in they go.

Secondly most people even if they've an alarm don't arm the thing at night. Stupid.
No it's not, but people's lack of vigilance does add to the problem. Like with car theft, there is a lot of "ah sure if they want it they'll take it. Sure they're experts you know?". No they're not. Most scum criminal types of this nature are pretty dense. Consistent studies have shown these people to below the average in IQ. Raffles the gentleman cat burglar is a major rarity. More like anto the dribble nosed junkie. So they can be delayed, put off and even beaten. Number one a big dog. Hence middle level drug dealers have them. As do a lot of cops and other security experts. Scum won't get around a well trained doberman to easily.

As far as lethal force? Personally if I got the upper hand with an intruder, yes I would not lose sleep if for some reason he ended up not breathing anymore. I've seen the terrible results of burglary. To some its very akin to the rape of their home, their sanctuary. I've seen a wonderful elderly lady, an asset to her friends family and community, waste away and finally take her own life because of these scum. I'd happily extinguish their miserable "lives". I am however a bit of a Nazi in this.

You are 100 percent right and If you killed one of them you would be making people safe in the future.

Fuinseog

Tippgal93 wrote: »

Just a thought. . Should lethal force in defence of your home be allowed. I dot think it should as i dont believe anyone has the right to take another persons life. What's everyone else thoughts on the topic?

yes. I had a scumbag heroin addict break in, while I slept. he did not have my best intentions at heart and I did not offer him a cup of tea. Maybe you will think differently if confronted with this in reality.

evo20

Its allowed IMO

Corsendonk

I had this conversation with a friend who is a fully paid up gun club member with at least 3 shotguns and one rifle in the house. Now reading through this thread you would think he is in ideal position to defend his home using firearms if he heard an intruder downstairs but in his opinion using the guns would be a last resort because his life would be hell afterwards with the fear that the scumbags relatives/friends might want to get even after his photo gets plastered all over the papers as a "Have a go Hero". His plan is to make as much noise as possible in the hope they scatter out the door downstairs.

Wibbs

That would be my issue too. I'd happily go to town on a scumbag with a chainsaw and plastic sheet, but the aftermath is the problem. You'd have to keep one eye open all the time. Crimes against property aren't taken as seriously in this country. "Ah shure wasn't it insured" a common refrain. The Guards are understaffed and underfunded and see scum walk free way too often, so they're usually as much use as a chocolate coffee pot in theft cases.

mprgst78

I believe lethal force should be allowed, and even encouraged?

The message will go out to the criminals that they will pay with their life if they break and enter!

Magic Beans

Anyone enters my home then all bets are off. I wouldn't shed a tear nor lose a wink of sleep over it.

slowburner

Corsendonk wrote: »

I had this conversation with a friend who is a fully paid up gun club member with at least 3 shotguns and one rifle in the house. Now reading through this thread you would think he is in ideal position to defend his home using firearms if he heard an intruder downstairs but in his opinion using the guns would be a last resort because his life would be hell afterwards with the fear that the scumbags relatives/friends might want to get even after his photo gets plastered all over the papers as a "Have a go Hero". His plan is to make as much noise as possible in the hope they scatter out the door downstairs.

By and large, if your common or garden burglar is confronted successfully the chances of retribution are low. They know that there are plenty of easier targets, so they just move on to those. But then there are those for whom violence is their primary option - the General was one - and if someone of his ilk was the aggressor then retribution could be very likely. In the dead of night, with the adrenaline flowing, how are you to know whether the invader is a common thief or a professional psychopath?
Where I live, I am in a state of almost constant siege (common or garden bad guys). I have lost many thousands to thieves and the guards have been unable to do anything about it. I have fired warning shots (very successfully) and would not hesitate to use a firearm lethally if the situation required it. I expect there are many more in rural areas in a similar position.
This all reminds me of a member of the House of Lords who was moving back to his ancestral home in rural Ireland. He asked the local sergeant what he should do in the event of a burglary. Knowing that Lord ****** didn't have a gun, he pointed to a cutlass over the fireplace "Use that, but make sure you kill him or else you'll be sued". :eek: