Burglar wounded got what he deserved - judge

CaseyRyback

Burglar shot by householder got 'summary justice' rules judge

A burglar shot by a man defending his home was told by a judge that he had just received summary justice.
7:00AM GMT 18 Feb 2011

Lewis Patterson had smashed his way into the house with a metal bar and was trying to take a motorcycle when he was confronted by Gary Holmes and his air rifle. Mr Holmes, 19, had been relaxing at home with his girlfriend and two-month-old baby when he spotted Patterson creeping around his garden. He ran to grab his air rifle and challenged the intruder as he got into their home in Hull, East Yorks. During a scuffle, Patterson lunged at him with a metal bar but Mr Holmes managed to fire two shots, sending the burglar packing. Mr Holmes telephoned the police to report the attack. After escaping, Patterson dialled 999 to report the shooting.

The young father said he warned Patterson before firing. “I never expected to have to shoot a person,” he said. “The first officers who came seemed quite surprised when I said I had shot him. I don’t think they knew what to think. They seemed a bit confused about who they were going to be charging, so they sent officers from CID to take a statement the next day. They said that because he had threatened me that I should be fine.”

Police eventually arrested Patterson after they saw through his claim that he was shot at through a window while innocently walking past the house. Mr Holmes said: “I didn’t have much time to worry about if I was going to be prosecuted because I was more concerned about whether he would be coming back and whether my girlfriend and the baby were OK.

“I ran upstairs to get my rifle and looked through the window and saw him hit the window with a baseball bat so hard that it snapped. Then he used a metal bar. I ran down the stairs loading my rifle at the same time. When I went into the dining room, he was trying to pull my motorbike through the window. I told him, not very politely, to get out, but he just stared straight at me. Because I have the rifle, I know a bit about the law around it so I showed him the gun and gave him a chance to leave before I did anything. I knew you can’t just shoot someone. He raised this iron bar up and started coming towards me so I just pulled my gun up and shot him. Even then, he started to come towards me again and threw a brick at me. He must have thought it was a single shot rifle, but I shot him again. If I had let him hit me, I could have been in hospital or dead.”

Patterson pleaded guilty at Hull Crown Court to burglary. Sentencing him to 18 months in a young offenders institution, Judge Michael Mettyear, the Honorary Recorder of Hull and East Riding, said: “This was quite outrageous conduct. It’s true to say he got some summary justice but it is something that will live with him for a very long time.”

Mr Holmes did not need a licence to possess the rifle but it has been held by police as evidence since the incident.

Source

Skatedude

the law in this country is a joke. A far as i'm concerned, If you break into someones house, then you can expect to lose your life.

Instead the law protects the criminal in almost every case and thats simply wrong. Glad the judge saw sense in this case.

punchdrunk

shame it wasnt 5.56mm

shampon

Skatedude wrote: »

If you break into someones house, then you can expect to lose your life.

Makes alot of sense. :rolleyes:.:rolleyes:

RMD

Skatedude wrote: »

the law in this country is a joke. A far as i'm concerned, If you break into someones house, then you can expect to lose your life.

Instead the law protects the criminal in almost every case and thats simply wrong. Glad the judge saw sense in this case.

Giving people the right to kill someone if being burgled will eventually lead to some psycho killing a person, even if they are a scumbag. Reasonable force where common sense prevails, such as in this case is the best solution.

I'm not supporting the criminal, but the idea of giving people the right to kill someone is just idiotic.

CaseyRyback

RMD wrote: »

but the idea of giving people the right to kill someone is just idiotic.

I'm sure your view would have 100% support from those on death row, USA.

RMD

CaseyRyback wrote: »

I'm sure your view would have 100% support from those on death row, USA.

There's a difference between a judicial system giving someone the death penalty and giving the average citizen the right to kill a burglar, it's a huge difference.

meathstevie

RMD wrote: »

There's a difference between a judicial system giving someone the death penalty and giving the average citizen the right to kill a burglar, it's a huge difference.

It's not about the right to kill, it's about the right to use an amount of force sufficient to neutralise an unlawful threath to life. Do you deem it acceptable or not that this can result in the death of or serious injury to a violent criminal ?

Personally I believe this to be acceptable as long as the defensive actions were clearly intended to neutralise an unlawful threath and as long as the defensive actions were justifiable and proportionate.

Would you for example deem it acceptable that the owner of a lawfully held firearm fires a single shot at a burglar armed with a knife or a hatchet inside his/her home unintentionally killing the burglar ?

RMD

meathstevie wrote: »

It's not about the right to kill, it's about the right to use an amount of force sufficient to neutralise an unlawful threath to life. Do you deem it acceptable or not that this can result in the death of or serious injury to a violent criminal ?

Personally I believe this to be acceptable as long as the defensive actions were clearly intended to neutralise an unlawful threath and as long as the defensive actions were justifiable and proportionate.

Would you for example deem it acceptable that the owner of a lawfully held firearm fires a single shot at a burglar armed with a knife or a hatchet inside his/her home unintentionally killing the burglar ?

Look back at the quote I was originally refering to

Skatedude wrote: »

A far as i'm concerned, If you break into someones house, then you can expect to lose your life.

If the burglar is violent or poses a threat to your safety / life then quite obviously you should be able to act in self-defense and as it is now "within reasonable force", Ie doing enough to get rid of him, if he'll run after a punch give him a punch, if he's trying to kill you then you kill him, a law where common sense prevails. What Skatedude is proposing if you're breaking into a house you can expect to lose your life Ie the owner basically can kill you regardless of the circumstances.

In the situation you mentioned I think that's perfectly lawful, fire a warning shot in the direction of the burglar, if he doesn't run fire again and this time at the body mass. If you don't have time for a warning shot then fire at the bodymass, as I said, within reasonable force is the best solution, a law where common sense will prevail.

Shield

RMD wrote: »

Ie doing enough to get rid of him, if he'll run after a punch give him a punch, if he's trying to kill you then you kill him

The problem I see here is that we can't predict the future, and if you punch him, who's to say he won't produce a knife or simply overpower you and strangle you silly? How do we know which intruders will run after one punch and which ones will stand their ground?

There's a lot to be said for Oklahoma's "Make My Day" law, also known as Castle doctrine, because you simply don't know if an intruder in your home has the intention to violently attack you or your family if he's challenged.

Bear in mind the above doctrine is derived from English common law, so it's not just the Americans taking matters into their own hands. It's about the right to defend your property (belongings, etc.) and all those lawfully therein.

It's a bad day for justice if homeowners have to just retreat to a safe place and wait for an intruder to leave.

challengemaster

Texas' shoot first and ask questions later way of doing things seems quite reasonable to me when someone breaks into your home.

meathstevie

When someone unlawfully and forcefully enters an occupied dwelling I suppose they've more than declared their intent.

dermo88

Can I ask a small question RMD? I know your intentions are good, and that the world is a lovely nice place, with nice people. But can you please remove those nice rose tinted lenses in the main street instead of a cul de sac?

What does reasonable force mean? Does that mean politely asking the burglar to have some tea and biscuits, sing some Kumbayah, or does that mean......

In my world, it means beat the living bejaysus out of them. Just look at the Padraig Nally vs John Frog Ward case. Padraig Nally should have NEVER gone to jail, and been given the freedom of the City of Claremorris. The fact he did go to jail after shooting a 42 times convicted criminal is an indictment of a stupid, excessively politically correct system with no relevance to reality.

Shield

dermo88 wrote: »

But can you please remove those nice rose tinted lenses in the main street instead of a cul de sac?

No need to get personal. Attack the post, not the poster.

dermo88 wrote: »

In my world, it means beat the living bejaysus out of them. Just look at the Padraig Nally vs John Frog Ward case. Padraig Nally should have NEVER gone to jail, and been given the freedom of the City of Claremorris. The fact he did go to jail after shooting a 42 times convicted criminal is an indictment of a stupid, excessively politically correct system with no relevance to reality.

I think we need to compare like with like. In the Nally case, Ward was leaving (or had left) the property and no longer posed an immediate threat or a potential threat. Nally shot him because he feared Ward would return to kill him. That's very different to what we're discussing here.

dermo88

No need to get personal. Attack the post, not the poster.

What I said attacked the post. The view being presented seemed rather naive, putting it mildly. Perhaps RMD is playing Devils advocate. In the circumstances its a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and asked in the best way possible.

I think we need to compare like with like. In the Nally case, Ward was leaving (or had left) the property and no longer posed an immediate threat or a potential threat. Nally shot him because he feared Ward would return to kill him. That's very different to what we're discussing here.

BUT.....Ward was a potential future threat. We are talking about someone who had been burgled before. We are talking of a career criminal. Hes hardly the Virgin Mary appearing in Knock, is he? Before proceeding any further, I am not going to make any comments about the marginalised minority issue.

Shield

@dermo88 only:
Since you're new to the forum, you should be aware that if the moderators type in bold, it's moderator speak.

You can't accuse someone of wearing "rose tinted lenses" and claim that it's not a personal comment because that's exactly what it is. Just because their viewpoint doesn't agree with yours doesn't give you the right to claim their view is through "rose tinted lenses". Instead, you make comments to present your viewpoint in a respectful and mature manner.

Also, if a forum moderator types in bold, you don't reply on-thread to that part of the thread. Instead, you PM the mod in question, or take it to feedback.

Take these comments as general pointers, not to be replied to on-thread, and have a read of our forum charter to fully acquaint yourself with how the forum runs.

Back on topic please and thanks.

seanmc1980

I have to agree with RMD on this, reasonable force and common sense needs to prevail in situation like this.
it's a bit OTT to suggest that you have the right to kill someone if they trespass on your property.
At the end of the day its a human life your taking.
i've read about case's in the US where people shot burglars in the back of the head as they are leaving the property. thats just sadistic in my eye. Is a flat screen TV really worth that much that you'd kill someone for it?

Shield

Glad you mentioned that.

The time it takes you to bring your gun up and aim is greater than the time it takes someone facing you to turn and run. The last thing shooters remember is the threat facing them due to the "tunnel vision" that sets in when they realise they have to shoot. I might start a separate thread on this because I have quite a few interesting articles with scientific proof timed down to a tenth of second.

seanmc1980 wrote: »

i've read about case's in the US where people shot burglars in the back of the head as they are leaving the property. thats just sadistic in my eye. Is a flat screen TV really worth that much that you'd kill someone for it?

RMD

Lads I'm not stating in anyway the owner should retreat to their room and wait it out, not confront the burglar or just let the burglar waltz around the home and take what they like while making them a cup on tea in the process.

I'm stating the current law of acting within reasonable force is the best solution. I've been burgled myself, the guy didn't run when I shouted at him and came at me instead with a iron bar, he got a cricket bat to the chest which bruised his ribs so badly the Gards found 500m down the road hunched over a wall looking for breath, I wasn't charged as it was deemed reasonable force. Under the current law people can do what's necessary to protect their property and I think that's perfect.

In the Nally case the first shot was warranted and acceptable, he was protecting his property and Ward refused to leave. Once shot Ward ran away and Nally some hit again, that's exceeding excessive force as the threat was gone. I can understand how Nally would have been scared but if the law allowed him to shoot a fleeing person, what's to stop some other person shooting with the intent to kill a person later on? Ward's past history plays no part in the case, Nally didn't no whether he was a career criminal or a person with no convictions to date, so that can't effect his judgment and therefore is irrelevant in the case.

common sense brigade

You should have the right to protect your home and family. If someone came into my home I would defend it. I have a 1 year old child to protect and thats exactly what i will do. This country is a disgrace and lawlessness is getting worse and worse. Guards are swimming in red tape. And criminals get away with murder literally.

shampon

common sense brigade wrote: »

You should have the right to protect your home and family. If someone came into my home I would defend it. I have a 1 year old child to protect and thats exactly what i will do. This country is a disgrace and lawlessness is getting worse and worse. Guards are swimming in red tape. And criminals get away with murder literally.

If there is a new way, I'll be the first in line. The law is the law. Use of Reasonable force is allowed but what you, I and the law consider reasonable could well be different

common sense brigade

I would consider Baseball Bat to the head reasonable force if an intruder entered my home. And a few kicks to the ribs once immobilised and awaiting the guards.

seanmc1980

common sense brigade wrote: »

You should have the right to protect your home and family. If someone came into my home I would defend it. I have a 1 year old child to protect and thats exactly what i will do. This country is a disgrace and lawlessness is getting worse and worse. Guards are swimming in red tape. And criminals get away with murder literally.

"someone please think of the children" the lowest common denominator to throw out in any argument.
What are you protecting? Is the burglar going to make off with a plasma TV, DVD player and your 1 year old baby and sell it down the market?

common sense brigade wrote: »

I would consider Baseball Bat to the head reasonable force if an intruder entered my home. And a few kicks to the ribs once immobilised and awaiting the guards.

would you be happy if you killed the guy? would you have any remorse that you smashed a guys head in with a baseball bat to save your materialistic possessions? what if he had a "1 year old child" would you feel remorse for that child whos parent up bludgeoned to death over a few CDs

common sense brigade

I dont own a plasma tv or have much in the way of things a burgler might want albeit alot of Toys!.
4 years ago an intruder broke into my aunts house in South Dublin and raped her. He beat her and degraded her and stole what little money she had and a laptop. He was convicted to 18 months in Jail. Her life is destroyed.
So yes if someone breaks into my house i will definitely use a baseball bat on them. Without a second thought.

would you be happy if you killed the guy?

It actually would not bother me if a scumbag intruder died no. I wouldnt loose any sleep. Only thing that would concern me is jail time.
I think some people live in a liberal dream. Where burglars are gentlemen like robin hood. Oh dear me the poor burglar has had a hard life etc.

shampon

=common sense brigade;70801510
It actually would not bother me if a scumbag intruder died no. I wouldnt loose any sleep. Only thing that would concern me is jail time.
I think some people live in a liberal dream. Where burglars are gentlemen like robin hood. Oh dear me the poor burglar has had a hard life etc.

Having watched and seen people die I can tell you, unless your a robot Rambo made out of stone, it's going to affect you. And you say you would be concerned at Jail time? Get a grip man

seanmc1980

sorry to hear about your aunt's ordeal, truly I am,
but her case most be a 1 in a million case, in ireland its just not a regular occurrence for a break in to go to that extent.
I wouldn't say i'm living in a liberal dream either, I just value life and murdering people in cold blood makes you no better than the "scumbag" you wouldn't lose sleep over murdering.
Do you mind me asking where do you draw the line on murdering people? Would you kill someone who killed your family in a car crash, would you kill someone who pick pocketed you, would you murder someone who jumped your wall to get their football out of your garden?
Is it strictly in your home you have a total discard for the law and human life or does it extend outside that?

common sense brigade

Having watched and seen people die I can tell you, unless your a robot Rambo made out of stone, it's going to affect you. And you say you would be concerned at Jail time? Get a grip man

Well I dont know what to tell you 'Shampon Man' but honestly if some one broke in to my home and threatened me physically and i retaliated and they died. I really dont think i would loose sleep. Now if they are the gentleman burglar i think you dream of. and they tiptoed in and stole some cd's and tiptoed off and sold the cd's to feed their poor starving family. fair enough i wouldnt be inclined to follow them and shoot them. but if they punched me or my husband i would pick up the nearest object and beat them around the head.

common sense brigade

killed your family in a car crash,

Of course not, thats accidental presuming ur not discussing drink driving?

would you kill someone who pick pocketed you

No but i would punch them if i caught them trying.

would you murder someone who jumped your wall to get their football out of your garden

Thats a ridiculous question

Bad things happen here all the time (Brian hennessy was postman who murdered woman and 3 kids after breaking in to her home on christmas day). Burglary, Rape and murder are becoming more and more common here.

common sense brigade

Just out of interest Shampon and Sean, could you both describe to me what you deem reasonable force? Say if an intruder is a male and threatens you and punches you? what would you two do if anything?

seanmc1980

common sense brigade wrote: »

Of course not, thats accidental presuming ur not discussing drink driving?

No but i would punch them if i caught them trying.

Thats a ridiculous question

Bad things happen here all the time (Brian hennessy was postman who murdered woman and 3 kids after breaking in to her home on christmas day). Burglary, Rape and murder are becoming more and more common here.

what if they were drink driving, speeding, breaking the law? would you murder them to teach them a lesson?

Why would you punch a pick pocket, if i was to use your logic you should murder them. eliminate the risk of them retaliating on you?

why is it a ridiculous question, they are trespassing on your property? shoot 1st ask questions later is your motto why would this differ in different circumstances? they are on your property and are a potential risk to your "1 year old" KILLLL

PS i just noticed your a wife so in reality you would send your husband down to check if there was a noise/ he would go down himself so it kinda makes your argument nul and void.

stephendevlin

There is a nice forest beside my house.. If someone breaks in to my house. Expect it to be your resting place. Scubag or not. Entering someones home is more than just breaking an entering.

cyrusdvirus

Sean you are talking about murder, which to my understanding has to be premeditated.

In my opinion i think you should be using manslaughter instead, as beating someone to death while they are in the act of burgularising you're house wouldn't be murder in my book.

seanmc1980

common sense brigade wrote: »

Just out of interest Shampon and Sean, could you both describe to me what you deem reasonable force? Say if an intruder is a male and threatens you and punches you? what would you two do if anything?

i've been broken into and caught the guy mid act. let a roar at him and he bailed out the door as quick as he could. didn't have to hit him from behind, shoot him, stab him cos i know most burglars are cowards and 1st sign of trouble they will leg it through the nearest exit.
If he did stand his ground i would probably have hit him with an instrument in the chest, legs or arms to immobilise him and hold him till the police come, why would i bury a hurl into his forehead knowing I wanted him to die and live with the guilt of taking someone's life for the rest of my life

seanmc1980

gatecrash wrote: »

Sean you are talking about murder, which to my understanding has to be premeditated.

In my opinion i think you should be using manslaughter instead, as beating someone to death while they are in the act of burgularising you're house wouldn't be murder in my book.

i'm using murder as a descriptive word, to kill someone/ murder them. i'm not using it in the legal sense.

seanmc1980

stephendevlin wrote: »

Entering someones home is more than just breaking an entering.

elaborate?

and there no way you would kill someone and bury them in the forest beside at least discuss the topic in reality not in you little rambo dream world

cyrusdvirus

seanmc1980 wrote: »

i'm using murder as a descriptive word, to kill someone/ murder them. i'm not using it in the legal sense.

Yeah, but it is also a lot more dramatic sounding.

I'm no legal eagle either and stand to be corrected on my understanding by a serving member, but to my mind the questions you are asking, and the way they are phrased seems to me, to be a bit sensationalist.

Would you kill someone , as opposed to would you murder someone etc....

stephendevlin

seanmc1980 wrote: »

elaborate?

and there no way you would kill someone and bury them in the forest beside at least discuss the topic in reality not in you little rambo dream world

Well imagine the amount of stress it would cause in the home of worrying every night is someone going to break in and what are they going to do. Could easily be a killer. Take no chances and let them suffer the consequences as they have made thier own choices in life and are fully aware of what they are doing.

I believe you make your own heaven and hell here on earth.

I'd plant a tree in thier memory though

shampon

common sense brigade wrote: »

Just out of interest Shampon and Sean, could you both describe to me what you deem reasonable force? Say if an intruder is a male and threatens you and punches you? what would you two do if anything?

I would cower in a corner and pray to god.:rolleyes:, nobody knows how they will react to any situation until they are experiencing it. They Keyboard warrior posts on this thread just demonstrate a bunch of posturing and bollock inflating. Honestly, I have no idea how I would react because (touching wooden desk) touch wood, I have never had this experience. How we as humans react will be unique to ourselves end of.

As for the gentleman burglars, cop on. Burglary is one of the worst crimes anyone who burgles is scum, yet they deserve to be dealt with by the law, not some Johnny Unitas with nails in a baseball bat.

berettaman

Very interesting thread, It all depends on your life experiences and where you live. Most people would not have the know how or ability to physically subdue an intruder (or intruders). It's not about size but a guy that breaks in is prepared to hurt you and yours to avoid capture, to succeed you have to be prepared to hurt him more, not as easy as it sounds.
Also in country areas you can forget about Gardai coming to your aid. They will come in the morning to write up the statistics if you are lucky. In rural Wexford at 1.30AM retreat is not an option. I'd have no problem telling tem that I was armed and that they should leave..If they came ahead I'd pull the trigger..every time. If they'd break in to my house they'd do the 80 year old up the road. You are preventing future pain for others...

Manic Moran

PS i just noticed your a wife so in reality you would send your husband down to check if there was a noise/ he would go down himself so it kinda makes your argument nul and void.

I'm one of those people who would go downstairs. Not least because I sleep upstairs with Household 6, and my one-year-old's bedroom is downstairs. Fortunately, I live in a place which allows me to go exploring my own home with a sidearm, and it's not just for show.

California has, I believe, a sensible law. One cannot just shoot a burglar for being a burglar. However, there is a presumption written into the law that a burglar is a threat to the safety of the legal residents. As a result, it is up to the prosecution (or burglar/family) to prove that the homeowner had no reason to believe there was a threat to safety. (eg burglar was stark naked, had both hands up, it was a well-lit room and he was twenty feet away)

DPP v Barnes http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/aded5c6b04f391478025725d00516c14?OpenDocument
summarises the current situation in Irish law, as best I know it. (at least, as of 2006).

During the judgement, the Judge reviews the British state of affairs.

In the first edition of Halsburys Laws of England (1909), the following appears at p.587:
“The owner of a dwellinghouse, or any of his servants or lodgers, or any other person within the house, is justified in using force towards a person who is manifestly attempting to… commit a burglary there, or to invade and enter it by violence; if the owner in the use of such force kills such person he does not commit any crime.

Now, he points out that the Irish Constitution has since made the concept of allowing the homeowner to kill burglars just for burglaring illegal, but the UK (where the OP's case is) doesn't have such a Constitution.

i've been broken into and caught the guy mid act. let a roar at him and he bailed out the door as quick as he could. didn't have to hit him from behind, shoot him, stab him cos i know most burglars are cowards and 1st sign of trouble they will leg it through the nearest exit.

I highlight the bit of concern. It's your home, and your safety at issue. Just how much do you want to bet on the unknown person at the other end of your roar being one of the 'most'? (and in the OP's case, apparently the burglar in question was not one of the 'most.') On that matter, Judge Hardiman continues, addressing the most fundamental part of the problem.

“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.


Since this piece was written, Irish Statute Law has removed the necessity for a forcible entry with intent to rob to happen at night in order for it to be considered burglary.

You made the choice to attempt to scare off the burglar. It worked. It won't always, and as the Judge points out, it's a choice, not an obligation.

Bear in mind, that by simply conducting the burglary, the homeowner has effectively already been attacked, any action is immediately one of self defence of some degree:

“… 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…”

In terms of just how much force you can use, and on the concept of setting a standard in advance, the Judge makes a very salient point.

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.

The answer was to take each case on its merits. Hence there is no hard and fast line on the matter in Ireland.

NTM

meathstevie

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm one of those people who would go downstairs. Not least because I sleep upstairs with Household 6, and my one-year-old's bedroom is downstairs. Fortunately, I live in a place which allows me to go exploring my own home with a sidearm, and it's not just for show.

California has, I believe, a sensible law. One cannot just shoot a burglar for being a burglar. However, there is a presumption written into the law that a burglar is a threat to the safety of the legal residents. As a result, it is up to the prosecution (or burglar/family) to prove that the homeowner had no reason to believe there was a threat to safety. (eg burglar was stark naked, had both hands up, it was a well-lit room and he was twenty feet away)

DPP v Barnes http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/aded5c6b04f391478025725d00516c14?OpenDocument
summarises the current situation in Irish law, as best I know it. (at least, as of 2006).

During the judgement, the Judge reviews the British state of affairs.


Now, he points out that the Irish Constitution has since made the concept of allowing the homeowner to kill burglars just for burglaring illegal, but the UK (where the OP's case is) doesn't have such a Constitution.



I highlight the bit of concern. It's your home, and your safety at issue. Just how much do you want to bet on the unknown person at the other end of your roar being one of the 'most'? (and in the OP's case, apparently the burglar in question was not one of the 'most.') On that matter, Judge Hardiman continues, addressing the most fundamental part of the problem.



You made the choice to attempt to scare off the burglar. It worked. It won't always, and as the Judge points out, it's a choice, not an obligation.

Bear in mind, that by simply conducting the burglary, the homeowner has effectively already been attacked, any action is immediately one of self defence of some degree:



In terms of just how much force you can use, and on the concept of setting a standard in advance, the Judge makes a very salient point.


The answer was to take each case on its merits. Hence there is no hard and fast line on the matter in Ireland.

NTM

That's probably why it's a good thing that there's no rigidly defined concept of reasonable force. Leave it first of all up to the DPP and ultimately up to a district court judge or a jury in a higher court to decide that it's proven beyond all reasonable doubt that someone overstepped the boundary of reasonable and justifiable force in defence of home, life and limb. I'd be very surprised if a defence solicitor or barrister would not be able to plant at least a little seed of uncertainty in the mind of the (district)judge or the jury.


Someone made a reference to an assailant or burglar potentially being a future treath after a confrontation or a conviction. Unfortunately that possibility is going to be a fear the victim will have to deal with as police forces and courts can't deal with potential future crime. The only thing that can be done is the gardai/police paying additional attention to a person or a location for an amount of time.

Eru

May I suggest that should the law be changed then a criminal who enters a home is aware that they may well be shot. If thats the case, are they not responsible for what happens after they break in? Afterall, should they wish to avoid being shot they could have simple kept walking. Its not like I forced them at gunpoint (no pun intended).

If I jump into shark infested waters, have a nice swim with Mr Great white and he bites me, is that his fault or mine?

common sense brigade

i just noticed your a wife so in reality you would send your husband down to check if there was a noise/ he would go down himself so it kinda makes your argument nul and void.

My husband works away from home 2 weeks out of the month. So i am on my own with a 1 year old to protect. Also we live in a bungalow;). I am not the shy retiring type and if my house was under threat my first impulse would be too get to my baby and naturally not provoke a burgler. But if he went in to attack me i would defend myself with whatever object nearby necessary. Damn right I would.

CaseyRyback

common sense brigade wrote: »

I am not the shy retiring type and if my house was under threat my first impulse would be too get to my baby and naturally not provoke a burgler. But if he went in to attack me i would defend myself with whatever object nearby necessary.

Hopefully you never get burgled as there would appear to be a real danger of you clobbering the burglar with your baby :eek:

IRLConor

Manic Moran wrote: »

I live in a place which allows me to go exploring my own home with a sidearm

On this point, the security requirements for firearms here mean that if you challenged a burglar with an assembled and loaded firearm you'd have some questions to answer afterwards. I wouldn't like to try explain to my local firearms officer why I had a readily-usable firearm in my home, considering that it's supposed to be locked away and preferably dismantled as well.

For me, collecting the components for my firearm and assembling it takes about 5 minutes if I'm quick about it. In the dark, at night, with someone in my home I suspect it might take longer. Considering you could be in every room in under a minute, I won't be reaching for my gun if someone breaks into my home when I'm there.

common sense brigade

Hopefully you never get burgled as there would appear to be a real danger of you clobbering the burglar with your baby

Very Funny:D We were actually burgled years ago now in early 1990's. My dad stood at the top of the stairs and threw down a very heavy bust we had (It was an ornament!) ancient old thing. It landed on the Burglars back kind off and he fell down , my Da ran down the stairs and gave him a good few kicks. My mam soon followed and sprayed deoderant in the burglers face. And i think my brother rang the Guards. Im glad they did it. They defended our home. And he got away with nothing. The burgler could have pressed charges apparently but he didnt. scum that he is hopefully he is dead in a gutter somewhere

username123

An intruder masquerading as a services repair man gained entry to the house of a friend of mine. He threatened both her and her few months old baby at knifepoint. He used the threat to the baby to control her. He brutally raped and beat her, videotaped the rape also, and forced her at knifepoint into a bath after the attack. At which point he left and has never been caught. She was hospitalised for the beating she received. When the Guards came the guy matched the description of a serial rapist who has also attacked and done the same thing to other women. He is still out there.

If I had a gun in the house and that situation arose I would have zero hesitation in blowing the guys head off. He has committed this crime more than once, and continues to walk the streets. A number of womens lives have been destroyed by him. He could do it again. He threatened a baby to control his victim. He not only violated her but beat her so badly she required hospitalisation.

Would I be sad about his death if I shot him? You must be joking, Id be delighted that Id prevented a scumbag like this from committing yet another violent crime.

common sense brigade

If I had a gun in the house and that situation arose I would have zero hesitation in blowing the guys head off. He has committed this crime more than once, and continues to walk the streets. A number of womens lives have been destroyed by him. He could do it again. He threatened a baby to control his victim. He not only violated her but beat her so badly she required hospitalisation.

I agree 100% . Im so so sorry for your friend. Similar thing happened to my Aunt. Hanging is too good for that scumbag.

CaseyRyback

The thing is though, the law will allow you to protect yourself in your own home, provided the force used is reasonable, and rightly so. What many fail to grasp is that reasonable force could mean blowing a burglars head off, or beating or stabbing them to death. Provided the actions taken are reasonable in the given circumstances, you will have a defense. However you may have to justify your actions in a court of law in front of a jury of your peers.

Manic Moran

CaseyRyback wrote: »

Provided the actions taken are reasonable in the given circumstances, you will have a defense.

It wasn't part of one of the quotes I picked out from DPP v Barnes, but the standard set out by Judge Hardiman was not 'the given circumstances', but 'the circumstances as they were perceived by the homeowner at the time,' in most cases, a looser one.

NTM

meathstevie

IRLConor wrote: »

On this point, the security requirements for firearms here mean that if you challenged a burglar with an assembled and loaded firearm you'd have some questions to answer afterwards. I wouldn't like to try explain to my local firearms officer why I had a readily-usable firearm in my home, considering that it's supposed to be locked away and preferably dismantled as well.

For me, collecting the components for my firearm and assembling it takes about 5 minutes if I'm quick about it. In the dark, at night, with someone in my home I suspect it might take longer. Considering you could be in every room in under a minute, I won't be reaching for my gun if someone breaks into my home when I'm there.

If you'd happen to be in the dreadful situation where you have used a lawfully held firearm in what has been deemed a lawful incident of self defence you'd have no problem whatsoever because you would have been found not guilty of any offences in court or the DPP would have decided to not run a case against you based on the results of the investigation of the facts.


It's a fact that firearms in civilian possession are never licenced for reasons of self defence in Ireland. They're licenced as sports equipment or pest control tools but that does not make it illegal as such for someone to use a firearm for purposes of self defence. It's all down to the principals of reasonable and justifiable use of force and ultimately it will be the courts who will decide if the use of the firearm for a purpose it clearly wasn't licenced for was justified or not.

Not a single firearm in Ireland is issued or licenced for the purposes of killing people. Gardai ( and PSNI ) firearms are issued to protect the public including members of the police force from unlawful extreme violence. The same applies to military firearms; the only difference is they can also be used for the execution of lawful military missions outside the national border.