Somebody was trying to break into my home last night, but failed. what are my rights?

John1993W

I caught someone trying to break in, the best thing I could do at the time was run him and he fled so obviously he is a wimpy c*nt... If it occurs again and get hold of him what are my rights? I have GSDs what are their rights if they were to attack an intruder with criminal intent within my home. If he is caught stealing can I use force even though i am not provoked by him? If he attacked me or my family it would be another story altogether.

the world wonders

Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011

Colash

John1993W wrote: »

So somebody tried to break into my home last night when everyone was at home. Around 2am I woke up to a loud bang from the letterbox slamming shut as it has pressure springs on it. It woke the whole house! I got up and watched TV for about an hour then turned off my TV and the lights. I "went to sleep". About an hour later I heard shuffling on my decking as if someone was picking their steps! I went to the kitchen and opened the Venetian blinds just enough so i could see out! and there was this prick with the hood up in the moonlight picking his steps on the decking. He didn't see me looking at him and I watched him for about a minute or two. He then made his way to the window at the opposite end of the kitchen and I ran him. I have lived in my home for 20+ years and I have been lucky enough not to have encountered this until now. He hung around for 2hours so he clearly wanted to get inside. If he did the dogs would have alerted me anyways!

If it happens again...What are my rights if somebody is on my property with criminal intent in IRELAND? Can I attack him if he is on my property? what are the rights with guns to fend off intruders? I have two German Shepherds what are the rights of my dogs protecting (attacking the intruder with criminal intent) my property and family? What if he attacked me or my family if he got into my home? what are my rights for self defense? If i seen him robbing from my shed? can i "release the hounds". What are my rights for this topic as a whole?
All i know is that you cannot touch an intruder if he is running away with his back turned.

I honestly think I'd destroy somebody if I caught them robbing my house or anything around the house . I don't mean to come across as violent or trying to act the hero but I seriously seriously consider this as the lowest of the low . To steal or attempt to steal from someone or break into someone's home is not on . Whether the law states that defending ones self is property is legal in this situation , I'd say a lot of people who have been put in this position by scum bags , would find it hard not to let the hounds loose ! Or lash out at someone trying to steal from them

Ken.

Colash wrote: »

I honestly think I'd destroy somebody if I caught them robbing my house or anything around the house . I don't mean to come across as violent or trying to act the hero but I seriously seriously consider this as the lowest of the low . To steal or attempt to steal from someone or break into someone's home is not on . Whether the law states that defending ones self is property is legal in this situation , I'd say a lot of people who have been put in this position by scum bags , would find it hard not to let the hounds loose ! Or lash out at someone trying to steal from them

All the while screaming at the top of my voice "I was in fear of my life".

NoQuarter

I'd be wary of releasing the dogs for the dogs sake. I'm speaking legally here only.

Otherwise, act with reasonable force so use common sense. If someone breaks in and you shoot them dead, you will have to answer for it, as in, there will be a trial and if they had no weapon, you may be in trouble. However, if they broke in with a knife and you shoot them, that may be reasonable.

Its all for a jury to decide what is reasonable and what isnt.

Eric Cartman

I think these scum deserve whatever you can get away with without going to prison really.

longhalloween

My granddad keeps a shotgun behind the bedroom door just in case. The brother has one in his wardrobe.

Colash

ken wrote: »

All the while screaming at the top of my voice "I was in fear of my life".

Haha I just had a mental image of lacing into some scum bag u catch in the process of breaking into your home , while screaming "I am in fear of my life "

Ken.

Colash wrote: »

Haha I just had a mental image of lacing into some scum bag u catch in the process of breaking into your home , while screaming "I am in fear of my life "

Also afterwards in the police station. Every question after name and address would be answered with "I was in fear of my life".

MadsL

Not relevant to Ireland, but there is an axiom in the US that a dead burglar is unlikely to testify in court against you.

Likewise the advice is that in court your neighbour's witness testimony of hearing "bang bang bang bang bang bang" rather than "bang bang bang pause bang" is preferable. Better to keep firing and moving closer until he is down than a coup de grâce once he is down. Pump shotguns preferred to SxS.

I guess the takeaway is do whatever you feel is necessary to protect yourself but never make it appear like an execution.

Del2005

NoQuarter wrote: »

I'd be wary of releasing the dogs for the dogs sake. I'm speaking legally here only.

Otherwise, act with reasonable force so use common sense. If someone breaks in and you shoot them dead, you will have to answer for it, as in, there will be a trial and if they had no weapon, you may be in trouble. However, if they broke in with a knife and you shoot them, that may be reasonable.

Its all for a jury to decide what is reasonable and what isnt.

Everyone's home has a stack of knifes in it. They don't need to bring their own weapon to a house.

MadsL wrote: »

Not relevant to Ireland, but there is an axiom in the US that a dead burglar is unlikely to testify in court against you.

Likewise the advice is that in court your neighbour's witness testimony of hearing "bang bang bang bang bang bang" rather than "bang bang bang pause bang" is preferable. Better to keep firing and moving closer until he is down than a coup de grâce once he is down. Pump shotguns preferred to SxS.

I guess the takeaway is do whatever you feel is necessary to protect yourself but never make it appear like an execution.

You shout "Stop or I'll shoot" and shoot the burglar, then shout "That's my last warning, Stop or I'll shoot again" and shoot the wall.

Zambia

This has been done to death but the GSD aspect is curious.

If a offender (breaking in) enters a home and he is bitten by the family dogs and seriously injured (Broken arm + lacerations)?

What are the implications , my guess is there are none criminally.

Can the burglar sue in civil court?

Are there any sample cases.

MadsL

Del2005 wrote: »

You shout "Stop or I'll shoot" and shoot the burglar, then shout "That's my last warning, Stop or I'll shoot again" and shoot the wall.

Only really works if the neighbour hears your words as well as the shots.

Unloading into someone seems safer.

Del2005

MadsL wrote: »

Only really works if the neighbour hears your words as well as the shots.

I'm too used living in Irish shoe box apartments, I can hear everything the neighbours do.

MadsL wrote: »

Unloading into someone seems safer.

You can if you want but the 1st bullet always goes into the scumbag, maybe keep the last one for the wall:D

dan_ep82

Del2005 wrote: »

You shout "Stop or I'll shoot" and shoot the burglar, then shout "That's my last warning, Stop or I'll shoot again" and shoot the wall.

Too much thought already gone into this but still, it made me lol:pac:

meoklmrk91

Zambia wrote: »

This has been done to death but the GSD aspect is curious.

If a offender (breaking in) enters a home and he is bitten by the family dogs and seriously injured (Broken arm + lacerations)?

What are the implications , my guess is there are none criminally.

Can the burglar sue in civil court?

Are there any sample cases.

As far as I am aware any dog that bites anyone, regardless of the circumstances, by law should be PTS. This is why I would be very wary of leaving my fella anywhere near a burglar.

NoQuarter

Zambia wrote: »

This has been done to death but the GSD aspect is curious.

If a offender (breaking in) enters a home and he is bitten by the family dogs and seriously injured (Broken arm + lacerations)?

What are the implications , my guess is there are none criminally.

Can the burglar sue in civil court?

Are there any sample cases.

The control of dogs act is strict liability so it would be unwise, legally, to let your dogs on a burglar.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I'm sure if you killed someone you would be fine by claiming that he said he had a gun and threatened to kill you and/or your family.

It would be reasonable I think that if an intruder in your home makes a threat against your life that he is being absolutely serious. Even if it turned out he didn't have a weapon on him the threat alone may be enough for legal action to be reasonable force.

Anyway dead men don't talk so you could claim he said anything.

The above is pure opinion btw.

Corkbah

corpus delicti .... that is all !!

ps. I'm not saying thats the solution ...but .... !!!

kneeler

Corkbah wrote: »

corpus delicti .... that is all !!

ps. I'm not saying thats the solution ...but .... !!!

Its all very well to talk about killing burglars, but if someone dies there will be a major Garda investigation and there will be a lot of questions asked. It is not very easy to keep telling lies consistently to an experienced detective. It would take several years for a case to come to court adn it would be up to a jury as to whether they believe the story. There would be enormous publicity. The sensible thing to do is stay within the law and use proportionate force. If you can get rid of the burgalr without killing her, that is what you should do. All of this gung ho stuff is just silly.

Zambia

NoQuarter wrote: »

The control of dogs act is strict liability so it would be unwise, legally, to let your dogs on a burglar.

As in this

21.—(1) The owner of a dog shall be liable in damages for damage caused in an attack on any person by the dog and for injury done by it to any livestock; and it shall not be necessary for the person seeking such damages to show a previous mischievous propensity in the dog, or the owner's knowledge of such previous propensity, or to show that such injury or damage was attributable to neglect on the part of the owner.

(2) Where livestock are injured by a dog on land on to which they had strayed, and either the dog belonged to the occupier of the land or its presence on the land was authorised by the occupier, a person shall not be liable under this section in respect of injury done to the livestock, unless the person caused the dog to attack the livestock.

(3) A person is liable in damages for any damage caused by a dog kept on any premises or structure to a person trespassing thereon only in accordance with the rules of law relating to liability for negligence.

(4) (a) Any damage or injury for which a person is made liable under this section shall be deemed to be attributable to a wrong within the meaning of the Civil Liability Act, 1961 , and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly.

What does that mean?

Its not exactly clear

Zambia

On reading further if you have secured your house correctly and Trespassers could not be foreseen well then.

Cant see how Fido cant have his dinner.

If someone breaks your back door in after you have locked and secured it what liability can they cliam you have when your Rottie eats them?

K.Flyer

This is what is so wrong with this country.
A person entering another persons home by breaking an entry, armed or unarmed, is usually intent on stealing or causing harm or both and all of their "rights" to safety and protection from harm by others, in this case the property owner / tenant should be completely and totally rescinded.
Because at the end of the day, when they are breaking into your home they don't give two F**ks about you or the grief they will cause you, so why should anyone give two F**ks about them or what happens to them.
Set The Dogs On The Toe Rags!!

robertpatterson

longhalloween wrote: »

My granddad keeps a shotgun behind the bedroom door just in case. The brother has one in his wardrobe.

A granddad?

MadsL

%

K.Flyer wrote: »

This is what is so wrong with this country.
A person entering another persons home by breaking an entry, armed or unarmed, is usually intent on stealing or causing harm or both and all of their "rights" to safety and protection from harm by others, in this case the property owner / tenant should be completely and totally rescinded.
Because at the end of the day, when they are breaking into your home they don't give two F**ks about you or the grief they will cause you, so why should anyone give two F**ks about them or what happens to them.
Set The Dogs On The Toe Rags!!

Not just Ireland - theCastle Doctrine has been ill-defined all over. Even here in New Mexico where guns are pretty ubiquitous we do not have a defined Castle Doctrine, so you need to be pretty clear that you shot in fear of your life and did not pause and then chase the guy down and execute him.

If the guy gets up and runs (remember 95% of people shot survive) then in my state at least it is 'unsporting' to pursue and kill him. Even in the US Mr McNally would have a case to answer.

234

K.Flyer wrote: »

This is what is so wrong with this country.
A person entering another persons home by breaking an entry, armed or unarmed, is usually intent on stealing or causing harm or both and all of their "rights" to safety and protection from harm by others, in this case the property owner / tenant should be completely and totally rescinded.
Because at the end of the day, when they are breaking into your home they don't give two F**ks about you or the grief they will cause you, so why should anyone give two F**ks about them or what happens to them.
Set The Dogs On The Toe Rags!!

So if some stupid 15 year old breaks into your house you should be allowed to drag him into the basement and begin 30 days of torture and rape?

Corkbah

234 wrote: »

So if some stupid 15 year old breaks into your house you should be allowed to drag him into the basement and begin 30 days of torture and rape?

yes .... should be allowed ... but alas the laws in this country and human rights movements in the past mean its illegal to do this.

if a 15yr old is breaking into houses they deserve to have several types of sh1t beaten out of them, a scumbag is a scumbag no matter what age they are and anyone who intentionally breaks into someone elses home to steal from them is a scumbag.

234

Corkbah wrote: »

yes .... should be allowed ... but alas the laws in this country and human rights movements in the past mean its illegal to do this.

if a 15yr old is breaking into houses they deserve to have several types of sh1t beaten out of them, a scumbag is a scumbag no matter what age they are and anyone who intentionally breaks into someone elses home to steal from them is a scumbag.

Ah, well if you genuinely think that there's no point talking to you anymore.

Corkbah

234 wrote: »

Ah, well if you genuinely think that there's no point talking to you anymore.

so do you believe that someone who breaks into another persons home is there for anything other than the purpose of taking stuff that isn't theirs or inflicting injury/hurt on the person in the home.

Have you ever been the victim of crime ?

anyone who willingly goes into another persons home with the purpose of taking something or hurting that person should not be given any protection and should be punished (be it by our soft courts system or physical injury)

I personally have been the victim of crime and its not just the physical loss of sentimental items, its the fear and paranoia that exists for months/years afterwards, scum are scum and someone who breaks into a home is a scumbag.

I also believe the givernment should stop giving or reduce handouts to those who are repeatedly before the courts, stop giving free legal aid - make criminally accused pay something for legal representation.
The courts should also stop giving suspended sentences for repeat offenders and for "career criminals" there should be no concurrent sentencing - it should be consecutive and no suspended period.
Automatic remission should also be removed - why should a criminal get time off regardless of behaviour in prison ? make them participate and pass various courses in order to reduce their sentences, the more they engage in trying to make themselves employable and possible get an insight into the results of their crime the quicker the chances they are released and the higher the chances they will reform.

our political and legal system do very little to deter recidivist crime, we have amongst the highest rate in europe - 60% - even though I suspect the figures to be higher based on my knowledge of the prison system/courts in Ireland.

NoQuarter

If money grew on trees eh.

234

Corkbah wrote: »

so do you believe that someone who breaks into another persons home is there for anything other than the purpose of taking stuff that isn't theirs or inflicting injury/hurt on the person in the home.

Have you ever been the victim of crime ?

anyone who willingly goes into another persons home with the purpose of taking something or hurting that person should not be given any protection and should be punished (be it by our soft courts system or physical injury)

I personally have been the victim of crime and its not just the physical loss of sentimental items, its the fear and paranoia that exists for months/years afterwards, scum are scum and someone who breaks into a home is a scumbag.

I also believe the givernment should stop giving or reduce handouts to those who are repeatedly before the courts, stop giving free legal aid - make criminally accused pay something for legal representation.
The courts should also stop giving suspended sentences for repeat offenders and for "career criminals" there should be no concurrent sentencing - it should be consecutive and no suspended period.
Automatic remission should also be removed - why should a criminal get time off regardless of behaviour in prison ? make them participate and pass various courses in order to reduce their sentences, the more they engage in trying to make themselves employable and possible get an insight into the results of their crime the quicker the chances they are released and the higher the chances they will reform.

our political and legal system do very little to deter recidivist crime, we have amongst the highest rate in europe - 60% - even though I suspect the figures to be higher based on my knowledge of the prison system/courts in Ireland.

You do realise that everything you advocate has long ago been shown to be completely ineffective at deterring crime or repeat offending.

Del2005

234 wrote: »

You do realise that everything you advocate has long ago been shown to be completely ineffective at deterring crime or repeat offending.

And the current system is doing such a good job.

Corkbah

234 wrote: »

You do realise that everything you advocate has long ago been shown to be completely ineffective at deterring crime or repeat offending.

the system of reform certainly isn't working !!!

do you have any proof that those ideas wouldn't work ? I have never heard of any government using some of the proposals (ie. reduce social welfare at source for convicted criminals and removal of free legal aid to be replaced with subsidised legal aid or removal of automatic remission)

ResearchWill

Corkbah wrote: »

the system of reform certainly isn't working !!!

do you have any proof that those ideas wouldn't work ? I have never heard of any government using some of the proposals (ie. reduce social welfare at source for convicted criminals and removal of free legal aid to be replaced with subsidised legal aid or removal of automatic remission)

The removal of legal aid would be both unconstitutional and in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The reduction of social welfare would also in my opinion be in breach of both as it would treat those in receipt of social welfare differently to those in work, it would also effect family dependants.

Some of the proposals are in effect in the USA in relation to 3 strike rules etc, yet in all areas of crime the USA has way more than Ireland. In fact on any international measure Ireland's crime stats are about average to below average.

Legal Aid costs about €55 million a year the arts council costs more. The total cost of legal aid and the courts service (running all courts civil and criminal) is €165 million income from stamp duty €50 million and fines income €15 million (charitable donations are not included) so total cost to run every court in the country including every judges and staff salary plus the total cost if legal aid defence is €100 million.

Corkbah

I'm saying to have a system of subsidised legal aid (€10-€20 per appearance) - not a total removal, and this money could be taken at source for welfare recipients, so its not a removal of free legal aid or treating anyone different UNLESS they are convicted criminals.

would it be considered a breach of human rights to ask someone to pay something towards their legal expenses ? if that person is a repeat criminal they will feel the cost of going before a court more than someone who is a one-off offender ?

Comparing the Irish system to the American (3-strikes) is like comparing oranges and bananas, completely different systems and sentences - they usually give an appropriate sentence for serious offences !!

As regards the costs involved in the free legal aid system - the proposal is to reduce it not completely remove it from the government system.

Also, is it wrong to ask for prisoners to make some effort at reform instead of automatically giving them 20% off the sentence regardless of any remorse shown or not shown.

ResearchWill

Corkbah wrote: »

I'm saying to have a system of subsidised legal aid (€10-€20 per appearance) - not a total removal, and this money could be taken at source for welfare recipients, so its not a removal of free legal aid or treating anyone different UNLESS they are convicted criminals.

would it be considered a breach of human rights to ask someone to pay something towards their legal expenses ? if that person is a repeat criminal they will feel the cost of going before a court more than someone who is a one-off offender ?

Comparing the Irish system to the American (3-strikes) is like comparing oranges and bananas, completely different systems and sentences - they usually give an appropriate sentence for serious offences !!

As regards the costs involved in the free legal aid system - the proposal is to reduce it not completely remove it from the government system.

Also, is it wrong to ask for prisoners to make some effort at reform instead of automatically giving them 20% off the sentence regardless of any remorse shown or not shown.

ECHR Article 6 3 (c)

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

Your proposal would fall foul of that section.

In relation to sentences in Ireland and the USA I did research some time ago in relation to Sexual Offences, prison sentences on both sides of the Atlantic pretty much the same.

Three strike rule or minimum mandatory sentences could very easily be unconstitutional in this country as it has been seen as the legislative interfering with the judicial.

Corkbah

just means we would need to adjust the constitution .... happens every now and again !!

you do realise I'm only spouting my opinion - I do think we are too soft on crime and criminals....unfortunately there are too many problems with the system to be able to fix them - without radical changes !

ResearchWill

Corkbah wrote: »

just means we would need to adjust the constitution .... happens every now and again !!

you do realise I'm only spouting my opinion - I do think we are too soft on crime and criminals....unfortunately there are too many problems with the system to be able to fix them - without radical changes !

The ECHR is not the constitution.

In relation to soft on crime, I don't think we are, call into any District Court listen to the cases, and listen to the results. Don't just get the info from the papers get it first hand from the courts.

If we jailed more people for longer we need to pay for that. Current prison cost are about €250 million, lets just say we double the number of people we jail and double sentences that will cost upwards of €1/2 a billion a year. Will jailing a 21 year old addict for 1 year solve anything doubt it. Fact is most people are in trouble between the ages of 15 and 25 most by 25 are in relationships and kids and cop on. A few are career criminals yes and they will eventually get a serious sentence.

Of course you have a right to spout your opinion, but don't be surprised if you post those opinions online that someone with different opinions will challenge you.

catallus

In fairness, dismissing the idea of radical reform solely on the basis of cost is a bit disingenuous. Stuff costs money, duh. Maybe some people would be surprised and angry at the breakdown of those costs; sure employee wages make up a majority of it but they do a hard job and I'm sure they do it well. What about all the services provided to inmates.

The most obvious problem is repeat offenders being chaperoned through the system.

To depend on criminals seeing the error of their ways by becoming family men is weirdly funny.

People like me, who are outside the system looking in just see a carousel of criminals on one side and lawyers feeding at the trough on the other side. And the victims have to look after themselves.

ResearchWill

catallus wrote: »

In fairness, dismissing the idea of radical reform solely on the basis of cost is a bit disingenuous. Stuff costs money, duh. Maybe some people would be surprised and angry at the breakdown of those costs; sure employee wages make up a majority of it but they do a hard job and I'm sure they do it well. What about all the services provided to inmates.

The most obvious problem is repeat offenders being chaperoned through the system.

To depend on criminals seeing the error of their ways by becoming family men is weirdly funny.

People like me, who are outside the system looking in just see a carousel of criminals on one side and lawyers feeding at the trough on the other side. And the victims have to look after themselves.

I have not dismissed reform, I have simply pointed out the costs of such reform, if someone wants to advocate something it necessary to know what it may cost.

I did not defend criminals I pointed out what is my personal experience. I do agree totally about the issue if victims and I have stated that there should be equivalent legal support for victims. But in saying that in most serious sexual assaults and other violent crimes the victims usually have a Garda and a person from a victim support group, supporting them. It would in my opinion be better to allow a victim the same support the accused gets.

My main point when people say there is problems they say so with out any first hand experience, which is easy to get by going to any court house and watching what happens.

catallus

I'm sure you're not denying there are actual problems RW. If you are then it is incumbent upon me to warn you that you have been brainwashed!

There are most definitely problems when people with 20 or 30 or 130 convictions are free to commit more crime. Reporters attend the courts to inform the great unwashed of the proceedings.

D1stant

longhalloween wrote: »

My granddad keeps a shotgun behind the bedroom door just in case. The brother has one in his wardrobe.

Its illegal to imprison people in wardrobes :mad:

ResearchWill

catallus wrote: »

I'm sure you're not denying there are actual problems RW. If you are then it is incumbent upon me to warn you that you have been brainwashed!

There are most definitely problems when people with 20 or 30 or 130 convictions are free to commit more crime. Reporters attend the courts to inform the great unwashed of the proceedings.

O yes the court reporters who always get it right lol. Yes it is often reported that some people have serious levels of previous. When you actually read the long list of previous they are usually unconnected and multiple convictions for the same event. But until someone can show me stats that a person with multiple road traffic offences and multiple public order offences is certain to commit a serious crime then it does not matter. Do people really think a person can build up 100 serious previous convictions and not get time along the way.

That is one of my issues with reporting you are not told by the media that the convictions are for being drunk in public, speeding, no nct drink driving section 2 assault. In effect very minor, I know of cases where all previous was motor related but that was never stated in the report, just the number of previous.

I have also seen people easily pick up 4,5,6 or more convictions on the one set of facts.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of previous can be an indication of worse to come. But I don't believe that locking up everyone who may commit a serious crime, only because of a lot of previous, will work.

catallus

Well I'm not a member of the legal fraternity but as a citizen I can't understand why "public order" convictions should not be treated as serious. What is it anyway? rioting? abusing people on the street? I know for a fact that it is not illegal in this country to be drunk in public.

Any report i've read in the papers or in the law reports always give the pertinent facts when it comes to previous convictions.

I also know that a large part of a lawyer's training is to practise disdain for the opinions of others in order to be objective for the obviously guilty criminal.

ResearchWill

catallus wrote: »

Well I'm not a member of the legal fraternity but as a citizen I can't understand why "public order" convictions should not be treated as serious. What is it anyway? rioting? abusing people on the street? I know for a fact that it is not illegal in this country to be drunk in public.

Any report i've read in the papers or in the law reports always give the pertinent facts when it comes to previous convictions.

I also know that a large part of a lawyer's training is to practise disdain for the opinions of others in order to be objective for the obviously guilty criminal.

In relation to the bold bit above, Many previous are for the following

Intoxication in public place.

4.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person to be present in any public place while intoxicated to such an extent as would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he might endanger himself or any other person in his vicinity.

From http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0004.html#sec4

I know may a person including myself who has been guilty of the above. Drive through any town in Ireland at 2 am this morning and there was loads of people guilty of section 4.

It's the bread and butter of any district court, as is section 3 Misuse of Drugs Act that having a tenners worth of grass for personal consumption. Also section 8 of the public order act.

I was never trained to have disdained for other people's opinions, in fact the very opposite. If someone has an opinion I disagree with I will challenge it, if the opinion is based on sound facts and reasoning I will change my view.

In relation to previous the papers only every state number and only quote any serious ones.

BTW if I am aware of a clients guilt 100% I can not represent him unless he is pleading guilty or has a defence example a person accused if murder who has a defence of self defence. I can not knowingly put a client into the box to plead not guilty if I know him to be guilty.

catallus

When a person is so off their face that they get arrested by the police for their own safety and the safety of others then I'd consider it serious enough.

Anyway, I believe John Wayne said it best: We'll give him a fair trial, and then we'll hang him! Goodnight!

ResearchWill

catallus wrote: »

When a person is so off their face that they get arrested by the police for their own safety and the safety of others then I'd consider it serious enough.

Anyway, I believe John Wayne said it best: We'll give him a fair trial, and then we'll hang him! Goodnight!

So then do you think such a person after picking up say 10 such convictions should be locked up for say 10 years on the off chance he may rape or murder someone as he has loads of previous.

catallus

No. I think he should be locked up for say 10 years because he is an anti-social lout.

Seriously: I've been walking the streets of this country for over 10 years, often drunk and otherwise intoxicated: the worst I've endured was being searched once by a Garda and also being stopped and asked my name and address.

I cannot understand how a person who deserves to be on the streets amasses 3, let alone 10 convictions.

ResearchWill

catallus wrote: »

No. I think he should be locked up for say 10 years because he is an anti-social lout.

Seriously: I've been walking the streets of this country for over 10 years, often drunk and otherwise intoxicated: the worst I've endured was being searched once by a Garda and also being stopped and asked my name and address.

I cannot understand how a person who deserves to be on the streets amasses 3, let alone 10 convictions.

If you can't understand then call into your local district court, there is no legal aid for section 2 public order, most people convicted of it don't have a lawyer, or a very good standard of education, they also don't know that they can or how to appeal.

But go into the court and you will see ordinary people being convicted of section 2. Many people I know have smoked hash for years and have never been arrested I also know some who have a number of section 3 convictions. I know people who can't find their way home at the end of the night who have never been convicted I also know people with multiple public order convictions.

My point being unless we know what the previous was for we don't know are the courts being light.

Yes multiple convictions should be setting off alarm bells, but before we start locking people up there must be better ways, more resources to probation service for one.

So you think say a professional hard working person, who drives a car with no NCT and forgets his licence and does not hand it in within 10 days. Yep that person should not be walking the street even though he now has 3 convictions.

catallus

Section 2? of the 1994 act? Computer says no.

RW, we do know the courts are being light, by the standards of the fearful citizen.

ResearchWill

catallus wrote: »

Section 2? of the 1994 act? Computer says no.

RW, we do know the courts are being light, by the standards of the fearful citizen.

Sorry section 4.

Yes I agree many people fear that the courts are not in tune with their fears and thinking. That is a real feeling. Which is why I say to people go to you local District Court, go to the Circuit Court to hear appeals and indictable crime. Watch and listen and then if you still feel that way at least you have facts to back you up.

You may get a surprise and discover that by and large the system works and serves the state well. You may discover its rotten to the core, but you will then have the ammo to attack it.