"Reasonable force"

enniscorthy

Hi all interested to hear opinions on this . . any idea if throwing a saucepan full of boiling hot wax directly into the face of a threatening intruder to your home / business would come under "reasonable force" regards brian

Zambia

enniscorthy wrote: »

Hi all interested to hear opinions on this . . any idea if throwing a saucepan full of boiling hot wax directly into the face of a threatening intruder to your home / business would come under "reasonable force" regards brian

How is he threatening?

Marcusm

How exactly would the saucepan of boiling hot wax be to hand?

Bepolite

Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011

2.— (1) Notwithstanding the generality of any other enactment or rule of law and subject to subsections (2) and (3), it shall not be an offence for a person who is in his or her dwelling, or for a person who is a lawful occupant in a dwelling, to use force against another person or the property of another person where—

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

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

(i) to protect himself or herself or another person present in the dwelling from injury, assault, detention or death caused by a criminal act,

(ii) to protect his or her property or the property of another person from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act, or

(iii) to prevent the commission of a crime or to effect, or assist in effecting, a lawful arrest.

R v Brown jokes aside about the hot wax, a pan of boiling water could very easily be defended if you just happened to be boiling an egg as someone broke in. Your business may be a different matter.

234

There are lots of threads on this topic already. Although few with such alarming implications.

MFdaveIreland

Buried in the garden, and patted down with reasonable force !

amen

When the stranger entered my house I got such a fright I threw my hands up in shock forgetting I had a pot of boiling water in my hand.

bumper234

amen wrote: »

When the stranger entered my house I got such a fright I threw my hands up in shock forgetting I had a pot of boiling water in my hand.

That wouldn't really be reasonable force though would it? If said intruder had a knife/gun and you felt your life was in danger then i am pretty sure you could plead that you used it in self defense, not sure if any jury would convict then. This is the problem with the law, one persons reasonable force is anothers excessive force.

Bepolite

bumper234 wrote: »

That wouldn't really be reasonable force though would it? If said intruder had a knife/gun and you felt your life was in danger then i am pretty sure you could plead that you used it in self defense, not sure if any jury would convict then. This is the problem with the law, one persons reasonable force is anothers excessive force.

Look at the legislation its a complicated mens rea requirement (a mixture of objective and subjective that we oh so love in Ireland). The jury can 'override' the defendants belief it was reasonable by virtue of the evidence at hand, given the case history it's very unlikely they would. The standard is such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be.

enniscorthy

Bepolite wrote: »

Look at the legislation its a complicated mens rea requirement (a mixture of objective and subjective that we oh so love in Ireland). The jury can 'override' the defendants belief it was reasonable by virtue of the evidence at hand, given the case history it's very unlikely they would. The standard is such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be.

does it say anything about if he deserved it and had it coming for a long time

Bepolite

enniscorthy wrote: »

does it say anything about if he deserved it and had it coming for a long time

Yes, if it was someone you knew kept intruding and you had some wax on the boil for their arrival that might be considered grounds for disbelieving a claim that you were using reasonable force.

234

enniscorthy wrote: »

does it say anything about if he deserved it and had it coming for a long time

Yep, that's legal under the Criminal Justice (Murder of Irritating Idiots) (Amendment) Act 2014.

Bepolite

234 wrote: »

Yep, that's legal under the Criminal Justice (Murder of Irritating Idiots) (Amendment) Act 2014.

**** did that pass... time to move.

234

Bepolite wrote: »

**** did that pass... time to move.

Yeah, I've been looking over my shoulder a lot for the last few days.

enniscorthy

ok will let you know how i get on regards brian

downonthefarm

Once you only stab/scald/shoot once,have you a better chance of using the reasonable force defence?

Bepolite

Beat them 'like a badger' then shoot them, the jury is still likely to acquit.

234

downonthefarm wrote: »

Once you only stab/scald/shoot once,have you a better chance of using the reasonable force defence?

Look, there are no detailed rules. The best thing to do is ask yourself what you would consider reasonable in the position of the homeowner. After all, it is a jury that would decide if the force used was reasonable. Your guess is as good as most lawyers once everybody is working from the same test set out above.

downonthefarm

A farmer once told me put one in the ceiling then one in the burglar, that way you can say well I gave a warning shot but he kept coming

Witcher

downonthefarm wrote: »

A farmer once told me put one in the ceiling then one in the burglar, that way you can say well I gave a warning shot but he kept coming

Good point..throw a pot of wax on the ceiling first OP.

teacherhead

downonthefarm wrote: »

A farmer once told me put one in the ceiling then one in the burglar, that way you can say well I gave a warning shot but he kept coming

Or shoot him first then put one in the ceiling?

longhalloween

teacherhead wrote: »

Or shoot him first then put one in the ceiling?

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if a burglar 'went missing'. Would the guards put much effort into looking for them, or would it be a case of live by the sword...

enniscorthy

Blay wrote: »

Good point..throw a pot of wax on the ceiling first OP.

hehe dont get me started mate been there done that hehe currently working on realistic bust sculpture of the mrs oh hey im gonna have to get that 1 mounted and reinforced heheheh....ahaha.....hohohoho

downonthefarm

teacherhead wrote: »

Or shoot him first then put one in the ceiling?

that's the one!

Valentine1

Here is an interesting hypothetical situation involving Self defence and reasonable force that was put to us by a Criminal law lecturer.

A burglar breaks into a house in the dead of night, the Husband wakes up and goes down stairs to investigate. When he discovers the burglar he flies into a fit of rage, grabs the poker from the fireside and attacks the burglar.

A fight ensures and the Burglar, believing that the Husband intends to kill him uses fatal force to defend himself, killing the husband as a result. The Wife remained upstairs and heard the sounds of the struggle but saw nothing.

Having intentionally caused the death of the Husband the Burglar is charged with Murder.

Our Lecturer posed two questions arising from this set of events

1) is the defence of self-defence available to the Burglar?

2) if the defence is available and pleaded, in the circumstances could a jury find him guilty of Murder?

Wheelnut

Valentine1 wrote: »

Here is an interesting hypothetical situation...

You are going to get me in trouble with the mods again but here goes: This is a good illustration of what has gone wrong, the law is being turned into an *underpaid debating society. Surely one of the main purposes of the law is to protect citizens, so this man is in his own house, he rushes downstairs in his underpants and grabs a poker, and now the rights of the citizen intruder take precedence? It might be mildly interesting to mull over except that I suspect our courts would be delighted to hear it in full.

To make it worse it seems there may be a further twist signalled by this quote:
"The Wife remained upstairs and heard the sounds of the struggle but saw nothing."

* mods please note.

234

Wheelnut wrote: »

You are going to get me in trouble with the mods again but here goes: This is a good illustration of what has gone wrong, the law is being turned into an *underpaid debating society. Surely one of the main purposes of the law is to protect citizens, so this man is in his own house, he rushes downstairs in his underpants and grabs a poker, and now the rights of the citizen intruder take precedence? It might be mildly interesting to mull over except that I suspect our courts would be delighted to hear it in full.

To make it worse it seems there may be a further twist signalled by this quote:
"The Wife remained upstairs and heard the sounds of the struggle but saw nothing."

* mods please note.

Yes, the criminal law does have the function of punishing criminality, but this is a discussion board where legal discussion is specifically encouraged.

For my part I would say that clearly self-defence is available to the burglar. But taking account the fact that he created the situation then the amount of force used would not be reasonable in the circumstances, primarily because he wa s the author of those circumstances. In an analogy, if I were to start a fight, let is escalate, and then kill my opponent while he attacked me, I can't imagine that the use of force would ever be considered reasonable.

Bepolite

Wheelnut wrote: »

You are going to get me in trouble with the mods again but here goes: This is a good illustration of what has gone wrong, the law is being turned into an *underpaid debating society. Surely one of the main purposes of the law is to protect citizens, so this man is in his own house, he rushes downstairs in his underpants and grabs a poker, and now the rights of the citizen intruder take precedence? It might be mildly interesting to mull over except that I suspect our courts would be delighted to hear it in full.

To make it worse it seems there may be a further twist signalled by this quote:
"The Wife remained upstairs and heard the sounds of the struggle but saw nothing."

* mods please note.

What should it be if not to put forward opposing points of view? The Law developed from the will of one man, the King, to what we have today. Do you propose we go back to a time where we simply take the opinion of one person? What if we don't agree with that person?

234

Bepolite wrote: »

What if we don't agree with that person?

Talk to Joe.

Bepolite

234 wrote: »

Talk to Joe.

Good God, could you imagine if that was the source of all law. I wonder if Langwallner will let me write that in my Jurisprudence examination. Perhaps a new judgment for the speluncean explorers. :pac:

Wheelnut

Bepolite wrote: »

What should it be if not to put forward opposing points of view? ...

Maybe those late-night posts do not convey my thoughts very well but the background is that there is a perception among the public that the courts give more attention to the rights of the criminal than the rights of the victim. Here we have another hypothetical situation where the rights of the perpetrator are being considered while the unfortunate house-holder lies dead on the floor. This is not a criticism of Valentine1, he just relayed what was put to him by a law-lecturer.

Bepolite

Wheelnut wrote: »

Maybe those late-night posts do not convey my thoughts very well but the background is that there is a perception among the public that the courts give more attention to the rights of the criminal than the rights of the victim. Here we have another hypothetical situation where the rights of the perpetrator are being considered while the unfortunate house-holder lies dead on the floor. This is not a criticism of Valentine1, he just relayed what was put to him by a law-lecturer.

I can't help you with that. Justice has to hear all sides and decide on a just outcome. You seem to be taking offence at the mere possibility that all sides would be considered. Law isn't black and white and neither should it be, each case has to be considered on it's own merits.

When you start looking at law student scenario's they will always include a level of abstraction.

Valentine1

Wheelnut wrote: »

Maybe those late-night posts do not convey my thoughts very well but the background is that there is a perception among the public that the courts give more attention to the rights of the criminal than the rights of the victim. Here we have another hypothetical situation where the rights of the perpetrator are being considered while the unfortunate house-holder lies dead on the floor. This is not a criticism of Valentine1, he just relayed what was put to him by a law-lecturer.

Firstly I would point out that Courts in fact give consideration to the rights of the accused. No one is a criminal until convicted and these rights go to the heart of the question as to whether the accused should be convicted, meaning that their consideration is crucial.

Secondly I think you have fundamentally failed to appreciate the point at issue in the example given. The Burglar here has used fatal force in self-defence having been attacked by the Husband. The question is; if the Burglar was the victim of an assault and he believed that he had no option but to use fatal force in order to save his own life can he avail of the defence or should he be convicted of murder.

On the one hand it seems fundamentally unjust that a Burglar can enter a mans home, kill him and avoid a conviction.

In the alternative where the defence is not available we are left with a situation where the Burglar must either allow himself to be killed by the husband or himself be guilty of murder.

I would suggest that both outcomes are unsatisfactory but as is my understanding (I should point out this lecture was some years ago) they represent the Law on the issue.

enniscorthy

Valentine1 wrote: »

The question is; if the Burglar was the victim of an assault and he believed that he had no option but to use fatal force in order to save his own life can he avail of the defence or should he be convicted of murder.

hi mate not really interested in killing this time round the wax will do me for the time being so just wondering if i'll get done for it regards brian

234

enniscorthy wrote: »

hi mate not really interested in killing this time round the wax will do me for the time being so just wondering if i'll get done for it regards brian

It's a question that can only be answered on the facts of an individual case. Other posts have given the test to be applied. Ultimately it would be a judge or jury would decide (depending on the severity of the charge).

Valentine1

enniscorthy wrote: »

Hi all interested to hear opinions on this . . any idea if throwing a saucepan full of boiling hot wax directly into the face of a threatening intruder to your home / business would come under "reasonable force" regards brian

Depends entirely on the exact circumstances.

amen wrote: »

When the stranger entered my house I got such a fright I threw my hands up in shock forgetting I had a pot of boiling water in my hand.

The correct defence in this particular situation is automation not self defence.

enniscorthy wrote: »

hi mate not really interested in killing this time round the wax will do me for the time being so just wondering if i'll get done for it regards brian

Well this is the legal discussion board not the legal advice board so I think a bit of discussion is justified.

That aside If someone was making plans to to throw boiling wax in an intruders face regardless of the actual circumstances it may be difficult for them to then argue that they believed it to be A) reasonable and an act of self defence at all.

teacherhead

Valentine1 wrote: »

Firstly I would point out that Courts in fact give consideration to the rights of the accused. No one is a criminal until convicted and these rights go to the heart of the question as to whether the accused should be convicted, meaning that their consideration is crucial.

Secondly I think you have fundamentally failed to appreciate the point at issue in the example given. The Burglar here has used fatal force in self-defence having been attacked by the Husband. The question is; if the Burglar was the victim of an assault and he believed that he had no option but to use fatal force in order to save his own life can he avail of the defence or should he be convicted of murder.

On the one hand it seems fundamentally unjust that a Burglar can enter a mans home, kill him and avoid a conviction.

In the alternative where the defence is not available we are left with a situation where the Burglar must either allow himself to be killed by the husband or himself be guilty of murder.

I would suggest that both outcomes are unsatisfactory but as is my understanding (I should point out this lecture was some years ago) they represent the Law on the issue.

it seems to me that the only option open to the house holder id to beat the burglar to within an inch of his lift, thus removing this burden from the mind of the burglar.

Valentine1

teacherhead wrote: »

it seems to me that the only option open to the house holder id to beat the burglar to within an inch of his lift, thus removing this burden from the mind of the burglar.

But thats the whole point, the burglar is of the belief that Fatal force is the only thing he can resort to, he can't know that the householder will stop within an inch of his life. Thus the law is (as is my understanding) that once he is of that belief the defence is available to him.

So again we are faced with the prospect that a burglar can kill a house holder and present circumstances and a defence based entirely on his own evidence on which no one can directly contradict him. Should the defence be available to him?

There is no easy answer, its a topic of debate and discussion.

Victor

downonthefarm wrote: »

A farmer once told me put one in the ceiling

Ah, yes, shoot the children upstairs.

longhalloween wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if a burglar 'went missing'. Would the guards put much effort into looking for them, or would it be a case of live by the sword...

Kidnap and/or murder are much worse than burglary, so yes.

Valentine1 wrote: »

Here is an interesting hypothetical situation involving Self defence and reasonable force that was put to us by a Criminal law lecturer.

There is case law on this. We can't do your homework.

Zambia

It would be very hard to find a jury that would believe the burglar.

The no witness thing could mean you can't create a reasonable doubt.

No Pants

Victor wrote: »

Kidnap and/or murder are much worse than burglary, so yes.

An investigation would have to be triggered, some evidence of foul play. If no burglary was reported and no family member came forward to point the Gardai towards your address, I can't see a lot being done. However, once an investigation did begin, plenty of effort would be put in.

I'd also like to think that the average citizen would be extremely troubled by such an event and would not enjoying looking over their shoulder for the rest of their natural.

Valentine1

Victor wrote: »

There is case law on this. We can't do your homework.

I haven't had homework for a long time

Zambia wrote: »

It would be very hard to find a jury that would believe the burglar.

The no witness thing could mean you can't create a reasonable doubt.

The Accused doesn't have to create a reasonable doubt or prove his Defence. the onus of proof is on the Prosecution to prove their entire case and disprove beyond a reasonable doubt any defence that is available to the accused.

Zambia

Valentine1 wrote: »

The Accused doesn't have to create a reasonable doubt or prove his Defence. the onus of proof is on the Prosecution to prove their entire case and disprove beyond a reasonable doubt any defence that is available to the accused.

While this is true, the most likely scenario is the burglar killed the homeowner when he was in the process of being detained or driven out.

The prosecution case is right there.

J

Valentine1

Zambia wrote: »

While this is true, the most likely scenario is the burglar killed the homeowner when he was in the process of being detained or driven out.

The prosecution case is right there.

J

Except that as we know "most likely" isn't enough to convict, it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The balance of probabilities is not sufficient.

FreudianSlippers

Bepolite wrote: »

Good God, could you imagine if that was the source of all law. I wonder if Langwallner will let me write that in my Jurisprudence examination. Perhaps a new judgment for the speluncean explorers. :pac:

If you'd get away with it from anyone it'd be him I'd imagine!

Bepolite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If you'd get away with it from anyone it'd be him I'd imagine!

His first lecture he warned against a one word answers. Supposedly A question was set which said what is pain? To which a student wrote "This is". I suspect he's making it up but his lectures are entertaining to say the least.

Wheelnut

Valentine1 wrote: »

Firstly I would point out that Courts in fact give consideration to the rights of the accused. No one is a criminal until convicted

Maybe I have been using words too loosely again, but in my defense I would point out that I was writing about the common perception.

Every profession has terms that have specific meanings and the importance of these terms is often not appreciated by people outside the profession. I worked in a technical field and it always irritated me to hear the words "cement" and "concrete" being used wrongly. The RTE newsroom often get it wrong and I have a vague recollection of a barrister getting it wrong while addressing a court.

Valentine1 wrote: »

... we are left with a situation where the Burglar must either allow himself to be killed by the husband or himself be guilty of murder.

Does he not also have the option of running away?

Zambia

Valentine1 wrote: »

Except that as we know "most likely" isn't enough to convict, it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The balance of probabilities is not sufficient.

You can obviously see the issue for defence. The burglar has broken into a house in the dead of night.

The actual rea before the killing is pretty damning. Let's face it if the burglar had been killed the self defence defence holds a lot more weight. As long as the homeowner lets his soli do the talking

234

Zambia wrote: »

As long as the homeowner lets his soli do the talking

?

His soil?

Zambia

234 wrote: »

?

His soil?

Solicitor

Victor

Wheelnut wrote: »

Does he not also have the option of running away?

A 15 year old breaks into a property that he believes to be abandoned. It is in fact occupied, by an elderly man armed with a long kitchen knife. The youth is stabbed in the stomach and bleeding severely. As he tries to get away, the man is taking swipes at him, while shouting he is going to kill him. The youth pushes the old man, who falls and bangs his head and dies.

Just because you can (physically) kill a burglar doesn't mean you should / must kill the burglar.