Would you kill an intruder if you were guaranteed to get away scot free?

Junkyard Tom

If any raider broke in I'd lull them into a stupor by playing an hypnotic aboriginal melody on me didgeridoo and if that didn't work I'd cave their fucking skull in with it.

erica74

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Had a lively discussion with some friends lately saying that if they had a gun and happened across an intruder in their house they would pull the trigger no questions asked, its them or me.
But really, could you kill an intruder if you had the means or is that standpoint often just bravado especially for men?
If for the sake of argument you had a choice between killing them and getting away with it or restraining them and handing them over to the cops, what would you do?

I live in a rural area and have a shotgun in my house - owned legally for "vermin";) There have been break ins not far from me over the past number of years and on some occasions, the assholes used weapons against elderly people, which makes me fúcking sick to my stomach.
I have 2 large dogs that always have a lot to say when strangers come near the house, however, I wouldn't allow my dogs come to harm, even though they would defend the house viciously.
If I felt anyone in my house was going to come to physical harm, then yes, the shotgun would be used. However, I would do everything in my power not to kill someone, I'd try to aim for a leg.

Ush1

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If any raider broke in I'd lull them into a stupor by playing an hypnotic aboriginal melody on me didgeridoo and if that didn't work I'd cave their fucking skull in with it.

Is that a euphemism?

Irish Guitarist

Could I feast on his corpse too? If not then I don't see the point in killing him.

Samuel T. Cogley

erica74 wrote: »

I live in a rural area and have a shotgun in my house - owned legally for "vermin";) There have been break ins not far from me over the past number of years and on some occasions, the assholes used weapons against elderly people, which makes me fúcking sick to my stomach.
I have 2 large dogs that always have a lot to say when strangers come near the house, however, I wouldn't allow my dogs come to harm, even though they would defend the house viciously.
If I felt anyone in my house was going to come to physical harm, then yes, the shotgun would be used. However, I would do everything in my power not to kill someone, I'd try to aim for a leg.

Do yourself, us and the genepool in general a favour and aim squarely 'between' their legs.

Reindeer

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Strike first and strike hard. Defence and the Dwelling Act

I have always had issues with home defense laws that state something like(quoting the Irish Act you note above):

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

How am I supposed to know how reasonable a trespasser is? How am I to know how much force he plans to reason upon myself? How do I know if their brains are swimming in krokodil or meth or cocaine or E or cornetto's? Am I supposed to know exactly how much of a fighter or lover this trespasser is and then fight or love them just that much more, making my decision on the spot under a bit of duress?

My main issue here is, if I intend to enter in to a fight, why in the world would I ever wish to enter in to a reasonable fight in my own home or property? That makes no sense at all. The laws' intent and my own should be for me to overwhelmingly prevail over the criminal. This, by essence, means I must take every reasonable care to insure the fight is well in my own favor, and not remotely fair for the criminal. Would I intentionally kill them? I don't know - I am not a doctor, nor a murderer by trade. I mostly spend my time drinking coffee and whinging about the weather. All I know is if the intruder wants to stay for as long as I can swing a bat, he is welcome to it. My every intent is to keep harm away from myself and my family and my coffee and my dogs.

blinding

Reindeer wrote: »

I have always had issues with home defense laws that state something like(quoting the Irish Act you note above):

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

How am I supposed to know how reasonable a trespasser is? How am I to know how much force he plans to reason upon myself? How do I know if their brains are swimming in krokodil or meth or cocaine or E or cornetto's? Am I supposed to know exactly how much of a fighter or lover this trespasser is and then fight or love them just that much more, making my decision on the spot under a bit of duress?

My main issue here is, if I intend to enter in to a fight, why in the world would I ever wish to enter in to a reasonable fight in my own home or property? That makes no sense at all. The laws' intent and my own should be for me to overwhelmingly prevail over the criminal. This, by essence, means I must take every reasonable care to insure the fight is well in my own favor, and not remotely fair for the criminal. Would I intentionally kill them? I don't know - I am not a doctor, nor a murderer by trade. I mostly spend my time drinking coffee and whinging about the weather. All I know is if the intruder wants to stay for as long as I can swing a bat, he is welcome to it. My every intent is to keep harm away from myself and my family and my coffee and my dogs.

Shoot first ask questions later........Well thats how they sorted things out in the cowboy / gangster movies of my youth..... It may be still good advice mind .....

Samuel T. Cogley

Reindeer wrote: »

I have always had issues with home defense laws that state something like(quoting the Irish Act you note above):

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

You and law students everywhere (well everywhere that study Irish criminal law so Ireland then...) who misinterpret it as you have :pac:

Reindeer wrote: »

How am I supposed to know how reasonable a trespasser is? How am I to know how much force he plans to reason upon myself? How do I know if their brains are swimming in krokodil or meth or cocaine or E or cornetto's? Am I supposed to know exactly how much of a fighter or lover this trespasser is and then fight or love them just that much more, making my decision on the spot under a bit of duress?

My main issue here is, if I intend to enter in to a fight, why in the world would I ever wish to enter in to a reasonable fight in my own home or property? That makes no sense at all. The laws' intent and my own should be for me to overwhelmingly prevail over the criminal. This, by essence, means I must take every reasonable care to insure the fight is well in my own favor, and not remotely fair for the criminal. Would I intentionally kill them? I don't know - I am not a doctor, nor a murderer by trade. I mostly spend my time drinking coffee and whinging about the weather. All I know is if the intruder wants to stay for as long as I can swing a bat, he is welcome to it. My every intent is to keep harm away from myself and my family and my coffee and my dogs.

You're not. You're supposed to do what you think is reasonable under the circumstances. You may think all of the above and go screaming at them with a hurley and kill them with one or two blows. Most people would believe, you believed you were acting reasonably, even if they believe hitting someone with a hurling stick is unreasonable.

However hitting them 15 times with machete, 13 of those blows when the guys is on the ground screaming no-more, no more, with his arms hanging off, not so much.

Similarly hitting a 8 year old in the head with a hurley who is nicking apples - again not many people are going to believe that you believed that was reasonable, but you never know!

Reindeer

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You and law students everywhere (well everywhere that study Irish criminal law so Ireland then...) who misinterpret it as you have :pac:



You're not. You're supposed to do what you think is reasonable under the circumstances. You may think all of the above and go screaming at them with a hurley and kill them with one or two blows. Most people would believe, you believed you were acting reasonably, even if they believe hitting someone with a hurling stick is unreasonable.

However hitting them 15 times with machete, 13 of those blows when the guys is on the ground screaming no-more, no more, with his arms hanging off, not so much.

Similarly hitting a 8 year old in the head with a hurley who is nicking apples - again not many people are going to believe that you believed that was reasonable, but you never know!

I made the assumption the intruder was in my house and started a fight. As in my life, or the lives of my family are potentially in danger of being harmed or killed.

If you enter someone's home and commit a criminal act such as this, I personally believe the law should protect the homeowner, not the criminal. Adding "reasonable" puts the onus upon the homeowner, not the criminal. If I want to hit the man 15 times VS 13 with a machete, that is HIS doing, not mine. Because, trust me, I am not counting, nor can I likely even hear what he is saying if I feel I am protecting my life or the life of my family. This isn't some film, or TV show. When you are in a fight for your life, you don't get the chance to sit back and think terribly reasonably. Your brain is full of adrenaline and rage, and all you see is red. I doubt anyone can be reasonable when their life is in danger. Asking for mercy for violent criminals is pandering to ignorance. I would never get the chance to ask a criminal for mercy, as you show in your example. And the law should give criminals no mercy when they threaten the well-being of the law abiding.

Sound Bite

Whether I would "get away with it" or not wouldn't matter, if I thought my life or that of my family was in danger, I would. No hesitation.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

pilly wrote: »

So we've the death penalty now for robbery?

A person/family should be well within their rights to expect to be able to come home, close the door behind them and feel safe and secure. We should have a reasonable expectation of safety and the safety of our property in our own homes. It's not an unreasonable expectation that a person should feel relaxed and comfortable and safe.

When you have somebody who shows blatant disregard for a persons home or safety, such as breaking in (in padraig nallys case multiple times) and leaving a person (especially an elderly person) so in fear that they felt safer sleeping in sheds than they did in their own house, that goes beyond robbery IMO.

I see the arguement "but he had his back turned, he was walking away". This time. He'd ransacked the place before and no doubt he'd have been back to do it again. Is it reasonable to expect an old man to live like that? Being terrorised in your own home?

I don't blame him for shooting the intruder. Actions have consequences and if you're brazen enough to rob and intimidate a man out of his own house into a shed, then the risks that go with that is if someone saw him walking in they might not see him walking out.

You break in to another persons house, you can reasonably assume you may be attacked or killed. If a bit of tacky jewellery or an iPad is worth that risk to your life, crack on I suppose but that decision is resting solely with the robber and not with the victim.

Absolutely not. I don't need more effort loaded onto my life which is exactly what the entire saga afterwards would be.

pragmatic1

Wouldn't fancy having it on my conscience. Nah.

manutd83

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No.

Unless I felt my life or that of my wife or child was in danger.

Otherwise, I'm not killing someone for my DVD player.

What self respecting burglar nowadays takes a dvd player

willmunny1990

I never understood why some people put such value on human life, we're not as special as some like to think, we live and die like everything else.

We raise and kill animals to feed ourselves, kill vermin when they invade our home,hunt for sport (killing for pure pleasure), we do all these things and nobody bats an eye but when it comes to defending yourself, family or property people get an attack of conscience for some reason acting as if life is sacred when in reality its not.

GarIT

I think that the reasonable force laws should be removed, if someone breaks into your home any amount of force should be legal.

If I have a gun and somebody unarmed breaks into my home I should have a right to make them beg for their life and shoot them between the eyes without my motives ever being questioned.

Manic Moran

Reindeer wrote: »

If you enter someone's home and commit a criminal act such as this, I personally believe the law should protect the homeowner, not the criminal. Adding "reasonable" puts the onus upon the homeowner, not the criminal. If I want to hit the man 15 times VS 13 with a machete, that is HIS doing, not mine.

Not a huge amount. Irish jurisprudence giv s the homeowner a fair bit of leeway on that reasonable standard. From the Court of Criminal Appeals in Barnes

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

Manic Moran

Double post

jeff bingham

90 year old man taken to hospital with head injury after break in in Roscrea last night.
Somehow doubt it was the 1st or last break in for the scum who did it.
I just hope the next person he tries to rob is armed....

Winterlong

jeff bingham wrote: »

90 year old man taken to hospital with head injury after break in in Roscrea last night.
Somehow doubt it was the 1st or last break in for the scum who did it.
I just hope the next person he tries to rob is armed....

You would need to be some low bred scummer to hit a person of that age.

.......

This post has been deleted.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Erik Shin wrote: »

100% yes, and would sleep peacefully at night.

I think it's something which would always niggle away at the mind.

Taking another human life no matter what the circumstances has to have a negative impact on a normal person. You'd never ever be able to forget it.

Erik Shin

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I think it's something which would always niggle away at the mind.

Taking another human life no matter what the circumstances has to have a negative impact on a normal person. You'd never ever be able to forget it.

Nope, wouldnt forget it, but it still wouldn't stop me sleeping like a log at night

Snickers Man

diomed wrote: »

Some old guy tried that once (Clontarf?)
He chased a young guy waving his golf club.
The young lad took it from him and knocked seven bells out of him.
Think it through a little, please.

I remember that. It was quite some time ago. He was killed, I think.

In general terms, it's a silly question. How many of us sit at home with a loaded pistol under the cushion or the pillow just waiting for a "bad guy" to break into our house so that we can allow ourselves to be confronted with the "me or them" paranoiac situation so beloved of Fox News contributors?

Hardly any of us. We're not Americans.

I found that the only time I disturbed an intruder in my house a sharp and loud "Get the **** out of here!!" was sufficient to send him scurrying.

But of course I'm big and tough......

Snickers Man

pablo128 wrote: »

? I would dump the burglars carcass, not the car. There's a few years left in the car yet. Sure how would anyone know it was me that dumped the carcass there?

I dunno. They seem to have found the guy who drove around Wicklow throwing bits of his dead granny out the car window fairly easily.

Flippant I know but fits the facts.

Agricola

I'd tie them up and make them watch Oireachtas Report, followed by some Mrs Brown's Boys.

Then they would know, crime doesn't pay.

Deise Vu

Agricola wrote: »

I'd tie them up and make them watch Oireachtas Report, followed by some Mrs Brown's Boys.

Then they would know, crime doesn't pay.

Crimes against comedy seems to be paying off for Brendan O'Carroll. And as for them TDs......

RoboRat

I was broken into a few years ago whilst I was sleeping with my wife and kid. They took 2 cars, a laptop, tablet, purse and racing bike. I was living in a rental so the bike (worth around €1600), laptop (17" macbook pro worth over €1000) and tablet (worth €400) weren't covered by landlords insurance - lesson learnt there.

In saying all that, I wouldn't kill someone who wasn't a direct threat to my family or myself over possessions. I would give them a right hiding and break a few bones but I wouldn't kill someone for it.

If they were armed then yes, and I wouldn't bat an eyelid. If they were just run of the mill thieves looking for quick cash then I would restrain and wait for the guards unless they started making threats against my family.

.......

This post has been deleted.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I'd like to think I'd kill them.

I don't have weapons, and providing they didn't have either then I'm pretty well equipt with a set of skills to kill someone.

My family are worth laying down my own life for never mind taking an intruders life.

Besides all that I've two dogs who'd tear someone asunder in seconds.