Man cleared of murdering trespasser in home with garden shears

Gravelly

Martin Keenan has been cleared of murdering Wesley Mooney after finding the latter in his mobile home, after returning with his wife, and stabbing Mooney with half a garden shears.

The case was the first test of the Defence and the Dwelling Act.

Irish Times - Man found not guilty of murdering trespasser

Is this case a turning point in how Ireland sees the defence of the home?

Personally I am glad Mr. Keenan has been cleared, as I feel that one should have the right to defend home and family.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Even with the law as it currently is I can't believe he got off with it. Doesn't sound like a scared-for-your-life situation. Though hopefully all such cases will have the same result.

.......

This post has been deleted.

howamidifferent

Hopefully a few more like this will put some manners on the roaming thugs.

Grayson

Just reading the details of that case. It's messed up.

.......

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'd like a bit more forensic information. Seems like he followed him or was just lucky the shears were on hand. And having the weapon for a while. Just rings a bit hollow to me.
Still glad he got off though and hopefully it's the start of a trend.

splinter65

Grayson wrote: »

Just reading the details of that case. It's messed up.

Pretty confusing ok. Getting the impression these people all knew one another anyway?

.......

This post has been deleted.

everlast75

Gravelly wrote: »

Martin Keenan has been cleared of murdering Wesley Mooney after finding the latter in his mobile home, after returning with his wife, and stabbing Mooney with half a garden shears.

The case was the first test of the Defence and the Dwelling Act.

Irish Times - Man found not guilty of murdering trespasser

Is this case a turning point in how Ireland sees the defence of the home?

Personally I am glad Mr. Keenan has been cleared, as I feel that one should have the right to defend home and family.

Mr. Keenan, leaving the Courthouse today..

wakka12

I hate condoning murder..but on the other hand..dont trespass into poeple's home and then you won't be murdered so can't say I've a lot of sympathy

GarIT

It’s a great result for justice. Everyone should have the right to kill anyone that has broken into their home even if they are trying to flee.

Harry Palmr

Tis a pity most people who break and enter are desperate junkies and thickos who have no sense of self preservation and therefore will not be remotely bothered by such a judgement. Lets face it most of them hardly know what news is.

FTA69

You'd want to be on some serious gear to think burgling a caravan in Dunsink Lane is a good idea.

amcalester

wakka12 wrote: »

I hate condoning murder..but on the other hand..dont trespass into poeple's home and then you won't be murdered so can't say I've a lot of sympathy

Don't worry you're not condoning murder.

Gravelly

FTA69 wrote: »

You'd want to be on some serious gear to think burgling a caravan in Dunsink Lane is a good idea.

It does speak of a certain reckless bravery, bordering on the completely and utterly batshït insane alright.

Mysterypunter

amcalester wrote: »

Don't worry you're not condoning murder.

It wasn't murder, the chap had a right to defend himself in his own caravan

Uboat

Martin Keenan is a good man.
I hope that he and his family will live in peace from this day on.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

darkdubh

I don't think it's the first case to be tried under this law though. Wasn't there a similar case in Kilkenny a few years ago where someone got off under this act?

amcalester

Mysterypunter wrote: »

It wasn't murder, the chap had a right to defend himself in his own caravan

I know, so that poster wasn't condoning murder. I was just clarifying that for him.

Caliden

darkdubh wrote: »

I don't think it's the first case to be tried under this law though. Wasn't there a similar case in Kilkenny a few years ago where someone got off under this act?

Not according to the article anyway.

"A 20-year-old Dubliner has been cleared of murdering a trespasser in his home by stabbing him with half a garden shears in the first murder case defended under the Defence and the Dwelling Act"

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Tis a pity most people who break and enter are desperate junkies and thickos who have no sense of self preservation and therefore will not be remotely bothered by such a judgement. Lets face it most of them hardly know what news is.

This image of burglars being helpless drug addicts is out of date to be honest.

It’s a very well oiled and skilled profession at this stage. Probably just the characters you describe that actually get caught

padd b1975

howamidifferent wrote: »

Hopefully a few more like this will put some manners on the roaming thugs.

Mr. Keenan's neighbours hopefully.

Harry Palmr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This image of burglars being helpless drug addicts is out of date to be honest.

It’s a very well oiled and skilled profession at this stage. Probably just the characters you describe that actually get caught

Maybe but they still won't be disuaded by this.

Gravelly

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Maybe but they still won't be disuaded by this.

If there are several cases where householders defend their property and family with violence, that leads to death or serious injury for the intruder, and the courts look sympathetically on the householder, it might begin to sink in. The problem at the moment is that the intruder has little to dissuade him, as the sentences being handed down by the courts are laughable. Once the thought is planted that burglary comes with real risks, it might become less attractive.

Jim Bob Scratcher

FTA69 wrote: »

You'd want to be on some serious gear to think burgling a caravan in Dunsink Lane is a good idea.

Wasn't the other guy a traveler too ?

Mysterypunter

amcalester wrote: »

I know, so that poster wasn't condoning murder. I was just clarifying that for him.

Yep, quoted the wrong post, sorry. The lad that was killed wasn't there for a cup of tea and a cake.

Gravelly

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

Wasn't the other guy a traveler too ?

That's not the impression I got - the defence team seemed to play on the fact that the defendant was a traveller for sympathy, and I presume they wouldn't have done that if the other guy was too.

seamus

The case itself doesn't open the door for people to beat seven shades out of intruders or to "defend" their property using force.

The basic test of reasonable force still applies. So if someone is in your house and you attack them, you're on the hook for a criminal charge.

What the 2011 act did is remove the requirement for a homeowner to retreat first rather than confront and intruder or defend themselves. In this case the defence's contention was that the homeowner was attacked and was merely defending himself. Before the 2011 act, the defence would have had to show why the defendent didn't or couldn't flee when they found someone in their house.

So if you find someone in your house and they stop, put their hands up and say, "I don't want any trouble", there's little you can do but call the gardai. You can't pull out a gun and shoot them in the back. Or the chest.

In any case, I wouldn't be shedding a tear for the deceased in this case;
https://www.herald.ie/news/courts/dad-walks-free-after-threat-to-kill-ex-and-baby-28013724.html

Sofiztikated

Gravelly wrote: »

If there are several cases where householders defend their property and family with violence, that leads to death or serious injury for the intruder, and the courts look sympathetically on the householder, it might begin to sink in. The problem at the moment is that the intruder has little to dissuade him, as the sentences being handed down by the courts are laughable. Once the thought is planted that burglary comes with real risks, it might become less attractive.

Or don't leave witnesses.

suicide_circus

Fair play. Good law well implemented.

Varik

darkdubh wrote: »

I don't think it's the first case to be tried under this law though. Wasn't there a similar case in Kilkenny a few years ago where someone got off under this act?

1 intruder died and another injured, they didn't charge the guy and they mentioned the change in law was the main reason they didn't bring charges.

seamus wrote: »

The case itself doesn't open the door for people to beat seven shades out of intruders or to "defend" their property using force.

The basic test of reasonable force still applies. So if someone is in your house and you attack them, you're on the hook for a criminal charge.

What the 2011 act did is remove the requirement for a homeowner to retreat first rather than confront and intruder or defend themselves. In this case the defence's contention was that the homeowner was attacked and was merely defending himself. Before the 2011 act, the defence would have had to show why the defendent didn't or couldn't flee when they found someone in their house.

So if you find someone in your house and they stop, put their hands up and say, "I don't want any trouble", there's little you can do but call the gardai. You can't pull out a gun and shoot them in the back. Or the chest.

Also changed it to what you believe is reasonable force and as with the death in Kilkenny there wasn't even charges brought. A lot harder to prove what someone believed or not, and "I don't want any trouble" isn't going to allay most people fears if face with an intruder.

A court or jury may not assess if such a belief was justified or not, only whether it was honestly held. However, in doing so, they may consider whether the accused had reasonable grounds for believing force was necessary.

Sleeper12

Gravelly wrote:

Is this case a turning point in how Ireland sees the defence of the home?

This isn't the first time this happened. There was a case where a farmer shot a traveller on his land. Its the first time under legislation brought in after the farmer case.

Great result. Its proper order that you can defend yourself and your family, with deadly force if needed in your own home.

bigpink

Very strange case they knew each other I have a feeling

end of the road

Gravelly wrote: »

If there are several cases where householders defend their property and family with violence, that leads to death or serious injury for the intruder, and the courts look sympathetically on the householder, it might begin to sink in.

unlikely. what's probably more likely is they will go to burgle armed to the teeth.

Gravelly wrote: »

The problem at the moment is that the intruder has little to dissuade him, as the sentences being handed down by the courts are laughable. Once the thought is planted that burglary comes with real risks, it might become less attractive.

they may also decide the risks are worth it and insure they are able to mitagate against the risks.

Gravelly

end of the road wrote: »

unlikely. what's probably more likely is they will go to burgle armed to the teeth.

Many of them already do. Those that don't probably don't because they can't get their hands on weaponry, rather than out of some gentlemanly desire to keep the playing pitch level.

end of the road wrote: »

they may also decide the risks are worth it and insure they are able to mitagate against the risks.

May, might, possibly. The old law didn't protect the homeowner, the new one does. That's all there is to it really.

Gravelly

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This isn't the first time this happened. There was a case where a farmer shot a traveller on his land. Its the first time under legislation brought in after the farmer case.

Great result. Its proper order that you can defend yourself and your family, with deadly force if needed in your own home.

I'm aware of that case, however this is the first time a defendant has used the new law in their defence, and, thankfully, it worked.

SEPT 23 1989

So your man was invited into the dwelling is that correct?

facehugger99

I'm not in favour of a frontier justice style system in this country, but one should be able to defend their own home and family with whatever force is deemed appropriate. Up to and including lethal force.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Gravelly

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Loved that - they were invited to the caravan by a mystery man who apparently then disappeared, and was never called as a witness, they then rummaged through the cupboards and "waited" in the bedroom. Sounds totally legit.

muckbrien

Grayson wrote: »

Just reading the details of that case. It's messed up.

It's shear madness

mynamejeff

Traveller kills travelller and uses a law to protect people from travellers to get off


crafty

the_syco

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

So your man was invited into the dwelling is that correct?

Some random traveller invited Mooney & co in for a drink, and said random traveller then went to the offie to get the drink.

Wait, what?

the_syco

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm guessing they smelt copper?

Rerto

Good judgement. Home invaders deserve everything they get.

Your Face

I'll reserve my praise for the new Act until it's proven it will be used to protect every type of homeowner.

baylah17

GarIT wrote: »

It’s a great result for justice. Everyone should have the right to kill anyone that has broken into their home even if they are trying to flee.

That is not what the law allows
That would lead to a murder conviction

GarIT

baylah17 wrote: »

That is not what the law allows
That would lead to a murder conviction

That's why I said should have the right to not does have.

I believe if someone has broken into your home and is still inside your property you should be entitled to shoot them in the back of the head as they try to run away.

I think the home should be treated as sacred and protected within the law. Breaking into somebodys home is only beaten in terms of seriousness by, murder, manslaughter, rape and pedophilia. If you catch somebody breaking into your home you should own them, you should be allowed to do what you want to them without the law getting involved. If you want to stop a burglar leaving your home so you can beat them for longer that's totally acceptable in my books.

Graces7

The Healy Raes will be delighted BUT that photo speaks worlds.