Man cleared of murdering trespasser in home with garden shears

GarIT wrote: »

For a lot of people their home is a place they feel safe. People like to think that they can’t be touched at home. Burglaries can in some cases lees to psychological trauma requiring therapy.

I'm not saying I don't understand the rationale behind the opinion, I just can't agree.

Life is one of the few things which cannot be returned once taken. Once someone is dead, they're gone, that's the end of it. There is no afterlife, no place where mistakes are rectified.

Possessions can be replaced, psychological trauma can be fixed. Life cannot be returned once it's been extinguished. IMHO you cannot balance a person's home against another person's life. The two aren't equal in any way.

In a practical sense, "shoot on sight" policies in other countries haven't resulted in any reduction in burglaries, violent or otherwise. So overall it does little except satisfy those with violent revenge fantasies.

Realistically all it does is encourage burglars to go armed, and the more psychotic to seek out and kill the homeowners before robbing the house.

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I don't believe a word of it. He picked up the nearest object which happened to be half a set of shears. Yeah right. Not that it sounds like the dead man is any loss to the world.

It is quite likely that it was the nearest object.

But I wouldn't think it was there for repair. I'd say it is akin to lots of people having a baseball bat in the bedroom etc. even though they don't play baseball if you get my drift.

bucketybuck wrote: »

Strange that nobody seems to have commented on this part:



Was the jury influenced? And if so, in which direction?

From the reports, it doesn't seem like the jury was threatened in any way so it probably had no bearing on the verdict.

pilly wrote: »

This thread is even scarier than the actual murder.

How so?

seamus wrote: »

I'm talking about the more general case, the "It should be legal to tie up an intruder and shoot them in the head" people on this thread.

Is anyone really saying that though?

Again, as I said, it's completely up to the intruder as to whether they want to break into someone's house.

If they decide to commit that act, then the householder should be able to defend themselves (and their home) with any level of force required.

It all happens in such an instant that the defender's reactions shouldn't have to be tempered 'just in case' the intruder gets hurt.

o1s1n wrote: »

Is anyone really saying that though?

Yes.

"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

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".

There's "I'm defending my home because I personally feel threatened", and then there's just violence porn fantasies like the above where people believe that their hoarded resources are more valuable than someone else's life.

It all happens in such an instant that the defender's reactions shouldn't have to be tempered 'just in case' the intruder gets hurt.

That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm not talking about coming out of your bedroom in your jocks and giving a wallop with a baseball bat to make the threat go away. That's understandbale. I'm talking about deliberate actions to kill someone in your home regardless of their actual intent or state.

Where does this right end? Should someone be permitted to booby-trap their home just in case an intruder breaks in and they're denied the opportunity to kill them? Surely the defining balance should be the threat felt by the individual and the right to protect themselves, not a right to protect their possessions?

Was the dead guy a traveller too?

Even for a junkie, out of their heads - you'd have to know there are easier marks than going to a caravan in Dunsink to rob? Or was he there "shopping" or what?

In any case, it's black and white to me. He was a scumbag robbing someones home, he got no more than he deserved.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's why I said "threat felt by the individual" rather than intent of the intruder.

Again we're discussing the homeowner's intent; "I am going to kill this guy regardless". Is that a reasonable position for someone to hold?

We've all heard stories about people waking up to find a drunk naked stranger sitting on the toilet because they went into the wrong house.

If the homeowner were to blow his brains out, would we just ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "ah well, shouldn't have gotten drunk"?

There has to be a limit to this. "Because they're in my home without permission" is not a logical reason to kill anyone. It's disturbing that people seem to think it is.