Why is self-defense illegal?

Assault rifles for pensioners, krav maga classes for everyone else.

Yes I can see it now, we're well on the way to a safer, saner society for sure.

Lighten up eh?

Self defence is the most fundamental right there is.

We handicap oursleves in this regard on the understanding that the government will ensure a relatively safe environment and deal with those who assault others. Our government does no such thing which leaves the average joe at a significant disadvantage.

Women and other vulnerable people should be absolutely allowed to carry pepper spray so long as they learn how to use it effectively.

Even with the home defence bill a young man was sent to prison for killing a home intruder. The judge actually claimed it was excessive because the intruder was not armed, as if the victim, a teenager, was required to engage in a Queensbury rules match against a man who was older, bigger, drunk and had just smashed his way into the house. It shows how utterly deluded Irish judges are. The reality is an Irish judge will see the use of a bladed instrument as criminal regardless of the circumstances.

"Compensation claims" are civil claims. His criminal trial may well have been covered under legal aid, but he is on the hook for legal fees for a civil case. It has nothing to do with the taxpayer.

The judge didn't decide that, the jury decided that based on the evidence in front of the court. That's our system - you can't blame a judge for a call a jury of peers makes. I'm not terribly familiar with the circumstances, but on first pass I would have been reluctant to convict on what I've read, but 12 men and women felt differently, and we weren't there for the trial hearing all the evidence.

The judge would have given clear instructions before jury deliberation that the options of murder, manslaughter or not guilty to either were open to them.

Your'e the lad who touted our home defence bill as giving people the right to defend themselves in their home when it did nothing of the sort in practice.

The AG tried him for murder, despite the circumstances, and failed then dropped the charge to manslaughter, the boy should never have been charged.

tTe judge had this to say on sentencing: "The judge also noted that Mr Power was a tall, well-built man while Kerrie was of slight build and younger. But the jury's verdict indicated that Kerrie had used excessive force when he stabbed Mr Power, and the fact that Mr Power was unarmed was an aggravating factor, the judge said." the judge also criticised him for not finding an alternative solution to waking up to find that a man had smashed his way into the house and was assaulting his mother and for arming himself too quickly for the judges liking

That was the dope who ran the trial, who we can take that Jury decision as suspect. The reality is that the use of knife was a red rag to a bull to the dinner party set in our legal system.

What should have happened is once it was established that the dead man had smashed his way into the house in the middle of the night that there was no case to answer assuming the worst for killing him. If you're home is broken into it while occupied the law should recognise that all bets are off and you're entitled to assume the worst.

The DPP pressed charges, not the AG.

Self defence must of course be proportionate. I cant throw a cinder block on someone's head if I was punched outside a pub.

Similarly, in this case there was a dispute about the young man leaving the room, retrieving a knife, coming back to the room and then stabbing.

That changed the complexion of proportionality in the eyes of the jury and it was noted by the judge in sentancing. Again, I would have been reluctant to convict but a group of 12 ordinary men and women felt his actions weren't proportionate to the threat.

We have relatively strong self defence in the home laws now. We're not going to get a law where people in their home can use unrestrained and disproportionate force to varying degrees of threats. That would be a charter for murderers to proffer ridiculous defences when the crime is commissioned in the home.

The trial was directed by a judge who by his own comments showed himself to be completely irrational

Fascinating that you think an oridnary person should take into account what a judge might consider a disproportionate use of force when someone smashes into your house in the middle of the night and assaults a member of your family.

The benefit of all doubt should rest overwhelmingly on the victim in any incident of home invasion.