Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Should we be allowed to use force to protect our homes?

  • 04-12-2004 01:52PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,310 ✭✭✭✭


    Linkie
    LONDON (Reuters) - Householders should be allowed to use extreme force to protect themselves against intruders even if it results in the death of a burglar, senior police chief Sir John Stevens has been quoted as saying.
    So... should we be allowed todefend ourselves. Too often, if the buglar gets hurt when robbing the house, the house owner, by law, is @ fault, and must pay the burgular compansation. Should this happen? Should we not only fear being burgulared, but also fear a lawsuit if we try to defend our property?

    Or should we be abe to use "reasonable force" to stop them? And "reasonable force" would be kicking the **** out of the burgular while they're in the house.


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,424 ✭✭✭joejoem


    yes. Definitly yes. Of course in this country the law protects the criminal, they have learnt to twist the laws to suit themselves. We need a reformation of our laws. Im not saying you should be allowed murder someone like texas law, but if someone broke into my house in the middle of the night and I was protecting a wife or child and hit them with a bat or club, I would not like to get sued. This person is breaking the law and by being on my property is threatening me and my family, it should be self defence. I would feel bad if he died, however that should be punishment enough, it is not premeditated.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 7,534 ✭✭✭Blisterman


    Yeah I agree. Reasonable force though, not just walking in and shooting the guy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,284 ✭✭✭pwd


    We are, in all practicality, already allowed to. you can say the burgular attacked you and you were forced to torture him to death in self-defence. It's your word against the reputation of a proven criminal. You will be let off.

    In Waterford, I heard that a bunch of students chased after someone who robbed their house and knocked him about with hurls. Apparently the policeman who dealt with the issue said well done to them for it.

    In theory, the law is that you can only ask someone to leave if they are burgularing you and not posing a threat to your person. If they attack you you can use reasonable force to protect yourself. If they enter your bedroom, they are consdiered a threat to your person, and you may use reasonable force without them attacking you first.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,225 ✭✭✭JackKelly


    Yes.Of course, without a doubt, necessary force should be allowed.As said, not to the extent of death though. What is the law as a matter of intrest? We should just stand there and wait for the police to arrive and not intervene?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,424 ✭✭✭joejoem


    what I would like to do if there was a burgaler (not the hamburger kind) is go town to the stereo and put on something intimidating like the black rebel motercycle club - love hurts, and crank it up and turn on the lights. When they turn around they see the door locked and four of you standing there with swords and iorn bars. Your fukced lads, your absolutly fukced


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 7,534 ✭✭✭Blisterman


    What if he had a gun?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    TimAy wrote:
    What is the law as a matter of intrest? We should just stand there and wait for the police to arrive and not intervene?
    Afaik, there's nothing in law giving any any kind of rights as regards protection of their property, but I could be wrong.

    Legally, you should only use force where you believe your life/health, or another person's life is in danger. Which is a reasonable belief if an intruder is in your home, regardless of their actual intent.
    The force is supposed to be reasonable, but nobody seems to know what reasonable means. In fact, you have a duty to prove that the force was reasonable - it's automatically assumed any force was unreasonable until proven otherwise. This means that by pointing out an alternative action that could have been taken, a barrister/solicitor can decimate your argument and have you thrown in the slammer.

    I'm not sure what the best course of action is. Obviously nobody should be liable if someone injures themselves in a person's home. That should apply across the spectrum, not just for criminals. It's just common sense.

    But as for allowing "any force", I'm not sure. It would just mean that burglars would become more desperate, will do more to defend themselves if they're discovered, and will probably start carrying weapons to defend themselves.

    In the US, people who wield guns for protection, more often than not have the weapon turned and used against them by their assailant.

    I'd like to se legislation cover homeowners for any kind of force, so long as it doesn't leave the assailant permanently crippled or dead (that is intentionally - if a person breaks a guys legs in self defence, and this causes complications with another medical issue that leaves the burglar permanently crippled, then tough **** really). If it does, then they should have to justify their used force.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9 rickdangerous


    Its quite simple, if someone unlawfully breaks into your property with the intention of committing a crime you should have the right to savagely beat him/her to death with a golf club-no questions asked. Criminals have too many "rights" these days
    Everyone where I live (in the country,near a major town) knows the guards like to pick up local drug dealers and smack em around a bit.As far as I'm concerned this sort of thing should be encouraged


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 270 ✭✭Bass.exe


    You should be allowed to incapacitate them, at the very least.
    Killing is a bit extreme, but if it happened while in serious personal jeopardy, then it should be ok. I mean, if someone attacks you with a knife, and you stab them and kill them, would you not agree that that is "Se Defendo"?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,958 ✭✭✭Chad ghostal


    Its quite simple, if someone unlawfully breaks into your property with the intention of committing a crime you should have the right to savagely beat him/her to death with a golf club-no questions asked. Criminals have too many "rights these days"


    i agree with the above. apart from the no questions asked bit, As long as you can Prove they were breaking in etc etc then bat away.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭D!ve^Bomb!


    joejoem wrote:
    it should be self defence. I would feel bad if he died.

    i wouldn't


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 99,585 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    pwd wrote:
    In theory, the law is that you can only ask someone to leave if they are burgularing you and not posing a threat to your person. If they attack you you can use reasonable force to protect yourself. If they enter your bedroom, they are consdiered a threat to your person, and you may use reasonable force without them attacking you first.
    Could you not make a citizens arrest instead of asking them to leave, on the grounds of tresspass (in case they haven't used forceable entry or haven't picked up anything yet). Now the question is - what resonable force would you be entitled to use if the attempt to resist or attempt to leave the scene of the crime ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Could you not make a citizens arrest instead of asking them to leave, on the grounds of tresspass (in case they haven't used forceable entry or haven't picked up anything yet). Now the question is - what resonable force would you be entitled to use if the attempt to resist or attempt to leave the scene of the crime ?
    None. A citizen's arrest does not confer any rights of seizure, capture or search on the arrester.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 38 Rattlor


    If a burglar enters your home, you should be allowed to kill them. Why not? It's their choice. Stay away if they don't want to take the risk.
    The right to protect my home and family at all costs is something I feel very strongly about.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,051 ✭✭✭mad m


    Yup i suppose if the Burgulars knew that they had a chance of being killed while in a house,they might think otherwise...But i suppose running across a busy road you could be killed also but many people still do it....

    Im all for doing the Pigs in if they set a toe inside someones house!Especially mine.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 7,534 ✭✭✭Blisterman


    Do you mean the burglers or the police.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,554 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    seamus wrote:
    None. A citizen's arrest does not confer any rights of seizure, capture or search on the arrester.

    what (if any) use is it then?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,051 ✭✭✭mad m


    Blisterman wrote:
    Do you mean the burglers or the police.


    you know what i mean.. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,880 ✭✭✭Canis Lupus


    i reckon once a person steps onto/into yur property they should be considered fair game with exception of killing said person unless the situation demanded it. I believe the criminal should have no legal rights against the homeowner in terms of suing for damages etc.

    Jeez did u see in the paper the other day where an 18 year old walked out infront of a car over in England, was knocked down and killed. The inquiry cleared the driver over any wrongdoing (fault of kid) and then the driver sued the parents of the child (under some home & contents insurance or some **** as kid was living at home) for emotional stress and the parents had to settle out of court. I personally think that to be one of the lowest things I have ever heard one person do to another......


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 99,585 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    seamus wrote:
    None. A citizen's arrest does not confer any rights of seizure, capture or search on the arrester.
    so a citizens arrest is of no use since the person you are trying to arrest can simply walk away...

    http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6327
    CRIMINAL LAW ACT, 1997 SECTION 4

    seems like a starting point for a bit more research on needed


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,740 ✭✭✭Naos


    yup, pretty low all right lupis.

    As for main topic, I agree with most of the above, only taking out the unneccesary killing comments. Couldnt you claim 'temporary insanity' if you killed a burglar though? If you see someone standing over your kids bed holding a knife, you will not think about holding him down, maternal/paternal instincts and adreniline would kick in and you would "go for the kill" ..

    Reminds me of that Old man in england who was jailed for shooting + killing one of these scumbags who kept breaking into his house..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,575 ✭✭✭elivsvonchiaing


    I think in the absence of a gunholders licence more or less anything goes - so long as your not a nut who bludgeons someone to death after pathologists can determine they were already down!

    Gunholders should simply ensure that I'm not there to egg them on! :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,081 ✭✭✭Musashi


    "Limerick man was protecting family, court hears

    A Limerick father-of-five, who was trying to protect his family, shot three men outside his home killing one of them, a court heard earlier today.

    Christopher McCormack, (aged 44) from Byrne Avenue, Prospect Limerick, admitted at Limerick Circuit Court yesterday to shooting 29-year-old David Noonan in the back outside his home four years ago.

    The court also heard that the accused had injured Derek Hayes, (aged 36), and had shot dead Billy Power who was aged 29 at the time, in the same incident.

    However, The DPP instructed that no charges be brought against Mr McCormack in relation to the shooting of Hayes and Power, the court heard.

    Mr McCormack pleaded guilty today to assaulting David Noonan, causing him harm at Byrne Avenue Prospect on June 19, 2000.

    Limerick Circuit Court heard that the father-of-five shot Mr Noonan in the back after he called to his house with two other men - the late Billy Power and Derek Hayes - shortly after 9pm.

    Judge Carroll Moran was told that the three men were armed with a knife, a stick and a hammer and that Mr McCormack believed they were also armed with a handgun.

    Mr McCormack - who was at home with his wife and two of his younger children at the time - told gardaí that the three men came to his home looking for his son Damian “Shakey” McCormack, whom they said they were going to kill.

    Judge Carroll Moran was told that there had been two previous incidents involving “Shakey” McCormack and Mr Noonan.

    In both of those incidents gardaí said the accused man’s son had “gotten the better” of Mr Noonan who had suffered a black eye in the most recent incident.

    The court heard that Mr McCormack has also been threatened by the three men and that he fired at them with a legally held shotgun that he had in his home.

    The accused - who had no previous convictions - told gardaí that the men said his son was “dead” and that they threatened to shoot him too.

    “I had to protect my family. I did what I had to to,” Mr McCormack told gardaí.

    The father of five said he took out his shotgun and cartridges after his daughter had come home and told him that three men were looking for the McCormack home and that one of them had a handgun.

    The court heard that no handgun was found at the scene but a knife, a hammer and a stick were recovered.

    Counsel for the State John O’Sullivan, BL, said that Mr Noonan suffered a gun shot wound to the buttock and rear thigh area and that Mr Hayes suffered two gun shot wounds to his abdomen and a further wound to his right upper thigh.

    Judge Carroll Moran was told that Mr Power died as a result of his injuries.

    Mr O’Sullivan went on to explain that after considering the matter the DPP did not bring any charges against Mr McCormack in respect of the fatal injuries suffered by Mr Power or the injuries suffered by Mr Hayes.

    Defence counsel for the accused Mark Nicholas, BL, said his client who is currently unemployed, had no mobile phone at the time of the incident and no land line to call the gardaí and that he felt “extremely trapped”.

    Mr Nicholas said his client expressed sorrow and remorse in all of his interviews with gardaí over what happened that night and that he has had a hard time dealing with what happened over the last four years.

    Before sentencing the accused, Judge Carroll Moran offered his condolences to Billy Power’s mother Theresa who was in court today and said he could imagine the trauma she has suffered.

    “This is a dreadful case - a very sad case. It’s a lose-lose situation. Everybody loses, the unfortunate Mr Power lost his life but he is not the subject of this prosecution,” said Judge Moran.

    The judge said the DPP had ruled that no charges be brought against Mr McCormack in relation to the unlawful killing of Mr Power “presumbly because he felt that a jury would acquit him because he acted in self defence”.

    However, Mr Noonan was shot in the back running up hill trying to retreat and self defence was not a defence here, added Judge Moran.

    “What I cannot do in this case is punish Mr McCormack for what he is not charged with. I cannot punish him for the fact that he has killed someone,” said Judge Moran.

    Judge Moran said he had to take into account Mr McCormack’s guilty plea and the fact that he had no previous convictions.

    He imposed a three-year suspended sentence."



    So there ya go, we are allowed to defend ourselves up to and including killing someone if our lives or the lives of those in our care are in danger.Fair play too!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,027 ✭✭✭The_B_Man
    Something about sandwiches


    the law should be that if somebody is breaking the law, then anything you do to them cannot be classed as illegal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 885 ✭✭✭clearz


    The_B_Man wrote:
    the law should be that if somebody is breaking the law, then anything you do to them cannot be classed as illegal.
    So if someone walks into my bedroom now and sees me downloading the latest mp3 of kazaa they should be alowed to put a bullet in head.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,598 ✭✭✭ferdi


    yes, but no guns.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,100 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    clearz wrote:
    So if someone walks into my bedroom now and sees me downloading the latest mp3 of kazaa they should be alowed to put a bullet in head.
    Yup. And continuing on that logic, if someone else sees them do it, then they can put a bullet in your killer's head right after you've died. In turn, a passing neighbour, witnessing this second crime, could dispense his/her justice and so on...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,554 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    ah, but the neighbour would be making an illegal killing, because the first guy was making a legal killing..


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,100 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    Mordeth wrote:
    ah, but the neighbour would be making an illegal killing, because the first guy was making a legal killing..
    Meh. You're ruining my bloodbath.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 885 ✭✭✭clearz


    Mordeth wrote:
    ah, but the neighbour would be making an illegal killing, because the first guy was making a legal killing..
    Not quite true. The killer would be on my property if he/she was in my bedroom which brings us back to the title of the thread. Therefore my neighbour would have every right to kill the killer so long as they didnt come onto my property ;)


Advertisement
Advertisement