**WHACK** Take that **SMACK**

Mark200 wrote: »

Actually the requirement to retreat only applies if you are out in the street or something like that. If you are in your own property and presumably work place too then there is no requirement to retreat.

Incorrect

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/enact/pub0026sec0020.html#zza26y1997s20

Non Fatal offences aganist the persons act 1997 section 20 paragraph 4

You might do well to actually read what i said. I never said anything about a death sentence for a robbery.

Anything to subdue the person short of intentionally killing someone in that situation is relative fair game to my mind. Personally if a threat of lethal force is used aganist anyone in a robbery then even that is up for debate. At that point it is now beyond a simple robbery

The point about insurance is missing the point entirely. Its the principle of the matter.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/hero-jeweller-grabs-raiders-loaded-shotgun-and-foils-heist-1936644.html

Actually. If and i stress the words IF the seqeunece of events as laid out in the independant are true then it seems the shop owner only reacted after one of them grabbed his wife by the neck. The robbery was already in progess and stuff was been taken.

IF that is the case then it seems like something just snapped in him and he reacted.IT is very easy to sit back as keyboard warriors and theorise about what he should have done etc but until you are facing down the situation you dont know what you will do in that spilt second.

I think he was prepared to let the robbery happen but once they made an overt threat to his wife he took them down on pure instinct. Again before anyone jumps at this one this is personal view based on current information available.

F**king scum got what they deserved.

Agent J wrote: »

Incorrect

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/enact/pub0026sec0020.html#zza26y1997s20

Non Fatal offences aganist the persons act 1997 section 20 paragraph 4

You might do well to actually read what i said. I never said anything about a death sentence for a robbery.

Anything to subdue the person short of intentionally killing someone in that situation is relative fair game to my mind. Personally if a threat of lethal force is used aganist anyone in a robbery then even that is up for debate. At that point it is now beyond a simple robbery

The point about insurance is missing the point entirely. Its the principle of the matter.

Actually what I said is true as I have taken a Criminal Law course and was told directly that the requirement to retreat does not apply if you are in your own property. Obviously it's not stated in that part of law that you linked to, but a huge amount of the law is enforced based on previous court decisions and interpretations.

And when I mentioned the death penalty I was referring to the fact that people in this topic implied that killing the robber, even when the robber no longer posed a threat, was ok due to the crime he committed.

In fact, section 18 states that force is justifiable to protect property:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/sec0018.html#zza26y1997s18

fitz0 wrote: »

WTF? That is an incredibly naive statement. The fact was they had weapons. Regardless of intent to use them or not they threatened peoples lives with weapons, whether their threats were genuine or not makes so little difference it doesn't even matter. No matter what their intent, the shopkeeper was more than justified in grievously injuring them on the basis that they had weapons and threatened his life.


Is that intended as some sort of excuse for what they did? "Oh, its ok he set up shop in the more prosperous area of the city, he should expect to be robbed." What a ridiculous suggestion! And why does an insurance company deserve to lose the money? Because they won't miss it? Ah sure why doesn't everyone do it then, they won't mind all their money being taken by lowlifes.

That shopkeeper worked hard to make his shop prosperous, or his father did, or the previous owner; somebody worked hard to build that insurance company, but those cretins that tried to rob him are the lowest of the low, taking money they don't have any right to, money that they didn't earn and don't deserve.



Yes we do have a justice system for reason, to lock up the scum that takes another mans hard earned money just because they can. A bully is a bully no matter if they're a kid beating up another kid, or a man with a gun holding up a shop.

In the defense of ones life you can't stop to think about your attacker, or assess the potential of a future civil suit. You hit hard and fast because you won't get another chance. Lethal force is, IMO, justified when somebody shoves a gun in your face.

You've taken everything I've said out of context.

"Is that intended as some sort of excuse for what they did?"

No, and I never implied that it was.

" And why does an insurance company deserve to lose the money?"

When did I say that they deserved to lose the money?? I simply made the insurance company point based on the impression I got that a lot of people seemed to be reacting with the image that these thieves were taking all the possessions some corner shop guy has. I was simply point out that it wouldn't have been the end of the world for him, or the end of the business for him. And no one 'deserves' to lose the money, but the chances are that the payout or the suffering in the grand scheme of things probably wouldn't have been the big deal that people seem to be implying.

"Yes we do have a justice system for reason, to lock up the scum that takes another mans hard earned money just because they can. A bully is a bully no matter if they're a kid beating up another kid, or a man with a gun holding up a shop. "

Exactly my point. They deserve to be locked up. They are scum. But regardless of what anyone has done we do not have a death penalty in Ireland therefore if someone has a robber completely under their control then it is not ok for someone to kill them. I don't see the big deal with me saying that. I'm not for one second claiming that the owner did anything wrong, and I wasn't talking about him. I was simply responding to all the comments in this topic that definitely implied that very few people would care if the owner killed the robber even in the event that the robber was under the owner's complete control.

"In the defense of ones life you can't stop to think about your attacker, or assess the potential of a future civil suit. You hit hard and fast because you won't get another chance. Lethal force is, IMO, justified when somebody shoves a gun in your face."

Again, you've ignored the point I made in the post:

"If the owner used excessive force against the criminals then 100% he should be prosecuted. "

As I said, I was never claiming that the owner did anything wrong. I was simply pointing out that it's not right for somoeone to be killed when they're under complete control and they no longer pose a danger to anyone. But while they do pose a danger then yes of course do everything you can to get rid of that danger.

Agent J wrote: »

The only reference i have found about not retreating on your property is if you are in your own home. And as far as i make out that is precedent based only. ie There is no actual law beyond court rulings because the woefully inadequate 1997 act is supposed to cover it.

You should probably think about asking your money back for that law course.

I said I was only presuming that if it applied to your own property that it applied to workplace (as I assumed that the man in question owned the shop therefore making it his property).

Precedent is very rarely not followed unless it is controversial.

And as I said, I don't know if it in law or not (it's quite possible that there is a law that followed the one you linked to) but the person in question who did the course was extremely qualified in law. I took it as an extra subject in University along with my main course.

Mark200 wrote: »

And as I said, I don't know if it in law or not (it's quite possible that there is a law that followed the one you linked to) but the person in question who did the course was extremely qualified in law. I took it as an extra subject in University along with my main course.

Ok, Just stop digging. There is no law beyond the 1997 one. This is the whole problem with it.(The whole McNally case was around that one)

And quit appealling to authority of something you heard from some guy.

Get me hard data you can cite and link me to.

Agent J wrote: »

Ok, Just stop digging. There is no law beyond the 1997 one. This is the whole problem with it.(The whole McNally case was around that one)

And quit appealling to authority of something you heard from some guy.

Get me hard data you can cite and link me to.

Case after case the main points used by lawyers to promote their cause is citing previous cases and rulings, arguing that their case is similar and thus the same ruling must be given.

Anyway, I can't believe you're taking this so seriously and I'm actually rooting out my list of cases etc, but here:

DPP V Barnes [2006]

Selected quotes from the case report:

There are consequences of the special status of the dwellinghouse and of its importance to the human dignity of its occupants. Amongst the most relevant of these is that, as has been held by the Courts of Common Law for centuries, a person in his dwellinghouse can never, in law, be under an obligation to leave it, to retreat from it or to abandon it to the burglar or other aggressor.

It is, in our view, quite inconsistent with the constitutional doctrine of the inviolability of a dwellinghouse that a householder or other lawful occupant could be ever be under a legal obligation to flee the dwellinghouse or, as it might be put in more contemporary language, to retreat from it.

And that ruling was from the Court of Criminal Appeal.

So it's quite clear that it's a principle in Common Law that there is no necessity to retreat in your own home. And principles of common law are very rarely if ever violated, because they are the principles upon which all laws are deemed to operate. It also makes reference to the constitution and implies that it is quite clear that it can be interpreted that the right to defend yourself in your property is in the constitution.

And it'd appear that my presumption of a workplace counting as a property where retreat is not necessary would be wrong.

Agent J wrote: »

This isn't serious. I havent needed to crack a book or do actual research(Pretty sure that would be aganist AH rules anyway...)

I just dislike people making unfounded statements and then using very poor arguements to back them up.Then trying to correct me with an even poorer counter point (which was dismissed on the first line of my orignal point!)

You got it wrong? There is no shame in that. Just say that instead of trying to dance around it.

That entire post you when through is probably what i had been told was "Castle Doctrine". Grand. No major arguement in that one however it is conflicting with the 1997 law which is why we need another one to clarify the whole thing.

Also to the poster about pre 1997 laws? No idea to be honest..
Normally there is a list in the act about what previous law it is repealling but a quick look doesnt reveal anything.

I didn't make a single unfounded statement to claim a fact. I pointed out my 'presumption' in my first post. I never 'danced around' being wrong about that, as it was quite obvious we were talking about the home itself rather than the workplace which you refused to accept until I got "hard data you can cite and link me to."

And I didn't make any poor arguments because I wasn't making arguments or points, I was just throwing out possibilities as to why you may have missed the fact that there is no obligation to retreat from your house.

And in response to your other post, no, I won't be asking for my money back from that law course.