Murder set to be legalised by xmas

Biggins · 19-07-2010 04:45PM

NOT against the new change in the law.
A point to further ask though. Will we see even a small decrease in break-ins and a slight rise instead as regards muggings by the scumbags trying gain money by other alternative ways more so?

uwala · 19-07-2010 04:52PM

genericguy wrote: »

imagine his CV:

"increased the profitability of drug dealing and enhanced the product range of gangland criminals.
made it illegal to take the lord's name in vain.
ensured that priests faced no criminal charges or investigation in the face of thousands of rape allegations, and made sure the gheys were not allowed to get married."

I can see it now:

"if i were Taoiseach, i would rename the country 'the holy roman catholic republic of ireland', so please, grannies na hEireann, use your vote."

Dont forget:

Was one of the world's first foreign ministers to pathetically bend over in front of extremist Muslims during the Danish cartoon controversy while other countries were showing support.

Added on a crazy 3 year rule to civil partnership bill for co-habiting couples that forces them to be treated as if married.

PandyAndy · 19-07-2010 04:54PM

doncarlos wrote: »

Not at all just stick one of your kitchen knives in his hand. Hey presto you shot an armed intruder!

Then fire a second shot into the ceiling/floor/wall. So when the gardai come tell them you fired a warning shot at the ceiling/floor/wall but then he came out with the knife so you shot him. It'll make you less suspicious

I don't advocate violence, criminals just need a hug.

The_Minister · 19-07-2010 04:59PM

AFAIK this doesn't change the law, it just codifies recent decisions such as DPP v Barnes.

DrumSteve · 19-07-2010 05:05PM

Kill Em All.

TheInquisitor · 19-07-2010 05:08PM

Biggins wrote: »

NOT against the new change in the law.
A point to further ask though. Will we see even a small decrease in break-ins and a slight rise instead as regards muggings by the scumbags trying gain money by other alternative ways more so?

Maybe we shouldn't tackle crime at all then. We need to keep squeezing scum at every turn. Make it more and more difficult for them to steal from society and much harsher punishments when they do. Someone having 60+ convictions and only getting 2 weeks prison(if its not suspended) is just ridiculous.

Biggins · 19-07-2010 05:14PM

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Maybe we shouldn't tackle crime at all then. We need to keep squeezing scum at every turn. Make it more and more difficult for them to steal from society and much harsher punishments when they do. Someone having 60+ convictions and only getting 2 weeks prison(if its not suspended) is just ridiculous.

No argument from me. I agree.

Einhard · 19-07-2010 05:19PM

I see everyone is getting all gung-ho excited about the announcement, and probably all rushing out to buy a shotgun so they can blow some junkies brains apart on the front porch, but generally speaking when it comes to laws like this, there's an equal and opposite reaction from the criminal fraternity, in that a burglar is now more likely after this law to carry a gun himself. So there's an increased likelihood death or injury on the part of the homeowner or his family. There's an increased chance of "undeserved death". By that I mean the likes of some neighbourhood kid climbing in an open window as a prank, or even to steal. Or even an uarmed intruder who posed no direct threat to the occupiers of the house. Surely all those who advocate these changes, don't believe that we should have the death penalty for mere breaking and entry? I'd fully support the right of a homeowner to respond with lethal force when threatened. But that doesn't seem to be the jist of the comments on this thread thusfar. It's more, Anyone enters my house, I'll kill the bastards stone dead. That's not something I can countenance, and I'm not sure the public would countenance it either once the reports of unarmed burglars shot in the back or head start appearing.

VinnyTGM · 19-07-2010 05:31PM

Einhard wrote: »

I see everyone is getting all gung-ho excited about the announcement, and probably all rushing out to buy a shotgun so they can blow some junkies brains apart on the front porch, but generally speaking when it comes to laws like this, there's an equal and opposite reaction from the criminal fraternity, in that a burglar is now more likely after this law to carry a gun himself. So there's an increased likelihood death or injury on the part of the homeowner or his family. There's an increased chance of "undeserved death". By that I mean the likes of some neighbourhood kid climbing in an open window as a prank, or even to steal. Or even an uarmed intruder who posed no direct threat to the occupiers of the house. Surely all those who advocate these changes, don't believe that we should have the death penalty for mere breaking and entry? I'd fully support the right of a homeowner to respond with lethal force when threatened. But that doesn't seem to be the jist of the comments on this thread thusfar. It's more, Anyone enters my house, I'll kill the bastards stone dead. That's not something I can countenance, and I'm not sure the public would countenance it either once the reports of unarmed burglars shot in the back or head start appearing.

If you break into someones home then you deserve to get shot.

Biggins · 19-07-2010 05:36PM

Einhard wrote: »

(a) I see everyone is getting all gung-ho excited about the announcement, and probably all rushing out to buy a shotgun so they can blow some junkies brains apart on the front porch, but generally speaking when it comes to laws like this, there's an equal and opposite reaction from the criminal fraternity, (b) in that a burglar is now more likely after this law to carry a gun himself. So there's an increased likelihood death or injury on the part of the homeowner or his family. There's an increased chance of "undeserved death". (c) By that I mean the likes of some neighbourhood kid climbing in an open window as a prank, or even to steal. Or even an uarmed intruder who posed no direct threat to the occupiers of the house. (d) Surely all those who advocate these changes, don't believe that we should have the death penalty for mere breaking and entry? I'd fully support the right of a homeowner to respond with lethal force when threatened. But that doesn't seem to be the jist of the comments on this thread thusfar. It's more, (e) Anyone enters my house, I'll kill the bastards stone dead. That's not something I can countenance, and I'm not sure the public would countenance it either once the reports of unarmed burglars shot in the back or head start appearing.

(a) I don't think people are going to get all gung-ho (its just internet chatter here and we know how some like to talk the talk but in the end will fail to walk the walk) and its hard as it is to further apply now for a legal shotgun or a further weapon additionally.

(b) Possible, if not a gun, a knife etc... taking that into account then, anyone that lives in the house might strike harder first time around than let the culprit be able to get back up and fight back ...its open theory at the mo.

(c) I would hope folk have the kop-on to treat a child climbing thru their window with a modicum of proportional response when they actually see whom it is and as regards their age. One can only hope in that particular case.
Speaking for myself, provided they were unarmed, I'd still be sorely tempted to kick his backside repeatedly - but not further than that.

(d) If you carry a weapon of death - one can only expect a response from a defender who might expect it to be dealth out by its very seen existance!

(e) True. At the end of the day NO home owner will get as much sympathy if its discovered that they far overreacted to someone breaking in and went too, too far.
Again, if it was me and I found an ADULT thief breaking - and I don't know yet if they are armed or unarmed, I'd be sorely tempted to not take the chance and take a lump or two out of his head for being there and possibly putting my wife and 4 kids at risk.

Its a tough call that can only happen in live situ. I hope not to have to make that decision but if it should arise, I know whom I will be thinking of first truth be told.

genericguy · 19-07-2010 05:42PM

Biggins wrote: »

Speaking for myself, provided they were unarmed, I'd still be sorely tempted to kick his backside repeatedly - but not further than that.

please curse properly, you polite bastard.

Biggins · 19-07-2010 05:44PM

genericguy wrote: »

please curse properly, you polite bastard.

:pac:

twinQuins · 19-07-2010 05:45PM

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Maybe we shouldn't tackle crime at all then. We need to keep squeezing scum at every turn. Make it more and more difficult for them to steal from society and much harsher punishments when they do.

Oh aye, just continue to medicate the problem without treating the underlying causes.

fontanalis wrote: »

What was the case? I'd love to know if one really exists.

Anyone? I, too, am curious.

caseyann · 19-07-2010 05:46PM

VinnyTGM wrote: »

If you break into someones home then you deserve to get shot.

I do not agree with that.If they are armed or they threaten family then by all means.

Einhard · 19-07-2010 05:48PM

VinnyTGM wrote: »

If you break into someones home then you deserve to get shot.

I'm gobsmacked that this kind of attitude is so prevalent in a supposedly civilised society. Yes, if one is threatened, then one should have recourse to deadly means of defence. But if one shoots an intruder dead when under no threat, when the intruder was trying to escape, then one is worse than the burglar. And should be brought up and tried for murder, as it is a pre-meditated and cold-blooded killing.

Pauleta · 19-07-2010 05:49PM

Great news. Im gonna try get myself a taser or some bear mace.

Biggins · 19-07-2010 05:51PM

Pauleta wrote: »

Great news. Im gonna try get myself a taser or some bear mace.

Both illegal for the public to have in Ireland officially.
(But yes, they are out there to buy)

Einhard · 19-07-2010 05:51PM

Biggins wrote: »

(a) I don't think people are going to get all gung-ho (its just internet chatter here and we know how some like to talk the talk but in the end will fail to walk the walk) and its hard as it is to further apply now for a legal shotgun or a further weapon additionally.

(b) Possible, if not a gun, a knife etc... taking that into account then, anyone that lives in the house might strike harder first time around than let the culprit be able to get back up and fight back ...its open theory at the mo.

(c) I would hope folk have the kop-on to treat a child climbing thru their window with a modicum of proportional response when they actually see whom it is and as regards their age. One can only hope in that particular case.
Speaking for myself, provided they were unarmed, I'd still be sorely tempted to kick his backside repeatedly - but not further than that.

(d) If you carry a weapon of death - one can only expect a response from a defender who might expect it to be dealth out by its very seen existance!

(e) True. At the end of the day NO home owner will get as much sympathy if its discovered that they far overreacted to someone breaking in and went too, too far.
Again, if it was me and I found an ADULT thief breaking - and I don't know yet if they are armed or unarmed, I'd be sorely tempted to not take the chance and take a lump or two out of his head for being there and possibly putting my wife and 4 kids at risk.

Its a tough call that can only happen in live situ. I hope not to have to make that decision but if it should arise, I know whom I will be thinking of first truth be told.

This is probably the most reasonable comment I've read so far. Can't say I disagree with any of it. It's the nonsense about blowing the head of anyone who enters your home that chills me. and then thinking there's some virtue in it. In leaving a child fatherless, or a wife without her husband. Pretty shocking tbh, especially as boards and AH would generally be considered to be pretty liberal. If this is the sentiment here, I shudder to think of what it's like across society in general.

Morlar · 19-07-2010 05:52PM

Einhard wrote: »

.... if one shoots an intruder .. it is a pre-meditated and cold-blooded killing.

You could argue that it was an over reaction by someone put in mortal fear for their life (or their children, wife etc), people do strange things when under extreme pressure.

How can you argue that the homeowner premeditated the burglar to target them?

If you make a concious decision to target an individual or a family by breaking into their home - you deserve to be shot in my honest view. I don't care if you rescue kittens in your spare time - you don't want to get shot then don't go breaking into peoples homes and terrorising them.

efb · 19-07-2010 05:56PM

First the homo's now the home owners. I'm liking Dermot more and more!

Einhard · 19-07-2010 05:59PM

Morlar wrote: »

If you make a concious decision to target an individual or a family by breaking into their home - you deserve to be shot in my honest view. I don't care if you rescue kittens in your spare time - you don't want to get shot then don't go breaking into peoples homes and terrorising them.

But they're not necessarily targetting an individual or a family when they break into a home. They're targetting the valuables in the house. Generally speaking, burglars will try to make as little as noise as possible, in order not to alert the homeowner to their presence. Are you really saying that, should you catch a burglar in your kitchen, and there is no discernible threat to yourself, then you should just point your gun at him, and blow his brains out?! That's cold blooded murder no matter how you parse it.

fontanalis · 19-07-2010 06:00PM

efb wrote: »

First the homo's now the home owners. I'm liking Dermot more and more!

homo!

inforfun · 19-07-2010 06:05PM

Einhard wrote: »

I'm gobsmacked that this kind of attitude is so prevalent in a supposedly civilised society. Yes, if one is threatened, then one should have recourse to deadly means of defence. But if one shoots an intruder dead when under no threat, when the intruder was trying to escape, then one is worse than the burglar. And should be brought up and tried for murder, as it is a pre-meditated and cold-blooded killing.

Sorry, but if someone breaks into my place and tries to steal my stuff, he or she will be fair game.
I worked and paid for my stuff. No one is goin to take that away from me while i am watching.

caseyann · 19-07-2010 06:05PM

I would like to see the stats on home burglaries and ones with violence.
How low or high is it,do we have much violence.Most are done when no one home,or asleep,and people generally do not even know they are there?

caseyann · 19-07-2010 06:06PM

inforfun wrote: »

Sorry, but if someone breaks into my place and tries to steal my stuff, he or she will be fair game.
I worked and paid for my stuff. No one is goin to take that away from me while i am watching.

While i understand,it is stuff and not worth dying over or killing for.

Boxoffrogs · 19-07-2010 06:06PM

I think some of you may have been thinking of the Tony Martin case, but that was in the UK, as far as I know the surviving burglar brought a case against the farmer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2600303.stm

efb · 19-07-2010 06:08PM

fontanalis wrote: »

homo!

He's no Simon Covney...

Witcher · 19-07-2010 06:10PM

Einhard wrote: »

Are you really saying that, should you catch a burglar in your kitchen, and there is no discernible threat to yourself, then you should just point your gun at him, and blow his brains out?! That's cold blooded murder no matter how you parse it.

So some fcukers thieving your property and you'd let him walk away? If a burglar enters someone's house they should accept the consequences.

Actions-->Consequences

422nd · 19-07-2010 06:11PM

My opinion.

Awesome.

inforfun · 19-07-2010 06:12PM

caseyann wrote: »

While i understand,it is stuff and not worth dying over or killing for.

True... I am not stupid enough to bring a knife to a gun fight

But if the odds are even i wont be holding back.
Fortunately, i have never been in such a position and can only hope i ll never be. So i can only imagine what i would do. Reality might be that i ll be just frozen to the floor and let them walk out of the door.

Murder set to be legalised by xmas

Comments