Burglar wounded got what he deserved - judge

cyrusdvirus · 22-02-2011 04:46PM

Sean you are talking about murder, which to my understanding has to be premeditated.

In my opinion i think you should be using manslaughter instead, as beating someone to death while they are in the act of burgularising you're house wouldn't be murder in my book.

seanmc1980 · 22-02-2011 04:49PM

common sense brigade wrote: »

Just out of interest Shampon and Sean, could you both describe to me what you deem reasonable force? Say if an intruder is a male and threatens you and punches you? what would you two do if anything?

i've been broken into and caught the guy mid act. let a roar at him and he bailed out the door as quick as he could. didn't have to hit him from behind, shoot him, stab him cos i know most burglars are cowards and 1st sign of trouble they will leg it through the nearest exit.
If he did stand his ground i would probably have hit him with an instrument in the chest, legs or arms to immobilise him and hold him till the police come, why would i bury a hurl into his forehead knowing I wanted him to die and live with the guilt of taking someone's life for the rest of my life

seanmc1980 · 22-02-2011 04:52PM

gatecrash wrote: »

Sean you are talking about murder, which to my understanding has to be premeditated.

In my opinion i think you should be using manslaughter instead, as beating someone to death while they are in the act of burgularising you're house wouldn't be murder in my book.

i'm using murder as a descriptive word, to kill someone/ murder them. i'm not using it in the legal sense.

seanmc1980 · 22-02-2011 04:55PM

stephendevlin wrote: »

Entering someones home is more than just breaking an entering.

elaborate?

and there no way you would kill someone and bury them in the forest beside at least discuss the topic in reality not in you little rambo dream world

cyrusdvirus · 22-02-2011 04:56PM

seanmc1980 wrote: »

i'm using murder as a descriptive word, to kill someone/ murder them. i'm not using it in the legal sense.

Yeah, but it is also a lot more dramatic sounding.

I'm no legal eagle either and stand to be corrected on my understanding by a serving member, but to my mind the questions you are asking, and the way they are phrased seems to me, to be a bit sensationalist.

Would you kill someone , as opposed to would you murder someone etc....

stephendevlin · 22-02-2011 05:09PM

seanmc1980 wrote: »

elaborate?

and there no way you would kill someone and bury them in the forest beside at least discuss the topic in reality not in you little rambo dream world

Well imagine the amount of stress it would cause in the home of worrying every night is someone going to break in and what are they going to do. Could easily be a killer. Take no chances and let them suffer the consequences as they have made thier own choices in life and are fully aware of what they are doing.

I believe you make your own heaven and hell here on earth.

I'd plant a tree in thier memory though

shampon · 22-02-2011 05:13PM

common sense brigade wrote: »

Just out of interest Shampon and Sean, could you both describe to me what you deem reasonable force? Say if an intruder is a male and threatens you and punches you? what would you two do if anything?

I would cower in a corner and pray to god.:rolleyes:, nobody knows how they will react to any situation until they are experiencing it. They Keyboard warrior posts on this thread just demonstrate a bunch of posturing and bollock inflating. Honestly, I have no idea how I would react because (touching wooden desk) touch wood, I have never had this experience. How we as humans react will be unique to ourselves end of.

As for the gentleman burglars, cop on. Burglary is one of the worst crimes anyone who burgles is scum, yet they deserve to be dealt with by the law, not some Johnny Unitas with nails in a baseball bat.

berettaman · 22-02-2011 05:35PM

Very interesting thread, It all depends on your life experiences and where you live. Most people would not have the know how or ability to physically subdue an intruder (or intruders). It's not about size but a guy that breaks in is prepared to hurt you and yours to avoid capture, to succeed you have to be prepared to hurt him more, not as easy as it sounds.
Also in country areas you can forget about Gardai coming to your aid. They will come in the morning to write up the statistics if you are lucky. In rural Wexford at 1.30AM retreat is not an option. I'd have no problem telling tem that I was armed and that they should leave..If they came ahead I'd pull the trigger..every time. If they'd break in to my house they'd do the 80 year old up the road. You are preventing future pain for others...

Manic Moran · 22-02-2011 06:30PM

PS i just noticed your a wife so in reality you would send your husband down to check if there was a noise/ he would go down himself so it kinda makes your argument nul and void.

I'm one of those people who would go downstairs. Not least because I sleep upstairs with Household 6, and my one-year-old's bedroom is downstairs. Fortunately, I live in a place which allows me to go exploring my own home with a sidearm, and it's not just for show.

California has, I believe, a sensible law. One cannot just shoot a burglar for being a burglar. However, there is a presumption written into the law that a burglar is a threat to the safety of the legal residents. As a result, it is up to the prosecution (or burglar/family) to prove that the homeowner had no reason to believe there was a threat to safety. (eg burglar was stark naked, had both hands up, it was a well-lit room and he was twenty feet away)

DPP v Barnes http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/aded5c6b04f391478025725d00516c14?OpenDocument
summarises the current situation in Irish law, as best I know it. (at least, as of 2006).

During the judgement, the Judge reviews the British state of affairs.

In the first edition of Halsburys Laws of England (1909), the following appears at p.587:
“The owner of a dwellinghouse, or any of his servants or lodgers, or any other person within the house, is justified in using force towards a person who is manifestly attempting to… commit a burglary there, or to invade and enter it by violence; if the owner in the use of such force kills such person he does not commit any crime.

Now, he points out that the Irish Constitution has since made the concept of allowing the homeowner to kill burglars just for burglaring illegal, but the UK (where the OP's case is) doesn't have such a Constitution.

i've been broken into and caught the guy mid act. let a roar at him and he bailed out the door as quick as he could. didn't have to hit him from behind, shoot him, stab him cos i know most burglars are cowards and 1st sign of trouble they will leg it through the nearest exit.

I highlight the bit of concern. It's your home, and your safety at issue. Just how much do you want to bet on the unknown person at the other end of your roar being one of the 'most'? (and in the OP's case, apparently the burglar in question was not one of the 'most.') On that matter, Judge Hardiman continues, addressing the most fundamental part of the problem.

“When the householder finds himself in the presences of a burglar in the still of the night, his position is exactly the same as it was for his nineteenth eighteenth or even sixteenth century ancestors. The police force is of no service. If he has a telephone, the noise made in operating it will probably alert the burglar, who may well be of a violent disposition. The householder knows that he must make the choice between attempting to arrest or scare off the burglar in which case he may find himself in serious danger, if the burglar turns out to be violent, and attacking the burglar first without a warning and possibly by inflicting death thus ensuring the safety of himself and his family”. (See Lanham Defence of Property in the Criminal Law [1966] Crim. L.R. 368.

Since this piece was written, Irish Statute Law has removed the necessity for a forcible entry with intent to rob to happen at night in order for it to be considered burglary.

You made the choice to attempt to scare off the burglar. It worked. It won't always, and as the Judge points out, it's a choice, not an obligation.

Bear in mind, that by simply conducting the burglary, the homeowner has effectively already been attacked, any action is immediately one of self defence of some degree:

“… the making of an attack upon the dwelling, and especially at night, the law requires as equivalent to an assault on a man’s person; for a man’s house is his castle, and therefore, in the eye of the law, it is equivalent to an assault…”

In terms of just how much force you can use, and on the concept of setting a standard in advance, the Judge makes a very salient point.

The victim of a burglary is not in the position of an ordinary reasonable man or woman contemplating what course of action is best in particular circumstances. He may be (and Mr. Forrestal actually was) aging, alone, confronted with numerous and/or much younger assailants (Barnes was almost exactly fifty years younger than his victim). In almost every case the victim of burglary will be taken by surprise. The victim will, therefore, be in almost every case shocked and surprised and may easily be terrified out of his wits. To hold a person in this situation to an objective standard would be profoundly unjust.

The answer was to take each case on its merits. Hence there is no hard and fast line on the matter in Ireland.

NTM

meathstevie · 22-02-2011 10:33PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm one of those people who would go downstairs. Not least because I sleep upstairs with Household 6, and my one-year-old's bedroom is downstairs. Fortunately, I live in a place which allows me to go exploring my own home with a sidearm, and it's not just for show.

California has, I believe, a sensible law. One cannot just shoot a burglar for being a burglar. However, there is a presumption written into the law that a burglar is a threat to the safety of the legal residents. As a result, it is up to the prosecution (or burglar/family) to prove that the homeowner had no reason to believe there was a threat to safety. (eg burglar was stark naked, had both hands up, it was a well-lit room and he was twenty feet away)

DPP v Barnes http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/aded5c6b04f391478025725d00516c14?OpenDocument
summarises the current situation in Irish law, as best I know it. (at least, as of 2006).

During the judgement, the Judge reviews the British state of affairs.

Now, he points out that the Irish Constitution has since made the concept of allowing the homeowner to kill burglars just for burglaring illegal, but the UK (where the OP's case is) doesn't have such a Constitution.

I highlight the bit of concern. It's your home, and your safety at issue. Just how much do you want to bet on the unknown person at the other end of your roar being one of the 'most'? (and in the OP's case, apparently the burglar in question was not one of the 'most.') On that matter, Judge Hardiman continues, addressing the most fundamental part of the problem.

You made the choice to attempt to scare off the burglar. It worked. It won't always, and as the Judge points out, it's a choice, not an obligation.

Bear in mind, that by simply conducting the burglary, the homeowner has effectively already been attacked, any action is immediately one of self defence of some degree:

In terms of just how much force you can use, and on the concept of setting a standard in advance, the Judge makes a very salient point.

The answer was to take each case on its merits. Hence there is no hard and fast line on the matter in Ireland.

NTM

That's probably why it's a good thing that there's no rigidly defined concept of reasonable force. Leave it first of all up to the DPP and ultimately up to a district court judge or a jury in a higher court to decide that it's proven beyond all reasonable doubt that someone overstepped the boundary of reasonable and justifiable force in defence of home, life and limb. I'd be very surprised if a defence solicitor or barrister would not be able to plant at least a little seed of uncertainty in the mind of the (district)judge or the jury.

Someone made a reference to an assailant or burglar potentially being a future treath after a confrontation or a conviction. Unfortunately that possibility is going to be a fear the victim will have to deal with as police forces and courts can't deal with potential future crime. The only thing that can be done is the gardai/police paying additional attention to a person or a location for an amount of time.

Eru · 23-02-2011 12:05AM

May I suggest that should the law be changed then a criminal who enters a home is aware that they may well be shot. If thats the case, are they not responsible for what happens after they break in? Afterall, should they wish to avoid being shot they could have simple kept walking. Its not like I forced them at gunpoint (no pun intended).

If I jump into shark infested waters, have a nice swim with Mr Great white and he bites me, is that his fault or mine?

common sense brigade · 23-02-2011 02:35PM

i just noticed your a wife so in reality you would send your husband down to check if there was a noise/ he would go down himself so it kinda makes your argument nul and void.

My husband works away from home 2 weeks out of the month. So i am on my own with a 1 year old to protect. Also we live in a bungalow;). I am not the shy retiring type and if my house was under threat my first impulse would be too get to my baby and naturally not provoke a burgler. But if he went in to attack me i would defend myself with whatever object nearby necessary. Damn right I would.

CaseyRyback · 23-02-2011 03:28PM

common sense brigade wrote: »

I am not the shy retiring type and if my house was under threat my first impulse would be too get to my baby and naturally not provoke a burgler. But if he went in to attack me i would defend myself with whatever object nearby necessary.

Hopefully you never get burgled as there would appear to be a real danger of you clobbering the burglar with your baby :eek:

IRLConor · 23-02-2011 03:30PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

I live in a place which allows me to go exploring my own home with a sidearm

On this point, the security requirements for firearms here mean that if you challenged a burglar with an assembled and loaded firearm you'd have some questions to answer afterwards. I wouldn't like to try explain to my local firearms officer why I had a readily-usable firearm in my home, considering that it's supposed to be locked away and preferably dismantled as well.

For me, collecting the components for my firearm and assembling it takes about 5 minutes if I'm quick about it. In the dark, at night, with someone in my home I suspect it might take longer. Considering you could be in every room in under a minute, I won't be reaching for my gun if someone breaks into my home when I'm there.

common sense brigade · 23-02-2011 03:38PM

Hopefully you never get burgled as there would appear to be a real danger of you clobbering the burglar with your baby

Very Funny:D We were actually burgled years ago now in early 1990's. My dad stood at the top of the stairs and threw down a very heavy bust we had (It was an ornament!) ancient old thing. It landed on the Burglars back kind off and he fell down , my Da ran down the stairs and gave him a good few kicks. My mam soon followed and sprayed deoderant in the burglers face. And i think my brother rang the Guards. Im glad they did it. They defended our home. And he got away with nothing. The burgler could have pressed charges apparently but he didnt. scum that he is hopefully he is dead in a gutter somewhere

username123 · 23-02-2011 04:09PM

An intruder masquerading as a services repair man gained entry to the house of a friend of mine. He threatened both her and her few months old baby at knifepoint. He used the threat to the baby to control her. He brutally raped and beat her, videotaped the rape also, and forced her at knifepoint into a bath after the attack. At which point he left and has never been caught. She was hospitalised for the beating she received. When the Guards came the guy matched the description of a serial rapist who has also attacked and done the same thing to other women. He is still out there.

If I had a gun in the house and that situation arose I would have zero hesitation in blowing the guys head off. He has committed this crime more than once, and continues to walk the streets. A number of womens lives have been destroyed by him. He could do it again. He threatened a baby to control his victim. He not only violated her but beat her so badly she required hospitalisation.

Would I be sad about his death if I shot him? You must be joking, Id be delighted that Id prevented a scumbag like this from committing yet another violent crime.

common sense brigade · 23-02-2011 04:14PM

If I had a gun in the house and that situation arose I would have zero hesitation in blowing the guys head off. He has committed this crime more than once, and continues to walk the streets. A number of womens lives have been destroyed by him. He could do it again. He threatened a baby to control his victim. He not only violated her but beat her so badly she required hospitalisation.

I agree 100% . Im so so sorry for your friend. Similar thing happened to my Aunt. Hanging is too good for that scumbag.

CaseyRyback · 23-02-2011 05:14PM

The thing is though, the law will allow you to protect yourself in your own home, provided the force used is reasonable, and rightly so. What many fail to grasp is that reasonable force could mean blowing a burglars head off, or beating or stabbing them to death. Provided the actions taken are reasonable in the given circumstances, you will have a defense. However you may have to justify your actions in a court of law in front of a jury of your peers.

Manic Moran · 23-02-2011 09:44PM

CaseyRyback wrote: »

Provided the actions taken are reasonable in the given circumstances, you will have a defense.

It wasn't part of one of the quotes I picked out from DPP v Barnes, but the standard set out by Judge Hardiman was not 'the given circumstances', but 'the circumstances as they were perceived by the homeowner at the time,' in most cases, a looser one.

NTM

meathstevie · 23-02-2011 11:43PM

IRLConor wrote: »

On this point, the security requirements for firearms here mean that if you challenged a burglar with an assembled and loaded firearm you'd have some questions to answer afterwards. I wouldn't like to try explain to my local firearms officer why I had a readily-usable firearm in my home, considering that it's supposed to be locked away and preferably dismantled as well.

For me, collecting the components for my firearm and assembling it takes about 5 minutes if I'm quick about it. In the dark, at night, with someone in my home I suspect it might take longer. Considering you could be in every room in under a minute, I won't be reaching for my gun if someone breaks into my home when I'm there.

If you'd happen to be in the dreadful situation where you have used a lawfully held firearm in what has been deemed a lawful incident of self defence you'd have no problem whatsoever because you would have been found not guilty of any offences in court or the DPP would have decided to not run a case against you based on the results of the investigation of the facts.

It's a fact that firearms in civilian possession are never licenced for reasons of self defence in Ireland. They're licenced as sports equipment or pest control tools but that does not make it illegal as such for someone to use a firearm for purposes of self defence. It's all down to the principals of reasonable and justifiable use of force and ultimately it will be the courts who will decide if the use of the firearm for a purpose it clearly wasn't licenced for was justified or not.

Not a single firearm in Ireland is issued or licenced for the purposes of killing people. Gardai ( and PSNI ) firearms are issued to protect the public including members of the police force from unlawful extreme violence. The same applies to military firearms; the only difference is they can also be used for the execution of lawful military missions outside the national border.

common sense brigade · 24-02-2011 12:19PM

I was talking to a friend of mine who is a Gardai last night (well he is my husbands best mate really). He said what he would advise people to do on the QT, if they are burgled, is if the Burgler attackes you and you retaliate beat the crap out of the Burgler then dump him outside on the footpath nearby and call the Guards and say there is a man outside your house collapsed. The Burgler will never admit he was there robbing your house. And even if he did it be your word against his. He will have got a good beating for his troubles and you will not be charged with anything.

CaseyRyback · 24-02-2011 01:20PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

but 'the circumstances as they were perceived by the homeowner at the time,'

NTM

Which would be 'the given circumstances'.

Manic Moran · 24-02-2011 06:03PM

common sense brigade wrote: »

I was talking to a friend of mine who is a Gardai last night (well he is my husbands best mate really). He said what he would advise people to do on the QT, if they are burgled, is if the Burgler attackes you and you retaliate beat the crap out of the Burgler then dump him outside on the footpath nearby and call the Guards and say there is a man outside your house collapsed. The Burgler will never admit he was there robbing your house. And even if he did it be your word against his. He will have got a good beating for his troubles and you will not be charged with anything.

That really is bad advice. Be honest. Just say "He was in my house, and for blank reason I deemed this to be the appropriate amount of force to be used" (Actually, don't say anything more than "I protected myself. I shall say no more until I confer with my solicitor")

Lying to the Gards isn't going to make them or the DPP happy, and since you're allowed use force to eject burglars, there's no need to lie to begin with, you won't have done anything wrong.

NTM

Eru · 24-02-2011 11:51PM

common sense brigade wrote: »

I was talking to a friend of mine who is a Gardai last night (well he is my husbands best mate really). He said what he would advise people to do on the QT, if they are burgled, is if the Burgler attackes you and you retaliate beat the crap out of the Burgler then dump him outside on the footpath nearby and call the Guards and say there is a man outside your house collapsed. The Burgler will never admit he was there robbing your house. And even if he did it be your word against his. He will have got a good beating for his troubles and you will not be charged with anything.

Im sure the poor guy would be delighted to learn your plastering his private conversations all over a public forum.

Lesson? Gardai shouldn't talk to people 'off the record' or about work cause they then post it on the net here, use it as proof that Gardai are scum / corrupt / etc or tell Joe

common sense brigade · 25-02-2011 08:10AM

Im sure the poor guy would be delighted to learn your plastering his private conversations all over a public forum.

Funnily enough he is has actually posted here on this Thread!

and finds your post amusing.

shampon · 25-02-2011 10:21AM

common sense brigade wrote: »

I was talking to a friend of mine who is a Gardai last night (well he is my husbands best mate really). He said what he would advise people to do on the QT, if they are burgled, is if the Burgler attackes you and you retaliate beat the crap out of the Burgler then dump him outside on the footpath nearby and call the Guards and say there is a man outside your house collapsed. The Burgler will never admit he was there robbing your house. And even if he did it be your word against his. He will have got a good beating for his troubles and you will not be charged with anything.

Oh dear God....

ArphaRima · 25-02-2011 10:52AM

I own 2 firearms (in Ireland). Neither are for home security because that is not allowed, nor desirable to be honest.
It would take me around 10 minutes (again, intentional) to assemble either one of my firearms for use, and I would have to walk between 3 rooms gathering different keys and opening safes and ammo boxes etc..

A far more accessible and therefore likely weapon for me would be a knife, a sword or just about any lethal weapon. I have no doubt whatsoever that I could/would kill an intruder.

I think primal fear would kick in and self restraint would be nigh-on impossible. It scares me to think that I could find myself incarcerated through no fault of my own. (sure I'd have killed someone but I would have been in my own home seeking to do nothing of the sort)

To me this is a nightmare scenario that I am unlikely to ever have to face.
One of the only scenarios that is scarier to me is an 8-year old with an AK-47 at a makeshift roadblock. Again unlikely unless I move to sub-saharan Africa.

Hooch · 25-02-2011 12:38PM

common sense brigade wrote: »

Funnily enough he is has actually posted here on this Thread! and finds your post amusing.

I reckon only three members of a police service have replied to you on thread......and i'd be quite sure that they would never give such stupid immature advice to anyone.

If there is a someone on this thread giving that kind of advice to members of the public.....be warned....you will be sacked.

In regards this forum.....we wont give advice like you have suggested.

CaseyRyback · 25-02-2011 05:48PM

common sense brigade wrote: »

I was talking to a friend of mine who is a Gardai last night (well he is my husbands best mate really). He said what he would advise people to do on the QT, if they are burgled, is if the Burgler attackes you and you retaliate beat the crap out of the Burgler then dump him outside on the footpath nearby and call the Guards and say there is a man outside your house collapsed. The Burgler will never admit he was there robbing your house. And even if he did it be your word against his. He will have got a good beating for his troubles and you will not be charged with anything.

This is just another one of those urban myths that I have heard bandied around many times.

In my experience those who break houses would be only too happy to make an allegation of assault against you, regardless of whether it drops them in it.

Hint: burglars = not very bright.

meathstevie · 26-02-2011 03:32PM

common sense brigade wrote: »

I was talking to a friend of mine who is a Gardai last night (well he is my husbands best mate really). He said what he would advise people to do on the QT, if they are burgled, is if the Burgler attackes you and you retaliate beat the crap out of the Burgler then dump him outside on the footpath nearby and call the Guards and say there is a man outside your house collapsed. The Burgler will never admit he was there robbing your house. And even if he did it be your word against his. He will have got a good beating for his troubles and you will not be charged with anything.

Nonsense to the extreme. If anyone ever finds themselves in a situation where you've had to use a serious amount of force to defend yourself from unlawful violence, be it in your home or anywhere else, the worst you can do is trying to distort the facts.

The following is not advice but personal opinion :

if you believe you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide.

if you leave the scene of the events as intact as possible examinition of the scene will back up your version of events.

if you are being investigated or you're asked to provide a witness statement go find sound legal advice and say nothing until you've regained your composure and you have the facts as you perceived them straightened out in your mind.

And above all, ring for an ambulance if needed. For yourself if you need one but also for your assailant.

Burglar wounded got what he deserved - judge

Comments