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

Four burglars enter, three burglars leave... Householder arrested for murder...

1235714

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 549 ✭✭✭Irishstabber


    ball wrote: »
    I believe you with that username

    This kind of thing seems to be happening more and more recently.

    Friend of mine was burgled the other night also.
    Keys taken off the stairs and two cars stolen/wrecked.
    Garden wall was destroyed garden tore up from tire tracks. The keys to the family home stolen etc.

    Its the worst kind of thieving about.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Anyone else find if funny that two of the posters in recent pages have been called irishstabber and riskymove?:pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Einhard




    Hasn't in the US. It is far less likely that a burglar will meet a homeowner in the US than in Ireland (By about a 5:1 ratio), as the burglar will make particular effort to ensure that the homeowner isn't around at the time. Encounters in the US can routinely be lethal, and the burglars tend not to think that the burglary is worth risking their life when it's far safer to ensure nobody's home in the first place. Paradoxically, this means that burglary is safer for everyone (homeowner and burglar) in the US than it is anywhere else. Burglaries happen about as often in the US as in Europe, but people take more care when going about it.

    That's interesting. Anything to back it up?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭dillo2k10


    If they stabbed him once or twice to incapacitate him, I don't think they should be prosecuted.
    But if they stabbed him many times, they should be convicted. If a guy's been stabbed once or twice I'd imagine he wouldn't be much more of a threat, and there'd be no need to keep stabbing.

    If someone broke into my home and they had a weapon then I would stab them, but I wouldn't be able to stop. I would be too afraid, I wouldn't stop stabbing until they stopped moving, but only if I felt I was in danger or someone else in the house was in danger.

    I also believe that they deserve to be severely punished if they don't die. They broke into someone's home, the place where you are supposed to feel safe. They took that away and they would never be able to feel safe again in their home.

    If you were to be brought to court could you not claim temporary insanity due to the shock and fear?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,440 ✭✭✭The Aussie


    dillo2k10 wrote: »
    If someone broke into my home and they had a weapon then I would stab them,

    Braver than i am, i would back into a room and tell them if they come into the room they are not walking out. They can have everything else, thats what i pay insurance for


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 549 ✭✭✭Irishstabber


    Einhard wrote: »
    Or they might respond by carrying lethal weapons of their own?



    Unless "Creeping" is a euphemism for murder or rape or genocide or taking a sh!t in someone's kettle, then no, it really isn't the most despicable thing a burglar can do...



    Of course there should be defence of that right under the law. There also has to be a defence of the right to life. And there is. The trick is in getting the balance right between the two. If it were up to you, there'd be no balance whatsoever.



    So you're saying your username is not ironic then....
    :pac:



    How exactly would you establish if the person was known to your friends? Would you do that before or after the beating? Hold the person down whilst calling your friends and describing him?

    I might use my common sense, you know that thing which usually stops people doing unnecessary actions?

    Maybe it is ironic. I must have been a disturbed teen as I made it up at 16.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭dillo2k10


    The Aussie wrote: »
    Braver than i am, i would back into a room and tell them if they come into the room they are not walking out. They can have everything else, thats what i pay insurance for

    Only if I felt in danger. Or if the other people in the house were in danger. Especially with Children in the house.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 679 ✭✭✭polyfusion


    Einhard wrote: »
    How exactly would you establish if the person was known to your friends?

    Maybe they would ring the doorbell, or maybe even knock?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Einhard


    polyfusion wrote: »
    Maybe they would ring the doorbell, or maybe even knock?

    The poster referenced someone who had entered his house without permission, so I reasonably presumed that he hadn't been let in.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Einhard


    g_moriarty wrote: »
    So tired of bleeding heart liberals defending criminals. If you don't want to risk injury or death, don't f**king break into peoples houses. It's that simple.

    So tired of people using the phrase "bleeding heart liberals" in reference to anyone who doesn't believe that burglary should carry an automatic death sentence...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,887 ✭✭✭WHIP IT!


    Einhard wrote: »
    So tired of people using the phrase "bleeding heart liberals" in reference to anyone who doesn't believe that burglary should carry an automatic death sentence...

    Yes, cos that's exactly what people have been saying throughout this thread, isn;t it :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    The Aussie wrote: »
    Granted and a humble apology.

    but to think that is is easy to subdue or "knock someone out" is like making a cup of coffee is about nieve as you can get. and then to argue the point is just belligerent.

    I personally could not knock someone out, if someone broke in I would probably panic and lock myself in the room and phone someone.

    I suppose some people would confront them without thinking of the danger.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Einhard


    WHIP IT! wrote: »
    Yes, cos that's exactly what people have been saying throughout this thread, isn;t it :rolleyes:

    Eh, I quoted another poster who said it. Quoted him. And then responded to that quote of his. See how that works?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,310 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    If you have to subdue some-one why not knock them, shoot them in a limb etc. I don't believe you should kill unless it is a you or them situation.
    Shoot me in the limb, and I'll shoot you in the head. And then claim self defence :P
    Knock them out I meant, as I think you know.

    I agree you stop them moving BUT that does not equal killing them in my book.
    Knock them out how? A blow to the front of their head? And this is if you're stronger than them, otherwise they'll beat the crap out of you for even trying.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,834 ✭✭✭Sonnenblumen


    i suppose it is one way of cutting the crime figures.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 479 ✭✭ball


    i suppose it is one way of cutting the crime figures.
    Well if it worked for America...


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,901 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Einhard wrote: »
    That's interesting. Anything to back it up?

    Assuming a general similarity between England and Ireland:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3613417/An-Englishmans-home-is-his-dungeon.html
    But the trouble is that this kind of burglary - the kind most likely to go "wrong" - is now the norm in Britain. In America, it's called a "hot" burglary - a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present - or a "home invasion", which is a much more accurate term. Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are "hot" burglaries, and in my part of the world it's statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing

    Figures seem to vary by year. I found one link on a US crime website showing the figure to be closer to one burglary in three being a 'hot' burglary in 2007, figures from the UK's Home Office show 57% for 2009, itslef down from 2008's 59%.

    UK Home Office figures:
    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1210/burglary-tables-2010?view=Binary

    US figure.
    http://crimeinamerica.net/2010/09/30/28-percent-of-burglaries-involve-people-at-home-good-doors-windows-prevent-violent-crime/

    NTM


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    WHIP IT! wrote: »
    Yes, cos that's exactly what people have been saying throughout this thread, isn;t it :rolleyes:

    Well some posters have said that breaking and entering warrent the severest punishment possible, one admitted they wouldn't be able to stop stabbing the intruder, another said they would only feel safe once the intruder was dead.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭Craebear


    Sorry but in my world if you step over the doorstep uninvited with a mask on, your life is forfeit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Craebear wrote: »
    Sorry but in my world if you step over the doorstep uninvited with a mask on, your life is forfeit.

    So even if the person had left the house, and was n longer a threat to you, your family, or your property, you'd feel within your rights to hunt him down and execute him?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    Craebear wrote: »
    Sorry but in my world if you step over the doorstep uninvited with a mask on, your life is forfeit.
    not as simple as that in the UK,a few years ago a farmer called tony martin ,got so scared of being robbed ,20 times in three years,shot two burglars, one died,and tony was jailed for life,the other who was wounded is suing the farmer for £15,000.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Ah here now, there is absolutly no call whatsoever for all that arrogant, condscending bullcrap.

    But then maybe you all know much better than me :rolleyes:
    I certainly wasn't setting out to be condescending AH, as I said in my post you quoted. I was saying in practical terms knocking a fully grown man out, or incapacitating him in a selective way only happens in the movies. I also pointed out that I would run and hide as first response, second if I was confronted capitulate, if however it escalated and I felt me or mines lives were in danger I would not hesitate to use lethal force if I got the chance.

    As MM pointed out;
    I have never yet heard of a successful prosecution either in the US or Ireland which involved someone who used 'excessively lethal force.' Lethal is lethal. you attack someone with a knife, it's lethal force. If the first stab didn't end the threat, do it again. And again. Repeat until confident that the threat is ended. Only if it is obvious that there is no longer a threat (eg the guy has ceased struggling) is one no longer permitted to continue attacking, and that point is never obvious. But by that point, lethal force of any sort, even just one stab, is no longer authorised, it's not a matter of 'too many stabs', it's a case of 'was every individual stab deemed necessary at the time?'
    Bear in mind that there are very few immediately incapacitating wounds. When one gets shot, it is actually the psychological effect which puts one down, not any physiological reason, unless the round actually hits something immediately vital such as the nervous system or an applicable muscle/bone. If the will is there for the target to continue going even after being shot or stabbed, he can continue to pose a threat, even though the wound may be ultimately mortal.
    Just backing up what I also suggested in my earlier post. I've had relatives in combat who have told me similar and how surprising the amount of damage the human body can sustain and still keep going(and the opposite of where someone can get a bare flesh wound and expire). A partial reason some US (and others) cops use tasers over firearms in some situations(mainly drug related) is that the attacker can often enough take a few shots and keep going. The taser can stop and drop them faster.


    Hasn't in the US. It is far less likely that a burglar will meet a homeowner in the US than in Ireland (By about a 5:1 ratio), as the burglar will make particular effort to ensure that the homeowner isn't around at the time. Encounters in the US can routinely be lethal, and the burglars tend not to think that the burglary is worth risking their life when it's far safer to ensure nobody's home in the first place. Paradoxically, this means that burglary is safer for everyone (homeowner and burglar) in the US than it is anywhere else. Burglaries happen about as often in the US as in Europe, but people take more care when going about it.
    This is what I've gleaned from yanks I know as well. They've told me it's very rare to find an intruder in your house. Here I know of two people who awoke in their beds with two scumbags above them. One with a hammer as a threat and the other time with a kettle of scalding water held above them demanding their car keys.

    Actually of the folks I know that have been burgled MM's UK figures would apply funny enough. Half of them were in the house at the time. One woman I know was on her own as they tried to break in her patio door. She screamed and they stopped, but then started again. She had rung the Gardai who said they were on their way and then rang me in a panic. The scum finally ran away when a neighbour heard the commotion. The Guards showed up an hour later. Another mate of mine heard a noise one night and went downstairs to see two scum(its usually two or more) trying to break in his patio door, they ran when they saw him. They tried a week later. I know if they ever get in his house, his kill mode in defence of his two young children will kick in and woe betide the scum. he'll make mourners of their nearest and dearest.

    These bastards can really ruin lives. I knew one old woman who was burgled and it affected her so badly she actually took an overdose :(. I've known others who have moved from a much loved family home after a string of burglaries. Some who become paranoid and require mental health help. Others who just don't feel safe.

    For many it's NOT just property. It's NOT just theft. It's a violation almost a rape of ones safety and place of safety.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Einhard wrote: »
    So even if the person had left the house, and was n longer a threat to you, your family, or your property, you'd feel within your rights to hunt him down and execute him?
    My animal response would be yes, break out the chainsaws, the shower curtain and bleach for the drains. But no, once they were gone, let them go. It's not worth it then.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    getz wrote: »
    not as simple as that in the UK,a few years ago a farmer called tony martin ,got so scared of being robbed ,20 times in three years,shot two burglars, one died,and tony was jailed for life,the other who was wounded is suing the farmer for £15,000.

    His murder conviction was replaced by manslaughter.
    He only served three years, he was released in 2003.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Einhard



    Thanks for the response. I don't think though, that the above article could be considered empirical evidence. Indeed, just reading through it, I immediately got the feeling that the author was more than just a disinterested observer, so I googled him. He describes himself as a "right-wing bastard", has stood in for Rush Limbaugh, and writes that Europe is being overrun by Muslims. Not sure he's exactly the most neutral authority when it comes to defending oneself in one's home. It would be the equivalent of referencing a "bleeding heart liberal" as evidence against the right to reasonable force!

    Indeed, your own figures completely contrdict Mr. Steyn's.

    Figures seem to vary by year. I found one link on a US crime website showing the figure to be closer to one burglary in three being a 'hot' burglary in 2007, figures from the UK's Home Office show 57% for 2009, itslef down from 2008's 59%.

    Had a look at these, and they don't seem say what you claim. There's no breakdown between unoccupied and occupied homes. Unless I'm missing something.

    Even taking your figures though, 59%:28% is hardly 5:1.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    hondasam wrote: »
    His murder conviction was replaced by manslaughter.
    He only served three years, he was released in 2003.
    i know that,but the fact of the matter was that he was given a life sentance,it was only the public uproar that got him released


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    getz wrote: »
    i know that,but the fact of the matter was that he was given a life sentance,it was only the public uproar that got him released

    He got five years for manslaughter.

    He was released after serving three years of his five-year sentence,the maximum period for which he could be held following good behaviour.

    When he became eligible for parole and early release they refused and described him as "a very dangerous man" who may still believe his action had been right.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    There isn't enough information to make a proper judgement here, you can't say definitively wether this was justified or not.

    As has been said a lot:
    If the person killed was attempting to attack an occupant (or there was that threat), and the occupant killed him in self defense, that's justified.
    If the occupant went beyond self defence, and killed the person intentionally, knowing there was no threat to him, that's murder.


    If you get into a situation where there is any physical confrontation with someone (in any circumstance), all bets are off really and there's no way of knowing how it may turn out;
    best to do everything you can to avoid getting to that point in the first place.

    When it does get to that point, there's no middle ground and you'd need to be as vicious as you can, just to be sure you stand the best chance of avoiding serious injury or death.
    Hopefully you'd just disable the other person, but you may not have a choice in how far things go, and could easily end up killing the other person (or them you).


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,901 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Einhard wrote: »
    Had a look at these, and they don't seem say what you claim. There's no breakdown between unoccupied and occupied homes. Unless I'm missing something.

    Go to tab 1.8.
    Even taking your figures though, 59%:28% is hardly 5:1.

    As I say, the figures seem to vary. The figures over the hot burlgary rate have been argued for nearly two decades now, and 10-15% has been a common figure which comes up in the US. I'm not about to completely redo research which I've done over the last decade, the one website with the 28% was actually the highest I can recall seeing, and was the first I found in a Google search. I provided it for full disclosure.

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,901 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    best to do everything you can to avoid getting to that point in the first place

    The good Justice Hardiman covers this legal aspect too:
    It is of course common experience that there will be occasions when a person might well be advised to flee, but that is a matter for his own discretion and he can never be under a legal obligation to do so. Equally, there will be other occasions when a person might be ill advised to flee, perhaps because of exterior conditions or perhaps because of the fear of meeting an accomplice of the known aggressor, or being pursued by the latter, and attacked when he is outside his dwellinghouse and to that extent in a worse or more dubious position.

    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. It follows from this, in turn, that such a person can never be in a worse position in point of law because he has decided to stand his ground in his house.

    NTM


Advertisement
Advertisement