Today is a bad day for some crooks! Well done Gerry Kennedy.

The King of Moo · 24-02-2012 02:19PM

someuser905 wrote: »

But he shoot him in the back and he was not even in his home! That is attempted murder and I hope the Gardai charge him. The victim is entitled to compensation in this case. We shouldn't put material things above a life - a life can not be replaced.

The article doesn't make it very clear, but I believe the man was on his own property. Also, I get the impression he wasn't actually trying to hurt or even kill anyone: just fire a warning shot or damage the van.
He had ample time earlier to shoot the robbers, but he's clearly a regular person and didn't immediately open fire on another person, as some people like to think they would.

I'd be one of the last people to say we should all be armed and willing to get violent against criminals, but I think given the circumstances, and unless new evidence comes to light, I don't see too much wrong with what the man did.

hooradiation · 24-02-2012 02:20PM

prinz wrote: »

That's right. What he should have done is mind is own, turn around, and walk away and let his business be raided. Maybe if more people were that accommodating to burglars and thieves they'd be a nicer bunch in general. That's called thinking things through Joe.

Once again prinz, you have met my expectations for your contribution. No more, no less.
The commitment you have to your mediocre consistency is truly astounding.

cocoshovel · 24-02-2012 02:20PM

Show Time wrote: »

Damn right when dealing with wild animals or travellers(Both are the same in my book) shoot first and ask questions later.

I have more respect for wild animals. Would be an insult to animals to categorize them as the same.

mikemac1 · 24-02-2012 02:21PM

someuser905 wrote: »

But he shoot him in the back and he was not even in his home! That is attempted murder and I hope the Gardai charge him.

You'd never get attempted murder on this case

There are less serious charges available

A lot of things have to come together before you can bring murder into a court

Biggins · 24-02-2012 02:24PM

Frankly - if the crook tried to sue for being shot while trying to escape and still stealing at the same time, I would tell Mr Kennedy to counter-sue for the 'mental duress' he and his family was put under, due to the totally illegal actions of the said crook!

The law works both ways!

Micky Dolenz · 24-02-2012 02:26PM

Show Time wrote: »

Damn right when dealing with wild animals or travellers(Both are the same in my book) shoot first and ask questions later.

Banned

Biggins · 24-02-2012 02:27PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

You'd never get attempted murder on this case

There are less serious charges available

A lot of things have to come together before you can bring murder into a court

For the record...
If - and thats a big IF, such a case got that far, a charge of attempted manslaughter in the second degree might be applied.

Certainly NOT the daftness of 'attempted murder'.

SEPT 23 1989 · 24-02-2012 02:27PM

And the Pádraig Nally Bravery Award 2012 goes to...

Gerry Kennedy:D

meoklmrk91 · 24-02-2012 02:31PM

someuser905 wrote: »

But he shoot him in the back and he was not even in his home! That is attempted murder and I hope the Gardai charge him. The victim is entitled to compensation in this case. We shouldn't put material things above a life - a life can not be replaced.

Say the same thing when someone comes on to your property and threatens your livelihood. These are the type of people that if they get off lightly they will continue to come back again and again, for all we know this may not have been the first time that this has occurred and maybe the property owner was lucky enough to catch them, he was every right to protect his property, himself and his family should he feel the need to.

I only hope for this man that he is not targeted again in order to teach him a lesson. If he is I only hope that the local gardai are there to back him up. About time such thugs learned a hard lesson.

mathepac · 24-02-2012 02:32PM

"Well Judge I was traumatised, frightened for my life and very afraid that if the gang escaped they'd return. My only thought was to protect my family, my home and my business by making sure they could be apprehended and prosecuted.

As they drove out of the yard, the car passed by me and it struck me that if the car had a collection of dinges and scratches in the paint-work and body-work from baby shot-gun pellets it would be more easily identified, so I fired at the car body.

I am an experienced shooter and I know that bird-shot [small light projectiles with a low muzzle velocity] will not penetrate the steel in a car's body nor will they break car safety glass at a range of x metres.

I was shocked when the car glass broke as I fired and the scum-bag passenger instinctively turned his back to me from his original side-on orientation to me as the car passed. This resulted in the glass shards scratching his back, Judge, and he was not struck by any of my pellets which at that range from my gun would scarcely pass through a decent overcoat.

I'm sorry he was hurt Judge and that was never my intention, only to mark the car"

Biggins · 24-02-2012 02:45PM

Its not clear in the article but seeing as Mr Kennedy wasn't aiming at the crooks head as the thug was trying to drive away possibly with stolen items, maybe Mr Kennedy was actually trying to shoot at the tyres?
(I'm speculating - not stating.)
Certainly something was aimed for and subsequently damaged enough for the vehicle to end up crashed.
Mr Kennedy could easily state he was trying to shoot low and at the tyres!

Plus the crook was far from seriously injured - and as users of the weapon that was involved would know, the buckshot goes in a wide area within a few feet - so (I assume) Mr Kennedy was close to the moving vehicle and was aiming at a particular area - not the crook himself.
Had he been more directly aiming at the crook (up close remember!), certainly the thief would not be walking out of hospital so quick.
Remember, the thief was sitting at the time I think, so if a weapon was raised higher, certainly the only visible areas shootable through a window, would be head and top shoulders.

Shelflife · 24-02-2012 02:50PM

Im delighted that he managed to protect his family and livelyhood from these scumbags and congrats to all involved.

Now comes the part where the guards will put together a good case, get a conviction and the judge will give a mickey mouse sentence and maybe even suspend it.

Its a joke in my area where known individuals will walk into shops , lift what they want and leave, guards are called and we all go to court, the local judge will give the individuals yet another chance and go on to give out to the guards and the shopkeeper about bringing a case to court over a mars bar and a bottle of coke.

the judicary in this country seem to be oblivious to what ordinary decent folk are going through on a daily basis, every week we have shoplifters who terriorise and intimadate retail staff and when the guards are called all they do is tell them not to come back as they know that bringing a case is a waste of time.

So the robber progresses from the mars bar to construction equipment to armed robbery. all because the judges wont do their jobs properly.

Judicary need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Micky Dolenz · 24-02-2012 02:52PM

He shouldn't have to explain his actions. He did not look for trouble. Trouble came to him and unlawfully entered his property.

If more of this happened thieves would think twice before entering uninvited.

flanders1979 · 24-02-2012 03:49PM

The poor man will be looking over his shoulder for a while.
The scum could come looking for revenge. You can't reason with an idiot.

prinz · 24-02-2012 03:56PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Once again prinz, you have met my expectations for your contribution. No more, no less.
The commitment you have to your mediocre consistency is truly astounding.

I'll take that as a compliment. One day you might achieve it yourself.

Biggins · 24-02-2012 04:33PM

Originally Posted by someuser905
But he shoot him in the back and he was not even in his home! That is attempted murder and I hope the Gardai charge him.

Biggins wrote: »

The crook was attempting to drive away with material things belonging not to him - but owned to the people he had terrified with his threatening actions of breaking into their property!

By the way also - 'attempted murder' my arse.
Go learn your law. That charge WOULD NOT be applied anyway - and the man was not in his home when the shot was fired - BUT WAS on his property still!

I believe that the recent changed law in this area, now allows you to try hold onto and protect your own items also!

Irish homeowners can now legally shoot anyone who enters their property – a move that has been slammed by civil liberties campaigners in a row with Justice Minister Alan Shatter.

Legislation has now come into effect that allows homeowners to use "reasonable force" to defend themselves, their families and their property.

Source: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-homeowners-now-have-legal-right-to-shoot-intruders-in-their-homes-137373588.html#ixzz1nJWCHDfl

"The bill aims to shift the balance of rights back to the homeowner where it should always have been. It is intolerable a homeowner should be compelled to retreat in front of an intruder who has entered the home and who may have malign intentions towards the homeowner, the family or the home owner’s property."

Source: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-gun-owners-can-now-shoot-intruders--98813794.html#ixzz1nJWncfj2

One final thing to note:

A new law which allows home owners to defend themselves in their own home comes into effect today.
The Criminal Law Defence and the Dwelling Act 2011 recognises the constitutional position of a person's home and allows for a person to use reasonable force in defending the home.
The aim is to protect people in their dwelling from assault and to protect their property.
The new Act provides that a person is not under an obligation to retreat from their home when there is an intruder.
The owner of a dwelling who uses force cannot be sued for damages by a burglar and will not be guilty of an offence.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0113/home.html

So fcuk you crooks!

hondasam · 24-02-2012 04:37PM

Biggins wrote: »

Source: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-homeowners-now-have-legal-right-to-shoot-intruders-in-their-homes-137373588.html#ixzz1nJWCHDfl

Source: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-gun-owners-can-now-shoot-intruders--98813794.html#ixzz1nJWncfj2

Does this mean your home or any property ie business premises you own?

I don't think this man was trying to kill anyone, just wanted to scare them away.

Biggins · 24-02-2012 04:41PM

hondasam wrote: »

Does this mean your home or any property ie business premises you own?

I don't think this man was trying to kill anyone, just wanted to scare them away.

I assume as the business was his and also on his very own property to boot which they tried to steal, Mr Kennedy while shook up about the incident, has after a good bit of questions asked (and rightly so), not much (hopefully) to worry further about.

hondasam · 24-02-2012 04:43PM

Biggins wrote: »

I assume as the business was his and also on his very own property to boot, Mr Kennedy while shook up about the incident, has after a god bit of questions asked, not much (hopefully) to worry further about.

I was just wondering did this new law only apply to family home or did it include a business premises.
I don't think he has anything to worry about from the law anyway and I would imagine no one is stupid enough to seek revenge.

Biggins · 24-02-2012 04:46PM

hondasam wrote: »

I was just wondering did this new law only apply to family home or did it include a business premises.
I don't think he has anything to worry about from the law anyway and I would imagine no one is stupid enough to seek revenge.

I assume that the full letter of the new law also allows for a person to equally care for their business property.
It seems to be this way now (and I'm happy to see this).

As Mr Kennedy's business (and goods that was tried to be stolen) additionally was also on his private property residence as well, I'd say he's well covered too.

Here is the full act: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0035/index.html

I note in the act there is this additional part:

(b) A person shall be regarded as using force in relation to property belonging to another person if he or she—

(i) applies force to that property,

(ii) causes an impact on that property, or

(iii) threatens to apply force to or cause an impact on that property.

If my reading is right including other sections of the act, if a person is doing something illegal such as breaking and entering and subsequently its though that their actions would lead to causing a negative impact to that property, a person is now legally allowed to use reasonable force to try negate/put off that possible outcome

It appears there was force used, they had been fighting.

If it all means that trying to shoot one's own van to stop it and the goods inside being robbed, again Mr Kennedy might be additionally covered.

hondasam · 24-02-2012 05:08PM

@ Biggins.

“curtilage”, in relation to a dwelling, means an area immediately surrounding or adjacent to the dwelling which is used in conjunction with the dwelling, other than any part of that area that is a public place;

“dwelling” includes—

(a) a building or structure (whether temporary or not) which is constructed or adapted for use as a dwelling and is being so used,

(b) a vehicle or vessel (whether mobile or not) which is constructed or adapted for use as a dwelling and is being so used, or

(c) a part of a dwelling;

I don't think it's clear it includes a business but I might be reading it wrong.

Biggins · 24-02-2012 05:17PM

hondasam wrote: »

@ Biggins.

I don't think it's clear it includes a business but I might be reading it wrong.

You might be right - however as the goods was on his property, he might be covered from that aspect alone.
Additionally, there is the following:

2.— (1) Notwithstanding the generality of any other enactment or rule of law and subject to subsections (2) and (3), it shall not be an offence for a person who is in his or her dwelling, or for a person who is a lawful occupant in a dwelling, to use force against another person or the property of another person where—

(a) he or she believes the other person has entered or is entering the dwelling as a trespasser for the purpose of committing a criminal act, and

(b) the force used is only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be—

(i) to protect himself or herself or another person present in the dwelling from injury, assault, detention or death caused by a criminal act,

(ii) to protect his or her property or the property of another person from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act, or

(iii) to prevent the commission of a crime or to effect, or assist in effecting, a lawful arrest.

If 'dwelling' means private property as such (which the thieves was on and had entered including his home), Mr Kennedy should be ok there too.
Then there is the bit:

“curtilage”, in relation to a dwelling, means an area immediately surrounding or adjacent to the dwelling which is used in conjunction with the dwelling,

Certainly the home owner Mr Kennedy used his additional place on his own property in conjunction with his home, on same property - which anyway he's now entitled to defend, with the goods thats on it also.

Additional legal point.
The crooks had not possibly broken the law as regards stealing stuff TILL they tried to leave the actual private property with the goods.
As Mr Kennedy it would be stated, was possibly trying to "to prevent the commission of a crime..." as mentioned in the act - he could be covered there also!

hondasam · 24-02-2012 05:37PM

Biggins wrote: »

You might be right - however as the goods was on his property, he might be covered from that aspect alone.
Additionally, there is the following:

Certainly the home owner Mr Kennedy used his additional place on his own property in conjunction with his home, on same property - which anyway he's now entitled to defend, with the goods thats on it also.

I though curtilage meant the garden and surrounding area of the dwelling including garage outbuildings that is used for domestic life.
I'm still not sure it includes a business premises even if it is adjacent to the dwelling.

Biggins · 24-02-2012 05:41PM

hondasam wrote: »

I though curtilage meant the garden and surrounding area of the dwelling including garage outbuildings that is used for domestic life.
I'm still not sure it includes a business premises even if it is adjacent to the dwelling.

...But additionally the act also refers to "the property of another person" - which the intruders were actually on.
The act doesn't mention any difference between "domestic" and business life as such.

hondasam · 24-02-2012 05:43PM

@ Biggins just reading this. The new law is a bit confusing it seems.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=shooting%20longfod&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC4QqQIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishexaminer.com%2Fireland%2Fburglar-shooting-could-fall-under-new-homeowners-law-184998.html&ei=9rxHT6GgA8OBhQfVvMm9Dg&usg=AFQjCNFC99U7UG973WHHZOQvvGddnq7u1Q

Burglar shooting could fall under new homeowners law
By Cormac O’Keeffe
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2012
A burglar was shot yesterday by a businessman in what could be one of the first incidents covered by the controversial new law protecting people who use reasonable force against intruders.

The thief was part of a gang of three which entered Gerry Kennedy’s business premises — described as being adjacent to his home — in Co Longford at about 6.30am.

Mr Kennedy armed himself with his shotgun, approached the burglars, and ordered them to leave.

A confrontation ensued outside the premises during which Mr Kennedy opened fire, injuring one of the burglars.

His actions come just a month after legislation was passed which gave a more extensive level of legal protection to homeowners using force to protect themselves and their home.

The Criminal (Defence and Dwelling) Act 2011 allows people to use reasonable force to protect not just themselves and others from assault in their home, but also to protect their dwelling. It is not clear whether or not the law covers an adjoining business premises. The act said its provisions refer to a dwelling and its "curtilage".

Curtilage is defined as "an area immediately surrounding or adjacent to the dwelling which is used in conjunction with the dwelling, other than any part of that area that is a public place".

Gardaí said the three men had entered the business premises — a furniture factory — outside Killoe, Co Longford, before 6.30am.

Mr Kennedy woke when he heard noise from the factory. It is understood that when he confronted the men, the argument moved outside the premises.

It is not clear where the exact location of the shooting was in relation to the man’s home.

Speaking on RTÉ yesterday, Inspector Paul Cuttle of Longford Garda Station said: "He confronted them at the time. In the course of the confrontation there was a firearm discharged.

"One of the males received injuries. He’s now being treated in Midlands Regional Hospital in Mullingar for non life-threatening injuries."

A major search operation was put in place to locate the other two men. Assisted by the Air Support Unit, gardaí arrested one of them driving a van on the main N4 Edgeworthstown to Dublin road.

The third man was eventually stopped by gardaí about 15km away in the village of Ennybegs.

The three men, all aged in their 20s, are thought to be from north Dublin.

Insp Cuttle said the owner and his family were recovering: "As you can appreciate they are very traumatised by the event. It is very unpleasant for any family. We are liaising with them and working with them in relation to this incident."

Ellis Dee · 24-02-2012 05:43PM

It's not only Mr. Kennedy who deserves congratulations and the thanks of the community.:D

News
Farmer shoots thief in Borris

Last Updated Feb 2012
By: Clare Minnock

“We need to defend our own.” That was the view of one farmer after a member of a gang of thieves was shot on his land.

The man was shot by Tom Doran’s neighbour in Gowlin, Borris as he attempted to steal from Mr Doran’s farmyard.

The victim, a member of the travelling community, was spotted with two other men on Mr Doran’s land last Monday (13 February).

Mr Doran wasn’t home at the time but fast-acting neighbours and Mr Doran’s wife Margaret sprang into action and attempted to block the culprits’ escape after calling gardaí.

Trying to make their getaway, the three drove “straight at” Mrs Doran in their white Hiace van before the shot was fired by a neighbouring farmer. One of the would-be thieves is believed to have suffered a “flesh wound” to his shoulder.

“The neighbours saw the van in the yard and came down. We’re prepared to protect our own area,” Mr Doran told The Nationalist.

“They were trying to get away and they drove their van straight at Margaret.

“They drove at them all and my neighbour fired at them. He was defending my farm.”

When gardaí arrived on the scene, it is understood €200 worth of steel belonging to Mr Doran was found in the Hiace.

According to Mr Doran, communities around the county are standing united against the latest wave of burglaries sweeping across Carlow.

“We’re inundated with vans going around here. We’re sick of it. We’ve set up a community alert and we’re prepared to protect our own area. We need to defend our own,” added Mr Doran.

Gardaí confirmed that an incident was under investigation and appealed to anyone with information to contact them at Bagenalstown (059 9721212) or Borris (059 9773102) stations.

For those of us who live in rural areas and are pretty well at the mercy of those itinerant criminals, it's good to know that we have neighbours with the guts and initiative to tackle the problem.:)

http://www.carlow-nationalist.ie/tabId/369/itemId/13772/Farmer-shoots-thief-in-Borris.aspx

Biggins · 24-02-2012 05:48PM

hondasam wrote: »

@ Biggins just reading this. The new law is a bit confusing it seems.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=shooting%20longfod&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC4QqQIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishexaminer.com%2Fireland%2Fburglar-shooting-could-fall-under-new-homeowners-law-184998.html&ei=9rxHT6GgA8OBhQfVvMm9Dg&usg=AFQjCNFC99U7UG973WHHZOQvvGddnq7u1Q

I suspect that on the day of a possible court case - should it even get that far - the translation of the law into realistic terms, is left to the presiding judge as he sees to read it.
The act allows (as its written) some fluidity, some leeway so that it might be read to possible advantage to the person defending their home, property and goods?

hondasam · 24-02-2012 05:48PM

Ellis Dee wrote: »

For those of us who live in rural areas and are pretty well at the mercy of those itinerant criminals, it's good to know that we have neighbours with the guts and initiative to tackle the problem.:)

I know it might seem like it and some people might want to believe it but it's not just itinerant's who commit crime.

mathepac · 24-02-2012 06:31PM

hondasam wrote: »

... but it's not just itinerant's who commit crime.

The poster wrote "itinerant criminals" meaning members of the criminal fraternities who are mobile and travel around committing crime, as distinct from "itinerants" who are also "criminals". That's my interpretation. Am I right?

Caliden · 24-02-2012 06:56PM

Sadly not everyone has access to owning a firearm to protect themselves/their home/family so what do 99% of us do about that?

Today is a bad day for some crooks! Well done Gerry Kennedy.

Comments