N3r0 wrote: » Ive had 3 dead treats against me.
N3r0 wrote: » How much force can I use if someone enters my property with intentions to harm me and my family? Ive had 3 dead treats against me. yesterday I confronted a person who made treats against my life and had a fight in which I did not assault the person, but restrained them and nearly had my finger bitten all the way off. I just want to no that I can use the force required to make sure no harm comes to me or my family and not be prosecuted.
ssshhh123 wrote: » Get a hatchet and an air soft pistol if any one enters the house grab these fire air soft pistol at him/them if continue at you start swinging hatchet at them try hit an arm etc. that's my plan anyway. As far as law I'm not sure but just drag them out the house at end.
Justifiable use of forece etc 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. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the person uses force against— (a) a member of the Garda Síochána acting in the course of his or her duty, (b) a person assisting a member of the Garda Síochána acting in the course of his or her duty, or (c) a person lawfully performing a function authorised by or under any enactment. (3) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the person using the force engages in conduct or causes a state of affairs for the purpose of using that force to resist or terminate an act of another person acting in response to that conduct or state of affairs, but subsection (1) may apply, if the occasion for the use of force arises only because the person using the force concerned does something he or she may lawfully do, knowing that such an occasion will arise. (4) It is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held but in considering whether the person using the force honestly held the belief, the court or the jury, as the case may be, shall have regard to the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the person so believing and all other relevant circumstances. (5) It is immaterial whether the person using the force had a safe and practicable opportunity to retreat from the dwelling before using the force concerned. (6) (a) A person shall be regarded as using force in relation to another person if he or she— (i) applies force in relation to or causes an impact on the body of that other person, (ii) threatens to apply force in relation to or cause an impact on the body of that other person, or (iii) detains that other person. (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. (7) The use of force shall not exclude the use of force causing death.
N3r0 wrote: » what if they had a knife, could I shoot them in the lower area of the body ?
NoQuarter wrote: » The law says you can use reasonable force considering all the circumstances. A jury will decide whats reasonable or not ie, if someone breaks into your house with a spoon as a weapon and you sledgehammer them to death, youre gonna have a bad time.
3ndahalfof6 wrote: » If someone came into my house with the intent of spooning, it would not end well.
N3r0 wrote: » The Garda are not an option, where I come from we dont invole the garda.
NoQuarter wrote: » if someone breaks into your house with a spoon as a weapon and you sledgehammer them to death, youre gonna have a bad time.
Turner wrote: » If they are running at you with a knife I would be aiming at the center of their torso and fire as many shots needed until they drop. A knife is as dangerous as any bullet.
N3r0 wrote: » The Garda are not an option, where I come from we dont invole the garda. Thank you for your fast reply
Dotsie~tmp wrote: » Your first words should be I believed my life and my families lives were in imminent danger.
Justifiable use of force, etc. 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. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the person uses force against— (a) a member of the Garda Síochána acting in the course of his or her duty, (b) a person assisting a member of the Garda Síochána acting in the course of his or her duty, or (c) a person lawfully performing a function authorised by or under any enactment. (3) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the person using the force engages in conduct or causes a state of affairs for the purpose of using that force to resist or terminate an act of another person acting in response to that conduct or state of affairs, but subsection (1) may apply, if the occasion for the use of force arises only because the person using the force concerned does something he or she may lawfully do, knowing that such an occasion will arise. (4) It is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held but in considering whether the person using the force honestly held the belief, the court or the jury, as the case may be, shall have regard to the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the person so believing and all other relevant circumstances. (5) It is immaterial whether the person using the force had a safe and practicable opportunity to retreat from the dwelling before using the force concerned. (6) (a) A person shall be regarded as using force in relation to another person if he or she— (i) applies force in relation to or causes an impact on the body of that other person, (ii) threatens to apply force in relation to or cause an impact on the body of that other person, or (iii) detains that other person. (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.(7) The use of force shall not exclude the use of force causing death. (8) An act is criminal notwithstanding that the person doing the act— (a) if charged with an offence in respect of it, would be acquitted on the ground that— (i) he or she acted under duress, (ii) his or her act was involuntary, (iii) he or she was in a state of intoxication, or (iv) he or she was insane so as not to be responsible according to law for the act, or (b) was a person to whom section 52 (1) of the Children Act 2001 applied. (9) The references in subsection (1)(b) to protecting a person or property from a criminal act include references to protecting the person or property from the continuation of the act, and the reference to preventing the commission of a crime or to effecting, or assisting in effecting, a lawful arrest shall be similarly construed. (10) In this section— “intoxication” means being under the intoxicating influence of any alcoholic drink, drug, solvent or any other substance or combination of substances; “property” means property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal, including money and— (a) shall be regarded as belonging to any person— (i) having custody or control of it, (ii) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest), or (iii) having a charge over it, (b) where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom the property belongs shall be regarded as including any person having a right to enforce the trust, and (c) property of a corporation sole shall be regarded as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation. (11) For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in this section to property includes, unless the context otherwise requires, a reference to a dwelling.
Tom Young wrote: » What's the definition of Burglary.
Just to highlight the above in case someone thinks it wise to plant a minefield in the front garden. Is it me or is that Act incredibly badly drafted? (Just in terms of the words used, notwithstanding other issues.)
Dotsie~tmp wrote: » Its a deliberate fudge, very ambiguous. Like they copped out just short of giving us a proper castle law. Hopefully the DPP will decline to prosecute on the first test but I doubt it. That profession gets no repeat custom from scum off the street or in a grave.
juice1304 wrote: » It also says threatening to use force is also considered using force so if you threaten some piece of garbage who has broken into your house you have committed an offence.
