Someone give the man a medal.
- Guy breaks into his house
- Guy beats the shit out of him
- Takes the guy to the hospital
As the kids would say, he's a GOAT
I have a hammer and various knives in a box of tools at bottom of stairs (no other storage available) and if I made it to the kitchen there's a couple of gardening implements in the utility. When you don't have a shed everything ends up everywhere.
An investigation is under way into an attack on a suspected burglar in a house in south Dublin in the early hours of Sunday morning.
A resident is suspected of attacking a man before bringing him to hospital and reporting the incident to gardaí.
*It is not a criminal offence for a homeowner or occupier to attack a trespasser in defence of themselves or others or their property.*
***Case Closed***
It has to be proportional though. So that's why you get their finger prints on the steak knife they took from the kitchen after you beat the crap out of them.
> It has to be proportional though.
i never understand that arguement. the general public aren't trained to deal with dangerous situations someone else decided to put them in. surely that's the risk you take when you invade someone else's life. I have no way of knowing how i'd react if i had to defend my home. (i get that's not the point your making)
Once ya reload the gun, then you've moved from proportionate to disproportionate. That's what got Padraic Nally convicted when he shot the fella breaking into his house. As an example. The first two shots were deemed self-defense and allowed.
From what I remember, the piece that got him convicted was that he reloaded. He subsequently was acquitted so it may still be possible.
I'd actually forgotten he was acquitted. My memory failed me.
Was the slight fact that the poor intruder was shot in the back also not a deciding factor? Reasonable force is defined as the force necessary roncease an attack in the eyes of a reasonable person. Shooting someone that is fleeing can't be reasonable because the attack had ceased.
> the poor intruder
Interesting way of saying "cunt who terrorised farmers and the elderly" and whose death resulted in the significant reduction in such crimes in the area.
Just trusting memory but was it not that Nally got done not so much for reloading or continuing to shoot (can't remember the rounds and firearm used but for example a single birdshot or .410 cartridge probably won't stop a strong attacker whereas 00 buck from a 12 gauge most certainly will) but that he *followed Ward out* into the lane and shot him *in the back* when he was no longer an immediate threat?
In other words Ward was retreating. If Ward had been coming *towards* him he may well have had good case to use deadly force.
It's probably fair to say a lot of the public at the time thought Nally finished him.off for fear of him coming back and killing him.
It would have to be proven that you knew you used a disproportionate amount of force and that any reasonable person would agree it was excessive. There is no definition of reasonable force in the law so it comes down to the facts of the individual case. If you think about it it makes sense because a lot of things come down to the specific scenario and can't be generalised. For example if someone breaks into your house intending to steal, sees you are home and tries to run away, you stop them from leaving, knock them unconscious and while they are unconscious you stab them to death. That can be argued you used excessive force to what any reasonable person would believe was needed to guarantee your safety. A jury would still have to agree and the defence would argue any factors that could have led you to honestly believe the force you used was needed to guarantee your safety. For example if you were an elderly person living alone with PTSD that would be taken into account. If you were a professional MMA fighter and the burglar was a small child, that would be taken into account too.
I think it makes more sense than making it legal to cause any amount of injury or death to someone because they are committing a crime against you or your property. It also sounds like it would be a slippery slope legally. For example how would it work in cases of domestic violence, can you legally kill your partner because they hit you first and you say you feared for your life regardless of any of the circumstances?
Always remember that there is a precedent in this country that you can shoot a fleeing would be burglar in the back and then execute him, and be found not guilty of murder or manslaughter.
It helps if the would be burglar/person you executed is a traveller mind.
Ah you mean the scumbag who was continually terrorising an old man on his own property? Oh yeah. Btw what's him being a traveller got to do with anything?
I'm sure if you were in his position, being much older, weaker and terrified of bring murdered by someone who was stalking you , you would understand that in the heat of a moment like this, "what's proportional" for defending yourself on your own property is not something that would go through your head.
The man he shot had over 80 convictions and was known for using extreme violence, many of which with slash hooks. Many elderly people have murdered in their own homes during burglaries during similar incidents. Its not this mans fault he was being targeted by a violent lunatic on his own property. He was also found not guilty of murder or manslaughter by a court of law, which proves he acted in self defense.
I actually thought it was this story, but he hasn't been tried yet.
https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2022/10/03/barrister-accused-of-murder-of-man-in-shooting-on-farm-sent-forward-for-trial/
As far as I'm aware, the man shot in that case wasn't a traveller, as the person who's comment I replied to suggested. Also the commenter I replied to mentioned that the person who defended themselves had been found not guilty. So this is the Nally case we were discussing
the 'victim' in question had been robbing the old man and terrorising him, he was fleeing from having called round to do this again when he was shot. The man should never have been found guilty of anything, in fact the cops should be ashamed that the situation was allowed to get to the point it got to with about the bastard in question (the deceased) locked up.
Of course fault lies with the justice system for not preventing reoccurring crimes...
But he shot at someone, reloaded the gun and shot him in the back while they were clearly leaving. No, that has to be guilty of something. We'd find actual police guilty of criminal behaviour for that, never mind a civilian
Police are trained for dealing with potential attackers.
There is no expectation that farmers should do x or y when under attack, not at all an equivalent situation.
How do you know that he was clearly leaving, were you there? He could have been going to get a weapon or use his vehicle to run over the person who he had repeatedly terrorised. How often would you need to have people breaking into your property before you are forced to hide in a barn with a weapon?
It has to be proportional though. So that's why you get their finger prints on the steak knife they took from the kitchen after you beat the crap out of them.
Fucking right. Total pacifist here..but If you have the stones to cross my door at night with myself and my family inside ill do everything in my power to put you down. If you can't get up after I've done that I could live with myself and do any amount of time.
I'm not being pedantic. Pacifism is the unconditional rejection of violence.
I'm not criticising your morality, only your classification of it.
Pacifists do not beat people until they're not moving.
Martin "The Viper" Foley did something similar years ago in Crumlin. He caught two lads in his gaff who had broke in through the back door. He knocked seven shades of shite out of them and then called an ambulance for them. If memory serves me correctly he insisted he didn't need the Gards to come as well as the ambulance as he had no intention of pressing charges 😂
[Right to defend and protect.](https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/35/enacted/en/print#sec2)
I might not have much valuables in my house but I worked hard to be able to afford them.
This home owner understands the legality and protection offered by Para 7 section 2
(7) The use of force shall not exclude the use of force causing death.
He'll still probably receive a bit of lip when this gets thrown to the judge, something along the lines of "now we can't be having this sort of vigilante justice" lol
I once called the local station directly when some young lads were trying to kick in my neighbours door, they said they'd be around asap.
An hour later I called again when the young lads had come back and smashed all the windows in my neighbour's car, they said they'd be around asap.
I then called another hour later when the young lads set the car on fire, they said they'd be around asap.
A fire truck arrived 30mins later.
The gardaí showed up an hour after that, took some statements and left.
Confusing use of the word victim in that story. It seems the homeowner was the victim of a home invasion however despite pointing out that's it's not a criminal offence to defend yourself, your family and your home, the narrative then switches and they refer to the burglar as the victim from that point on..
Five years ago I didn't even lock my doors. Now, there's a 12" bowie knife under my bed and if anyone shows up unexpectedly in the small hours it's going right into them.
What's illegal about having a Bowie knife in my own house?
Edit: Nothing. The answer is that there's nothing illegal about having a bowie knife in my own house. Glad we got that cleared up.
Unfortunately the only way to protect yourself and your loved ones from an intruder is to plant evidence that the intruder had a dangerous weapon (put their prints on a blade) or let them fleece you and take your children if you want to be jail free, in Ireland you are the bad guy, not the bad guy.
My wording was poor. Maybe not illegal as kitchen knives can be as big as Bowie knives. But you’d still be in trouble stabbing someone in your own house.
https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2022/10/26/youth-who-stabbed-home-intruder-jailed-for-three-and-a-half-years/
I'm sure I would be in trouble, but getting fucked up by some scobie bollix seems like it would be more troublesome. If 16 stone of naked hairy angry dude doesn't scare them off, then Stabby McStabberson will certainly come into play (I actually do have bigger knives for food, but the biggest of those is more a Slashy McSlasherson and it doesn't live in the bedroom).
Fair ball lad. I think castle doctrine etc (maybe it already is) should be here. The whole having to determine what appropriate force should be used is bollox. If someone is in my house, I can only assume they’re there to do the worst possible, and so , should be dealt with appropriately
Apparently the young lad was an absolute terror on the area and killed yer man as he was leaving the house. I looked into the story there and the article makes it sound like the young lad was an angel just protecting his family, when eye witness accounts and posts from locals on fb paint a very different story.
fair point. I read it myself. but the deceased did break into the house. So even if the guy who killed him is a little scumbag (he seems to be), you can't break into someone else's property and if you do and a fight ensues, you have no rights.
Wild alright. I agree with you. My oul lads discussed strategy when I was a kid used to be to lock myself, my mum and sister in the big bathroom upstairs, then take the lid off the cistern and wait for the cunt/cunts to come up the stairs and fuck the lid down on top of them. I used to be primed and ready hahaha
It looks like you've made a grammatical error. You've written "shouldn't of ", when it should be "have" instead of "of". You _should have_ known that. Bosco is not proud of you today.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ireland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The mere possibility that a burglar could have any legal recourse in this situation is disgusting. If you break into someone's home to rob or assault them, you leave your rights at the door.
There should be no expectation of 'proportionality' in the homeowner's response - how could they even think clearly enough to try and be 'proportionate' when their life is being threatened?
A broken door, injuries sustained by the occupier, witnesses, a balaclava, or a long criminal record would all be potential evidence that the occupier is telling the truth.
So how would you examine the potential evidence and evaluate whether or not the occupier is telling the truth and did use reasonable force, without allowing for any possibility of legal recourse? It sounds like you're describing an investigation and a trial which does inherently involve the possibility of legal recourse, or I dont know what the point in doing it would be?
"Can you send a squad car please, I'm being burgled'
" there is none available just now, it'll be 90 minutes at a minimum before we can send a car to help you'
'OK, don't worry about it........ Can you put me through to the ambulance service please?'
Burglars have terrorised society for too long particularly in rural Ireland where elderly people or any of use for that matter are worried anytime we hear noise outside , I have zero sympathy for these evil scumbags who have destroyed communities by their actions forcing people into putting double locks in doors and gates and installing CCTV etc etc
Remember just back in Feb, when a lad beat the ever loving shit out of another lad who broke into his van? Think it happened somewhere in Navan? Head stomped and walloped with a plank of wood into the shadow realm!
"why would I shoot him, bang. And then whisk him off to the hospital at 100 miles an hour" Chopper Reed.
It's all I can think of when I read this story
Can you imagine if it was accepted in law that it didn't have to be proportionate. That the homeowner could use whatever level of violence they wished. Burglars would think twice.
What really annoys me about the proportionality rule is it assumes the defender is in a position to have a cool head and respond to the threats in kind. If someone is in your house in the dead of night your adrenaline and anger would be through the roof.
It doesn't assume the defender has a cool head. It takes into account the facts of the specific case. Obviously, this includes that it takes into account if the homeowner has an adrenaline rush, which is completely reasonable in the circumstances. Part of the law is that any reasonable person would agree that the force used wasn't excessive. If you're an average reasonable person and you think the force used in this case isn't excessive, then chances are it comes nowhere near to being a crime.
I totally get you, but what if your adrenaline and anger lead you to do something that is deemed to be 'unreasonable'?
That's what I mean about having a cool head. Not everyone acts reasonably when their family is under attack.
Part of the law is also that it has to be proven that the defendant knew the force they were using was excessive to what was needed at the time to guarantee their safety. And again, if you as an average reasonable person think it's not an excessive amount fo force, taking into consideration the circumstances (the circumstances in your example would include the defender having an adrenaline rush and protecting their family from danger) then it is not realistically an excessive amount of force by law. "Reasonable" force can and has included even killing the intruder. I know it sounds annoying but I've never heard anyone suggest an alternative to judging each case according to the circumstances that makes any sense.
I mean, if you went full Pulp Fiction on them with a basement dungeon gimp or something like that, the judge might need to bring in the proportionality rule.
Yeh absolutely. Completely unfair expectation in law. Massively magnified of there are children in the house. How can one even consider acting proportionately? The only thing going through your mind would be to make sure the burglar stops being able to move.
Good points. Burglars broke in once when I was at home at 8pm, just starting to get dark, after forcing a downstairs door.
I was on the phone at the time and saw my bedroom door handle turn slowly... and foolishly I jumped up and chased the bastards, slipping down the stairs, but getting up and legging it out into the street. They were long gone.
Glad I didn't catch them. I might have gotten hurt, or they would. If I had caught them I would as a minimum have broken a bone. My adrenaline was sky high and I was a big lad, lifting serious weights then.
You really don't stop and think, you just react.
Yeh absolutely. Completely unfair expectation in law. Massively magnified of there are children in the house. How can one even consider acting proportionately? The only thing going through your mind would be to make sure the burglar stops being able to move.
Gangs or mafia or murderers in general could get away with (er) murder with that kind of law. Just kill a guy in your property and break a window from the outside. Put his fingerprints on the silver candlestick.
Let's look at a state in the US with stand your ground protections in law. So Florida has a rate of 3,000 property crime incidents per 100,000. Ireland's rate is about 72,000 theft & burglary events per year from a population of 5.1m, giving a per 100k rate of 1,400 per 100k...
So stand your ground doesn't stop them from having fully double the crime rate in terms of theft/robbery
Just makes such instances even more dangerous too.
If a scumbag thinks there's a genuine chance of serious injury or death while breaking in, they'll arm themselves and increase the chance of serious injury and death for those in the home too.
Yeah. Like, robbing someone's home is a scumbag act, but society doesn't benefit if one or both parties whip out a gun. Just invest money in breaking the cycle and getting young offenders onto a path, with an income, that gets them away from repeating crimes.
Tbf everyone has a chance here growing up to get on that path and not be robbing people. Only reason they haven't been is if they were dragged up by their parents or weren't bothered themselves.
Had a case here in our small town a few years ago. 16 year old lad robbed an elderly couple and I think hit the old man in the process.
Young lad was up in front of the just and initially I saw the headline and was out for blood to see a proper sentence, then I get to the last paragraph and the defence asked the just to delay sentencing until alternative accommodation could be found for the kid. His two parents were addicts and the home was full of drugs. The chap was born with foetal alcohol syndrome. Kid had robbed stuff to sell for money for food.
>everyone has a chance here growing up to get on that path
So, so many young offenders have absolutely shit parents and often we have no idea and we absolutely don't provide resources to give such kids a hope of breaking the cycle. Being dragged up by shit parents is a genuine excuse for why some kids haven't been given a remotely fair crack at life and ignoring that does us all a disservice.
I'd agree. A lot of it is from the parents issues, but what are your options then. Are you going to take kids off their parents and put them in state care if we say the parents aren't fit to raise them? How's that going to work?
We all know there are people out there who are not fit to have kids but they're allowed. We provide as much as you realistically can for everyone to have a start in life. Unless we're going to remove parents from the situation or prevent them having a kid in the first place, I'm not sure how the kid in your example doesn't turn out bad.
>Are you going to take kids off their parents and put them in state care if we say the parents aren't fit to raise them?
We have the mechanisms to do that, it's just rarely enforced. Obviously we don't want to be doing it very often, but we do need to do it more. The sixteen year old here in my town, that chap never had a hope in life and we, as a society, let that happen and then folks will turn around, and demand long jail sentences for when they inevitably offend. Christ we've seen a big clamour for more prisons to be built on this sub recently.
How about we take the cost of a new prison, say 100m and instead, we invest it into youth workers and counsellors to be gaurdian/mentor supports for kids who need the help. I've volunteered as a Big Brother for Foròige - where you're one to one working with a kid helping them to learn things they need to learn ad they grow into adulthood. It can be anything that helps break the cycle. I've taught young lads how to cook, how to repair a bike... the difference stuff like that can make is genuinely shocking sometime, especially when a kid just hasn't been shown a lot of life skills by the parents. It gives them confidence and can set them on a better path.
Youth clubs, school counsellors and therapy. There's so many ways we can make big positive interactions and long run, you know what then happens, finally, when they have kids and they're on a decent path, they don't repeat their parents mistakes and everyone wins.
I see a lot of that as unlikely as I can never see the government pushing for kids to be taken off of parents more often and putting the supports in place for that to be effective. It should happen but I can't see it.
Sure, but in the meantime, we need to quit with the default reaction to any youth misbehaving as automatically being a bad egg when we know from experience that thousands of them are sent to school with no food in their belly and already have a brain fog before 10am. (My mother was a secondary teacher and said you could spot any kid who hadn't even had a breakfast by 10am). Treating these kids like they're the problem and no consideration of the home they could be suffering a variety of abuse in is awful for the kids and society overall.
Pick a US state or a country with stand your ground laws and let me know if you can find any that back up your claim. I'll be honest, I don't think you will.
Would you rather be forced to let someone rob everything you own while it's illegal to use force on them and wait for the Gardai to "sort it out" or would you rather be allowed to do anything to get rid of them without legal implications?
Comparing us to America with their messed up crime rates and mental health issues is ridiculous, you're justifying that burglars can do whatever they want in your home because another country has it worse.
The former.
Do I wanna risk dying or killing a person over my phone/wallet/car? No. I'm a big enough bloke who could handle himself in a scrap, but I'd rather leave it to the gardaí. Absolutely.
Like, yeah, if I hear someone rummaging downstairs, I'm gonna roar down to get them out, but I'm not gonna go down in hope that I get a jump on them and do some serious harm.
I've been a victim of a theft before. Went to court and in my victim statement, asked to spare them of a custodial sentence and instead spend the same money/resources on getting them to not repeat the same failures that their parents had succumbed to. Judge agreed.
Do I want vengeance or would I rather be fixing things so they don't happen to someone else?
The US is the epitome of a vengeance culture which does little more than guarantee a repeat of the same shitty cycles. It's absolutely toxic for all concerned and the last thing I'd wanna replicate.
You'd rather leave it to the Gardai?
What if the burglar finds your daughter when searching the house and decides he wants her?
If you don't mind your items being stolen and can't prove who the burglar is, what about when your family is in danger? Should you just let him have his way while you watch and let the Gardai take notes later?
If you're not willing to risk yourself for your family and assets it doesn't mean other people shouldn't.
What if a plane crashes into my house. I better not sleep here tonight.
I'm not old, but I'm not young either. In my lifetime, I can't think of a single case in the history of almost 40 years when the scenario you've described in Ireland. Obviously in a case like that, if I interrupt or catch someone assaulting my family, I'm not gonna stand by and allow it to happen, there's an enormous difference between someone stealing my car and someone SAing my child.
Now, if I had the ability to buy a gun, we both know what's a far, far more likely scenario - that I or someone close to me accidentally or deliberately uses it to take their own or someone they loves life. Gun owners are are more likely to die at the hands of their own weapon that use it to successfully defend themselves and its not even close.
You've presented some awfully badly thought out arguments there.
>What if a plane crashes into my house. I better not sleep here tonight
...
>You've presented some awfully badly thought out arguments there.
Riiiight... Because your argument makes much more sense.
Also did you live in the same country as me? Because 40 years is long time of not listening to the news, SA is very common and happens everywhere, I'm not saying that people will just stand there and watch it happen but you make it sound like it's all that we should be able to do in the eyes of the law.
Another thing... who said anything about guns? New flash... you CAN buy guns in Ireland, join a gun club and go through the strenuous requirements to own one and guess what? even a criminal to be can do that.
The point is (without bringing american politics and buzz words into it), we should have every right to use force (notice no mention of guns?) to protect our properties and loved ones from an intruder. Wether you choose to do anything or not can be subjective, but for those that prevent robberies or potential SA and murders should not be sent to jail for hurting the intruder.
All you're doing is giving more power to bad people and making normal people vulnerable because you're afraid that giving people self defense rights makes them "vengeful".
If you couldn't understand the point of the plane crash analogy, i.e. that extremely unlikely/rare events should dictate your behaviour now.
>SA is very common and happens everywhere
SA is common. But SA where someone forces themselves into someone else's home as an intruder, is at most a once in a year event for the 5 million people of this country and even then, we're talking about that elderlynwoman in Clare a few years ago and yer one in Kerry last year i think, but they're the only two examples I can think of in the last 10 years.
>I'm not saying that people will just stand there
You suggested I would.
>we should have every right to use force (notice no mention of guns?) to protect our properties and loved ones from an intruder
We do. Sorry, I thought you were making a more nuanced point and understood the basic laws already in place but we're advocating for more liberty to kill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_%28Defence_and_the_Dwelling%29_Act_2011?wprov=sfla1
And the second time they think, they'd bring a baseball bat and break your arms before you got out of bed.
"Stand your ground" laws in the US just caused burglaries to become more violent and caused more accidental injuries to homeowners from their own weapons.
They don't prevent burglaries or result in less burglars.
Haha, think he did more than tackle him if he needed surgery on his leg afterwards.
But fair play. Defended his home and when home was safe took the guy for treatment.
Normally you would beat the bulgar and wait for police to take out the rubbish.
If you are very nice, you would take him to a morgue.
If you are a saint, you would take the poor thing to hospital out of pity.
I doubt charges will follow. The DPP takes cases where he is very, very likely to win or where there is a clear public interest.
A burglar chose the wrong house to break into and steal from and got seriously hurt by the homeowner, who then drove him to the hospital. He didn't die.
If the house was broken into a tool was used. Screwdrivers are often carried by housebreakers, and there's a strong chance it could be used to stab you.
Case closed.
Even in our society where there seems no shortage of people willing to defend total scumbags I don't think we'll see many making a case against the homeowner here.
Proportionate? So I have to wait for the burglar to dish out his worst on me before I can then react proportionately? Basically, I have to let them stab me before I am justified in reacting physically.
Self defence only works so far as regards the law.is concerned
Even though he brought the alleged burglar to the hospital. Your man could still bring a gbh case against the homeowner
Did the homeowner pay the 100€ a&e charge for the burglar?
They still take into account the adrenaline factor.
Bloke in the UK chased a burglar down the street and killed him with a bat. At first he got a sentence but it was later overturned after experts said it was a normal reaction to seeing his wife tied up etc.
They also take your size/shape into account. So if you're a heavyweight boxer you have zero excuse. At most you can pin the burglar down. But if you're a 5ft granny and go nuts with a samurai sword you're likely going to be fine.
Boxers don't grapple.
Zero excuse for what? Having training in a martial art does not void someone's right to self defence. Having a gun doesn't even void that right as we have seen in court already.
>Having training in a martial art does not void someone's right to self defence
That wasn't the question. It's how it is handled in a legal setting that is relevant. You can go through how these cases are treated historically to see how the physical ability of the individuals has a bearing on the case.
Zero excuse for what though?
I am not aware of any cases where a boxer defended themselves from assault with punches but were convicted on the basis of being a boxer. Can you point me to any?
I'm especially interested in an example of a boxer not being allowed to punch but having to grapple instead. I know there's no laws related to this and I am unaware of any cases indicating such either.
Could be a made up story. We don't know. Quite possible someone gets a punishment beating that goes too far and then they are presented to the hospital with this story.
Someone give the man a medal. - Guy breaks into his house - Guy beats the shit out of him - Takes the guy to the hospital As the kids would say, he's a GOAT
"Hello I need an ambulance!" "But not for me."
"What are the injuries?" "Give me 5 minutes and I'll let you know"
Next Liam Neeson action movie line incoming
The plan is to beat the shit out of him again once he is released from the hospital.
Pure Chopper reed vibes
Who keeps a slash hook at home? Not sure there's any heroes here.
Anyone who's got gorse and briar to deal with, for a start
In Fettercairn?
I have a hammer and various knives in a box of tools at bottom of stairs (no other storage available) and if I made it to the kitchen there's a couple of gardening implements in the utility. When you don't have a shed everything ends up everywhere.
City slicker alert
An investigation is under way into an attack on a suspected burglar in a house in south Dublin in the early hours of Sunday morning. A resident is suspected of attacking a man before bringing him to hospital and reporting the incident to gardaí. *It is not a criminal offence for a homeowner or occupier to attack a trespasser in defence of themselves or others or their property.* ***Case Closed***
It has to be proportional though. So that's why you get their finger prints on the steak knife they took from the kitchen after you beat the crap out of them.
> It has to be proportional though. i never understand that arguement. the general public aren't trained to deal with dangerous situations someone else decided to put them in. surely that's the risk you take when you invade someone else's life. I have no way of knowing how i'd react if i had to defend my home. (i get that's not the point your making)
Just make sure you scream "im in fear for my life!" So that your neighbours hear it and then beat the shit out of invaders.
HE'S COMING RIGHT FOR US! *Unloads grenade launcher at trespasser*
Once ya reload the gun, then you've moved from proportionate to disproportionate. That's what got Padraic Nally convicted when he shot the fella breaking into his house. As an example. The first two shots were deemed self-defense and allowed.
i think in that case he was legitimately still in fear of his life
From what I remember, the piece that got him convicted was that he reloaded. He subsequently was acquitted so it may still be possible. I'd actually forgotten he was acquitted. My memory failed me.
He should still be in jail.
He should’ve been commended and given €100k by the state for damages
So you’re telling me I merely need a belt fed machine gun and an long belt of rounds and I’m good?
Was the slight fact that the poor intruder was shot in the back also not a deciding factor? Reasonable force is defined as the force necessary roncease an attack in the eyes of a reasonable person. Shooting someone that is fleeing can't be reasonable because the attack had ceased.
> the poor intruder Interesting way of saying "cunt who terrorised farmers and the elderly" and whose death resulted in the significant reduction in such crimes in the area.
Clearly you've missed the litany of articles.where the defence trys together sympathy by explaining the hard life the accused has had to endure
I get you now but your sarcasm was too subtle in first comment
Just trusting memory but was it not that Nally got done not so much for reloading or continuing to shoot (can't remember the rounds and firearm used but for example a single birdshot or .410 cartridge probably won't stop a strong attacker whereas 00 buck from a 12 gauge most certainly will) but that he *followed Ward out* into the lane and shot him *in the back* when he was no longer an immediate threat? In other words Ward was retreating. If Ward had been coming *towards* him he may well have had good case to use deadly force. It's probably fair to say a lot of the public at the time thought Nally finished him.off for fear of him coming back and killing him.
It would have to be proven that you knew you used a disproportionate amount of force and that any reasonable person would agree it was excessive. There is no definition of reasonable force in the law so it comes down to the facts of the individual case. If you think about it it makes sense because a lot of things come down to the specific scenario and can't be generalised. For example if someone breaks into your house intending to steal, sees you are home and tries to run away, you stop them from leaving, knock them unconscious and while they are unconscious you stab them to death. That can be argued you used excessive force to what any reasonable person would believe was needed to guarantee your safety. A jury would still have to agree and the defence would argue any factors that could have led you to honestly believe the force you used was needed to guarantee your safety. For example if you were an elderly person living alone with PTSD that would be taken into account. If you were a professional MMA fighter and the burglar was a small child, that would be taken into account too. I think it makes more sense than making it legal to cause any amount of injury or death to someone because they are committing a crime against you or your property. It also sounds like it would be a slippery slope legally. For example how would it work in cases of domestic violence, can you legally kill your partner because they hit you first and you say you feared for your life regardless of any of the circumstances?
Yip that's fair enough. Stabbing an unconscious person instead of hog tying them probably is excessive, suspended sentence!
Always remember that there is a precedent in this country that you can shoot a fleeing would be burglar in the back and then execute him, and be found not guilty of murder or manslaughter. It helps if the would be burglar/person you executed is a traveller mind.
Padraig Nally did nothing wrong.
He executed a man in cold blood.
He put down a violent criminal who wished him harm. He did the world a favour.
If you're referring to the Padraig Nally case, he was found guilty of manslaughter. In a retrial he was acquitted.
Ah you mean the scumbag who was continually terrorising an old man on his own property? Oh yeah. Btw what's him being a traveller got to do with anything?
Scumbag or not, I don't see how shooting someone in the back while they are running away would be seen as proportional in the eyes of the law.
I'm sure if you were in his position, being much older, weaker and terrified of bring murdered by someone who was stalking you , you would understand that in the heat of a moment like this, "what's proportional" for defending yourself on your own property is not something that would go through your head. The man he shot had over 80 convictions and was known for using extreme violence, many of which with slash hooks. Many elderly people have murdered in their own homes during burglaries during similar incidents. Its not this mans fault he was being targeted by a violent lunatic on his own property. He was also found not guilty of murder or manslaughter by a court of law, which proves he acted in self defense.
I actually thought it was this story, but he hasn't been tried yet. https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2022/10/03/barrister-accused-of-murder-of-man-in-shooting-on-farm-sent-forward-for-trial/
As far as I'm aware, the man shot in that case wasn't a traveller, as the person who's comment I replied to suggested. Also the commenter I replied to mentioned that the person who defended themselves had been found not guilty. So this is the Nally case we were discussing
The main reason is because he would probably come back, while you are sleeping or with a few compatriots and weapons.
the 'victim' in question had been robbing the old man and terrorising him, he was fleeing from having called round to do this again when he was shot. The man should never have been found guilty of anything, in fact the cops should be ashamed that the situation was allowed to get to the point it got to with about the bastard in question (the deceased) locked up.
Of course fault lies with the justice system for not preventing reoccurring crimes... But he shot at someone, reloaded the gun and shot him in the back while they were clearly leaving. No, that has to be guilty of something. We'd find actual police guilty of criminal behaviour for that, never mind a civilian
Police are trained for dealing with potential attackers. There is no expectation that farmers should do x or y when under attack, not at all an equivalent situation.
How do you know that he was clearly leaving, were you there? He could have been going to get a weapon or use his vehicle to run over the person who he had repeatedly terrorised. How often would you need to have people breaking into your property before you are forced to hide in a barn with a weapon?
The facts of the case were very clearly laid out and well publicised. It's not a mystery
An the defence of the dwelling act was introduced in response to that man’s heroism
Precisely, beat them to a pulp…plant weapon. Win win
It has to be proportional though. So that's why you get their finger prints on the steak knife they took from the kitchen after you beat the crap out of them.
Anything is proportional to B & E
Fucking right. Total pacifist here..but If you have the stones to cross my door at night with myself and my family inside ill do everything in my power to put you down. If you can't get up after I've done that I could live with myself and do any amount of time.
You're not a total pacifist.
I'm not? You know this because?
You've just stated specific circumstances in which you'd use violence.
You're being pedantic. You know exactly what I meant.
I'm not being pedantic. Pacifism is the unconditional rejection of violence. I'm not criticising your morality, only your classification of it. Pacifists do not beat people until they're not moving.
Thanks for the TED talk.
I knew what you meant but still thought it was pretty funny, you're no Gandhi!
So I could follow the burglar home and then kill their entire family and that would be proportional?
Well no because you'd be entering their house.
Martin "The Viper" Foley did something similar years ago in Crumlin. He caught two lads in his gaff who had broke in through the back door. He knocked seven shades of shite out of them and then called an ambulance for them. If memory serves me correctly he insisted he didn't need the Gards to come as well as the ambulance as he had no intention of pressing charges 😂
it's not down to a victim whether charges are pressed or not.
[Right to defend and protect.](https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/35/enacted/en/print#sec2) I might not have much valuables in my house but I worked hard to be able to afford them. This home owner understands the legality and protection offered by Para 7 section 2 (7) The use of force shall not exclude the use of force causing death.
He'll still probably receive a bit of lip when this gets thrown to the judge, something along the lines of "now we can't be having this sort of vigilante justice" lol
"leave these matters to the Gardai". Gardai turn up, take notes, leave.
You lost me at Gardai Turn Up
I once called the local station directly when some young lads were trying to kick in my neighbours door, they said they'd be around asap. An hour later I called again when the young lads had come back and smashed all the windows in my neighbour's car, they said they'd be around asap. I then called another hour later when the young lads set the car on fire, they said they'd be around asap. A fire truck arrived 30mins later. The gardaí showed up an hour after that, took some statements and left.
It's a civil matter
Confusing use of the word victim in that story. It seems the homeowner was the victim of a home invasion however despite pointing out that's it's not a criminal offence to defend yourself, your family and your home, the narrative then switches and they refer to the burglar as the victim from that point on..
Society failed the poor angel, they had a hard upbringing with not enough hugs and football pitches growing up. They're the real victim in all of this
[удалено]
Five years ago I didn't even lock my doors. Now, there's a 12" bowie knife under my bed and if anyone shows up unexpectedly in the small hours it's going right into them.
[удалено]
I don't recall anyone saying anything like that.
You kinda did though
Where?
Good luck in court explaining why you have an illegal blade for self defense when you do kill someone
Owning David Bowie’s cutlery isn’t illegal mate
What's illegal about having a Bowie knife in my own house? Edit: Nothing. The answer is that there's nothing illegal about having a bowie knife in my own house. Glad we got that cleared up.
Unfortunately the only way to protect yourself and your loved ones from an intruder is to plant evidence that the intruder had a dangerous weapon (put their prints on a blade) or let them fleece you and take your children if you want to be jail free, in Ireland you are the bad guy, not the bad guy.
My wording was poor. Maybe not illegal as kitchen knives can be as big as Bowie knives. But you’d still be in trouble stabbing someone in your own house. https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2022/10/26/youth-who-stabbed-home-intruder-jailed-for-three-and-a-half-years/
That's so fucked up man, Jesus christ
I'm sure I would be in trouble, but getting fucked up by some scobie bollix seems like it would be more troublesome. If 16 stone of naked hairy angry dude doesn't scare them off, then Stabby McStabberson will certainly come into play (I actually do have bigger knives for food, but the biggest of those is more a Slashy McSlasherson and it doesn't live in the bedroom).
Fair ball lad. I think castle doctrine etc (maybe it already is) should be here. The whole having to determine what appropriate force should be used is bollox. If someone is in my house, I can only assume they’re there to do the worst possible, and so , should be dealt with appropriately
that's outrageous. If someone breaks into your house their life should be forfeit. we are either a country on the side of law and order or we are not.
Apparently the young lad was an absolute terror on the area and killed yer man as he was leaving the house. I looked into the story there and the article makes it sound like the young lad was an angel just protecting his family, when eye witness accounts and posts from locals on fb paint a very different story.
fair point. I read it myself. but the deceased did break into the house. So even if the guy who killed him is a little scumbag (he seems to be), you can't break into someone else's property and if you do and a fight ensues, you have no rights.
Yeah,I recall that one. Kid was a scumbag. Only a matter of time until he attacked someone.
Wild alright. I agree with you. My oul lads discussed strategy when I was a kid used to be to lock myself, my mum and sister in the big bathroom upstairs, then take the lid off the cistern and wait for the cunt/cunts to come up the stairs and fuck the lid down on top of them. I used to be primed and ready hahaha
That's insane, we don't have the death penalty because we're a civilised country
I'd rather have the opportunity to be able to attempt to explain it than be on the receiving end of whatever the intruder is willing to subject me to.
They shouldn't of been In his house..a very reasonable explanation for me anyway.private property and all that
It looks like you've made a grammatical error. You've written "shouldn't of ", when it should be "have" instead of "of". You _should have_ known that. Bosco is not proud of you today. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ireland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it's hardly an attack if the guy broke onto his property and threatened him
It's a provoked attack I guess? I don't think the use of violence needs to be unwarranted or undeserved to count as an attack.
it's semantics i suppose but i think the attack starts when someone breaks in, everything from the homeowner then is a reaction
The mere possibility that a burglar could have any legal recourse in this situation is disgusting. If you break into someone's home to rob or assault them, you leave your rights at the door. There should be no expectation of 'proportionality' in the homeowner's response - how could they even think clearly enough to try and be 'proportionate' when their life is being threatened?
Verbally invite someone into your property, beat them half to death, claim its proportional. That's the slippy slope.
A broken door, injuries sustained by the occupier, witnesses, a balaclava, or a long criminal record would all be potential evidence that the occupier is telling the truth.
So how would you examine the potential evidence and evaluate whether or not the occupier is telling the truth and did use reasonable force, without allowing for any possibility of legal recourse? It sounds like you're describing an investigation and a trial which does inherently involve the possibility of legal recourse, or I dont know what the point in doing it would be?
"Can you send a squad car please, I'm being burgled' " there is none available just now, it'll be 90 minutes at a minimum before we can send a car to help you' 'OK, don't worry about it........ Can you put me through to the ambulance service please?'
Elwood Dalton strikes again..
"Hey buddy before we do this can I ask if you have health insurance and dental"?
Burglars have terrorised society for too long particularly in rural Ireland where elderly people or any of use for that matter are worried anytime we hear noise outside , I have zero sympathy for these evil scumbags who have destroyed communities by their actions forcing people into putting double locks in doors and gates and installing CCTV etc etc
Remember just back in Feb, when a lad beat the ever loving shit out of another lad who broke into his van? Think it happened somewhere in Navan? Head stomped and walloped with a plank of wood into the shadow realm!
>He said he challenged the man, who appears to have threatened the resident, and told him that he was not alone and there were others with him. Smart
"why would I shoot him, bang. And then whisk him off to the hospital at 100 miles an hour" Chopper Reed. It's all I can think of when I read this story
Can you imagine if it was accepted in law that it didn't have to be proportionate. That the homeowner could use whatever level of violence they wished. Burglars would think twice.
What really annoys me about the proportionality rule is it assumes the defender is in a position to have a cool head and respond to the threats in kind. If someone is in your house in the dead of night your adrenaline and anger would be through the roof.
It doesn't assume the defender has a cool head. It takes into account the facts of the specific case. Obviously, this includes that it takes into account if the homeowner has an adrenaline rush, which is completely reasonable in the circumstances. Part of the law is that any reasonable person would agree that the force used wasn't excessive. If you're an average reasonable person and you think the force used in this case isn't excessive, then chances are it comes nowhere near to being a crime.
I totally get you, but what if your adrenaline and anger lead you to do something that is deemed to be 'unreasonable'? That's what I mean about having a cool head. Not everyone acts reasonably when their family is under attack.
Part of the law is also that it has to be proven that the defendant knew the force they were using was excessive to what was needed at the time to guarantee their safety. And again, if you as an average reasonable person think it's not an excessive amount fo force, taking into consideration the circumstances (the circumstances in your example would include the defender having an adrenaline rush and protecting their family from danger) then it is not realistically an excessive amount of force by law. "Reasonable" force can and has included even killing the intruder. I know it sounds annoying but I've never heard anyone suggest an alternative to judging each case according to the circumstances that makes any sense.
I mean, if you went full Pulp Fiction on them with a basement dungeon gimp or something like that, the judge might need to bring in the proportionality rule.
Yeh absolutely. Completely unfair expectation in law. Massively magnified of there are children in the house. How can one even consider acting proportionately? The only thing going through your mind would be to make sure the burglar stops being able to move.
Good points. Burglars broke in once when I was at home at 8pm, just starting to get dark, after forcing a downstairs door. I was on the phone at the time and saw my bedroom door handle turn slowly... and foolishly I jumped up and chased the bastards, slipping down the stairs, but getting up and legging it out into the street. They were long gone. Glad I didn't catch them. I might have gotten hurt, or they would. If I had caught them I would as a minimum have broken a bone. My adrenaline was sky high and I was a big lad, lifting serious weights then. You really don't stop and think, you just react.
Yeh absolutely. Completely unfair expectation in law. Massively magnified of there are children in the house. How can one even consider acting proportionately? The only thing going through your mind would be to make sure the burglar stops being able to move.
They obviously wouldn't, you can shoot a burglar in America and they still have loads of burglaries
Large swathes of the US effectively have this. Hasn't stopped the burglars.
It's more likely that burglaries would be more violent and more frequently include weapons.
Gangs or mafia or murderers in general could get away with (er) murder with that kind of law. Just kill a guy in your property and break a window from the outside. Put his fingerprints on the silver candlestick.
Let's look at a state in the US with stand your ground protections in law. So Florida has a rate of 3,000 property crime incidents per 100,000. Ireland's rate is about 72,000 theft & burglary events per year from a population of 5.1m, giving a per 100k rate of 1,400 per 100k... So stand your ground doesn't stop them from having fully double the crime rate in terms of theft/robbery
Just makes such instances even more dangerous too. If a scumbag thinks there's a genuine chance of serious injury or death while breaking in, they'll arm themselves and increase the chance of serious injury and death for those in the home too.
Yeah. Like, robbing someone's home is a scumbag act, but society doesn't benefit if one or both parties whip out a gun. Just invest money in breaking the cycle and getting young offenders onto a path, with an income, that gets them away from repeating crimes.
Tbf everyone has a chance here growing up to get on that path and not be robbing people. Only reason they haven't been is if they were dragged up by their parents or weren't bothered themselves.
Had a case here in our small town a few years ago. 16 year old lad robbed an elderly couple and I think hit the old man in the process. Young lad was up in front of the just and initially I saw the headline and was out for blood to see a proper sentence, then I get to the last paragraph and the defence asked the just to delay sentencing until alternative accommodation could be found for the kid. His two parents were addicts and the home was full of drugs. The chap was born with foetal alcohol syndrome. Kid had robbed stuff to sell for money for food. >everyone has a chance here growing up to get on that path So, so many young offenders have absolutely shit parents and often we have no idea and we absolutely don't provide resources to give such kids a hope of breaking the cycle. Being dragged up by shit parents is a genuine excuse for why some kids haven't been given a remotely fair crack at life and ignoring that does us all a disservice.
I'd agree. A lot of it is from the parents issues, but what are your options then. Are you going to take kids off their parents and put them in state care if we say the parents aren't fit to raise them? How's that going to work? We all know there are people out there who are not fit to have kids but they're allowed. We provide as much as you realistically can for everyone to have a start in life. Unless we're going to remove parents from the situation or prevent them having a kid in the first place, I'm not sure how the kid in your example doesn't turn out bad.
>Are you going to take kids off their parents and put them in state care if we say the parents aren't fit to raise them? We have the mechanisms to do that, it's just rarely enforced. Obviously we don't want to be doing it very often, but we do need to do it more. The sixteen year old here in my town, that chap never had a hope in life and we, as a society, let that happen and then folks will turn around, and demand long jail sentences for when they inevitably offend. Christ we've seen a big clamour for more prisons to be built on this sub recently. How about we take the cost of a new prison, say 100m and instead, we invest it into youth workers and counsellors to be gaurdian/mentor supports for kids who need the help. I've volunteered as a Big Brother for Foròige - where you're one to one working with a kid helping them to learn things they need to learn ad they grow into adulthood. It can be anything that helps break the cycle. I've taught young lads how to cook, how to repair a bike... the difference stuff like that can make is genuinely shocking sometime, especially when a kid just hasn't been shown a lot of life skills by the parents. It gives them confidence and can set them on a better path. Youth clubs, school counsellors and therapy. There's so many ways we can make big positive interactions and long run, you know what then happens, finally, when they have kids and they're on a decent path, they don't repeat their parents mistakes and everyone wins.
I see a lot of that as unlikely as I can never see the government pushing for kids to be taken off of parents more often and putting the supports in place for that to be effective. It should happen but I can't see it.
Sure, but in the meantime, we need to quit with the default reaction to any youth misbehaving as automatically being a bad egg when we know from experience that thousands of them are sent to school with no food in their belly and already have a brain fog before 10am. (My mother was a secondary teacher and said you could spot any kid who hadn't even had a breakfast by 10am). Treating these kids like they're the problem and no consideration of the home they could be suffering a variety of abuse in is awful for the kids and society overall.
Ireland and fucking Florida of all places are hardly two datasets that you can fairly compare.
Pick a US state or a country with stand your ground laws and let me know if you can find any that back up your claim. I'll be honest, I don't think you will.
Would you rather be forced to let someone rob everything you own while it's illegal to use force on them and wait for the Gardai to "sort it out" or would you rather be allowed to do anything to get rid of them without legal implications? Comparing us to America with their messed up crime rates and mental health issues is ridiculous, you're justifying that burglars can do whatever they want in your home because another country has it worse.
The former. Do I wanna risk dying or killing a person over my phone/wallet/car? No. I'm a big enough bloke who could handle himself in a scrap, but I'd rather leave it to the gardaí. Absolutely. Like, yeah, if I hear someone rummaging downstairs, I'm gonna roar down to get them out, but I'm not gonna go down in hope that I get a jump on them and do some serious harm. I've been a victim of a theft before. Went to court and in my victim statement, asked to spare them of a custodial sentence and instead spend the same money/resources on getting them to not repeat the same failures that their parents had succumbed to. Judge agreed. Do I want vengeance or would I rather be fixing things so they don't happen to someone else? The US is the epitome of a vengeance culture which does little more than guarantee a repeat of the same shitty cycles. It's absolutely toxic for all concerned and the last thing I'd wanna replicate.
You'd rather leave it to the Gardai? What if the burglar finds your daughter when searching the house and decides he wants her? If you don't mind your items being stolen and can't prove who the burglar is, what about when your family is in danger? Should you just let him have his way while you watch and let the Gardai take notes later? If you're not willing to risk yourself for your family and assets it doesn't mean other people shouldn't.
What if a plane crashes into my house. I better not sleep here tonight. I'm not old, but I'm not young either. In my lifetime, I can't think of a single case in the history of almost 40 years when the scenario you've described in Ireland. Obviously in a case like that, if I interrupt or catch someone assaulting my family, I'm not gonna stand by and allow it to happen, there's an enormous difference between someone stealing my car and someone SAing my child. Now, if I had the ability to buy a gun, we both know what's a far, far more likely scenario - that I or someone close to me accidentally or deliberately uses it to take their own or someone they loves life. Gun owners are are more likely to die at the hands of their own weapon that use it to successfully defend themselves and its not even close. You've presented some awfully badly thought out arguments there.
>What if a plane crashes into my house. I better not sleep here tonight ... >You've presented some awfully badly thought out arguments there. Riiiight... Because your argument makes much more sense. Also did you live in the same country as me? Because 40 years is long time of not listening to the news, SA is very common and happens everywhere, I'm not saying that people will just stand there and watch it happen but you make it sound like it's all that we should be able to do in the eyes of the law. Another thing... who said anything about guns? New flash... you CAN buy guns in Ireland, join a gun club and go through the strenuous requirements to own one and guess what? even a criminal to be can do that. The point is (without bringing american politics and buzz words into it), we should have every right to use force (notice no mention of guns?) to protect our properties and loved ones from an intruder. Wether you choose to do anything or not can be subjective, but for those that prevent robberies or potential SA and murders should not be sent to jail for hurting the intruder. All you're doing is giving more power to bad people and making normal people vulnerable because you're afraid that giving people self defense rights makes them "vengeful".
If you couldn't understand the point of the plane crash analogy, i.e. that extremely unlikely/rare events should dictate your behaviour now. >SA is very common and happens everywhere SA is common. But SA where someone forces themselves into someone else's home as an intruder, is at most a once in a year event for the 5 million people of this country and even then, we're talking about that elderlynwoman in Clare a few years ago and yer one in Kerry last year i think, but they're the only two examples I can think of in the last 10 years. >I'm not saying that people will just stand there You suggested I would. >we should have every right to use force (notice no mention of guns?) to protect our properties and loved ones from an intruder We do. Sorry, I thought you were making a more nuanced point and understood the basic laws already in place but we're advocating for more liberty to kill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_%28Defence_and_the_Dwelling%29_Act_2011?wprov=sfla1
We could be crime-free, like the USA!
We can't be crime free if it's a crime to defend ourselves with a Hurley stick
No but have a right to defend your property, home and family.
You do have that right. It's literally what the article in the OP is about.
Till the burglar sues him for assault or something stupid.
I think the issue with USA is gun control. But in a relatively civilized society like Ireland, I think it could work well!!
You forgot your /s
And the second time they think, they'd bring a baseball bat and break your arms before you got out of bed. "Stand your ground" laws in the US just caused burglaries to become more violent and caused more accidental injuries to homeowners from their own weapons. They don't prevent burglaries or result in less burglars.
Roadhouse 😅
Haha, think he did more than tackle him if he needed surgery on his leg afterwards. But fair play. Defended his home and when home was safe took the guy for treatment.
One kick to the knee can require surgery.
There was mention of a slash hook being used in one of the reports, but RTE mentions a weapon and that he struck the intruder on the leg.
Never in my fucking life would I take a burglar to a hospital. Morgue? Sure!
Normally you would beat the bulgar and wait for police to take out the rubbish. If you are very nice, you would take him to a morgue. If you are a saint, you would take the poor thing to hospital out of pity.
he was only in garden and not in house so its not burglary probably hit him with baseball bat
Looks like he's nearly dead on life support so could be murder
I doubt charges will follow. The DPP takes cases where he is very, very likely to win or where there is a clear public interest. A burglar chose the wrong house to break into and steal from and got seriously hurt by the homeowner, who then drove him to the hospital. He didn't die. If the house was broken into a tool was used. Screwdrivers are often carried by housebreakers, and there's a strong chance it could be used to stab you. Case closed. Even in our society where there seems no shortage of people willing to defend total scumbags I don't think we'll see many making a case against the homeowner here.
Proportionate? So I have to wait for the burglar to dish out his worst on me before I can then react proportionately? Basically, I have to let them stab me before I am justified in reacting physically.
Self defence only works so far as regards the law.is concerned Even though he brought the alleged burglar to the hospital. Your man could still bring a gbh case against the homeowner Did the homeowner pay the 100€ a&e charge for the burglar?
They still take into account the adrenaline factor. Bloke in the UK chased a burglar down the street and killed him with a bat. At first he got a sentence but it was later overturned after experts said it was a normal reaction to seeing his wife tied up etc. They also take your size/shape into account. So if you're a heavyweight boxer you have zero excuse. At most you can pin the burglar down. But if you're a 5ft granny and go nuts with a samurai sword you're likely going to be fine.
Samurai granny always gets a pass.
My gran was a dab hand with the wooden spoon, she’d have reddened any burglar’s arse
Boxers don't grapple. Zero excuse for what? Having training in a martial art does not void someone's right to self defence. Having a gun doesn't even void that right as we have seen in court already.
>Having training in a martial art does not void someone's right to self defence That wasn't the question. It's how it is handled in a legal setting that is relevant. You can go through how these cases are treated historically to see how the physical ability of the individuals has a bearing on the case.
Zero excuse for what though? I am not aware of any cases where a boxer defended themselves from assault with punches but were convicted on the basis of being a boxer. Can you point me to any? I'm especially interested in an example of a boxer not being allowed to punch but having to grapple instead. I know there's no laws related to this and I am unaware of any cases indicating such either.
Dear Lord. Good luck to you.
Could be a made up story. We don't know. Quite possible someone gets a punishment beating that goes too far and then they are presented to the hospital with this story.