Homeowners ‘have right to meet burglars with force’

Irish Examiner ^ | 22 December 2006 | Vivion Kilfeather and Paul Kelly

[expatpat]

To me it's a very reasonable position. There is some uncertainty regarding 'excessive force', but that is needed (force against an unarmed kid just getting in a house could and should be very different from the force against a pair of armed adult robbers). We have juries to determine what is excessive force on a case by case basis.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Folks on my grandfather's side hailed from Northern Ireland. I recall he referred to himself as "Scotch-Irish."

[Lurker]

(force against an unarmed kid just getting in a house could and should be very different from the force against a pair of armed adult robbers).

No it shouldn't. A kid can kill you just as dead as a grownup can.

L

[68skylark]

Thank you, captain obvious

The law in other countries is not obvious to me, and it's often vastly different from the law in the U.S.

I'm glad this court in Ireland has said homeowners can defend themselves and their property -- that isn't what the law says in a lot of other places (like the UK).

[Monkey King]

It was “an elementary proposition” that a burglar cannot lawfully lose his life simply because he trespasses in the home of another person with intent to steal.

Interesting how homeowners are now supposed to be mind-readers.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Good. But the left doesn't like that and will do all that it can to take this right away.

[eastforker]

Your post stinks so bad I am holding my nose down here in Texas. If he enters a residence to steal or do harm they have every right for a visit to the coroner.

[scouse]

But Mr Justice Hardiman stressed it was “ridiculous” to suggest that a citizen, “however outraged”, may deliberately kill a person simply for being a burglar.

Not so here in Florida. The new law states that if I perceive that my life may be in danger....I have a right to defend it before it happens.

[ShadowDancer]

So pretty much shooting him would be excessive force but regular force would be holding up your hand and yelling 'Stop!'?

[ShadowDancer]

And the term 'burglars' always makes me think of the scene in A Christmas Story when those goofballs try to come at Ralphie's house in his daydream. What a dumb term is that anyway? "Oh my God, Janet, why are you crying?" "My house has just been burglared!!"

[DB]

If they have broken into your home then they have already initiated violence against you.

If someone breaks into you your home while you are there, then there is no way to know what their intentions are. You and your families life is at serious risk.

If the person who broke in is armed, and there is no way to know, it only takes a fraction of a second to become another murder statistic.

[Billthedrill]

But Mr Justice Hardiman stressed it was “ridiculous” to suggest that a citizen, “however outraged”, may deliberately kill a person simply for being a burglar.

This seems like a reasonable point of view until one examines the premise. It is simply this - the homeowner is, under this policy, placed in the position of determining the burglar's intentions and penalized for being incorrect - for "overreaction" with jail time, for "underreaction," with physical injury or death. There is nothing reasonable in this at all. To demand that the citizen react by giving the criminal the benefit of the doubt is to place the citizen at hazard and the criminal in safety. There's nothing "fair" or "reasonable" about that, it is simply wrong.

[arthurus]

The burglar always looks like he is reaching for a gun.

[epow]

How the Hell they can complicate such an obviously simple situation is beyond me.

And beyond me too. Even the bible authorizes using deadly force to defend your home, Exodus ch 22:2.

But you have to give the Irish judge credit for one thing, his ruling puts Ireland light years ahead of the Brits in that regard. If a household occupant kills a burglar in the UK he or she will be on the road to prison before the burglar's blood dries.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Are you a Democrat a Republican or a Redneck?

Here is a little test that will help you decide:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.

You are carrying a Glock cal 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor! Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation?

Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1 ?
Why is the street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing!
I need to discuss with some friends over a latte and try to come to a consensus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Redneck's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click.....(sounds of reloading)

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click ...

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?" Son: "You got him, Pop! Can I shoot the next one?"

Wife: "You are not taking that to the taxidermist!"

[expatpat]

I have to assume you bloodthirsty folk have never killed a human being. If you should kill an unarmed kid who meant you no physical harm, you will be surprised at what a sh&t you will feel you are, whatever the Law says.

[KarlInOhio]

Define excessive force - loophole for the thugs.

Shooting him - not excessive.

Knocking him out, dragging him to my basement, putting him in a cage and calling my house North Gitmo - maybe excessive.

[gcruse]

Juries are only involved after the fact. To expect someone in the panic of defending themselves against an intruder to parse all the consequences of pulling the trigger as against going to prison for trying to stay alive is asking a lot.

[Sword_Svalbardt]

Ping!

[El Gato]

Always remember. You did not shoot to kill.

All that is a function of state law. It varies considerably from state to state. In Texas we can use deadly force to stop "theft during the nighttime", and a host of other crimes, regardless of the threat to life and limb, but of course for that reason as well.

I recall a case about 5 years ago in San Antonio. A kid, about 14 IIRC, broke in to a guys chicken coop, unarmed. Chicken owner shot him dead. Grand jury no billed. Theft during the night time.

YMMV.

Still it's a good idea to "fear for your life", just in case of civil proceedings by the relatives of the departed.

The case I cited was actually quite sad, given the totality of the kid's circumstances, BUT the relatives blamed the kid, not the guy who shot him, basically for terminal stupidity.