No Regrets..............

[brokencrossbar1]

Stew, I know there are cases where you can may a semi-justifiable argument but society cannot operate in such an arbitrary fashion.  Where someone is scared of their wits and in a flashpoint reaction pulls the trigger, I have no issue.  Where a man l;ays in wait and shots someone in the back as they run away, I cannot accept that.  The problem with the world is that a lot of people say "fcuk it I can do what i like" and take no responsibiltiy for their actions and show no regrets after.  This I cannot accept as a way to operate.  As soon as someone makes a conscious decision to stick a bullet in someone they have put themselves outside os the laws protection in my eyes.

[muppet]

Stew, I know there are cases where you can may a semi-justifiable argument but society cannot operate in such an arbitrary fashion.  Where someone is scared of their wits and in a flashpoint reaction pulls the trigger, I have no issue.  Where a man l;ays in wait and shots someone in the back as they run away, I cannot accept that.  The problem with the world is that a lot of people say "fcuk it I can do what i like" and take no responsibiltiy for their actions and show no regrets after.  This I cannot accept as a way to operate.  As soon as someone makes a conscious decision to stick a bullet in someone they have put themselves outside os the laws protection in my eyes.

That's fair enough, but does the same not apply to the guy who decides to break into some one else's property?

[brokencrossbar1]

Stew, I know there are cases where you can may a semi-justifiable argument but society cannot operate in such an arbitrary fashion.  Where someone is scared of their wits and in a flashpoint reaction pulls the trigger, I have no issue.  Where a man l;ays in wait and shots someone in the back as they run away, I cannot accept that.  The problem with the world is that a lot of people say "fcuk it I can do what i like" and take no responsibiltiy for their actions and show no regrets after.  This I cannot accept as a way to operate.  As soon as someone makes a conscious decision to stick a bullet in someone they have put themselves outside os the laws protection in my eyes.

That's fair enough, but does the same not apply to the guy who decides to break into some one else's property?

Of course it does, and no one is trying to defend them.  The simple fact is that both people in this scenario are criminals.  What makes one person's crime worse than the others and therefore less acceptable?

[muppet]

Stew, I know there are cases where you can may a semi-justifiable argument but society cannot operate in such an arbitrary fashion.  Where someone is scared of their wits and in a flashpoint reaction pulls the trigger, I have no issue.  Where a man l;ays in wait and shots someone in the back as they run away, I cannot accept that.  The problem with the world is that a lot of people say "fcuk it I can do what i like" and take no responsibiltiy for their actions and show no regrets after.  This I cannot accept as a way to operate.  As soon as someone makes a conscious decision to stick a bullet in someone they have put themselves outside os the laws protection in my eyes.

That's fair enough, but does the same not apply to the guy who decides to break into some one else's property?

Of course it does, and no one is trying to defend them.  The simple fact is that both people in this scenario are criminals.  What makes one person's crime worse than the others and therefore less acceptable?

The same justification used in wars. i.e. they started it.

[brokencrossbar1]

I don't get what you mean muppet?  The rule of law has to be universal.  If someone breaks the law then they need to be punished.  The severity of the punishment will be deterimined by mitigation.  In my eyes the Tony Martin's of the world are no different from the drunk driver who gets in a car and knocks someone down.  They may not have meant to kill someone but what they did was reckless to the consequences and consequently should be dealt with accordingly.

[Cúig huaire]

While we should all be allowed to protect our property, we must do so within the law. I don't know much about the case in the UK, but I know that in the Nally case justice was not done. Nally was guilty of murder and should have been given a life sentence, the decision to free him was based on sentiment and not in law, the right to life is the most important, everything else pales into insignificance compared to that.

[DennistheMenace]

Saw the documentary afterwards and your guy Martins comes across as a complete bellend.

[slow corner back]

An old man I know locally used to run a post office in a very rural area. He was robbed once or twice and on one occasion took out his legally held shotgun and fired twice at the robbers. One shot was as one of the robbers was running ( sort of ) in his direction. The second shot was as the robbers were running away down the road. He hit one of the robbers somewhere round the ass with some buckshot from the shotgun with the second shot. The robbers were picked up within a couple of days and charged. The old man was threatened with prosecution for the second shot but the cops did not follow through as the guy was about 80 and it would not have lead to a conviction. From what the cops said if someone is coming towards you they are a threat and you can defend yourself, if they are running away they are no threat and you cannot use force against them.

[muppet]

I don't get what you mean muppet?  The rule of law has to be universal.  If someone breaks the law then they need to be punished.  The severity of the punishment will be deterimined by mitigation.  In my eyes the Tony Martin's of the world are no different from the drunk driver who gets in a car and knocks someone down.  They may not have meant to kill someone but what they did was reckless to the consequences and consequently should be dealt with accordingly.

If you follow the rule of law you must sit and watch a thief in your house. The most you can do to him legally is offer a cup of tea. If he doesn't threaten you in any way you can't claim self defense if you attack him. So you phone the Gárdaí and wait. Meanwhile the thief can leave uninterrupted.

When the Gárdaí arrive the first thing they will say 'off the record' is why didn't you lamp him?

[slow corner back]

Muppet that post is cobblers. If the guy is in your house you can legally throw him out since you did not invite him in or make a citizens arrest. If he tries to threaten or attack you you can use force to defend yourself. What you cannot do is assault or shoot someone who is running away and not posing a threat.

[brokencrossbar1]

I don't get what you mean muppet?  The rule of law has to be universal.  If someone breaks the law then they need to be punished.  The severity of the punishment will be deterimined by mitigation.  In my eyes the Tony Martin's of the world are no different from the drunk driver who gets in a car and knocks someone down.  They may not have meant to kill someone but what they did was reckless to the consequences and consequently should be dealt with accordingly.

If you follow the rule of law you must sit and watch a thief in your house. The most you can do to him legally is offer a cup of tea. If he doesn't threaten you in any way you can't claim self defense if you attack him. So you phone the Gárdaí and wait. Meanwhile the thief can leave uninterrupted.

When the Gárdaí arrive the first thing they will say 'off the record' is why didn't you lamp him?

No muppet if you follow the rule of law and someone breaks into your house you can use reasonable force to eject/restrain them.  You cannot wait in the shed with a rifle for them and blast hem in the back as they run away or shot them and then beat the shite out of them with a stick.

[muppet]

I don't get what you mean muppet?  The rule of law has to be universal.  If someone breaks the law then they need to be punished.  The severity of the punishment will be deterimined by mitigation.  In my eyes the Tony Martin's of the world are no different from the drunk driver who gets in a car and knocks someone down.  They may not have meant to kill someone but what they did was reckless to the consequences and consequently should be dealt with accordingly.

If you follow the rule of law you must sit and watch a thief in your house. The most you can do to him legally is offer a cup of tea. If he doesn't threaten you in any way you can't claim self defense if you attack him. So you phone the Gárdaí and wait. Meanwhile the thief can leave uninterrupted.

When the Gárdaí arrive the first thing they will say 'off the record' is why didn't you lamp him?

No muppet if you follow the rule of law and someone breaks into your house you can use reasonable force to eject/restrain them.  You cannot wait in the shed with a rifle for them and blast hem in the back as they run away or shot them and then beat the shite out of them with a stick.

And if there are 2 of them as there was in this case? Or the Nally case? And if they keep coming back as in both cases? And if the police do nothing about it?

Do you still do nothing? I don't advocate blowing his head off, but I definitely understand it.

[Jimmy Joe]

reasonable force to get them away, incapacitate them if needs be.  Once they are no longer a threat that enough.  if they're lying on the ground with half a shin blown off they won't do you too much harm.  then you can call the police, they'd be there sharpish if you tell them you've just shot someone

[Eastern_Pride]

I once read a story about a burglar who broke into a person's house, and, while robbing the house, subsequently dropped a TV on his foot. Since it was on the guy's property he sued the homeowner. And won. €20,000.  The system really does fail a lot of people .
I've been looking for this stoy but can't seem to find it online, still a massive indication that the system dosen't work.

[DennistheMenace]

That story is a myth.