IRELAND: Group warns on 'lethal force' law

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0127/breaking61.htm

Group warns on 'lethal force' law

Alison Healy

Laws that would encourage householders to use lethal force with burglars could lead to more violent burglaries, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned the Oireachtas Committee on Justice today.

The council’s director Mark Kelly said he would not favour a law which would allow householders to justify the use of lethal force to prevent someone from simply entering their property.

SNIP

Under the current law, a householder is entitled to defend his or her home but the use of force must be proportionate and householders cannot lawfully kill a person solely because he or she is a burglar.

Mr Kelly said he was not ashamed to say that burglars had rights and they had the right “not to be shot dead”. However, if they broke into a home and used aggression, then these rights were diminished and the ICCL had no difficulty with that.

Continued at Link

[spin]

1. So I guess if an individual breaks into your home in Ireland ...

and is polite and considerate, you should just share all your hard earned possessions with them. Especially if they are younger, bigger and in far better shape than you.

How does a 80 year old man use proportionate force to subdue a thug in his twenties. Whack him with his walker? Throw his dentures at him? Throw a big Bible at him?

"God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."

[Chulanowa]

2. Outside of America, most people don't regard their television to be worth a human life

It's almost like they're from another planet, huh?

[rd_kent]

3. Your ignorance speaks volumes.

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. But does the *burglar* regard the television as worth a human life?

Unfortunately for your argument, they do at times...

-1

[Chulanowa]

5. That likely depends on the likelihood of the burglar getting shot

Which is the point the Irish Council of Civil Liberties is making. Allowing homeowners to kill a burglar isn't going to stop burglary. It's just going to mean the burglars start adding murder to their rap sheet.

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. Home invaders already attack and/or kill residents on occasion, even when they're unarmed.

The residents, that is.

I say 'home invaders' as this is more accurate than 'burglar', which means "breaking and entering an unoccupied residence
or building".

[Chulanowa]

15. Yes they do

And they're more likely to do so with the threat of the occupants being dangerous.

[PavePusher]

21. So people should just lie back and take it.

No, I don't think so...

[TheWraith]

32. Out of curiousity, do you feel the same about rape?

Because there's the risk of injury of someone resists, they should just lay back and be raped any time that an attacker feels like it?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

34. Funny, that's exactly the OPPOSITE of what I was saying.

My point being that a person has the right to resist a crime being committed against them. That includes someone entering their home by force. The assumption that that person is inherently good-spirited and just wants to steal a few possessions is absurd. Murderers, rapists, child molesters, etcetera all also break into houses, and sometimes those "peaceful" burglars commit one or more of the aforementioned crimes simply because they can.

For that matter, there's the simple fact that not everyone can afford to just sit back and let a robber take all their property without resisting.

And also, thank you for the personal insult and attacks. It reflects so well on the strength of your argument that the best you can muster is accusing me of supporting rape.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Where have you got that "unoccupied" from?

See, for instance, the Wikipedia discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary . "Unoccupied" is only mentioned when it says that the definition also includes unoccupied buildings. But since the classic definition in English from which later definitions derive is "the breaking and entering the house of another in the night time, with intent to commit a felony therein, whether the felony be actually committed or no", and, for instance, the British definition says "intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm (or raping any person therein), or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it", it's clear the definition has to include an occupied building.

[paulsby]

8. except empirical evidence proves otherwise

countries that have an armed citizenry and the right to defend one's castle have relatively low rates of OCCUPIED burglaries.

that's because burglars don't want to get shot. they want to get their loot and get away.

switzerland and the US have VERY low rates of occupied burglary.

the UK has much higher rates.

fwiw, i used to work as a cop in hawaii. occupied burglaries of tourists were quite common. the burglars KNEW they wouldn't be armed (unless they were vacationing FBI agents).

i work an area now (seattle area) where lots of people have guns. needless to say burglaries are relatively common. occupied burgs are VERY rare

the idea that burglars will escalate when castle doctrine laws are passed is not supported by EVIDENCE. burglars want to avoid getting shot and avoid confrontation. they adapt. that's what the evidence shows

[Chulanowa]

16. And out of those occupied burglaries, how many end up in physical violence?

Initiated by the burglar, that is.

That's what my point is, basically. I don't doubt that armed people in a home make occupied burglary less likely. However it would seem to make sense to me that when it does happen, the burglars are more likely to initiate violence on the residents.

And once again, applying a US paradigm to a non-US nation... probably doesn't actually work. Sort of like trying to compare the US to Switzerland with regard to guns. it's a different ballgame there, after all.

[paulsby]

17. it's not a US paradigm

as switzerland, and the UK show.

burglars 1) don't want to get caught 2) don't want to get shot

that's true EVERYWHERE.

at least ime, occupied burgs are often thwarted with merely the THREAT of violence by the homeowner.

iow, the gun is displayed, the burglar flees.

i certainly do not shed any tears for occupied burglars shot by homeowners though.

violence against a homeowner by a burglar is relatively rare. usually, it's a home invasion robbery (by defintion, technically not a burglary) such as a drug rip, where they go IN with the intent to commit violence, not as a response to homneowner being armed.

those are very rare, and in almost all cases, the occupant/victim are criminals themselves.

i don't EVER recall investigating a burg where a homeowner who responded to a classic burg with a handgun, was harmed

those are almost non-existent.

[Euromutt]

23. Another graduate from the College of It Stands To Reason

Here's a sampling from the BBC News site for the first three months of last year:

Lancashire - "Fisherman's Friend family robbed" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/7957840.stm
West Yorkshire - "Woman robbed of jewellery in home" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/7926030.stm
Northern Ireland - "Three pensioners robbed in homes" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7873529.stm
Northern Ireland - "Gang with swords rob men in home" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7856879.stm
Surrey - "Woman tied up and robbed in home" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/surrey/7865054.stm
Lincolnshire - "Pensioner robbed by bogus callers" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/7927735.stm
Nottinghamshire - "Man robbed by raiders at his home" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/7748893.stm
South of Scotland - "82-year-old woman robbed in home" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/south_of_scotland/7693375.stm
Lancashire - "Man and daughter robbed at home" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/7689581.stm
Wiltshire - "Woman robbed at home by knifeman" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wiltshire/7677741.stm
Wear - "Couple beaten in knifepoint raid" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wear/7936117.stm
Tyne - "Victim 'beaten to death for £40'" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7919882.stm
North Yorkshire - "Man bound and beaten in guns raid" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/7905177.stm
Hampshire - "Gang 'brutally' attacks man, 73" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7916634.stm

Knives, swords, beatings... It's a good thing none of the people in these stories were legally permitted to use lethal force in self-defense, or someone might have got hurt!

And once again, applying a US paradigm to a non-US nation... probably doesn't actually work. Sort of like trying to compare the US to Switzerland with regard to guns. it's a different ballgame there, after all.

Ad hoc fallacy. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#adhoc
You can't argue that permitting the use of lethal force in home defense will generally cause more violent "hot" burglaries, both in the US and another country (to wit, Ireland), and then turn around and say that you can apply "a US paradigm to a non-US nation."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. Home invasion in and off itself is a violent crime.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Weird, ain't it? nt

[SteveM]

26. Not to Gandhi...

"My non-violence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice."

There are plenty more quotes by Gandhi on the subject. Wanna hear 'em?

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. And what has that to do with valuing property over life? nt

[SteveM]

36. Well, I'll try another quote...

"It was manly enough to defend one's property, honour or religion at the point of the sword. It was manlier and nobler to defend them without seeking to injure the wrong-doer. But it was unmanly, unnatural and dishonourable to forsake the post of duty and, in order to save one's skin, to leave property, honour or religion to the mercy of the wrong-doer." -- Selections from Gandhi.

What do you think of Gandhi's outlook?

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. What's the context of the quote?

I notice, he says "It was..." not "It is..." He could have been talking about the development of the very 'property over life' concept, leading up to he actual disapproving of that concept.

If he believed the second line of that quote, why didn't he say "It is unmanly, unnatural and dishonorable to forsake the post of duty and, in order to save one's skin, to leave property, honour or religion to the mercy of the wrong-doer."?

The past tense makes the entire quote suspect as to what he actually believed. I have never seen any indication that he thought property was of greater value than life, ever.

Non-violence is about trying to avoid inflicting harm - it is not about trying to avoid being harmed. What comes to mind is in the movie Gandhi, when the salt protesters marched and continued to march, even as they were being beaten with clubs. They did not inflict injury on anyone, but they did not shirk their duty to each other and the cause by fleeing the carnage. I think THAT is what he was talking about - not valuing property over life.

[Euromutt]

40. Your idea of Gandhi is based on the film?

If so, I'm afraid you may to be prepared to deal with some disappointment, because Attenborough's film was sycophantically uncritical. Gandhi had any number of faults that weren't touched upon, not least that he was an astonishing hypocrite.

For example, while Gandhi and his wife Kasturba were incarcerated by the British (admittedly in the Aga Khan palace), Kasturba developed bronchial pneumonia in February 1944. She could readily have been saved with penicillin, but Gandhi regarded "Western medicine" as immoral, and in effect forbade her to be thus treated, preferring to rely on Ayurvedic "medicine." She was dead in two days. Six weeks later, Gandhi suffered a severe bout of malaria, and suddenly had no compunction about taking non-Ayurvedia-approved quinine. A few months after that, he agreed to undergo an appendectomy. During the remaining four years of his life, he told his followers to refrain from resorting to the same "Western medicine" he himself had been quite content to avail himself of.

Didn't see that in the movie, did you?

[SteveM]

41. I am aware of the "way of non-violence" or "Ahimsa"...

No doubt Ahimsa (the defense of self, property, religion, loved-ones without inflicting violence on those who would take these) is what Gandhi believed. But he also knew that this was but one of three choices facing a potential victim. One was cowardice (where the "victim" stands aside and allows the attacker to have his/her way with life, property, religion, etc.); one was violence in the face of the attacker; the final or highest form was Ahimsa.

In short, Gandhi knew that most people could not reach Ahimsa: "Perfect non-violence is impossible so long as we exist physically, for we would want some space at least to occupy. Perfect non-violence whilst you are inhabiting the body is only a theory like Euclid's point of straight line, but we have to endeavour every moment of our lives."

"Taking life may be a duty... Even man-slaughter may be necessary in certain cases. Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man."

Said another way, if the professor at Virginia Tech who tried to block Cho from killing the students was successful, he would have stopped the violence then and there with Ahimsa. He failed despite this tremendous courage. Had the professor had a gun and shot Cho, he would have succeeded in doing his duty, though it was not through Ahimsa. But his duty nonetheless.

Frankly, I doubt if given a choice that Gandhi would rate property over life. But he is in fact saying that life, property, religion, loved-ones are worth defending; if not by the "perfect non-violence" that he strives toward, then by violence (for the rest of us); certainly not cowardice or a vulgar (but IMO widely-held notion of) passivity.

"In my opinion non-violence is not passivity in any shape or form."

My question to you is the same I pose to myself: when it comes down to it, can we exercise Ahimsa in the face of murderous assault? I may be wrong, but I don't think I can. Still, there is duty.

[Hangingon]

9. I can replace my tv at Best Buy....

I can't replace the memories in the tools, guns, fishing gear and golf stuff from my father and grand father.

[Chulanowa]

14. So if someone steals your grandfathers' hammer, you'll forget all about your grandfather?

I mean hey, I understand sentimental value and all, but really, that's kind of an odd argument. You're gonna kill a guy because he runs off with grandpa's golf clubs?

:shrug: then again, we are in the Gungeon, so...

[Hangingon]

18. No I'll remember my grandfather

But you cannot replace sentimental value. Sorry you have a porblem understanding that.

[rd_kent]

19. He has it confused, horribly.

We don't think a tv is worth a life, but the criminal breaking into a house DOES.


But, he is just another criminal apologist.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. If you need the object to preserve the sentimental value, then

of what value is the sentiment?

EVERYTHING you own is trash. The ONLY thing worth protecting is life.

[rd_kent]

20. We do not think a TV is worth a life, but the criminal trying to take it thinks his is. You are

just a criminal apologist, huh?

[PavePusher]

22. And I can't replace the time (parts of my life) invested in obtaining those objects.

Or the time my relatives put into them.

You seem to be indicating that my time, parts of my life, parts of my relatives lives, are not worth defending. That's kind of an odd argument.

Also, please explain the moral or legal principal that implies I owe a criminal an easy, safe living.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. It's the myth of the "peaceable robber" again

Sometimes the crook attacks the victim even if they don't resist.

Yes, even *outside* the USA....

[GreenStormCloud]

11. How do I know that all he wants is the TV?

A few houses away from me, a few months ago, a young couple were killed (Stabbed)by home invaders. You assume that all he wants is some property, but you can't guarantee that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. There you go, bringing fact to a faith-based argument....

n/t

[tburnsten]

12. Outside of DU, most people don't actually believe someone breaking into an occupied home

to be anything but a violent threat, unless they flee when caught.

[SteveM]

25. American crims/thugs never met Gandhi, nor evidently, you...

Those who break-in/home invade when the resident is present have much more in mind than your damned T.V.

Please read Gandhi and see his take on the thug:

"I have therefore said more than once in these pages that if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., non-violence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting."
-- Selections by Gandhi.


Never read Gandhi, huh?

There are plenty more quotes.

[Indy Lurker]

37. Strawman

No one believes a television is worth a human life. That is a strawman.


There is real danger of injury and death during a home invasion.

It is in response to this danger that people wish to defend themselves with force, up to and including lethal force.


The idea that it is necessary to discharge a firearm to use it defensively is also false. A firearm is only discharged to prevent injury or death.

If the homeowner points a firearm at a home invader and yells freeze, and the criminal freezes or flees, they have successfully used a firearm to defend their home.

If the homeowner points a firearm at a home invader and yells freeze, and the criminal moves toward the homeowner or produces a weapon, the criminal becomes an imminent threat of injury or death. It is at this point a homeowner might discharge a firearm. It should also be obvious that at this point the location and condition of the TV is irrelevant.

*******************************

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

[east texas lib]

24. Hmm...

"Mr Kelly said he was not ashamed to say that burglars had rights and they had the right “not to be shot dead”. However, if they broke into a home and used aggression, then these rights were diminished and the ICCL had no difficulty with that."

That's mighty damn generous of Mr.Kelly and the ICCL.

[GreenStormCloud]

28. Burglars DO have the right not to be shot dead.

They can exercise that right by staying out of my house. They can go burgle somebody's home that isn't armed. However, in Texas such homes are difficult to find.

[gorfle]

35. On lethal force and property.

Mr Kelly said he was not ashamed to say that burglars had rights and they had the right “not to be shot dead”.

Well, I am ashamed of Mr. Kelly.

The simple, irrefutable fact is that when a stranger is found in your home you have no idea what he is there for. None. Maybe they are there for your silver. Maybe they are there to kidnap your children. You don't know.

The safest course of action is to assume the worst. In other words, if you find a stranger in your home, you should assume they are there to commit bodily harm to you or your family in the home. As such, you should be justified in shooting any stranger you find in your home, and, fortunately, in a growing number of states this is true.

No one should be expected to try and ascertain the motives of a home invader. This is simply ludicrous.

Furthermore, their intent doesn't matter to me. Even if a home invader is only interested in stealing my television, I value my television more than some stranger's life. If this makes me a mean old bad person, so be it. But all of my property represents portions of my life that I spent to acquire it. These are portions of my life that are irreplaceable and gone forever. I would not allow anyone to take even 30 seconds of my life. It is my life and it is sacrosanct.

Finally, the solution is entirely in the hands of would-be thieves. If they value their lives more than my television, then they should not steal my television.

[PavePusher]

38. Excellent!

I've tried to say the same thing numerous times, but you verbalized it much better than I ever did. Thanks!