What if I let my dogs do the dirty work? Will I be able to let my dogs defend my house and family or will they take them off of me after? But totally agree,no one is getting anything of mine for free and you can be damn sure they wont get near my offspring,I’ll be like an angry mama grizzly :D

@Emsy Wemsy
I saw a sticker once that said;
“This house is protected by Rottweiler Security Systems. Please remove any watches, false teeth or jewellery etc as this may affect the dogs digestion”

You may wanna see if you can find something similar for whatever breed you have :)

I sure Mr Kelly would soon change his mind on their rights if he came downstairs one night to find some shitebag standing in his kitchen with a knife. I’d say about half a second would do it.

Diego, that’s exactly the sort of situation he’s NOT talking about. The law, as it always stood, is that if you encounter an armed intruder in your house you have the absolute right to defend yourself. What you didn’t, and don’t, have the right to do is to capture, restrain and incapacitate an intruder and then *execute* them.

What Kelly is talking about is the fact that some people will see this new legislation (which, in fact, doesn’t change the legal standing of the situation at all) will be spun as giving householders the right to pursue and kill unarmed people off their property. This legislation is quite cynical in that it creates an *impression* the right to kill intruders is being expanded (when it is not) and there is a danger you’ll get people unknowingly exceeding the law because the government wanted to be seen as ‘doing something’.

Actually that’s not true Peter. Under the old law if you had the option to retreat from an intruder and didn’t you could be convicted of using “excessive force”. This was the one of this issues in the Padraig Nally case in 2004.

The law clarifies some of the confusion around what a homeowner can or can’t do when faced with an intruder. The new law now states that a homeowner does NOT have to retreat in a simliar circumstance.

James, that’s my point. The wording of this law simply makes the meaning of the existing law clearer – it clarifies the confusion that people had, rather than changing their actual entitlements under the law.

This should of been our right from the outset, not being able to protect home or family. Again if someone gets into my home by jaysus I’ll let rip on them! But the flip side is that criminals now know that this law is here and I doubt it will act as a deterrent so they will enter homes now with some idea that the owners potentially will attack, fight fire with fire and intruders will now be armed to defend themselves! It’s a law a long time coming but we will see intruders AND householders hurt or killed

/facepalm

This law has not been a long time coming. Go to courts.ie, search for DPP-v-Barnes and actually read it.
This law is just putting into statute what has been in effect via case law and precedent since the 1300s.
Hell, there are citations in DPP-v-Barnes that are so old they predate *punctuation and regularised spelling in the English language*.

That people think there’s anything new in this Act is a depressing comment on what people know about their rights as human beings :(

@mark. Thank you! I’m glad someone else sees this as a rewrite of the status quo.

Well said. Some common sense at last

Peter, this doesn’t actually expand homeowners’ right to protect themselves and their families at all. It’s a PR stunt. Any action against an intruder that was previously illegal is still illegal.

As the saying goes: “I’d rather be judged by twelve – than carried by six!”

@Chris McDonnell I’m sorry but I have to disagree. I’ve worked hard for the things I own. I am not going to cower away and let some scumbag take or destroy these things while waiting for the Gardai to respond. Just because there are no children present doesn’t mean that they should get free reign in my home.

If an intruder(s) force entry into my home they should be prepared to face the consequences.

It’s “free rein”. As in horses.

Chris, I’d agree with you as far as that goes. The thing is you’ve ALWAYS been allowed do that. The controversy is over whether or not, hypothetically, if you discover the hurley across the nut has knocked him unconscious should you be allowed to continue beating the unconscious man with the hurley until he dies? The law did, and still does, say no. But some homeowners believe the law should be changed so they *are* allowed to do so.

One letter out,replace the ‘a’ with an ‘i’

Sorry I’m dyslexic so if my phone can’t predict the word I just have to guess it, I know this is bad, particularly when it comes to someone’s name, but unfortunately 99% of apps don’t allow my to use the tools that can help with my dyslexia.

The content of your post was accurate Jay. Don’t know why someone would correct your spelling and then forget their punctuation. Full stop, anyone??? :-)

No guys,hahaha I’m so sorry,I thought you’d get the joke. I was taking the piss out of shatters name by changing it to shitter…. One letter out,get it??? Har har har ;) I don’t think you made any mistakes in your comment m’dear,sorry it was taken up that way!

Joke on me Emsy, glad to say. Nice one Emsy. Kudos to you. :-)

I just hate the way the spelling police correct spelling, etc and love to find when they make a mistake in theirs. But lmho at that. :D

It’s called “The Vote”

“The Vote” doesn’t work in a one horse race. This flipping country, that I love, can’t get itself past the civil war. One side declared themselves unfit!!! and god forbid the electorate would consider outside the usual suspects. [despair face]

Reada, most voters disagreeing with you does not equal democracy not working…

You mean the vote where they make us all vote and vote again, till they finally get the answer they want?
That type of vote?

Lol, you can bury them in the garden beside the charity collector, the census official and the postman!