[neverdem]

How's that for legal clarity? What's malicious or excessive? They've been hangin' with the socialists for too long.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/padraigNally2x.jpg

[martin_fierro]

HOUSEHOLDERS can attack a burglar without fear of the law unless they act maliciously or with excessive force, the Criminal Court of Appeal said in a fresh ruling on the rights of victims yesterday.

[neverdem]

BANG!

[Blue Jays]

Hi All-

Even if good ole' Padraig was half in the bag, I support him defending his home! Go, Padraig Nally, go!

~ Blue Jays ~

[SWAMPSNIPER]

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

[paul51]

Although (the burglar) is not liable to be killed by the householder simply for being a burglar

Warning: Do not assume that at my house

[GOP Poet]

Like there was any doubt on my end.

[SIDENET]

If someone breaks in my house...

BLAMMO.

[GOP Poet]

If someone walks into my home and I don't know them (especially since it is locked at all times)--there is no doubt they will soon see heaven or hell. No doubt at all.

[SolidForce]

Wow, that's a lot of words and a whole lot of nothing said.

[Ieatfrijoles]

But can they eat burgers with forks?

[Red6]

Freepers-

Always remember. You did not shoot to kill.

"You only shot to stop his aggressive actions and you were in fear of your safety."

After that, you say NOTHING and talk to no one except a lawyer.

[BJClinton]

may deliberately kill a person simply for being a burglar.

How the hell is a someone supposed to know if the perp is breaking in for "simple burglary" or rape and murder?

Upside to all of this: 'Frog' won't be breaking in to anyone else's house.

[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.

[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.

[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!!"

[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.

[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!"