Sucks to be an incompetent burgler

[MiM]

It does, doesn't it. Let's hope they learned their lesson and come fully armed and trained, when they get to your place

Meh.

I've no guns.

I do have a pair of swords I've trained to use, and of course, there's always the chefs knives in the kitchen.

Not too worried. Highly unlikey that someone would come to rob a house armed with a gun in Ireland.

That was to the OP

[Cormac]

It does, doesn't it. Let's hope they learned their lesson and come fully armed and trained, when they get to your place

Meh.

I've no guns.

I do have a pair of swords I've trained to use, and of course, there's always the chefs knives in the kitchen.

Not too worried. Highly unlikey that someone would come to rob a house armed with a gun in Ireland.

That was to the OP

oops!

[Tero]

Sounds like Jefferson County. I try to avoid all those.

[pErvinalia]

I'd only have empty beer bottles to throw at the intruders.

[MrJonno]

Stealing tools got escalated to someone threatening lethal force great success

Yeah buddy!! No tools stolen, no force used, total capitulation by the crooks. Doesn't get any better than that.

Drawing a gun is a very serious use of force

[Seth]

People deserve to die for stealing?

Depends on what they're stealing. If they break into a shop to steal food in order to feed their families (as happened in Iceland over the last few years) that is one thing.

Breaking in to a house, or into somewhere for the purpose of stealing goods is another matter. In that case, they take on a risk, and deserve what they get.

No, sorry, it doesn't matter. If you burgle someone's property you are taking the risk that the owner will confront you with a firearm, which is a perfectly rational and legal thing to do, given the fact that the owner has no idea whether you are there just "steal food" or rape and murder his wife and children as well. Whether or not the owner is legally justified in actually using deadly force depends ENTIRELY on what you do when confronted with that low degree of ACTUAL physical force. You can do as these guys did and surrender instantly, which is the smart thing to do, or you can try to attack someone, in which case it's highly probable that the owner will be completely justified in escalating the degree of force applied from a no-physical-contact threat of the use of deadly force which is also reasonable preparation for the possible imminent use of deadly force to the use of deadly physical force with the crick of a finger.

You see police doing it all the time. I've done it many times as a police officer and a couple of times as a civilian. "Felony menacing" is a crime, but it's only a crime when you do not have justification for displaying a firearm in order to quash resistance and thwart potential attack by a criminal in the act of committing a crime in your presence.

Felony menacing is when you pull out a gun and aim it at someone without legal authority to do so.

Someone invading your home or business with criminal intent gives you legal authority to use reasonable and appropriate force to effect an arrest as well as in self-defense or preparation for self defense. And the simple fact is that the threat of using deadly force is a LESSER application of force than actually laying hands on someone, and it's much more effective at PREVENTING violence.

As I said, the police do it all the time as a prophylactic self-defense and criminal submission tactic. They have every right to do so...and so does an armed citizen...whose powers of arrest for a crime committed in his presence is EXACTLY IDENTICAL to those of a police officer.

One just has to make sure that the person you draw down on is a legitimate threat and/or is actually involved in the commission of a crime under circumstances that make it "reasonable and appropriate" to threaten the use of deadly force...and being inside my home without my express permission happens to be one of those circumstances...by law.

[SteveB]

Just because the verb has an e in it, that doesn't justify spelling it with an e in the noun.

[Seth]

Just because the verb has an e in it, that doesn't justify spelling it with an e in the noun.

Oh, I agree. But spelling flames are just the worst sort of horseshit pettifoggery.

Oh, also,

[SteveB]

I'm relieved.

[jaydot]

anyone correcting someone else's spelling needs to ensure that their own is correct - else embarrassing is.

[Warren Dew]

People deserve to die for stealing?

Depends on what they're stealing. If they break into a shop to steal food in order to feed their families (as happened in Iceland over the last few years) that is one thing.

Breaking in to a house, or into somewhere for the purpose of stealing goods is another matter. In that case, they take on a risk, and deserve what they get.

Which is another way of saying it's arguably robbery rather than theft when someone is home.

[Warren Dew]

Crime
These 3 Burglars Didn’t Stand a Chance Against Gun-Packing Homeowner – and Wait Until You Hear Their So-Called Alibis
Aug. 23, 2013 10:30pm Jason Howerton

Three burglary suspects in Jefferson County, Ala., were stopped dead in their tracks when a gun-packing homeowner confronted them and held them until police arrived. The unlawful trio were apparently attempting to steal tools.

Stephen Ray Mangham, 33, and Allyson Starr Gay, 23, and Herschel Simmons, 51, were arrested and each charged with three counts of third-degree burglary, three counts of unlawful breaking and entering a vehicle, possession of burglary tools and one county of second-degree criminal trespassing.
3 Burglary Suspects Thwarted by Gun Packing Homeowner in Jefferson County, Ala.

Left to right: Stephen Ray Mangham, Allyson Starr Gay and Herschel Simmons. (WCFT-TV)

WCFT-TV has more details:

According to Christian, deputies responded to a burglary-in-progress call around 6 p.m. at a home in the 6000 block of Blue Creek Road. Upon arriving, authorities learned that trio had broken into three storage buildings and three vehicles before the gun-toting property owner confronted the suspects, holding them at gunpoint until the authorities arrived to investigate.

Perhaps the most entertaining part of this story lies in alibis the suspects provided to police when they were arrested.

They first told deputies they had “permission” by “someone” to be on the property to collect scrap items. When the owner of the property shot down their claim, the burglars changed their story and claimed the homeowner’s donkey had escaped and they were trying to coax it back inside the fence with a cracker.

Authorities were able to prove both stories false and the trio were booked into Jefferson County Jail and are each being held on a $36,000 bond.

Excellent example of self defense and defense of property using a gun, of the type that doesn't get captured in the official statistics because no one gets shot.

[Cormac]

People deserve to die for stealing?

Depends on what they're stealing. If they break into a shop to steal food in order to feed their families (as happened in Iceland over the last few years) that is one thing.

Breaking in to a house, or into somewhere for the purpose of stealing goods is another matter. In that case, they take on a risk, and deserve what they get.

No, sorry, it doesn't matter. If you burgle someone's property you are taking the risk that the owner will confront you with a firearm, which is a perfectly rational and legal thing to do, given the fact that the owner has no idea whether you are there just "steal food" or rape and murder his wife and children as well. Whether or not the owner is legally justified in actually using deadly force depends ENTIRELY on what you do when confronted with that low degree of ACTUAL physical force. You can do as these guys did and surrender instantly, which is the smart thing to do, or you can try to attack someone, in which case it's highly probable that the owner will be completely justified in escalating the degree of force applied from a no-physical-contact threat of the use of deadly force which is also reasonable preparation for the possible imminent use of deadly force to the use of deadly physical force with the crick of a finger.

You see police doing it all the time. I've done it many times as a police officer and a couple of times as a civilian. "Felony menacing" is a crime, but it's only a crime when you do not have justification for displaying a firearm in order to quash resistance and thwart potential attack by a criminal in the act of committing a crime in your presence.

Felony menacing is when you pull out a gun and aim it at someone without legal authority to do so.

Someone invading your home or business with criminal intent gives you legal authority to use reasonable and appropriate force to effect an arrest as well as in self-defense or preparation for self defense. And the simple fact is that the threat of using deadly force is a LESSER application of force than actually laying hands on someone, and it's much more effective at PREVENTING violence.

As I said, the police do it all the time as a prophylactic self-defense and criminal submission tactic. They have every right to do so...and so does an armed citizen...whose powers of arrest for a crime committed in his presence is EXACTLY IDENTICAL to those of a police officer.

One just has to make sure that the person you draw down on is a legitimate threat and/or is actually involved in the commission of a crime under circumstances that make it "reasonable and appropriate" to threaten the use of deadly force...and being inside my home without my express permission happens to be one of those circumstances...by law.

And in assessing the burglar's intentions, I'd take into account, amongst other factors such as demeanour, whether or not they're armed, such facts as - are they in my house or a food shop, are they attempting to steal high value goods or some food, and so on.

Of course, having time to make such delicate assessments might not be possible, and you'll probably focus on the level of threat.

[Seth]

And in assessing the burglar's intentions, I'd take into account, amongst other factors such as demeanour, whether or not they're armed, such facts as - are they in my house or a food shop, are they attempting to steal high value goods or some food, and so on.

Of course, having time to make such delicate assessments might not be possible, and you'll probably focus on the level of threat.

Correct. The law REQUIRES you to assess the burglar's intentions and actions before APPLYING deadly force, but the law does not require you to wait to prepare to execute a deadly force plan until AFTER the burglar has made some aggressive move. The law allows someone who "reasonably" perceives a potentially deadly threat to take immediate defensive action SHORT of deadly force until the threat rises to a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm and that the use of a lesser degree of force would be inadequate to prevent the harm, at which instant deadly force is then authorized.

Drawing a firearm on an intruder in one's house is perfectly reasonable and indeed has been pretty explicitly authorized by the "Castle Doctrine" law which allows the instant use of deadly force if an uninvited intruder there to commit a crime reasonably appears to be about to (or is) using ANY degree of force, no matter how slight against any occupant of the house.

The key is a "reasonable" apprehension of danger that justifies immediate preparation for self-defense. For example, when approaching trespassing hunters on my ranch I always carried either a concealed handgun or a highly-visible Colt AR-15 slung across my chest with the muzzle aimed at the ground. It was loaded with a round in the chamber and as I came in range of the armed hunter's shotguns, I placed my hand conspicuously on the grip with my index finger conspicuously OFF the trigger, laying alongside the action with my thumb, on the opposite side of the weapon, on the safety/selector. With the muzzle still aimed at the ground I would order the armed hunters to turn away from me and unload their firearms and open the actions before I did anything else. On the very, very rare occasion that I got backtalk, I would flick off the safety and shoulder the rifle, taking an aggressive preparatory stance but keeping the muzzle pointed at the ground between me and the hunters, with index finger still off the trigger, and I would order them in a loud commanding voice to DROP their weapons RIGHT NOW, which they did, every time (Like twice in 30 years).

Then I could put the safety back on, sling the rifle around behind me and begin chatting with the hunters and explaining why I was approaching them. Except those couple of times I was always friendly and cordial and explained to them that they were trespassing and hunting on a game preserve. And they were almost always apologetic and they were sent off with a warning.

We stopped having trouble with trespassing hunters when the state changed the game laws to make trespassing while hunting an 18 point violation, which meant immediate 2 year suspension of hunting privileges. The law also placed the burden of knowing exactly where one is hunting, and obtaining proper permission to do so, on the HUNTER rather than on the landowner. I don't even need to put up "no hunting" signs any more because the entire state is presumptively "no hunting unless by permission" on private lands.

That really cut down on confrontations and conflicts between landowners and hunters.

Anyway, the point is that my procedure was entirely legal, I know because I checked with both the Sheriff and the District Attorney before undertaking it. I was fully justified in being extremely careful and proactive when contacting armed individuals on my own property, and my response was gauged to their behavior and attitude, just as it was when I was a cop. You'll note that it's hardly unusual for a cop to draw his weapon and aim it at the ground but be prepared to target and shoot when contacting someone in a potentially violent situation. That's not "felony menacing" and neither is what I routinely did...and undertook BECAUSE I had a shotgun pointed at my chest by a pair of duck hunters in a canoe when I was about 14.

These same principles are behind the "Stand your ground" laws that authorize someone who is under attack by another to NOT be required to try to run away or "retreat to the wall" before preparing to use or actually using deadly force. If you have to retreat before preparing to use or using deadly force in a deadly situation you are severely disadvantaged and the criminal is significantly advantaged by that built-in cognitive delay and attempt to retreat. Legislatures all across the US have wisely come to the conclusion that requiring someone to insert that delay and uncertainty in a potentially lethal hostile situation is a gross violation of the victim's rights and serves only to increase the probability that they will be harmed while reducing the probability that the attacker will be thwarted or prevented from continuing the unlawful attack.

Getting ready to use deadly force, and threatening to use deadly force in appropriate self-defense situations is a lesser application of physical force than actually shooting someone or even engaging in fisticuffs, which is why the police do it all the time. And if they get to do it, so do I.

[MrJonno]

Getting ready to use deadly force, and threatening to use deadly force in appropriate self-defense situations is a lesser application of physical force than actually shooting someone or even engaging in fisticuffs, which is why the police do it all the time. And if they get to do it, so do I.

American police do, not everyone else does.

If a British policeman sees someone carrying away a tv set from someone house and hits him with a baton its assault simple as that, you cannot use anything other than the very minimal amount of force to protect property ie grabbing someone unless they start fighting back