Irish judge apologises over shotgun comment

[MN_Strelok]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/3994866a4560.html

DUBLIN: An Irish judge apologised on Thursday after he told a court he would blow the head off intruders into his home if he owned a shotgun.

Judge Sean McBride said he regretted his choice of words during the sentencing of a man for stealing from a pensioner's home.

"The words were used. . . in an attempt to highlight the vulnerability of those who are aged, and who live alone," he said in a statement.

Faced with rising levels of gun crime, Justice Minister Michael McDowell last month proposed new laws that would allow police to hold those suspected of using a firearm to kill or endanger life for up to seven days.

Judge McBride said he was opposed to all violence, including the use of guns.

"I was trying to emphasise my revulsion at the violation of the safety of peoples homes  of the sanctuary of their private space," he added.

Civil liberties campaigners had criticised the comments reported by the local Monaghan Post newspaper. It is illegal to own a firearm for personal protection in Ireland and gun licences are only issued to landowners and hunters. 

If this judge had threatened to strangle a home invader with his bare hands, would there have been a controversy?

[SteveS]

Maybe.  I occasionally post on an Irish BB and this story was discussed.  Many seemed to agree with protecting the home, but there were plenty that felt that harming an intruder was "taking the law into your own hands."

[Felonious Monk/Fignozzle]

I've been doing some thinking lately about the whole British (UK and its assorted and related territories) hoplophobe mindset.

I've posted some interest in actually picking up stakes and moving my family permanently to New Zealand, but they are similar in believing that defending yourself = 'taking the law into your own hands'. 

My thought is this: I think they came very very VERY close to the brink of destruction in fighting Hitler in WWII.  So many males of service age proportionately were lost, incl. men who already had families, that there was left a generation without a 'stomach' for violence, even defending themselves.
I know much of this might be conjecture on my part, but you see things like "The Wall", (which is semi-autobiographical for Roger Waters, who lost his father in the war), I think they endured darker days than we've ever experienced (until perhaps 9/11) in terms of facing the loss of all semblance of regular daily life and the comfort of the familiar...

So it may be a 'feely' choice, rather than logic or reason, but I can kind of see how the remaining women and children would craft a government which  embraced a 'violence begets violence' and avoidance at all costs, despite the resulting subjugation and victimization.

Ramblings, I know.

[El Tejon]

Guns aren't to be used against people?  No one the Irish were conquered so easily--can't fight worth a crap.

[Standing Wolf]

...I think they came very very VERY close to the brink of destruction in fighting Hitler in WWII.  So many males of service age proportionately were lost, incl. men who already had families, that there was left a generation without a 'stomach' for violence, even defending themselves.

I think the explanation is simpler than that: a horrendously large portion of genetically superior U.K. males were slaughtered in both World War I and World War II. Since then, the male "breeding stock," as it were, has been of inferior quality.

[griz]

Civil liberties campaigners had criticised the comments

Interesting comment.  I wonder what civil liberties are being denied if you shoot an intruder?  Is there a right to live no matter what your (the intruder) actions?

[BakerMikeRomeo]

I think you could make good money running a Waaambulance service in the UK and Ireland...

~GnSx

[Stand_watie]

Guns aren't to be used against people?  No one the Irish were conquered so easily--can't fight worth a crap.

If wars were fought with fists, broken beer bottles and pool cues the Irish empire would have rivaled the Roman empire.

[grampster]

If the genetic thing was accurate, how do you explain the pussification of America?  Our country was established and enlivened by the bravest and boldest of the world who came here possessing nothing and expecting everything.  That would be male and female, by the way.
Think about it.  America was populated by people who were willing to give up everything for a chance.  Bold folks.  The best folks imho.

[MN_Strelok]

Civil liberties campaigners had criticised the comments

Interesting comment.  I wonder what civil liberties are being denied if you shoot an intruder?  Is there a right to live no matter what your (the intruder) actions?

There does seem to be a contradiction there. It's as though the criminal has more rights than the victim, or at least that the "right" to not get hurt supersedes all others. I've noticed that in many articles from that side of the pond.

I also found it odd that they got so bent out of shape over a simple comment. If he had actually shot someone, I'd be less surprised. The guy doesn't even own a gun though... Public figures say far more shocking things over here on a regular basis, and the civil liberty types are the first ones to shout, "Free speech!" (Unless the comment seems vaguely racist, in which case all bets are off.)

[Manedwolf]

Ireland needs to entirely break off from the UK and rethink itself, be more like the sorts who still populate villages and farms in the southern part of the Emerald Isle. There's a place for high-tech as well, as there's certainly a lot of software industry there.

It's such a beautiful place. If it returned to its roots, it'd truly be an oasis of quiet sanity in the world.

[Matthew Carberry]

It's such a beautiful place. If it returned to its roots, it'd truly be an oasis of quiet sanity in the world.

You do realize we're discussing Ireland, right? 

[Manedwolf]

It's such a beautiful place. If it returned to its roots, it'd truly be an oasis of quiet sanity in the world.

You do realize we're discussing Ireland, right? 

Yes. Before the Catholic/Protestant fighting in the north.

Think more of the southern parts, historically, the sort of culture that existed there. Personally, I'd be all for that kind of culture, friendly, but with a healthy dose of suspicion of anyone who tried to come in and change things. THAT culture. 

And, historically, the temperment of the people is something I respect more as well. Men able to be men and occasionally get into a brawl over things, and women who are hardly submissive, but could be pretty darned sharp (and sharp-tongued!).

A bit of Irish temper is something Europe could use more of in the face of the Islamist dhimmi-pushers, for certain. Sometimes, there's words that just can't be met by other words, and certainly not by appeasement, words whose best answer is a well-deserved single fist to the jaw with some strength behind it. I would like to see what would happen if some of those "protestors" with the "behead anyone who insults Islam" signs wandered around outside a pub on Ireland's southern coast, for certain. 

[SteveS]

It's such a beautiful place. If it returned to its roots, it'd truly be an oasis of quiet sanity in the world.

I think they would have to go quite long ways.  Ireland has some private gun ownership, but it is heavily regulated and very expensive.  Most of the gun owners I have talked to seem pretty comfortable with the regulations and take the view that they are used for sporting purposes.  The forum I visit has a shooting section, but they don't seem to be interested in "rights."

From that forum:

It is not for the discussion of the use of firearms in self-defence, nor for discussions about the "right to keep and bear arms" (usually referred to as RKBA) as found in other countries. There are many other forums on the net which cater to those topics; we suggest Cybershooters in the UK or The High Road in the US for those who wish to discuss these topics.

[Cosmoline]

The judge should not be saying anything like that during a case.  It's at least improper, and possibly prejudicial. 

[Matthew Carberry]

Even during sentencing?  The decision of guilt or innocence had been made as had the decision on punishment (if I'm reading it correctly), there was no one to influence.

All he was doing at that point was emphasizing his personal repugnance.

[HankB]

...I think they came very very VERY close to the brink of destruction in fighting Hitler in WWII.  So many males of service age proportionately were lost, incl. men who already had families, that there was left a generation without a 'stomach' for violence, even defending themselves.

I think the explanation is simpler than that: a horrendously large portion of genetically superior U.K. males were slaughtered in both World War I and World War II. Since then, the male "breeding stock," as it were, has been of inferior quality.

It's food for thought, but armchair eugenic analysis is tricky . . . in the same vein, you might say that today's modern Israelis are tougher than their Arab neighbors in large part because Hitler killed off so many docile Jews - those that obeyed Nazi orders and marched to their deaths without resistance - that only the better "breeding stock" was left . . .

[Matthew Carberry]

I of course no longer have the book ("Mud, Blood and Poppycock" Gordon Corrigan), but the proportion of British losses to male combatants is not really greater than among any of the other nations fighting in WWI or II.

The losses seemed very high, much as in our own Civil War, especially early on due to the practice of the early units being recruited from particular towns/regions.  If a unit suffered high casualties that region perceived a tragedy, even though overall national losses were quite in line with the (per capita/per combatant) averages.