Irish Man sentenced after killing home intruder with a knife. "Excessive Force"

[lfromnj]

https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/26/ireland-dean-kerrie-jailed-over-waterford-home-intruder-killing-17645858/

Dean Kerrie was just 17 when he stabbed Jack Power, 25, in the chest in July 2018.

The intruder smashed a window to get into the house in Waterford, south east Ireland, because he believed Kerrie, now 21, had damaged his car.

Power was stabbed once through the heart and died at the scene.

[Middle-aged Europe]

This is framed like it was an unjust verdict. But I'm not familiar with the pecularities of the case (and certainly I haven't attended the trial), so I won't pass judgement simply based on a British tabloid article.

[Lord Halifax]

This is framed like it was an unjust verdict. But I'm not familiar with the pecularities of the case (and certainly I haven't attended the trial), so I won't pass judgement simply based on a British tabloid article.

Pretty easy to find alternative source such as the national broadcaster.
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2022/1026/1331473-dean-kerrie-court/

All that talk about how "extremely hard-working" the dead intruder was and how he was a "role model to his younger brothers" and the pain of his family is rather nauseating. Seems pretty clear that the higher social status (from a family of wealthy fishermen) of the attacker played a big role.

"Mr Justice McDermott said the damage done to the family was horrendous beyond words. Mr Power had been an exceptionally hard working young man, fuelled by his love for the sea and his father's encouragement."

yuck..

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

...the convicted man had used excessive and disproportionate violence by using a knife on someone who was unarmed.

Do these MFs expect people to square off in fair fights against angry and potentially larger intruders (whose own possession of a weapon is not fully established)? The articles goes on to describe how the intruder began attacking Kerrie's mother. Throwing a brick into someone's window and assaulting a family over (potential) car damage is the definition of trash. Send this judge to prison.

[lfromnj]

...the convicted man had used excessive and disproportionate violence by using a knife on someone who was unarmed.

Do these MFs expect people to square off in fair fights against angry and potentially larger intruders (whose own possession of a weapon is not fully established)? The articles goes on to describe how the intruder began attacking Kerrie's mother. Throwing a brick into someone's window and assaulting a family over (potential) car damage is the definition of trash. Send this judge to prison.

FWIW a jury did convict the guy. I can't fully tell either but overall it does just seem like trashy Europe Self defense laws.

[Mopsus]

What do you expect from an island that was ruled by a foreign power for 800 years because they refused to use “excessive force” against their colonizers?

[CumbrianLefty]

The judge's comments do appear somewhat unwise, but I am wary of these cases more generally - it is not wrong that the *possibility* of excessive force is legally there. Tony Martin, anyone?

[EastAnglianLefty]

The Tony Martin case did have particular aspects to it that don't on a cursory examination appear to apply here - specifically that Martin lay in wait, and that he fired the fatal shot as the victim was running away, so there was a strong case for pre-meditation and for whom not having felt under immediate personal threat.

[GMantis]

This is framed like it was an unjust verdict. But I'm not familiar with the pecularities of the case (and certainly I haven't attended the trial), so I won't pass judgement simply based on a British tabloid article.

The peculiarities don't matter. Convicting someone for defending themselves in their own home is injustice by definition.

[CumbrianLefty]

This is framed like it was an unjust verdict. But I'm not familiar with the pecularities of the case (and certainly I haven't attended the trial), so I won't pass judgement simply based on a British tabloid article.

The peculiarities don't matter. Convicting someone for defending themselves in their own home is injustice by definition.

Well, that's where not everybody else agrees.

[Ferguson97]

This is framed like it was an unjust verdict. But I'm not familiar with the pecularities of the case (and certainly I haven't attended the trial), so I won't pass judgement simply based on a British tabloid article.

The peculiarities don't matter. Convicting someone for defending themselves in their own home is injustice by definition.

I mean it depends. If you've incapacitated someone and tied them up while waiting for the police to arrive, at that point cutting their throat would be an execution.

I'm not saying that's what happened here, or that it's even the most likely scenario, but there are extenuating circumstances that matter.

[GMantis]

This is framed like it was an unjust verdict. But I'm not familiar with the pecularities of the case (and certainly I haven't attended the trial), so I won't pass judgement simply based on a British tabloid article.

The peculiarities don't matter. Convicting someone for defending themselves in their own home is injustice by definition.

I mean it depends. If you've incapacitated someone and tied them up while waiting for the police to arrive, at that point cutting their throat would be an execution.

I'm not saying that's what happened here, or that it's even the most likely scenario, but there are extenuating circumstances that matter.

If you're cutting the throat of someone's who's tied down, you're not defending yourself. There's a reason I used this phrasing.

[SteveRogers]

This is framed like it was an unjust verdict. But I'm not familiar with the pecularities of the case (and certainly I haven't attended the trial), so I won't pass judgement simply based on a British tabloid article.

The peculiarities don't matter. Convicting someone for defending themselves in their own home is injustice by definition.

I mean it depends. If you've incapacitated someone and tied them up while waiting for the police to arrive, at that point cutting their throat would be an execution.

I'm not saying that's what happened here, or that it's even the most likely scenario, but there are extenuating circumstances that matter.

If you're cutting the throat of someone's who's tied down, you're not defending yourself. There's a reason I used this phrasing.

Well then you’re just stating a tautology. Obviously if you’re lawfully acting in self defense, it would be unjust to convict you of murder. But the jury here necessarily had to have found that the defendant was not in fact acting in self defense.

I don’t know the ins and outs of Irish law, but even here in the U.S. the “Castle doctrine” only creates a rebuttable presumption that a person is justified in using deadly force against an intruder in their home. The jury can still find that the killing was unwarranted. The peculiarities matter very much.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Joke country.

[GMantis]

This is framed like it was an unjust verdict. But I'm not familiar with the pecularities of the case (and certainly I haven't attended the trial), so I won't pass judgement simply based on a British tabloid article.

The peculiarities don't matter. Convicting someone for defending themselves in their own home is injustice by definition.

I mean it depends. If you've incapacitated someone and tied them up while waiting for the police to arrive, at that point cutting their throat would be an execution.

I'm not saying that's what happened here, or that it's even the most likely scenario, but there are extenuating circumstances that matter.

If you're cutting the throat of someone's who's tied down, you're not defending yourself. There's a reason I used this phrasing.

Well then you’re just stating a tautology. Obviously if you’re lawfully acting in self defense, it would be unjust to convict you of murder. But the jury here necessarily had to have found that the defendant was not in fact acting in self defense.

I don’t know the ins and outs of Irish law, but even here in the U.S. the “Castle doctrine” only creates a rebuttable presumption that a person is justified in using deadly force against an intruder in their home. The jury can still find that the killing was unwarranted. The peculiarities matter very much.

The very fact that the conviction was for using excessive force implies that Kerrie was acting in self defense, it's just that the ridiculous Irish law punished him for not using the appropriate amount of force - as if that should be one's priority under these conditions. In effect people are being denied the right to be safe in their own homes in order to protect instead criminals who should be fully responsible for any injury that result from their crimes - including to themselves.

[dead0man]

This is framed like it was an unjust verdict. But I'm not familiar with the pecularities of the case (and certainly I haven't attended the trial), so I won't pass judgement simply based on a British tabloid article.

The peculiarities don't matter. Convicting someone for defending themselves in their own home is injustice by definition.

I mean it depends. If you've incapacitated someone and tied them up while waiting for the police to arrive, at that point cutting their throat would be an execution.

I'm not saying that's what happened here, or that it's even the most likely scenario, but there are extenuating circumstances that matter.

If you're cutting the throat of someone's who's tied down, you're not defending yourself. There's a reason I used this phrasing.

Well then you’re just stating a tautology. Obviously if you’re lawfully acting in self defense, it would be unjust to convict you of murder. But the jury here necessarily had to have found that the defendant was not in fact acting in self defense.

from the second linked article

Mr Justice Paul McDermott said he had to accept the jury's verdict that Kerrie had acted in self-defence, although he said the convicted man had used excessive and disproportionate violence by using a knife on someone who was unarmed.

the jury acknowledged it was self defense, just that the smaller, younger child used "too much weapon" in protecting himself from getting the sh**t kicked out of him and possible murdered.  Irish self defense laws are garbage.

I don’t know the ins and outs of Irish law, but even here in the U.S. the “Castle doctrine” only creates a rebuttable presumption that a person is justified in using deadly force against an intruder in their home. The jury can still find that the killing was unwarranted. The peculiarities matter very much.

the most progressive judge/jury in the most progressive court in the most progressive county in the most progressive state in the US would not find this child guilty of anything.

more from the above link

The judge said Mr Power was behaving in a very violent and threatening way. He assaulted Kerrie and the court was told he had also assaulted Kerrie's mother.

Kerrie said he grabbed a kitchen knife, which he said was in a bedroom, to defend himself and his mother, although the judge said he did not accept he had been told the full truth about where the knife came from.

Mr Justice McDermott said he did accept Kerrie, who was younger and of slight build, had made decisions under a degree of pressure in a very short time frame in the context of the unexpected attack on his house by Mr Power, who was a tall, well built young man.

He said he also had to take into account that Kerrie was only 17 years old at the time and that his regret and remorse were genuine. He said this was evident from the immediate aftermath of the stabbing. Kerrie called gardaí who came to the house and found him sobbing in the kitchen.

so a violent asshole violently broke into someone's home in the middle of the night, attacked a child and his mother and now the child is going to prison because of the closest weapon to him was a knife and the laws in Ireland are a funking joke.

[Alben Barkley]

Joke country.

You say this as if it couldn’t have happened in the UK too, where people have literally had cops interrogate them over tweets.

[Meclazine for Israel]

An Irishman, an Englishman and a Scotsman  break into a teenagers room and the power gets switched off. The teenager is fit and has a knife.

What happens next?

[Badger]

A media's report of an individual case with an unusual decision is by definition wrong or at least substantially wrong 90% of the time. Take this with a boulder of salt.

[It’s so Joever]

What do you expect from an island that was ruled by a foreign power for 800 years because they refused to use “excessive force” against their colonizers?

Bro wtf.

[Epaminondas]

the jury acknowledged it was self defense, just that the smaller, younger child used "too much weapon" in protecting himself from getting the sh**t kicked out of him and possible murdered.  Irish self defense laws are garbage.

If the US self-defence laws and its spates of gun killings are "superior" to Irish law, we want none of it.

Unlike the US, we actually have a functional law system. The police would have tracked down the unarmed intruder and slapped him with a commensurate sentence, just enough to wreck the next years of his life.

Instead, there's a dead man now, and devastation in 2 families. Only in jungle libertarianism would think this is preferable to just repelling the unarmed intruder and calling the cops.

[dead0man]

the jury acknowledged it was self defense, just that the smaller, younger child used "too much weapon" in protecting himself from getting the sh**t kicked out of him and possible murdered.  Irish self defense laws are garbage.

If the US self-defence laws and its spates of gun killings are "superior" to Irish law, we want none of it.

Unlike the US, we actually have a functional law system. The police would have tracked down the unarmed intruder and slapped him with a commensurate sentence, just enough to wreck the next years of his life.

Instead, there's a dead man now, and devastation in 2 families. Only in jungle libertarianism would think this is preferable to just repelling the unarmed intruder and calling the cops.

awww, of all the posts to get testy about, you chose mine.  I feel special.

but you're 100% correct.  If Ireland wants to live with laws that put a child in prison for defending himself and his family in his own home, they should be able to.  The rest of us can applaud or mock you depending on how we see it.  Most of us will chose to mock you.  I'm sure a big tough guy like you can take it.

[Epaminondas]

the jury acknowledged it was self defense, just that the smaller, younger child used "too much weapon" in protecting himself from getting the sh**t kicked out of him and possible murdered.  Irish self defense laws are garbage.

If the US self-defence laws and its spates of gun killings are "superior" to Irish law, we want none of it.

Unlike the US, we actually have a functional law system. The police would have tracked down the unarmed intruder and slapped him with a commensurate sentence, just enough to wreck the next years of his life.

Instead, there's a dead man now, and devastation in 2 families. Only in jungle libertarianism would think this is preferable to just repelling the unarmed intruder and calling the cops.

awww, of all the posts to get testy about, you chose mine.  I feel special.

but you're 100% correct.  If Ireland wants to live with laws that put a child in prison for defending himself and his family in his own home, they should be able to.  The rest of us can applaud or mock you depending on how we see it.  Most of us will chose to mock you.  I'm sure a big tough guy like you can take it.

Guess it's easier to mock reasonable Irish laws than to look into the mirror about the true risks of "home invasion".

What's ironic is that you don't even need to have lived in Ireland to know which country is safer to reside in.

[CumbrianLefty]

What do you expect from an island that was ruled by a foreign power for 800 years because they refused to use “excessive force” against their colonizers?

Well........its a take, I suppose.

[dead0man]

the jury acknowledged it was self defense, just that the smaller, younger child used "too much weapon" in protecting himself from getting the sh**t kicked out of him and possible murdered.  Irish self defense laws are garbage.

If the US self-defence laws and its spates of gun killings are "superior" to Irish law, we want none of it.

Unlike the US, we actually have a functional law system. The police would have tracked down the unarmed intruder and slapped him with a commensurate sentence, just enough to wreck the next years of his life.

Instead, there's a dead man now, and devastation in 2 families. Only in jungle libertarianism would think this is preferable to just repelling the unarmed intruder and calling the cops.

awww, of all the posts to get testy about, you chose mine.  I feel special.

but you're 100% correct.  If Ireland wants to live with laws that put a child in prison for defending himself and his family in his own home, they should be able to.  The rest of us can applaud or mock you depending on how we see it.  Most of us will chose to mock you.  I'm sure a big tough guy like you can take it.

Guess it's easier to mock reasonable Irish laws than to look into the mirror about the true risks of "home invasion".

What's ironic is that you don't even need to have lived in Ireland to know which country is safer to reside in.

no one is mocking a reasonable law here