Shannon Airport 5 have been completely exonorated

11.3 SECONDS

Bad decision.

The Special Criminal Court would probably have nailed all five defendants.

Indeed, I wonder if cases like this are actually suitable for juries given that they afford opportunities for introduction of extraneous side issues not germane to the core facts ?

Can anyone please tell me if the Irish taxpayer is going to have to pay for the damage done to the aircraft in question ?

If yes, on what basis ?

Are the Irish government legally obliged to stump up damages to the US for the damage or have they the right to offer compensation if they feel it is the correct thing to do ?

If I, as a taxpayer, have to pay for this I would be gratefully obliged to those five great warriors if they could please now move on to the Arctic and repair the ozone hole or something useful.......

Manic Moran

Whats the principle the US government are trying to make, that you shouldn't indiscriminately destroy property?

Basically. You might be a smoker, thus providing revenue to a body which contributes to the deaths of many. Would this allow me to bash in your car without fear of recompense? (To reduce your disposable income which could be spent on cigarettes)

Does that translate as once someone thinks they're right they can carry out actions which they believe to be justified once, as far as the offender was concerned, those actions were carried out for the greater good ?

Yes. Even if it's not done for the greater good. I refer you back to the Statutory Rape law which was thrown out as unConstitutional because the 'honest mistake' defense was not allowed. There are plenty of scenarios where an 'honest mistake' defense would be desireable. I see someone pointing a gun at someone. I shoot that person to save life. Then it turns out the gun was a toy, so it was an honest mistake at the time. Should I be liable?

However, that's why you still have the possibility of filing suit under civil law. Restitution can still be made, and there is still a deterrent factor against people going about willy-nilly.

Can anyone please tell me if the Irish taxpayer is going to have to pay for the damage done to the aircraft in question ?

I doubt it. At least, not directly. The tax burden is threefold: The costs of the trial, the costs of increased security at Shannon (Which if it needed to be done anyway isn't the fault of the five), and the reduced tax revenues from Shannon caused by companies/governments taking their business elsewhere. The costs of repairs to the aircraft will probably be covered by the US Navy. The Navy may in theory attempt to recoup the costs from the organisation responsible for security at the airport, whoever they are. (Shannon Airport Authority? Aer Rianta?)

NTM

Victor

oscarBravo wrote:

Reading the transcript: Is it just me, or is that a slightly terrifying thing to find in a law?

Actually its a fundamental principal of self defence (including the defence of others). If you fear for your safety, even mistakenly, you are allowed to act. There is of course the matter of reasonableness and proportionality.

Manic Moran wrote:

The Navy may in theory attempt to recoup the costs from the organisation responsible for security at the airport, whoever they are. (Shannon Airport Authority? Aer Rianta?)

"Vehicles parked at owners risk".

Nobody is going to indemnify anyone against damage by a third party, thats what insurance ios for. Especially if it is a military plane. I take it that the US Navy didn't employ AR/SAA for security thats why the garda was(n't) there. They merely hired a hangar / parking stand.

constitutionus

clown bag wrote:

Does that translate as once someone thinks they're right they can carry out actions which they believe to be justified once, as far as the offender was concerned, those actions were carried out for the greater good ?
.

yup provided you can get a jury to get you off the hook.

in a weird way its like the haughey and co arms trail. the gov wanted em to go down, the gardai wanted em to go down, the judge and judiceary wanted em to go down. the jury let em off

co incidentially thats what brought about the "special criminal court" see a body run by the state that utilises borderline if not actual unconstituional practices and does away with those pesky juries, purely of course for their own good. god forbid its just to get the outcome the state wants:D

Diogenes

Manic Moran wrote:

Basically. You might be a smoker, thus providing revenue to a body which contributes to the deaths of many. Would this allow me to bash in your car without fear of recompense? (To reduce your disposable income which could be spent on cigarettes)

Again for the second time you ignore my first point

The Iraq constitution gives US troops immunity from prosecution from local laws, so troops cannot be arrested for loss of life or property damage, but you want to sue someone who damages a piece of US technology possibly bringing weapons/support into that environment.

The US government are quite willing to avoid the laws and goverances of a state they are in when it is suits them. Due process human rights etc are all swept aside in the cases of extraordinary redintions. The planes are technically US soil so we cannot do anything about them.

Your analogy above is incredibly tenious btw.....

Diogenes

11.3 SECONDS wrote:

Bad decision.

The Special Criminal Court would probably have nailed all five defendants.

The special criminal court was set up because of jury intimidation by terrorists. A regretable situation.

Are we supposed to use it whenever we feel the common Irishman or woman feels strongly about an issue that goes aganist the grain of government policy?

Thats the first baby set towards fascism.

Ohyeah

well at least according to this front page from Daily Ireland it is up for debate anyway:eek:

http://www.irelandclick.com/dipdf/di001.pdf

Manic Moran

Diogenes wrote:

Again for the second time you ignore my first point

Apologies. I've been trying to keep with the matter at hand and appear to have missed it.

If we were to stipulate that the US ignores foreign laws, I fail to see why that should affect Irish legal principles created and carried out within Ireland.

Your analogy above is incredibly tenious btw.....

I agree, it was the best I could come up with on short notice, but then I believe that the Shannon 5's logic was equally tenuous.

NTM

Victor

By comparision, the reaction to fudged weapon flights in the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5221782.stm?lsm