A sad day....

Rosita

aidan24326 wrote:

The sentences handed out in this country are a joke.

Sure, he's served his time as it was handed down, but that doesn't change the fact that the sentence was way wrong to begin with.

Like ibid said, I fail to understand how spraying a guy with bullets from a powerful military rifle can possibly be manslaughter. It is 100% murder. Commit the same crime in the US and you'd go down for murder of a cop, guaranteed life sentence without parole. You aint getting out.

Here you can murder somebody (in this case a detective) in cold blood and you serve 8 years. Crazy. Those men should have got an absolute minimum sentence of 20 years, with no chance of release before that and the likelihood they'd serve 25+.

EDIT: what sickens me most of all is that these men, and those who would support them, like to portray themselves as representing some sort of cause, or even as representing Irish people in general. Well they don't speak for me or any other decent Irish person. They are thugs. Simple as that. That they are thugs with a Bobby Sands tattoo and a direct line to Gerry Adams doesn't alter the fact that they're still brutal thugs who in fact broke one of the IRA's own golden rules which is do not shoot at members of the Irish police or defence forces.

I think you need a stint of jury service. There is something more cerebral that "they are thugs" required to nail down a murder charge. It is easy to say that something is 100% murder when you are on a chatboard without seeing the evidence and hearing the arguments but proving it in court when the pesky evidence and inconvenient arguments are in play is quite a different thing.

What happens in the "don't fcuk with us" U.S. is irrelevant. Though one assumes evidence is also required before the chair is plugged in.

Anyway while these people may have served only 8 years, it is 8 years more than Frog Ward's killer so be thankful that your sense of vengeance is even partly satisfied. All lives are equal, but some it seems are more equal than others.

The IRA is entitled to say that it represents a cause. Every organisation would claim that. I am not aware that they have ever claimed to represent Irish people in general. Not sure where you get that from. After 1970 the Provos didn't represent all the IRA itself never mind the entire Irish people.

Rock Climber

@ irish1

You can express whatever opinion you want,I dont mind,that bit is actually on topic.The sincerity of it to my eyes anyway will always be diluted given the perception I have from your pro sinn fein posts.

That said

No one other than Sinn Féin are believing the sinn féin and the IRA are separate crap.It's laughable that we are expected to do so.
I have my own mind and it's bull.
Whats important is the new non violent direction and the settlement up north.

What you guys are going to have to get used to,is what I said in another thread and that is,it's going to take a few elections down here before the dust settles and the majority of people have less of a memory of the recent activities of the IRA.By then SF will have changed a few more of their policies probably into the mainstream.

Liam Byrne

Rosita wrote:

It's not odd. It is quite clear. According to the court decision the raid was planned by this man but the killing wasn't. One happened as a result of the other but wasn't directly planned, hence the manslaughter verdict.

Don't want to go in to it here, as it was discussed at length elsewhere, but if you plan on running around the streets with loaded automatics, then you should be 100% responsible if someone gets shot.

The only exception should be law enforcement officers, who are entitled to have them.

And there were also ****loads of other factors in that decision, including the intimidation of witnesses; just because a court has to decide that any conviction is better than none doesn't make it 100% right.

But all that has been discussed on other threads and ended up being dragged downhill, so lets keep this thread on-topic.

As for the laughable "political policing" remark, O'Snodaigh deserves all the derision he can get for that one.....if individuals were being followed and targetted unfairly, then it's "political policing"; if, however, they're being followed because there's a damn good chance that they'll commit an actual crime, then it's in the best interest of society that they're followed.

And guess what! The thugs proved them right! Surprise, surprise!

As I said above, it's disgusting when certain individuals are let off with light or suspended sentences - be they terrorists or rapists from Clare or wherever. But this individual did serve his time (albeit too short in a lot of people's minds).

Still, that doesn't mean we have to forgive and forget; there are plenty of paedophiles and rapists and other thugs who've finished their sentences too and I still think they are scum - some debts to society cannot be repaid by simply locking people up with their Playstations and plasma TVs and letting their buddies come visit.

Liam Byrne

Rosita wrote:

Anyway while these people may have served only 8 years, it is 8 years more than Frog Ward's killer so be thankful that your sense of vengeance is even partly satisfied. All lives are equal, but some it seems are more equal than others.

Damn right they are! The two scenarios that you are attempting to compare are polar opposites! :mad:

If the IRA guy - i.e. the guy doing the robbing and shooting - i.e. the criminal activity had been the one shot and killed, then the two scenarios would have been comparable and I would hope that the outcome would have been the same - i.e. self defence against a known criminal.

But in this case it was the innocent guy - worse still, the guy doing his job protecting yours and my money from thugs - that was shot - by one of those thugs.

If you want to compare cases, find a different one! :mad:

The IRA is entitled to say that it represents a cause.

And what cause might that be, exactly, considering that this was an authorised/sanctioned, no, hang on, unsanctioned, no, hang on again, sanctioned now that criminals are being released, etc, etc operation ?

Even Gerry Adams doesn't seem to know, so that's not relevant to this thread either. But I will say this: I can represent a million causes, but I AM NOT ENTITLED TO KILL AN INNOCENT PERSON OR A GARDA BECAUSE OF THEM.

What part of that sentence is difficult for SF & IRA to comprehend ?

Rock Climber

No discussion of the nally case here please.

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

I have my own mind and it's bull.

:eek: :eek:

Rock Climber

heh I might spar with you here Adig but you've made me giggle,thanks

Rosita

Liam Byrne wrote:

Don't want to go in to it here, as it was discussed at length elsewhere, but if you plan on running around the streets with loaded automatics, then you should be 100% responsible if someone gets shot.

What should be the case is a different matter and that's down to subjective opinion. Different standards apply in court that in general discussion which in the broader scheme of things is just as well.

Colonel Sanders

Bottom line is he served his sentence and has a legal right to walk free. There is also a major argument that he and the other members of the adare gang should be out long ago under the GFA.

Has justice been done? Did the punishment fit the crime? IMO, no. If it was up to me I'd let him rot in prison for the rest of his life, unfortunately its not up to me.

Liam Byrne

Rosita wrote:

What should be the case is a different matter and that's down to subjective opinion. Different standards apply in court that in general discussion which in the broader scheme of things is just as well.

Interesting that you didn't reply to anything else that I'd said, but unfortunately, yes, what should apply and what does apply are two different things.

That doesn't mean that we can't voice an opinion on whether the courts get it right; even as we speak, there's a concerted campaign to have mandatory sentences for rape because there's a general consensus that the current sentencing is pathetic.

The same applies to cases like this, and hopefully the law will be changed in both areas so that any thugs waving guns are dealt with more severely.

I'm with Col Saunders - this guy should count himself lucky that (a) one of the Gardai didn't do us all a favour by shooting first and (b) that the capital murder in the statute books for killing a Guard has been discontinued; if karma and natural justice prevailed, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Whether the guy will see that and repent/change his ways is another matter. I hope he does.....

Rosita

Liam Byrne wrote:

Damn right they are! The two scenarios that you are attempting to compare are polar opposites! :mad:

If the IRA guy - i.e. the guy doing the robbing and shooting - i.e. the criminal activity had been the one shot and killed, then the two scenarios would have been comparable and I would hope that the outcome would have been the same - i.e. self defence against a known criminal.

But in this case it was the innocent guy - worse still, the guy doing his job protecting yours and my money from thugs - that was shot - by one of those thugs.

If you want to compare cases, find a different one! :mad:
QUOTE]

I did not compare cases. I compared sentences and the value of life. But looking briefly at the cases, two men are dead and two families are without a father. Hardly "polar opposites".............until you look at the sentences.

And last time I heard walking into somebody's yard, as Mr.Ward did, is not a crime. No court in the country would hold that it is either. Strange that you deem it to be one and also imply that the rule of law does not protect someone who might be deemed to be in the process of breaking the law themselves. No court would agree with that either.

Whether a person is perceived to be innocent or not they are protected by the law. There seems to be a fluid interpretation of the value of life here depending on political perspectives. But this idea that because somebody has "form" that they are fair game has not held currency since the days of the Wild West.

As per the moderator I won't mention the Nally case again, though for the purposes of comparison I would argue that there is validity in mentioning it as it exposes the ambiguous attitude to killing and the law among some people.

Rosita

Liam Byrne wrote:

Interesting that you didn't reply to anything else that I'd said, but unfortunately, yes, what should apply and what does apply are two different things.

The reason I didn't reply to anything else is that it was irrelevant to the point I was making. I am simply arguing that the court and the barstool operate different levels of proof, partiality, and legal expertise.

I have no interest in getting sucked into a tangential argument about what some Sinn Féin guy said. I am simply arguing the legal merits of the matter. I'll leave the politcial point-scoring to others.

Botany Bay

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I don't get this?

A person served a sentence that was handed down to him by the Irish state. The Irish state cannot keep him in prison any longer as that would be illegal. We have a poster on the politics forum starting a thread saying he prefers if this guy would not see the light of day and it would not be a bad thing if the person was killed or injured by a bus!!!

Such an insightful thread

Indeed the OP iv'e noticed, frequents certain Loyalist forums were the level of glorification of murder knows no bounds. I didn't see him pick his fellow posters there up on their moral bankruptcy, yet right as rain here he is posting about an IRA murderer with full bravado and gusto to match. Stange, conflicting levels of moral outrage he shows, almost empathetic with Loyalist terrorist supporters yet loathsome of republican terrorists.

Insightful indeed!!

Liam Byrne

Rosita wrote:

Hardly "polar opposites".............until you look at the sentences.

Very much polar opposites if you look at who lived and who died. There are lots of things I could refer to, but to keep it on-topic, as per the moderator's reasonable request, I'll point out that waving guns around on a main street in order to steal money IS a crime (and again, that's assuming that that is the full story and the actual purpose of the events that day, which was also debatable since it appeared that no attempt was made to actually steal money).

Strange that you deem it to be one and also imply that the rule of law does not protect someone who might be deemed to be in the process of breaking the law themselves. No court would agree with that either.

That in itself is unfortunate, but it appears to be changing if you look at the proposed legislation whereby householders will get more rights to protect themselves and their property against armed, theiving scumbags. I would also argue that a household without a "parent" who thinks it's OK to do things like armed robbery is a household that's better off.....

There seems to be a fluid interpretation of the value of life here depending on political perspectives. But this idea that because somebody has "form" that they are fair game has not held currency since the days of the Wild West.

For the record, I have absolutely no "political perspective" driving the fluidity, and the other post implying that the OP in this discussion is being two-faced in this regard is not something I condone or agree with.

Where I WILL admit and advocate some fluidity is whether the person involved is breaking the law and/or putting an innocent person at risk - if they didn't decide to break the law, there would be no issue, so therefore they have at least some culpability. The innocent person should not be put in a position to make a reactionary decision on what's legal and what's not.

I will uphold and respect anybody's value of life or right to representation under law as long as they uphold the law and respect others rights and property; if they decide to deviate from that, that's their decision, and I will stand 100% by the statement that any resulting injury or death - including their own - is, by inference, their fault.

though for the purposes of comparison I would argue that there is validity in mentioning it as it exposes the ambiguous attitude to killing and the law among some people.

I'm confused - you earlier said that you weren't comparing ? But anyway, as I've clarified above, there is no ambiguity - my view is based solely on the cause-and-effect based on the actions of the individual involved in the crime, not their beliefs or background or race or anything remotely like that.

Bottom line is this: please don't accuse me of having some underhand "political perspective" - I have none.

I just have no sympathy for anyone who deliberately breaks the law; **** happens and accidents happen, and the law needs to be flexible enough to deal with those compassionately, but someone makes a conscious decision to break the law or commit a crime, then tough **** - that was their call and any consequences are a knock-on effect from that decision.

And for the record, I would apply that to myself; while I will never, ever set out to injure or murder anyone innocent, or put them at risk by my actions, I will try to relate it to one area : I think that if you (or I) crash at 90mph you should not be covered by your insurance - you deviate from your legal obligations and the insurance company should be released from any obligation that might result.

As the law stands, though, I could crash and get the money back - that's the way the law is. Anyone who died in the crash would be entitled to hate me, though - and that opinion of me would be my fault, no-one else's.

Zambia

Well if you think being released is bad try the fact that the policing board up North now contains a convicted Terrorist. Who would not actually be allowed Join the PSNI at any level even to clean the Loo's.

But as Hugh Orde said these are the times we live in...

FTA69

Considering he was a qualifying prisoner under the GFA he should have been released years ago. I wish him all the best for the future.

JakeLuxor

Zambia232 wrote:

Well if you think being released is bad try the fact that the policing board up North now contains a convicted Terrorist. Who would not actually be allowed Join the PSNI at any level even to clean the Loo's.

But as Hugh Orde said these are the times we live in...

Sure why shouldnt there be a "convicted terrorist" on the policing board, there are plenty of unconvicted terrorists still in the ranks of the PSNI/RUC.

Zambia

Was he ? I was trying to estabilish this last night and all outrage aside did Ireland agree under the GFA to release all IRA connected prisoners held in the republic ?

FTA69

The GFA condition was that the prisoner be convicted of an offence before 1998 and that the organisation he/she belonged to remained on a cease-fire, in fact other IRA Volunteers who were incarcerated because they killed a guard were released, and they were convicted of actual murder.

The Castlera 4 (3 now) took their case to the High Court who said they were qualifying prisoners but that the power to release them rested with the Minister for Justice, who refused to release them.

Zambia

JakeLuxor wrote:

Sure why shouldnt there be a "convicted terrorist" on the policing board, there are plenty of unconvicted terrorists still in the ranks of the PSNI/RUC.

If you have proof of a terrorist within the PSNI send it to the ombudsmans office . If there is evidence of wrong doing they will take action.

stovelid

irish1 wrote:

The fact is these criminal's should have been released under the terms of the GFA the same way the person who was convicted of the murder of James Morgan was released and I don't remember anyone posting here the day he was released.

Not really, I'm (gritted teeth) OK with some of the releases under the GFA for crimes in the North but shooting a member of the Gardai, in the Republic, during a robbery is a different matter altogether.

User45701

so you get less than 12 years for killing a gardai but can get 20 for large drug possesition?

So why do they not get killed more often? i see on the new about these large drug busts, if the people getting busted killed the gardai they would

1.Get less time in jail
2.Get a chance to escape

Villain

stovelid wrote:

Not really, I'm (gritted teeth) OK with some of the releases under the GFA for crimes in the North but shooting a member of the Gardai, in the Republic, during a robbery is a different matter altogether.

Unfortunately the Good Friday Agreement didn't make exception for such cases stovelid when it was accpepted by the majority of people North and South of the border, James Morgan's had his whole life ahead of him and one of his killers was freed under the GFA and that murder took place after Garda McCabe was killed.

Villain

User45701 wrote:

so you get less than 12 years for killing a gardai but can get 20 for large drug possesition?

So why do they not get killed more often? i see on the new about these large drug busts, if the people getting busted killed the gardai they would

1.Get less time in jail
2.Get a chance to escape

He was convicted of ManSlaughter User45701 thats why the sentence was 12 years, if he had been convicted of Murder it would have been higher.

User45701

irish1 wrote:

He was convicted of ManSlaughter User45701 thats why the sentence was 12 years, if he had been convicted of Murder it would have been higher.

Hmm i didnt notice that irish1 but I know murder is when you intend to do it, so if a gardai kicks down the door of a drug dealers house and the dealer throws a hammer at his head *dead* its not murder its not planned it would be like killing a gardai by hitting one with your car. Manslaughter.

RalphCifaretto

It is undisputable fact that the four men qualified for release under the GFA. It is pure hypocrisy that people in the south opposed their release so vehemently, while at the same time were calling for full implementation of the GFA in the north.

No doubt this will be met with various responses outlining the reasons they shouldn’t have qualified. As has previously been mentioned, the southern supreme court upheld their status as qualifying prisoners, there is absolutely no confusion about it.

Zambia

stovelid wrote:

Not really, I'm (gritted teeth) OK with some of the releases under the GFA for crimes in the North but shooting a member of the Gardai, in the Republic, during a robbery is a different matter altogether.

:mad: Not happy

Zambia

RalphCifaretto wrote:

It is undisputable fact that the four men qualified for release under the GFA. It is pure hypocrisy that people in the south opposed their release so vehemently, while at the same time were calling for full implementation of the GFA in the north.

Basically it was Mcdowell pandering for votes, but legally he had the power to retain them so in essence no law was broken.

Cant bring myself to blame him...

RalphCifaretto

Of course there was no law broken, but to refuse their release while at the same time urging northern unionists to accept the GFA is an absolute farce. It completely undermined the entire process in my eyes.

Zambia

While seeing your piont I doubt your that worried about the opinion of the Nothern Unionist Community.