What a complete scumbag..

dlofnep

Sully wrote: »

I always thought cannabis DOES have a tendency to make you go a bit "odd" and mixing it with alcohol (which we all know if you drink enough of without mixing can make you go "odd") would be a dangerous mix?

There is a difference between odd and flat out robbing an old man and beating him up. Alcohol and cannabis did NOT do that or cause that. Being a complete and utter scumbag who's an absolute waste to society and wouldn't be lost one bit by anyone if he ended up in the river tomorrow is what caused it.

This topic is actually making me angry at this point. I just can't imagine how frightened that poor old man was, and for what? So this scumbag could get a few cans and a few quid? ARG.

So please Sully, don't try blame this on a few cans and a spliff. Scumbagism is the cause, and the only cause. I've seen dogs with more manners than people like him.

Einstein

Kudos to the blind man that runs a business tbh

Sully

sunnyse wrote: »

Firstly, solicitors have used the "drugs and alcohol" defence since courts began so I wouldn't put much store in that.

Well I think in most cases - it is partly responsible. I blame how these people are brought up also and the environment they live in.

Secondly I have never seen anyone who has smoked a joint stand up and stab someone else, it's effects are completely opposite in nature but of course it's not possible to believe this piece of human garbage was just a Filthy scumbag without a decent bone in his body. It's much easier to blame "THE DRUGS"

Well.. a lot of research says differently. Cannabis is linked to causing paranoia and schizophrenia.

Source: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/dangers.htm

sunnyse

Sully wrote: »

Well I think in most cases - it is partly responsible. I blame how these people are brought up also and the environment they live in.



Well.. a lot of research says differently. Cannabis is linked to causing paranoia and schizophrenia.

Source: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/dangers.htm

If you want me to trawl the internet i'm sure we could be swapping propoganda sites from both sides of the arguement all day but that's probably best left to AH.
My point is that this guy is a complete scumbag and the fact that he smokes dope or drinks should be immaterial. It's just an excuse for a depraved and sadistic act. I Drink like a fish at times and have been known to be partial to the odd excursion into various illicit substances but i've never felt the need to slash a blind man open and rob him;)

Sully

sunnyse wrote: »

If you want me to trawl the internet i'm sure we could be swapping propoganda sites from both sides of the arguement all day but that's probably best left to AH.

Sure, sure :P

My point is that this guy is a complete scumbag and the fact that he smokes dope or drinks should be immaterial. It's just an excuse for a depraved and sadistic act. I Drink like a fish at times and have been known to be partial to the odd excursion into various illicit substances but i've never felt the need to slash a blind man open and rob him;)

Oh I know, I am not doubting that for one second my point was in relation to the defence argument

CaramelBear

Einstein wrote: »

Kudos to the blind man that runs a business tbh

Agreed.

But the story sickens me. At least if he'd attacked someone who wasn't weaker than himself, I'd be like, "Idiot." That's just totally and absolutely in humane.

Sully wrote: »

Well I think in most cases - it is partly responsible. I blame how these people are brought up also and the environment they live in.



Well.. a lot of research says differently. Cannabis is linked to causing paranoia and schizophrenia.

That is true. All drugs have a certain negative effect. However, the man's actions cannot be solely blamed on substance abuse.

And most people here, I've noticed, get pregnant, and then don't bother trying to bring up individuals of substance. They just scream and yell at them, hit them even. And then they have violence from the very people who are meant to love them. As in all cases, there are exceptions. I've seen people who got pregnant unexpectedly and have driven themselves to make sure their children will never have to go through the same things they had to go thru as a child themselves.

Personally, I think it's sad and pathetic.

dlofnep

Sully wrote: »

Well I think in most cases - it is partly responsible. I blame how these people are brought up also and the environment they live in.



Well.. a lot of research says differently. Cannabis is linked to causing paranoia and schizophrenia.

Source: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/dangers.htm

Sully stop boy. He robbed that man because he's a pure and utter scumbag. Not because he was stoned or drunk. It does not excuse it even 1%. I know plenty of people who have an odd drink and smoke and never, not ever have they even dreamed about beating up an old man and robbing his shop.

Get real Sully. The problem here isn't alcohol or cannabis. The problem here is this scumbag. Nothing else.

Sully

dlofnep wrote: »

Sully stop boy. He robbed that man because he's a pure and utter scumbag. Not because he was stoned or drunk. It does not excuse it even 1%. I know plenty of people who have an odd drink and smoke and never, not ever have they even dreamed about beating up an old man and robbing his shop.

Get real Sully. The problem here isn't alcohol or cannabis. The problem here is this scumbag. Nothing else.

Ah for crying out loud. If you read my posts you will see two things.

1) I completely agree this muppet is a scumbag and what he did was wrong and nothing can excuse it.

2) A comment was made that the defence was weak and people were laughing at how stupid it was. I pointed out that he has a damn good lawyer (that a lot of Guards would be afraid to go up against) and that the excuse given DOES carry some weight REGARDLESS of whether its a valid excuse or not.

Also, completely off topic, but I find it rich that your shouting the odds at me and you support a political party that has strong connections with terrorists who murdered hundreds of people over the years and god knows how many they have physically assaulted and terrorised. **** that.

robtri

Sully wrote: »

Ah for crying out loud. If you read my posts you will see two things.

1) I completely agree this muppet is a scumbag and what he did was wrong and nothing can excuse it.

2) A comment was made that the defence was weak and people were laughing at how stupid it was. I pointed out that he has a damn good lawyer (that a lot of Guards would be afraid to go up against) and that the excuse given DOES carry some weight REGARDLESS of whether its a valid excuse or not.

Also, completely off topic, but I find it rich that your shouting the odds at me and you support a political party that has strong connections with terrorists who murdered hundreds of people over the years and god knows how many they have physically assaulted and terrorised. **** that.

Everbody is out to jump on KING SULLY today..... not your day at all Sully...
:D:D:D:D:D

_FRANK_

jasus i've left him alone..........................for now

I hope the barman makes a full recovery and that other fella gets all the bad karma thats coming to him.

dlofnep

Sully wrote: »

Also, completely off topic, but I find it rich that your shouting the odds at me and you support a political party that has strong connections with terrorists who murdered hundreds of people over the years and god knows how many they have physically assaulted and terrorised. **** that.

Nice ad hominem. What has the political party I support have to do with the topic at hand? I personally have never assaulted anyone, nor have I terrorised anyone. Secondly, the IRA has disbanded - so who exactly is it that SF supports? The PIRA no longer exists. I joined SF after the GFA, and after the IRA had disbanded - So it's irrelevant as to what I currently support as the party that I current support is involved in a diplomatic process through peace and understanding. So no, it's not rich and is certainly not contradictory to call this scumbag for what he is - a pure and utter disgrace to society. You obviously missed the hundreds of anti-social and drug-problem awareness campaigns ran by Ógra across the country over the years while addressing other issues in the community, not to mention SF's hard work to help the working class communities of Ireland - but instead of seeing the good in us, all you can see is something that is WELL in the past.

If you've anything else you want to get off of your chest, you can drop me a line in college for a good old chat. I'm not hard to find. Next time, stick to the topic at hand. People have been issued infractions for less.

Sully

dlofnep wrote: »

Nice ad hominem. What has the political party I support have to do with the topic at hand? I personally have never assaulted anyone, nor have I terrorised anyone. Secondly, the IRA has disbanded - so who exactly is it that SF supports? The PIRA no longer exists. I joined SF after the GFA, and after the IRA had disbanded - So it's irrelevant as to what I currently support as the party that I current support is involved in a diplomatic process through peace and understanding. So no, it's not rich and is certainly not contradictory to call this scumbag for what he is - a pure and utter disgrace to society. You obviously missed the hundreds of anti-social and drug-problem awareness campaigns ran by Ógra across the country over the years while addressing other issues in the community, not to mention SF's hard work to help the working class communities of Ireland - but instead of seeing the good in us, all you can see is something that is WELL in the past.

If you've anything else you want to get off of your chest, you can drop me a line in college for a good old chat. I'm not hard to find. Next time, stick to the topic at hand. People have been issued infractions for less.

I wont get into a political debate with you - I just found it rich you were having a go at me (me, who already stated I was not defending the chap and already supported many others who called him a scumbag) considering the party you are involved in. Was an off topic comment made in relation to a few of your posts. Its stupid to jump on me and have a go when clearly you couldn't spend time to read my posts and get a clearer picture of the point I was getting across.

dlofnep

Sully wrote: »

I wont get into a political debate with you - I just found it rich you were having a go at me (me, who already stated I was not defending the chap and already supported many others who called him a scumbag) considering the party you are involved in. Was an off topic comment made in relation to a few of your posts. Its stupid to jump on me and have a go when clearly you couldn't spend time to read my posts and get a clearer picture of the point I was getting across.

I was under the impression that you were attempting to partially blame cannabis and alcohol for his actions by citing.

sully wrote:

Well I think in most cases - it is partly responsible.

sully wrote:

Well.. a lot of research says differently. Cannabis is linked to causing paranoia and schizophrenia.

Source: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/dangers.htm

If that's not an attempt to try and blame cannabis, then what is it?

Also, the party I support is irrelevant to the matter and I am perfectly entitled to highlight my opinions on the issue, especially since I am familiar with the person involved and his history of abuse. It was an attempt to have a cheap pop at me. You can have it. I'm well above that nonsense. You don't know anything about me, let alone enough to judge me on what I can comment on and what I can't.

Sully

dlofnep wrote: »

I was under the impression that you were attempting to partially blame cannabis and alcohol for his actions by citing.

If that's not an attempt to try and blame cannabis, then what is it?

Selective quoting isn't cool.

Sully wrote: »

I can never understand the menatilty of these people. Just disgraceful and I hope he gets whats coming to him from the courts.

(See, I don't support what he was doing and I spoke out against him.)

dlofnep wrote: »

Says in the report that he blamed his actions on cannabis and alcohol. The weakest excuse ever. Alcohol and cannabis don't make you enter a store with intent to rob and beat up an old man. Quite frankly, the fella involved is well known in Waterford for being a pure and utter scumbag.

The real shame is that he'll probably do 2 years at most, and will be out again doing the same old crap once he gets out. People like him will never change.

(You made a point that the defence was weak)

Sully wrote: »

His solicitor is very well known and is quite a popular one. I would doubt he would use the excuse if he felt it was weak (not supporting the actions of the chap of course).

I always thought cannabis DOES have a tendency to make you go a bit "odd" and mixing it with alcohol (which we all know if you drink enough of without mixing can make you go "odd") would be a dangerous mix?

(I pointed out that no, its not a weak excuse and said solicitor would be very good)

Sully wrote: »

Well I think in most cases - it is partly responsible. I blame how these people are brought up also and the environment they live in.

Well.. a lot of research says differently. Cannabis is linked to causing paranoia and schizophrenia.

Source: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/dangers.htm

(above in response to people questioning whether cannabis does actually effect you in the way suggested by the defence)

Sully wrote: »

Sure, sure :P



Oh I know, I am not doubting that for one second my point was in relation to the defence argument

(Clarifying why I was pointing out affects of cannabis, and further stating that I was not supporting the accused in anyway).

So there we have it, the bigger picture which paints a different picture. So next time, don't jump at me and start throwing around stupid comments without being able to back it up.

Also, the party I support is irrelevant to the matter and I am perfectly entitled to highlight my opinions on the issue, especially since I am familiar with the person involved and his history of abuse. It was an attempt to have a cheap pop at me. You can have it. I'm well above that nonsense.

I could never support a party with such a dodgy past. It just seemed rich you would have a go at me when you stand by a party who have done far worse in the past. That was my point. I have nothing against you personally, you seem like a great guy and I have a lot of respect for you. So, eh, it wasn't a cheap pop - im not out to get you

dlofnep

If you were not attempting to blame it on the alcohol and cannabis, then I apologise. But the posts I highlighted explain how I came to my conclusion. Also - If it's not a cheap pop at me, then there is no need to discuss what party I support and what I don't support. Like I said, I'm well within my rights to voice my opinion on the issue at hand, and I assure you - it's not the party that I support, which by the way I have great admiration for changing it's policies.

You were the one who made this personal Sully, not I. I just don't like seeing society blaming weed/beer for creating monsters like this guy. If that's not the case, then no worries. And I assure you, he is a monster and the streets would be better off without him. I grew up in Waterford City, and went to St. Pauls, so I'm all too familiar with his kind. And I don't mean the average working class people before that's misconstrued - but the typical scanger who cares about nothing but himself, and would go out of his way to harm an old BLIND man. I care deeply about old people or defenseless people in society which these people prey on. I could only imagine how horrible it must have been for that man to go through that and it has brought out alot of emotion in me in this thread, be it for the good or bad.

I'm a reasonable guy; I just take exception to my politics being brought into a thread like this.

Sully

dlofnep wrote: »

If you were not attempting to blame it on the alcohol and cannabis, then I apologise. But the posts I highlighted explain how I came to my conclusion.

That's why you should read all posts first before jumping the gun - which you did as you responded to my earlier posts. So I dunno.

Also - If it's not a cheap pop at me, then there is no need to discuss what party I support and what I don't support. Like I said, I'm well within my rights to voice my opinion on the issue at hand, and I assure you - it's not the party that I support, which by the way I have great admiration for changing it's policies.

Why would I waste time throwing cheap pop at you? I have no problems with you, it just annoyed me when you started jumping at me without coming to a proper conclusion and I felt it was rich considering you stand by a party with such a dodgy past. Thats why I made the remark.

You were the one who made this personal Sully, not I. I just don't like seeing society blaming weed/beer for creating monsters like this guy. If that's not the case, then no worries. And I assure you, he is a monster and the streets would be better off without him. I grew up in Waterford City, and went to St. Pauls, so I'm all too familiar with his kind. And I don't mean the average working class people before that's misconstrued - but the typical scanger who cares about nothing but himself, and would go out of his way to harm an old BLIND man. I care deeply about old people or defenseless people in society which these people prey on. I could only imagine how horrible it must have been for that man to go through that and it has brought out alot of emotion in me in this thread, be it for the good or bad.

Agreed. I fully support you and I fully support getting this muppet locked up and out of society's way.

I'm a reasonable guy; I just take exception to my politics being brought into a thread like this.

Fair enough. I just got annoyed at the bickering and lashed out at something I felt was hypocritical. Emotions for ya!

King Ludvig

Well he's going places in life :mad:

ec18

can anyone say off topic? :P



Is there any word on a trial date or even if it's going to trial?

AdMMM

If I was Sully, I'd have banned myself by now.

I make a living by noticing patterns and I've spotted one here. Sully "contributes" to every topic, regardless of what it's about and decides on an opinion to have, hell he might even just google it and adapt someone elses. Then, he'll vehemently defend his "opinion", drag the thread off topic and borderline troll the forum. After a while of wiggling like a worm through other people's well articulated arguments, he'll soon give in and say something along the lines of:

"Fair Enough, I just thought X but see your point".

Sully

AdMMM wrote: »

If I was Sully, I'd have banned myself by now.

I make a living by noticing patterns and I've spotted one here. Sully "contributes" to every topic, regardless of what it's about and decides on an opinion to have, hell he might even just google it and adapt someone elses. Then, he'll vehemently defend his "opinion", drag the thread off topic and borderline troll the forum. After a while of wiggling like a worm through other people's well articulated arguments, he'll soon give in and say something along the lines of:

"Fair Enough, I just thought X but see your point".

Excellent Post AdMMM. What took you so long to have another dig? It has been sometime, I must say. Nice to see your continuing to drag the thread "off topic" though.

takola

Right to be honest I'm sick of looking at this. Everyone stop throwing digs at each other. Stop derailing threads with arguments. Get back on topic.

lugha

Sully wrote: »

I blame how these people are brought up also and the environment they live in.

True, solicitors will often wheel out the harsh life / upbringing line a defense which presumably is effective or they wouldn't do it.

The odd thing is that in other cases solicitors will wheel out the line that their clients are members of families who are upstanding members of the community which presumably is also effective.

So in summary, if you come from a respectable family then you can appeal to the judge for allowances to be made. And if you do not come from a respectable family then .... you can appeal to the judge for allowances to be made!

So why not ......

Sully

lugha wrote: »

True, solicitors will often wheel out the harsh life / upbringing line a defense which presumably is effective or they wouldn't do it.

The odd thing is that in other cases solicitors will wheel out the line that their clients are members of families who are upstanding members of the community which presumably is also effective.

The way I see it, and this happens in all walks of life - if you come from a very rough family and are acting the prat vs. if you come from a very respectable family and are acting the prat - the family with the cleaner record will get a more lenient punishment.

So in summary, if you come from a respectable family then you can appeal to the judge for allowances to be made. And if you do not come from a respectable family then .... you can appeal to the judge for allowances to be made!

So why not ......

I think if you have had a "rough upbringing" it shouldn't matter. Id love to know why this is taken into consideration - what's wrong is wrong at the end of the day.

lugha

Sully wrote: »

I think if you have had a "rough upbringing" it shouldn't matter. Id love to know why this is taken into consideration - what's wrong is wrong at the end of the day.

Absolutely agree. Ultimately we must all be responsible for our actions. And while you can make some argument for an individual having little control over the environment and influences which impacted on their upbringing (although I emphasise I do not accept this as an excuse for antisocial behaviour) the argument that an individual was intoxicated at the time of their transgression is in no way a mitigating factor for me. I am infuriated when looking at court reports in the local papers at how often I see the defending solicitor bring up the role played by alcohol in their client's wrong doing. Personally if I was a judge (and God willing some day ...:p) I would actually increase the punishment on such defendants.

Simple guide: If you cannot behave civilly when you drink then do not drink!

But my essential point was that coming from an iffy background is a mitigating factor and coming from a respectable background is a mitigating factor. So why not discard an indivual's background altogether?

Sully

lugha wrote: »

Absolutely agree. Ultimately we must all be responsible for our actions. And while you can make some argument for an individual having little control over the environment and influences which impacted on their upbringing (although I emphasise I do not accept this as an excuse for antisocial behaviour) the argument that an individual was intoxicated at the time of their transgression is in no way a mitigating factor for me. I am infuriated when looking at court reports in the local papers at how often I see the defending solicitor bring up the role played by alcohol in their client's wrong doing. Personally if I was a judge (and God willing some day ...:p) I would actually increase the punishment on such defendants.

Simple guide: If you cannot behave civilly when you drink then do not drink!

I think in some cases, like a person with mental health or a person on tablets that has been drinking with them (where its known to have a negative effect) then such an excuse can be made. I don't like your everyday scumbag with a long history of abuse using these excuses each time and getting away with it. Its just not on.

But my essential point was that coming from an iffy background is a mitigating factor and coming from a respectable background is a mitigating factor. So why not discard an indivual's background altogether?

Well, if you were an excellent citizen with a clean record and very well respected in the community - wouldn't you want that taken into consideration if you were up for a crime you were genuinely sorry about? The system works, but in the wrong way at times. Excuses within reason is how I see it, rather then none at all. Why should people who continuously break the law have an excuse each time? There previous conviction should be taken into consideration when giving a tough sentence/ruling.

lugha

Sully wrote: »

Well, if you were an excellent citizen with a clean record and very well respected in the community - wouldn't you want that taken into consideration if you were up for a crime you were genuinely sorry about?

Fine if the argument put forward is that the defendant themselves have previously been upstanding citizens. But often the argument put is that their family rather that are well respected in the community. It is this that I have some problems with. No court would tolerate the public prosecution presenting as evidence the fact that a defendant hails from a family with a bad reputation but in a sense this is what is happening. If hailing from a respectable family is a positive in your defense then not hailing from one is necessarily a negative.

Sully

lugha wrote: »

Fine if the argument put forward is that the defendant themselves have previously been upstanding citizens. But often the argument put is that their family rather that are well respected in the community. It is this that I have some problems with. No court would tolerate the public prosecution presenting as evidence the fact that a defendant hails from a family with a bad reputation but in a sense this is what is happening. If hailing from a respectable family is a positive in your defense then not hailing from one is necessarily a negative.

Agreed. Its time the courts system had a radical overhaul, to address these problems like in the article. Personally, I see no benefit in beating up a blind man while robbing him as he cant see you to identify you. If that was me, and I had gone of my head on cannabis or drink I would be apologising constantly to the injured party and to the courts. There would be no innocent plea from me either.

Elle Victorine

My god what a scumbag! I really hope he gets everything that's coming to him in this case.

dlofnep

It's doubtful Elle, but we hope so too.

Elle Victorine

I guess it's all you can do. If he gets off for that drugs thing there's somethin wrong with this country. They're just giving people a window.