**WHACK** Take that **SMACK**

utick

Magdalena Jealous Vial wrote: »

Guaranteed a civil case will be brought against the shop owner

there's money to be had

Super Sidious

Every year before christmas theres a raid on jewelers like Dawsons... I'm delighted to hear they finally got some revenge this year!

Attempted Armed robbery... nice few years in the joy to think about where they went wrong in life!

!_Brian_!

Sweet justice! Good man Jewellary Store Owner!

junkyard

Magdalena Jealous Vial wrote: »

Guaranteed a civil case will be brought against the shop owner

Not a hope, robber would be torn to pieces by the public, people have had enough of being robbed by scum and are willing to make a stand nowadays, enough is enough. Our government should take note too, you can only keep robbing people to a point, more and more people are willing to make a stand now.

Calibos

FFS. My father who never threw a punch in his life ended up rolling around on the floor boxing the head off an attempted robber. I used an newsworthy piece of sporting equipment I happened to have at my feet to send a gun toting(turned out to be a starting pistol) thug and his mate running after I knocked the gun into my fathers hands (he's gone on to become a MR Big and suspected multiple murderer since then). I've wrestled with a druggy who had a knife to my brothers throat during an attempted robbery. All 'Attempted' Robberies mind.

Do I get public adulation? My arse. Stories never made it further than page 10 of the local rag. Instead I have to make myself look like an attention whore on boards. FFS

The good that came of those events was that I found out what I was made of. I have never been in a fight in my life. I worried that the adrenaline hit I used to get when 3 or 4 13yo scangers came in was a bad sign. ie. Jaysus, if these little scrotes get me all edgy, I'll be a gibbering wreck if anything serious ever happened. Well turned out when it came to it, it was Fight not Flight and rather than the resulting adrenaline hit turning my legs to jelly it made me capable of things I thought I wasn't capable of. Pretty happy with my mental state after these events too. ie. No post traumatic stress which was a relief. We soft spoken, wouldn't hurt a fly lads were relieved that we were able to get over it within minutes with a Holy F#%$ and a laugh. Even my bro who had the knife to his throat who is a more sensitive guy than even me and who I thought might take it badly was smiling and laughing with the customers 90 seconds later... Yeah, the customers who walked in the door literally within seconds of the attempt robbery, stepped over the shelves that had been knocked all over the floor in the struggle and without any comment on what may have happened, asked....."A 4 euro quickpick please". WTF like!!! Talk about being in their own little world!!

Mark200

Agent J wrote: »

Well done that man.

And the other people who assisted.

Now they need to change the law so that there should never even be a question of someone like that shop keeper being charged.

I think the law has some stupid line that " If you have a chance to retreat and dont this will be considered aganist you".

Personally i think that unless it is a very literal "It was them or me" anything short of intentionally killing them is relative fair game.

If you break in to someone elses place to harm or steal you forfeit your rights.

Actually the requirement to retreat only applies if you are out in the street or something like that. If you are in your own property and presumably work place too then there is no requirement to retreat.

I don't understand the whole criticism of the self defence laws. Even some people saying they hope the robber dies, and others replying saying they hope he doesn't so the owner won't get in trouble. FFS. Since when is there, or should there be, a death penalty for robbery?!?! And the fact that no trigger was ever pulled by any of the three robbers shows that they probably never had any intent to use their weapons.

Yes they clearly intended to rob some stuff... but lets face it, a Jewellers set up in the middle of town most likely had insurance and would have lost very little financially from the robbery (obv this means the insurance company would have lost a bit but they probably wouldn't miss it all that much).

If the owner used excessive force against the criminals then 100% he should be prosecuted. It's great (or stupid) to stand up to scumbags like that but why should anyone except an inpartial court decide what the criminal's punishment is? We have a justice system for a reason. And we also have no punishments that involve beatings for a reason. If all the force he used was necessary to stop the robbery and protect his wife then good. But if he had the robber well under control and continued to inflict serious injuries on the guy then he is breaking the law, and should be prosecuted.

Calibos wrote: »

Do I get public adulation? My arse. Stories never made it further than page 10 of the local rag. Instead I have to make myself look like an attention whore on boards. FFS

In my opinion you are an attention whore. You should keep your good deeds to yourself instead of running to boast about them on an internet forum

Swizz

I thought this thread was something to do with fapping to Take That

FML

Calibos

Hence, the self depracation at the end of the post Mark
just wanted to point out that not everyone bends over to take it up the arse from these scumbags

asdasd

How were the two fellas who legged it cowards for doing so? What else were they supposed to do? Wait for the cops to show up and fight their way out of it? The objective of armed robbery is actually to get away with the robbery.

Well they went into a shop armed to the teeth, seized a woman, and demanded some cash or jewellery.

All was going swimmingly for them until the (no doubt) middle aged owner clocked one of the lads and they fled like girls.

Bugger all to do with the police coming. The alarm had just been raised.

Dyr

Let's not forget the oft invoked mantra in AH that violence solves nothing

violence solves plenty, and it solves it good.

az2wp0sye65487

Mark200 wrote: »

Actually the requirement to retreat only applies if you are out in the street or something like that. If you are in your own property and presumably work place too then there is no requirement to retreat.

I don't understand the whole criticism of the self defence laws. Even some people saying they hope the robber dies, and others replying saying they hope he doesn't so the owner won't get in trouble. FFS. Since when is there, or should there be, a death penalty for robbery?!?! And the fact that no trigger was ever pulled by any of the three robbers shows that they probably never had any intent to use their weapons.

Yes they clearly intended to rob some stuff... but lets face it, a Jewellers set up in the middle of town most likely had insurance and would have lost very little financially from the robbery (obv this means the insurance company would have lost a bit but they probably wouldn't miss it all that much).

If the owner used excessive force against the criminals then 100% he should be prosecuted. It's great (or stupid) to stand up to scumbags like that but why should anyone except an inpartial court decide what the criminal's punishment is? We have a justice system for a reason. And we also have no punishments that involve beatings for a reason. If all the force he used was necessary to stop the robbery and protect his wife then good. But if he had the robber well under control and continued to inflict serious injuries on the guy then he is breaking the law, and should be prosecuted.



In my opinion you are an attention whore. You should keep your good deeds to yourself instead of running to boast about them on an internet forum

What a silly post. Firstly, if they never intended shooting anyone why was the shotgun loaded?

The owner didn't deserve what happened, nobody needs scumbags like that coming into their property and threatening the lives of people there. Even if the owner did use excessive force, it's the robber's own fault for putting himself in that situation in the first place!

If the owner managed to disarm & subdue the robber; and then smacked him over the head a few times, he was probably taking out his anger & frustration (that the robber caused by the way) on him in the heat of the moment. Good enough for him anyway. Scumbag.


On a lighter note, did anyone else hear this on the news yesterday and then think "Jaysus; Steven Seagal ownes a jewellers on Dawson St" - or was that just me?!?!

fitz0

Mark200 wrote: »

And the fact that no trigger was ever pulled by any of the three robbers shows that they probably never had any intent to use their weapons.

WTF? That is an incredibly naive statement. The fact was they had weapons. Regardless of intent to use them or not they threatened peoples lives with weapons, whether their threats were genuine or not makes so little difference it doesn't even matter. No matter what their intent, the shopkeeper was more than justified in grievously injuring them on the basis that they had weapons and threatened his life.

Mark200 wrote: »

Yes they clearly intended to rob some stuff... but lets face it, a Jewellers set up in the middle of town most likely had insurance and would have lost very little financially from the robbery (obv this means the insurance company would have lost a bit but they probably wouldn't miss it all that much).

Is that intended as some sort of excuse for what they did? "Oh, its ok he set up shop in the more prosperous area of the city, he should expect to be robbed." What a ridiculous suggestion! And why does an insurance company deserve to lose the money? Because they won't miss it? Ah sure why doesn't everyone do it then, they won't mind all their money being taken by lowlifes.

That shopkeeper worked hard to make his shop prosperous, or his father did, or the previous owner; somebody worked hard to build that insurance company, but those cretins that tried to rob him are the lowest of the low, taking money they don't have any right to, money that they didn't earn and don't deserve.

Mark200 wrote: »

We have a justice system for a reason. And we also have no punishments that involve beatings for a reason. If all the force he used was necessary to stop the robbery and protect his wife then good.

Yes we do have a justice system for reason, to lock up the scum that takes another mans hard earned money just because they can. A bully is a bully no matter if they're a kid beating up another kid, or a man with a gun holding up a shop.

In the defense of ones life you can't stop to think about your attacker, or assess the potential of a future civil suit. You hit hard and fast because you won't get another chance. Lethal force is, IMO, justified when somebody shoves a gun in your face.

az2wp0sye65487

fitz0 wrote: »

Lethal force is, IMO, justified when somebody shoves a gun in your face.

Here here

480905

Its the attitude of people like this Mark person that has this country in the State its in. I'm waiting for the "Society has failed them so its not their fault they have to rob shops with guns to make a living , its our fault and we should help them see the error of their ways" defence from him and his ilk. If you carry a gun ,you are deemed prepared to use it. I wonder whats his opinion on the latest Tiger kidnapping case where a shot was fired , was it the wifes fault for trying to defend herself and her family????? Sure the nice kidnapper never meant to shoot his gun. He had it for decoration and would only shoot the bad wife if she tried not to let the nice kidnapper hurt her or her family????? Wake the F##K UP.

Agent J

Mark200 wrote: »

Actually the requirement to retreat only applies if you are out in the street or something like that. If you are in your own property and presumably work place too then there is no requirement to retreat.

Incorrect

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/enact/pub0026sec0020.html#zza26y1997s20

Non Fatal offences aganist the persons act 1997 section 20 paragraph 4

You might do well to actually read what i said. I never said anything about a death sentence for a robbery.

Anything to subdue the person short of intentionally killing someone in that situation is relative fair game to my mind. Personally if a threat of lethal force is used aganist anyone in a robbery then even that is up for debate. At that point it is now beyond a simple robbery

The point about insurance is missing the point entirely. Its the principle of the matter.

nlgbbbblth

MagicMarker wrote: »

I can't help but think the shop owner is an idiot who put his wife and himself in even more danger, seeing as the 'robbers' had a shotgun!

But I'd still buy him a pint.

His wife was already in danger before he intervened.

It's quite possible the robbers intended to shoot her when they pointed the gun at her. Maybe that's why he got stuck in.

480905 wrote: »

Its the attitude of people like this Mark person that has this country in the State its in. I'm waiting for the "Society has failed them so its not their fault they have to rob shops with guns to make a living , its our fault and we should help them see the error of their ways" defence from him and his ilk. If you carry a gun ,you are deemed prepared to use it. I wonder whats his opinion on the latest Tiger kidnapping case where a shot was fired , was it the wifes fault for trying to defend herself and her family????? Sure the nice kidnapper never meant to shoot his gun. He had it for decoration and would only shoot the bad wife if she tried not to let the nice kidnapper hurt her or her family????? Wake the F##K UP.

At a guess I'd say Mark200 thinks the bank "could afford to lose it". Maybe he condones tiger kidnappings given that the victims are evil bank officials who are entirely to blame for the recession.

:rolleyes:

It's quite possible that a civil case may be brought against the jeweller but surely the salt of the earth will be charged for attempted robbery.

Agent J

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/hero-jeweller-grabs-raiders-loaded-shotgun-and-foils-heist-1936644.html

Actually. If and i stress the words IF the seqeunece of events as laid out in the independant are true then it seems the shop owner only reacted after one of them grabbed his wife by the neck. The robbery was already in progess and stuff was been taken.

IF that is the case then it seems like something just snapped in him and he reacted.IT is very easy to sit back as keyboard warriors and theorise about what he should have done etc but until you are facing down the situation you dont know what you will do in that spilt second.

I think he was prepared to let the robbery happen but once they made an overt threat to his wife he took them down on pure instinct. Again before anyone jumps at this one this is personal view based on current information available.

F**king scum got what they deserved.

Pacing Mule

Mark200 wrote: »

And the fact that no trigger was ever pulled by any of the three robbers shows that they probably never had any intent to use their weapons.

Yes they clearly intended to rob some stuff... but lets face it, a Jewellers set up in the middle of town most likely had insurance and would have lost very little financially from the robbery (obv this means the insurance company would have lost a bit but they probably wouldn't miss it all that much).

Are you for real ???????

Jesus Christ - another sure they had insurance argument. FFS obviously if the insurance co loses on a regular basis this is reflected in higher insurance premiums for EVERYONE. I'm ****ing delighted that the owner did what he did and I can assure you first idiot who comes in my door with a shotgun will have it rammed up his ass with no lubricant.

Mark200

Agent J wrote: »

Incorrect

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/enact/pub0026sec0020.html#zza26y1997s20

Non Fatal offences aganist the persons act 1997 section 20 paragraph 4

You might do well to actually read what i said. I never said anything about a death sentence for a robbery.

Anything to subdue the person short of intentionally killing someone in that situation is relative fair game to my mind. Personally if a threat of lethal force is used aganist anyone in a robbery then even that is up for debate. At that point it is now beyond a simple robbery

The point about insurance is missing the point entirely. Its the principle of the matter.

Actually what I said is true as I have taken a Criminal Law course and was told directly that the requirement to retreat does not apply if you are in your own property. Obviously it's not stated in that part of law that you linked to, but a huge amount of the law is enforced based on previous court decisions and interpretations.

And when I mentioned the death penalty I was referring to the fact that people in this topic implied that killing the robber, even when the robber no longer posed a threat, was ok due to the crime he committed.

In fact, section 18 states that force is justifiable to protect property:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/sec0018.html#zza26y1997s18

fitz0 wrote: »

WTF? That is an incredibly naive statement. The fact was they had weapons. Regardless of intent to use them or not they threatened peoples lives with weapons, whether their threats were genuine or not makes so little difference it doesn't even matter. No matter what their intent, the shopkeeper was more than justified in grievously injuring them on the basis that they had weapons and threatened his life.


Is that intended as some sort of excuse for what they did? "Oh, its ok he set up shop in the more prosperous area of the city, he should expect to be robbed." What a ridiculous suggestion! And why does an insurance company deserve to lose the money? Because they won't miss it? Ah sure why doesn't everyone do it then, they won't mind all their money being taken by lowlifes.

That shopkeeper worked hard to make his shop prosperous, or his father did, or the previous owner; somebody worked hard to build that insurance company, but those cretins that tried to rob him are the lowest of the low, taking money they don't have any right to, money that they didn't earn and don't deserve.



Yes we do have a justice system for reason, to lock up the scum that takes another mans hard earned money just because they can. A bully is a bully no matter if they're a kid beating up another kid, or a man with a gun holding up a shop.

In the defense of ones life you can't stop to think about your attacker, or assess the potential of a future civil suit. You hit hard and fast because you won't get another chance. Lethal force is, IMO, justified when somebody shoves a gun in your face.

You've taken everything I've said out of context.

"Is that intended as some sort of excuse for what they did?"

No, and I never implied that it was.

" And why does an insurance company deserve to lose the money?"

When did I say that they deserved to lose the money?? I simply made the insurance company point based on the impression I got that a lot of people seemed to be reacting with the image that these thieves were taking all the possessions some corner shop guy has. I was simply point out that it wouldn't have been the end of the world for him, or the end of the business for him. And no one 'deserves' to lose the money, but the chances are that the payout or the suffering in the grand scheme of things probably wouldn't have been the big deal that people seem to be implying.

"Yes we do have a justice system for reason, to lock up the scum that takes another mans hard earned money just because they can. A bully is a bully no matter if they're a kid beating up another kid, or a man with a gun holding up a shop. "

Exactly my point. They deserve to be locked up. They are scum. But regardless of what anyone has done we do not have a death penalty in Ireland therefore if someone has a robber completely under their control then it is not ok for someone to kill them. I don't see the big deal with me saying that. I'm not for one second claiming that the owner did anything wrong, and I wasn't talking about him. I was simply responding to all the comments in this topic that definitely implied that very few people would care if the owner killed the robber even in the event that the robber was under the owner's complete control.

"In the defense of ones life you can't stop to think about your attacker, or assess the potential of a future civil suit. You hit hard and fast because you won't get another chance. Lethal force is, IMO, justified when somebody shoves a gun in your face."

Again, you've ignored the point I made in the post:

"If the owner used excessive force against the criminals then 100% he should be prosecuted. "

As I said, I was never claiming that the owner did anything wrong. I was simply pointing out that it's not right for somoeone to be killed when they're under complete control and they no longer pose a danger to anyone. But while they do pose a danger then yes of course do everything you can to get rid of that danger.

Agent J

Mark200 wrote: »

Actually what I said is true as I have taken a Criminal Law course and was told directly that the requirement to retreat does not apply if you are in your own property. Obviously it's not stated in that part of law that you linked to, but a huge amount of the law is enforced based on previous court decisions and interpretations.

In fact, section 18 states that force is justifiable to protect property:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/sec0018.html#zza26y1997s18

1) Read the 1st line of the section i quoted.

For the benifit of everyone else
" 20.—(1) For the purposes of sections 18 and 19— "

So you've just vaildated the counter point i made to you orignally.

2)Precedent based law

Any 1st year law student will tell you that precdent does not have to be followed. There is no actual requirment of a court to actually use a previous ruling even though it might be often the case.

3)Castle Doctrine

The only reference i have found about not retreating on your property is if you are in your own home. And as far as i make out that is precedent based only. ie There is no actual law beyond court rulings because the woefully inadequate 1997 act is supposed to cover it.

You should probably think about asking your money back for that law course.

Mark200

Agent J wrote: »

The only reference i have found about not retreating on your property is if you are in your own home. And as far as i make out that is precedent based only. ie There is no actual law beyond court rulings because the woefully inadequate 1997 act is supposed to cover it.

You should probably think about asking your money back for that law course.

I said I was only presuming that if it applied to your own property that it applied to workplace (as I assumed that the man in question owned the shop therefore making it his property).

Precedent is very rarely not followed unless it is controversial.

And as I said, I don't know if it in law or not (it's quite possible that there is a law that followed the one you linked to) but the person in question who did the course was extremely qualified in law. I took it as an extra subject in University along with my main course.

asdasd

and I can assure you first idiot who comes in my door with a shotgun will have it rammed up his ass with no lubricant.

Good man.

However as far as I can understand from the Legal Eagles on this thread you can possibly do that but do not pull the trigger.

That would be excessive force.

Agent J

Mark200 wrote: »

And as I said, I don't know if it in law or not (it's quite possible that there is a law that followed the one you linked to) but the person in question who did the course was extremely qualified in law. I took it as an extra subject in University along with my main course.

Ok, Just stop digging. There is no law beyond the 1997 one. This is the whole problem with it.(The whole McNally case was around that one)

And quit appealling to authority of something you heard from some guy.

Get me hard data you can cite and link me to.

asdasd

So AJ, what was the case prior to 1997 - common law i.e precedent only?

Mark200

Agent J wrote: »

Ok, Just stop digging. There is no law beyond the 1997 one. This is the whole problem with it.(The whole McNally case was around that one)

And quit appealling to authority of something you heard from some guy.

Get me hard data you can cite and link me to.

Case after case the main points used by lawyers to promote their cause is citing previous cases and rulings, arguing that their case is similar and thus the same ruling must be given.

Anyway, I can't believe you're taking this so seriously and I'm actually rooting out my list of cases etc, but here:

DPP V Barnes [2006]

Selected quotes from the case report:

There are consequences of the special status of the dwellinghouse and of its importance to the human dignity of its occupants. Amongst the most relevant of these is that, as has been held by the Courts of Common Law for centuries, a person in his dwellinghouse can never, in law, be under an obligation to leave it, to retreat from it or to abandon it to the burglar or other aggressor.

It is, in our view, quite inconsistent with the constitutional doctrine of the inviolability of a dwellinghouse that a householder or other lawful occupant could be ever be under a legal obligation to flee the dwellinghouse or, as it might be put in more contemporary language, to retreat from it.

And that ruling was from the Court of Criminal Appeal.

So it's quite clear that it's a principle in Common Law that there is no necessity to retreat in your own home. And principles of common law are very rarely if ever violated, because they are the principles upon which all laws are deemed to operate. It also makes reference to the constitution and implies that it is quite clear that it can be interpreted that the right to defend yourself in your property is in the constitution.

And it'd appear that my presumption of a workplace counting as a property where retreat is not necessary would be wrong.

Agent J

This isn't serious. I havent needed to crack a book or do actual research(Pretty sure that would be aganist AH rules anyway...)

I just dislike people making unfounded statements and then using very poor arguements to back them up.Then trying to correct me with an even poorer counter point (which was dismissed on the first line of my orignal point!)

You got it wrong? There is no shame in that. Just say that instead of trying to dance around it.

That entire post you when through is probably what i had been told was "Castle Doctrine". Grand. No major arguement in that one however it is conflicting with the 1997 law which is why we need another one to clarify the whole thing.

Also to the poster about pre 1997 laws? No idea to be honest..
Normally there is a list in the act about what previous law it is repealling but a quick look doesnt reveal anything.

Mark200

Agent J wrote: »

This isn't serious. I havent needed to crack a book or do actual research(Pretty sure that would be aganist AH rules anyway...)

I just dislike people making unfounded statements and then using very poor arguements to back them up.Then trying to correct me with an even poorer counter point (which was dismissed on the first line of my orignal point!)

You got it wrong? There is no shame in that. Just say that instead of trying to dance around it.

That entire post you when through is probably what i had been told was "Castle Doctrine". Grand. No major arguement in that one however it is conflicting with the 1997 law which is why we need another one to clarify the whole thing.

Also to the poster about pre 1997 laws? No idea to be honest..
Normally there is a list in the act about what previous law it is repealling but a quick look doesnt reveal anything.

I didn't make a single unfounded statement to claim a fact. I pointed out my 'presumption' in my first post. I never 'danced around' being wrong about that, as it was quite obvious we were talking about the home itself rather than the workplace which you refused to accept until I got "hard data you can cite and link me to."

And I didn't make any poor arguments because I wasn't making arguments or points, I was just throwing out possibilities as to why you may have missed the fact that there is no obligation to retreat from your house.

And in response to your other post, no, I won't be asking for my money back from that law course.

Agent J

Mark200 wrote: »

I didn't make a single unfounded statement to claim a fact. I pointed out my 'presumption' in my first post. I never 'danced around' being wrong about that, as it was quite obvious we were talking about the home itself rather than the workplace which you refused to accept until I got "hard data you can cite and link me to."

And I didn't make any poor arguments because I wasn't making arguments or points, I was just throwing out possibilities as to why you may have missed the fact that there is no obligation to retreat from your house.

And in response to your other post, no, I won't be asking for my money back from that law course.

Hope that college course didnt include anything on debating either.

The_B_Man

Heres an update anyway. Not sure if its been posted:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1109/dawson.html

Agent J

The_B_Man wrote: »

Heres an update anyway. Not sure if its been posted:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1109/dawson.html

Thats werid. The radio reported that the 2 men had been refused bail but RTE says doesnt confirm that.

3rd guy is still in hospital. Excuse me while my heart bleeds for him.

(I'm going to hell for this thought.)
Maybe transfer him to the Hospital which has a superbug outbreak. No sense in risking decent patients in places like that.