Bail granted to man who hijacked car with 3 kids WTF

bigpink

:eek::eek::eek:
http://www.live95fm.ie/news/news-item/bail-granted-to-man-charged-with-hijacking-a-car-on-the-northside-of-the-city/41d372ca-cad9-4280-820e-fc22daad37d7

pwd

Was he pulled out of the car when he was arrested? Or was he picked up later? It doesn't say in the text.

If it's the latter, then there might be the possibility that he is innocent, so imprisoning him for months until the case is heard would be a bad thing to do.

Personally I think firing a gun at a car containing children is even worse than stealing a car containing children. Were the children still in the car when it was shot at? Were the guards aware that there might have been children in it? If not, then why weren't they aware of it?

RonMexico

What do you expect, the judiciary live in cloud cuckoo land.

Berty

Two kids were thrown out of the car at Woodview and the smaller child was put out on the side of the road further away. Nobody, other than the scumbag, was in the car when the ASU arrived.

Bail.............well presumably its granted because it could be months before the hearing could be and they dont have space to fit them in.

Take the Opera centre and turn that into a prison.

bigpink

pwd wrote: »

Was he pulled out of the car when he was arrested? Or was he picked up later? It doesn't say in the text.

If it's the latter, then there might be the possibility that he is innocent, so imprisoning him for months until the case is heard would be a bad thing to do.

Personally I think firing a gun at a car containing children is even worse than stealing a car containing children. Were the children still in the car when it was shot at? Were the guards aware that there might have been children in it? If not, then why weren't they aware of it?

You seem to have sympathy with scum

Im sure the guards were told there was 3 kids in the car when they were rang

knockon

pwd wrote: »

Was he pulled out of the car when he was arrested? Or was he picked up later? It doesn't say in the text.

If it's the latter, then there might be the possibility that he is innocent, so imprisoning him for months until the case is heard would be a bad thing to do.

Personally I think firing a gun at a car containing children is even worse than stealing a car containing children. Were the children still in the car when it was shot at? Were the guards aware that there might have been children in it? If not, then why weren't they aware of it?

Are you for real there John Devane?

Itsdacraic

pwd wrote: »

Was he pulled out of the car when he was arrested? Or was he picked up later? It doesn't say in the text.

If it's the latter, then there might be the possibility that he is innocent, so imprisoning him for months until the case is heard would be a bad thing to do.

Personally I think firing a gun at a car containing children is even worse than stealing a car containing children. Were the children still in the car when it was shot at? Were the guards aware that there might have been children in it? If not, then why weren't they aware of it?

If you know nothing about the case don't bother commenting

445279.ie

It says in the report that he was charged with hijacking the car - this offence does not exist. Therefore he was probably charged with unlawfully taking the car which in itself is not serious enough to deny bail.

Just let me say, I know what happened and it was bad and all but the Judge can only deal with the charge before him.

If and when further charges are preferred, then I'm sure that bail will be revoked.

pwd

bigpink wrote: »

You seem to have sympathy with scum

Im sure the guards were told there was 3 kids in the car when they were rang

I have no sympathy with scum. In my opinion shooting at a car containing children makes you scum.
But that is beside the point.
The point is - do you know that this person, whom you are so keen to see put in prison, has done anything at all.
You can't tell anything from that article anyway. Only that he is charged with something that provokes an emotive response. A major major problem is that people believe their emotive responses rather than logic far too much of the time.

cursai

pwd wrote: »

I have no sympathy with scum. In my opinion shooting at a car containing children makes you scum.
But that is beside the point.
The point is - do you know that this person, whom you are so keen to see put in prison, has done anything at all.
Ylou can't tell anything from that article anyway. Only that he is charged with something that provokes an emototive response. A major major problem is that people believe their emotive responses rather than logic far too much of the time.

???????? SOOOOO much anger!!!!

LambsEye

Das Limerick Citay?











Also. Scummers.

DOC09UNAM

The mother should never have left her kids in the car with the engine running and the keys there for the world to see.

chucken1

pwd wrote: »

I have no sympathy with scum. In my opinion shooting at a car containing children makes you scum.
But that is beside the point.
The point is - do you know that this person , whom you are so keen to see put in prison, has done anything at all.
You can't tell anything from that article anyway. Only that he is charged with something that provokes an emotive response. A major major problem is that people believe their emotive responses rather than logic far too much of the time.

Why was this "person" wearing a bullet proof vest at the time of his arrest? Dont give me sh!te about what hes charged with. We're all sick of these scum.

Itsdacraic

pwd wrote: »

I have no sympathy with scum. In my opinion shooting at a car containing children makes you scum.
But that is beside the point.
The point is - do you know that this person, whom you are so keen to see put in prison, has done anything at all.
You can't tell anything from that article anyway. Only that he is charged with something that provokes an emotive response. A major major problem is that people believe their emotive responses rather than logic far too much of the time.

Charges weren't pressed based on that article. It was well reported at the time that the suspect was arrested at the scene wearing a bullet proof vest, but hey, if your somebody who would prefer to use the kidnapping of 3 young kids to further some petty vendetta against the guards then there is no talking to you.

Kess73

pwd wrote: »

I have no sympathy with scum. In my opinion shooting at a car containing children makes you scum.But that is beside the point.
The point is - do you know that this person, whom you are so keen to see put in prison, has done anything at all.
You can't tell anything from that article anyway. Only that he is charged with something that provokes an emotive response. A major major problem is that people believe their emotive responses rather than logic far too much of the time.

The gardai did not shoot at a car containing three children.

The children were all safe at that point, and the person, who was alone at that point, driving in the car was trying to ram the car into gardai when the car was shot to stop it.

All that information was given out in the official garda statement after the event, and is still available online.

Conor Bourke

pwd wrote: »

I have no sympathy with scum. In my opinion shooting at a car containing children makes you scum.
But that is beside the point.
The point is - do you know that this person, whom you are so keen to see put in prison, has done anything at all.
You can't tell anything from that article anyway. Only that he is charged with something that provokes an emotive response. A major major problem is that people believe their emotive responses rather than logic far too much of the time.

Get your facts right- the children were NOT in the car when the shots were fired.

My logical response to what I've read and heard regarding this case is this:
The person who has been charged with this offence had a string of previous convictions and should still be in prison but was given early release.
Logic dictates that a career criminal such as this man has not repented or reformed on foot of his previous experiences of the disciplinary system and therefore does not deserve leniency.

pwd

I was asking questions. My basic point is that you should question things tbh. It's interesting that taking such a position seems to incur a hostile response with things like this (regardless of whether there are answers or not). I didn't introduce anything as fact.
But the exchange goes roughly like this:

-Were the kids in the car when shots were fired? Did the guards know?
--I'm sure they were told kids were in the car
-Only scum would fire a gun at a car containing kids
--The kids weren't there! Get your facts right!

or

-You can't tell much from that article about what really happened.
--Why was he wearing a bulletproof vest huh?

I didn't know that he was . Asking me a question about it seems strange then. Perhaps the following would have been better: "Well there's additional information out there that does seem incriminating. For example, he was wearing a bulletproof vest." Then you could have gone on to explain how this is incriminating.
[You should play that game where you have to answer every question with another question. You would be good at that.]

That's ignoring the "this information is available online" response. Most information is available online tbh. The internet is pretty massive really. The vast majority of what will be asked about on boards is information available online. Perhaps the original post is redundant because it is already available online.

I dont have a "petty vendetta aganst the guards". wtf like. I tried to demonstrate double standards of posters here and people in general, and I said that it's scummy when it was suggested they were firing upon children. Not sure where you get a "petty vendetta" from Sorry for criticising your post - I hope you dont feel I have a "petty vendetta" against you. Honestly I dont even remember whose post it is that I'm referring to, if that's reassuring?

zuroph

pwd wrote: »

I was asking questions. My basic point is that you should question things tbh. It's interesting that taking such a position seems to incur a hostile response with things like this (regardless of whether there are answers or not). I didn't introduce anything as fact.
But the exchange goes roughly like this:

-Were the kids in the car when shots were fired? Did the guards know?
--I'm sure they were told kids were in the car
-Only scum would fire a gun at a car containing kids
--The kids weren't there! Get your facts right!

or

-You can't tell much from that article about what really happened.
--Why was he wearing a bulletproof vest huh?

I didn't know that he was . Asking me a question about it seems strange then. Perhaps the following would have been better: "Well there's additional information out there that does seem incriminating. For example, he was wearing a bulletproof vest." Then you could have gone on to explain how this is incriminating.
[You should play that game where you have to answer every question with another question. You would be good at that.]

That's ignoring the "this information is available online" response. Most information is available online tbh. The internet is pretty massive really. The vast majority of what will be asked about on boards is information available online. Perhaps the original post is redundant because it is already available online.

I dont have a "petty vendetta aganst the guards". wtf like. I tried to demonstrate double standards of posters here and people in general, and I said that it's scummy when it was suggested they were firing upon children. Not sure where you get a "petty vendetta" from Sorry for criticising your post - I hope you dont feel I have a "petty vendetta" against you. Honestly I dont even remember whose post it is that I'm referring to, if that's reassuring?

throwing rocks at babies is also a scummy thing to do. It also has NOTHING to do with this case. To even introduce the argument that "shooting at a car full of kids is wrong" is ridiculous, it has nothing to do with this case, and has never been thought to be, by anyone other than yourself apparently. Its easily accessed info.

gaf1983

Did he try to ram the guards' car too, the fúcking rat?

kilburn

Not a legal expert but surely he could be charged with false imprisonment of the third kid even if it was only for a few minutes. That poor kids life is f**ked up now by this scumbag. Pity we voted out the death penalty in recent years as I for one would be ready and waiting with my hand on the lever to "Roll on Three" for most of the scumbags filling our prisons.