Teenager attacked by teen in custody of HSE

G.muny

monica22 wrote: »

Sorry about ur brother that's terrible! yeah I'm not a robot having my nose broke twice in work isn't worth it And it wasn't the job I signed up for but on other days I lik it have remain positive

Yeh, I don't think alot of men will ever understand the sheer terror of being a women and being confronted with a violent man and releasing how utterly helpless you are in that situation when it comes to even considering a phsyical rebuital. Its an awful feeling and and one I know I wouldn't willingly put myself in if I could help it and I admire anyone who does your kind of work as I know how short staffed that sector is and about some of the circumstances you are expected to just be able to deal with.

irelandrover

Duggy747 wrote: »

Jesus Christ, 3rd bloody time I have to post this goddamn paragraph to get it through your skulls:



He assualted another teen which, presumably, resulted in him being left in the HSE's care in the first place.

Can't you people read at all before shooting off your mouths.

That states that he was handed over the same day as he physically assaulted somone. Presumably the person he assaulted was after he had been handed over to the HSE, so there is still no evidence to show he was previously violent.

Seachmall

monica22 wrote: »

Alot of kids who come into care don't have disorders that allows them to come into care don't work lik that

Are there no restrictions on what children can be placed into voluntary care? Or can children be placed into voluntary care at the whim of their parents?

MagicMarker

monica22 wrote: »

That's a 5 year old child you asked me about and not a 17 year old! the guidelines of TCI is you cant restrain in public also you cant restrain a teenager who bigger than you or under the influence of drugs or alcohol! our hands r tied alot hence my argument

Dear god..

Can you direct me to these policies that mention you should not try and restrain someone who is bigger than you? Because it sounds like the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.

Leftist

Brendog wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous. Usually I'd take into consideration, "Oh they're in care they must've been through some hard times as a child"

Seriously? 4 minutes kicking someone is bad enough but seeing them motionless would be terrifying enough.

The standard of scum in this country is falling. Used to be they would stop once you're hurt. Now it seems attempted murder is the minimum..

Oh is it really, how often does this happen?

20 years ago a lunatic in a bowtie beat a woman to death with a hammer in a park and then killed a farmer. An elected official protected him.

So is there a graph for standards of scumbags please?

Stupid paddies and their hysterical over reactions to everything.

Leftist

fenris wrote: »

They could explore the moon for all it matters, they created a situation that resulted in permanent damage to a child. This shows a lack of judgement that questions their suitability and ability to ever be left in charge of vulnerable persons.

Rubbish.

Created this situation indeed.

If this 17yr old man decides to leave the car, in what capacity does the staff restrain him?

LETHAL LADY

Leftist wrote: »

Stupid paddies and their hysterical over reactions to everything.

Whats with all the stupid paddies and thick paddies comments. It negates any valid points you may have made.

Duggy747

irelandrover wrote: »

That states that he was handed over the same day as he physically assaulted somone. Presumably the person he assaulted was after he had been handed over to the HSE, so there is still no evidence to show he was previously violent.

Your post is contradictive.

So, after having being handed over to the HSE on the same day AFTER he supposedly viciously assualted someone he'd still be seen as harmless and it wouldn't be taken into consideration of his behaviour?

Leftist

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Whats with all the stupid paddies and thick paddies comments. It negates any valid points you may have made.

Because it's a very irish trait. Witch hunting and mob courts.

irelandrover

Duggy747 wrote: »

Your post is contradictive.

So, after having being handed over to the HSE on the same day AFTER he supposedly viciously assualted someone he'd still be seen as harmless?

He was handed over before he assaulted someone. The person he assaulted was the 16 year old person at the petrol station. That is the way I read it anyway.

Welruc

Leftist wrote: »

Stupid paddies and their hysterical over reactions to everything.

Care to explain this stupid comment

LETHAL LADY

Leftist wrote: »

Because it's a very irish trait. Witch hunting and mob courts.

Do you mind me asking are you Irish?

Duggy747

irelandrover wrote: »

He was handed over before he assaulted someone. The person he assaulted was the 16 year old person at the petrol station. That is the way I read it anyway.

His parents handed him over to the HSE's care on the same day he left another teen (not the teen at the petrol station) in a bad way. Presumably, he was handed over because of what he did that time (and probably of other things which this was the final straw for the parents)

Seachmall

Leftist wrote: »

Because it's a very irish trait. Witch hunting and mob courts.

It's not an Irish trait, every country practices it.

Hell, in America they've an entire political sphere that revolves around assigning blame.

They call them Republicans.

irelandrover

Duggy747 wrote: »

His parents handed him over to the HSE's care on the same day he left another teen (not the teen at the petrol station) in a bad way. Presumably, he was handed over because of what he did that time (and probably of other things which this was the final straw for the parents)

The Irish Independent has learned that Adam Fitzgibbon (18) had been handed over to the HSE's care by his parents on the same day he left another teenager fighting for his life following a sustained and brutal assault.

This is what the article states.
If he was handed over by his family at 12:00 and assaulted another at 14:00 then this is still true. I see no evidence that he assaulted somone before being handed over.

The part in bold seems an assumption on your part as I cannot find anywhere that says this

Seachmall

irelandrover wrote: »

The Irish Independent has learned that Adam Fitzgibbon (18) had been handed over to the HSE's care by his parents on the same day he left another teenager fighting for his life following a sustained and brutal assault.

This is what the article states.
If he was handed over by his family at 12:00 and assaulted another at 14:00 then this is still true. I see no evidence that he assaulted somone before being handed over.

"The Irish Independent has learned that Adam Fitzgibbon (18) had been handed over to the HSE's care by his parents on the same day he left another teenager fighting for his life following a sustained and brutal assault."

Could either mean a teenager other than himself or a teenager other than the mentioned victim.

Bad writing on the Indo's part, somewhat ambiguous.


Edit - But if it was a different victim I'm sure there would've been more info on it.

Leftist

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Do you mind me asking are you Irish?

What does it matter? are you offended?

Yes the blame culture exists everywhere but in ireland it is hysterical. It's joe duffy. It's people who have no idea on the matter, reconstructing the entire story in their mind from assumptions and preconceptions and rushing to find a scapegoat and demanding severe retribution asap. It's a knee jerk tit for tat culture.

Welruc

Seachmall wrote: »

"The Irish Independent has learned that Adam Fitzgibbon (18) had been handed over to the HSE's care by his parents on the same day he left another teenager fighting for his life following a sustained and brutal assault."

Could either mean a teenager other than himself or a teenager other than the mentioned victim.

Bad writing on the Indo's part, somewhat ambiguous.


Edit - But if it was a different victim I'm sure there would've been more info on it.

I think the "another teenager" is in reference to the victim

Leftist

Seachmall wrote: »

"The Irish Independent has learned that Adam Fitzgibbon (18) had been handed over to the HSE's care by his parents on the same day he left another teenager fighting for his life following a sustained and brutal assault."

Could either mean a teenager other than himself or a teenager other than the mentioned victim.

Bad writing on the Indo's part, somewhat ambiguous.


Edit - But if it was a different victim I'm sure there would've been more info on it.

Agreed. If the indo did not intend to suggest that this youth assaulted another person prior to this event then there will be a lot of morons on this thread with red faces.

Their whole argument is based on the principal that this citizen, not prisoner, was to be considered a threat to civilians.

Seachmall

Leftist wrote: »

What does it matter? are you offended?

Yes the blame culture exists everywhere but in ireland it is hysterical. It's joe duffy. It's people who have no idea on the matter, reconstructing the entire story in their mind from assumptions and preconceptions and rushing to find a scapegoat and demanding severe retribution asap. It's a knee jerk tit for tat culture.

Yeah, obviously an exclusively Irish trait...

LETHAL LADY

Leftist wrote: »

What does it matter? are you offended?

Yes the blame culture exists everywhere but in ireland it is hysterical. It's joe duffy. It's people who have no idea on the matter, reconstructing the entire story in their mind from assumptions and preconceptions and rushing to find a scapegoat and demanding severe retribution asap. It's a knee jerk tit for tat culture.

Nope Im not that easily offended but are you Irish?.

Welruc

Leftist wrote: »

Agreed. If the indo did not intend to suggest that this youth assaulted another person prior to this event then there will be a lot of morons on this thread with red faces.

Their whole argument is based on the principal that this citizen, not prisoner, was to be considered a threat to civilians.

If someone does not agree with you does that make them a moron?

My argument is that the hse staff did not due their job by allowing this assault to happen, regardless if they had knoweledge that the person in their care was violent or not

Leftist

Seachmall wrote: »

Yeah, obviously an exclusively Irish trait...

Thanks Seachers but the Tea Party are an eccentric right wing political body. That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to tabloid over reaction to problems. If it was based ina right wing philosophy it would still be more advanced than just 'sure dere all scumbags'. 'De scumbags are takin over' and 'dis is the fault of the scumbags' Lock them up Joe.

Seachmall

Leftist wrote: »

Their whole argument is based on the principal that this citizen, not prisoner, was to be considered a threat to civilians.

That's not true at all.

That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to tabloid over reaction to problems.

Tabloid over-reactions are Irish traits now?!

If it was based ina right wing philosophy it would still be more advanced than just 'sure dere all scumbags'. 'De scumbags are takin over' and 'dis is the fault of the scumbags' Lock them up Joe.

Yeah, the only part Irish about that is the Joe reference.

irelandrover

Leftist wrote: »

Agreed. If the indo did not intend to suggest that this youth assaulted another person prior to this event then there will be a lot of morons on this thread with red faces.

Their whole argument is based on the principal that this citizen, not prisoner, was to be considered a threat to civilians.

Why are people morons if they believe that a youth, under the care of two HSE professionels, should not have 5 minutes to jump up and down on another youths head causing permanent brain damage?

Leftist

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Nope Im not that easily offended but are you Irish?.

Why?

deuceswild wrote: »

If someone does not agree with you does that make them a moron?

My argument is that the hse staff did not due their job by allowing this assault to happen, regardless if they had knoweledge that the person in their care was violent or not

If you were to be in charge of a person who was far stronger than you, and they attacked another person. What would you do?

Would you assault them? I would like to think I would.

I would not ask a female to tackle a violent 17yr old.

Few pages back a moron suggested that it is impossible to blame management for this issue.

In my opinion, IF now that's a big IF, this patient was deemed a threat, then he should not have been put in the custody of people who could not be physically trusted to deal with him.

IF he was not deemed a threat, then the care workers are immediatly resolved of any blame.

LETHAL LADY

Leftist wrote: »

Why?


If you were to be in charge of a person who was far stronger than you, and they attacked another person. What would you do?

Would you assault them? I would like to think I would.

I would not ask a female to tackle a violent 17yr old.

Few pages back a moron suggested that it is impossible to blame management for this issue.

In my opinion, IF now that's a big IF, this patient was deemed a threat, then he should not be been put in the custody of people who could not be physically trusted to deal with him.

IF he was not deemed a threat, then the care workers are immediatly resolved of any blame.

Out of curiosity more than anything, as I said you have made valid points, but calling posters thick paddies seems like you are trying to offend rather than debate thats all really.

Seachmall

Leftist wrote: »

IF he was not deemed a threat, then the care workers are immediatly resolved of any blame.

Are they or are they not responsible for the minor in their care?

LETHALLADY wrote:

but calling posters thick paddies seems like you are trying to offend rather than debate thats all really.

He's being condescending in an attempt to elevate himself above Irish people by throwing out comments like that and assigning various negative social traits as exclusively Irish and making the point that they don't apply to him.

It's not everyday you see it but's not new either. Nor is it exclusively Irish.

ROCKMAN

Do people really believe that this young man just appeared on the radar at 17 years of age ,Really ..
Before any family hand over the whole thing would have been planned out with family /social worker meetings etc taking place, HSE would have had staff meetings with reports ,risk assessments , plan of actions etc all been discussed ,

DonkeyStyle \o/

stankratz wrote: »

IIt is scary to think that this can happen in broad daylight in a public space, so much for the age-old 'safety in numbers' theory.

It is scary, and it's what people like the 16 year old will have to deal with on top of their physical injuries.
Safety in public is a load of arse, unless you get very lucky.
On the other hand safety in numbers would have applied had the 16 year old had some friends with him... which I think is what the spirit of 'safety in numbers' is more about.

Bullseye1

This maybe the reality but it's a disappointing one. How could you face the parents of the child who is now dead or seriously injured and say I was afraid to intervene. I accept that maybe a number of men maybe more capable of intervening but women are more than capable in groups to overpower this guy. It might mean a broken nose or other injury but surely it's worth it to save a life.

G.muny wrote: »

I feel awful for the poor 16 yr old but I can understand people not stepping in. They were probaly afraid. I know if I were there unless someone else came with me I wouldn't have but thats because I am a girl who weighs all of 8 stone but even the men there.

You are witnessing what appears to be someone who is capable of murder do just that and you are suspected to intervene? Yeh if a group of two or more of them if the men went chances are they could have stopped him but that means there has to be one of them that initates this plan and puts themself forward and its everybodies basic instinct to protect themselves and their wellbeing above all else. Yes there are the few that in moments like that just act and are far more herioc than the rest of us, but that takes a certain type of person and most of us just don't have it in is. Its not due to be unconcerned its just self preservation.

Leftist

Seachmall wrote: »

Are they or are they not responsible for the minor in their care?

Yes of course.

The question is where does this responsibility reach.

I do not believe they have the right to refuse this person access to the shop.

There are two factors I am reading from the Joe Duffy brigade.

A) he should not have been allowed out of the vehicle on his own

I think this has been dealt with previously. He was not under arrest. He could not be refused access to the shop.

The staff should have interjected into the assault and physically restrained him

In the case that both staff are presumed Female, I would not ask that from them.

I think the entire thing was absolutely horrific and tragic. The patient should be locked away from society and that is that.

Seachmall

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Do people really believe that this young man just appeared on the radar at 17 years of age ,Really ..
Before any family hand over the whole thing would have been planned out with family /social worker meetings etc taking place, HSE would have had staff meetings with reports ,risk assessments , plan of actions etc all been discussed ,

Also, he attacked the teenager as he mistakenly believed him to have been involved in getting his friend sentenced to life. So we can safely assume he didn't hang around or grow up with Nobel peace prize winners.

Leftist wrote:

Yes of course.

And if a minor they are responsible for runs away, injures themselves or injures others does that not qualify as a failing on their behalf in assuming responsibility for that minor?

If no, then what is the point of assuming responsibility for the minor or taking them into care?

Leftist wrote:

He could not be refused access to the shop.

Actually, he could be. They are essentially his legal guardian, they can refuse him as any legal guardian could.

ROCKMAN

Leftist wrote: »

Yes of course.

The question is where does this responsibility reach.

I do not believe they have the right to refuse this person access to the shop.

There are two factors I am reading from the Joe Duffy brigade.

A) he should not have been allowed out of the vehicle on his own

I think this has been dealt with previously. He was not under arrest. He could not be refused access to the shop.

Shouldn't he have been accompanied and keep under supervision at all times.

The staff should have interjected into the assault and physically restrained him

(I don't know if they tried ) but a verbal interjection could have stopped the assault sooner ,

In the case that both staff are presumed Female, I would not ask that from them.

I think the entire thing was absolutely horrific and tragic. The patient should be locked away from society and that is that.

,

Leftist

Seachmall wrote: »

And if a minor they are responsible for runs away, injures themselves or injures others does that not qualify as a failing on their behalf in assuming responsibility for that minor?

He was in their guardianship. If your juvenile son/daughter attacks someone, you are not held responsible by the law.

Seachmall wrote: »

Actually, he could be. They are essentially his legal guardian, they can refuse him as any legal guardian could.

No, they can demand but they cannot legally refuse. If a 17yr old walks away from a parent that parent can only punish them.

fenris

Leftist wrote: »

Rubbish.

Created this situation indeed.

If this 17yr old man decides to leave the car, in what capacity does the staff restrain him?

1. they accepted responsibility for him - they could have refused if they felt unable to cope.
2. they stopped the car when and where he asked - they could have said no and driven to the nearest Garda station.
3. use the child locks on the back door, or does that need a special course?
4. they stood idly by and watched another victim of the HSE being created.

dr.bollocko

Mod:
Leftist banned. Abuse.

Seachmall

Leftist wrote: »

He was in their guardianship. If your juvenile son/daughter attacks someone, you are not held responsible by the law.

Who mentioned the law?

No, they can demand but they cannot legally refuse.

Of course they can.

flanders1979

So many if these little scuts are carrying knives these days that I find easy to imagine why people were slow to step in.

monica22

MagicMarker wrote: »

monica22 wrote: »

That's a 5 year old child you asked me about and not a 17 year old! the guidelines of TCI is you cant restrain in public also you cant restrain a teenager who bigger than you or under the influence of drugs or alcohol! our hands r tied alot hence my argument

Dear god..

Can you direct me to these policies that mention you should not try and restrain someone who is bigger than you? Because it sounds like the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.

Its not the biggest load of crap ring and get a copy of the tci handbook for our job the material we work off ain't put on Internet u cant get a tci book the internet to read

monica22

Leftist wrote: »

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Nope Im not that easily offended but are you Irish?.

Why?

deuceswild wrote: »

If someone does not agree with you does that make them a moron?

My argument is that the hse staff did not due their job by allowing this assault to happen, regardless if they had knoweledge that the person in their care was violent or not

If you were to be in charge of a person who was far stronger than you, and they attacked another person. What would you do?

Would you assault them? I would like to think I would.

I would not ask a female to tackle a violent 17yr old.

Few pages back a moron suggested that it is impossible to blame management for this issue.

In my opinion, IF now that's a big IF, this patient was deemed a threat, then he should not have been put in the custody of people who could not be physically trusted to deal with him.

IF he was not deemed a threat, then the care workers are immediatly resolved of any blame.

It's not a metal institution there not patients

monica22

G.muny wrote: »

monica22 wrote: »

Sorry about ur brother that's terrible! yeah I'm not a robot having my nose broke twice in work isn't worth it And it wasn't the job I signed up for but on other days I lik it have remain positive

Yeh, I don't think alot of men will ever understand the sheer terror of being a women and being confronted with a violent man and releasing how utterly helpless you are in that situation when it comes to even considering a phsyical rebuital. Its an awful feeling and and one I know I wouldn't willingly put myself in if I could help it and I admire anyone who does your kind of work as I know how short staffed that sector is and about some of the circumstances you are expected to just be able to deal with.

Thanks felt I been attacked by people I agree things need to change in the area big time

Straight Talker

I read about that in yesterday's paper.I can't believe that 11 people passed by without intervening.12 years is nothing that poor lad's life is destroyed.God forgive me for saying this but if that was me id prefer to die or see a loved one die rather than seeing them live like some vegetable for the rest of their life.It's just shocking all he was doing was waiting for a lift.

ROCKMAN

monica22 wrote: »

Thanks felt I been attacked by people I agree things need to change in the area big time

Yes the system is broke and has been for a long time but its the in-actions (if proven )of the 2 assigned care workers that is upsetting people ,
Ok physical intervention am not have been a option ,
But their presence (proper supervision ie accompaning him to the shop ) and a verbal intervention may have resolved the situation quicker with less damage to the victim .
As i stated earlier this young person would have been know at 17 .
There would have being previous home visits ,case reviews and reports that any plan of action meeting would have included before this horrible event took place.

investment

This is how little **** bags should be handled;)

I would love to kick that scumbags head in.....he would want to watch himself when he gets out of prison

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSJBUNOG8kw

woodoo

That is truly shocking. I hope the little thug gets his rectum destroyed in prison.

It would prob have been better all round if he had been aborted 18 years ago.

Sheeps

How were there 11 eye witnesses who did nothing to help the poor kid? This is the kind of **** that happens in China, like the baby that got run over and lay dying on the street as witnesses stepped over it. ****ing ridiculous. Also, the social workers should be sacked.

MagicSean

Awful lot of Internet warriors here. I'd be willing to bet none of them have ever been in a situation involving extreme violence. It takes a lot to act in situations like that. There's a lot of fear and shock to overcome.

Sheeps

MagicSean wrote: »

Awful lot of Internet warriors here. I'd be willing to bet none of them have ever been in a situation involving extreme violence. It takes a lot to act in situations like that. There's a lot of fear and shock to overcome.

I'd imagine most people would jump in and save a kid being beaten up, but thanks for telling everyone that you're the kind of person who wouldn't, I guess.

tararose

Monica can I say I am not sure how you lasted 8 years in residential care. I am working in high support residential care a year with the best providers of residential care in Ireland. It is clear that you would not intervene had you been in that situation. Can I ask what you would have done had you been in the situation whereby this young man had an incident back at the unit and there happened to be a risk to his safety and your fellow colleague? You would have been obliged to carry out a restraint. I am only 8 stone yet I have had to restrain young men who are lot heavier and taller than me an I can do because I have been trained to so as have you so I am not accepting that as an excuse. You say social care workers are not permitted to use restrain in public places.....BULL****!! I think all TCI protocols go out the window when there is a young man being kicked to death. I don't think a social care worker will get a pat on the back just because they abided by TCI protocols. They had to skills and training to restrain him and they should have because if this incident happened back at the unit with another young person living there then you would be required to intervene. At my TCI training my trainer told of an incident where two social care staff where carrying a young person in care in the back of the car on the motorway and had to pull the car over due to his unsafe behaviour. This young person absconded and found his way up on to the bridge over the motorway where he attempted to throw stones at cars passing by beneath him. This obviously could have cause serious injury a driver or passengers. The staff had to make the decision to restrain him even though this was a public place. These two staff were highly commended for their brave decision. TCI is not to be use in public places as it is distressing and highly shameful for the young person. All I can say is if I was in that situation that a young innocent boys life takes superiority over the distress or embarrassment my client may endure.