16 year old GIRL shot dead in Tallaght

billymitchell

Duffff-Man wrote: »

I doubt very much she was the intended target, but why would you let your 16 year old child hang around with scumbags. It's always going to end bad either way.

Who says she was "let" hang out with scumbags?? I dont have kids, but I'd imagine its pretty difficult to stop a child doing anything once they go outside the walls of the family home.

Although, in saying that, if a child is brought up right, you would hope they would have the cop on not to hang out with scumbags.

But then again, we dont even know if the people she was in the car with were scumbags.

ntlbell

Seachmall wrote: »

Eh, yes it is.

No it's not.

The validity of the killing came from the gun man.

The desired result was to escape with the least risk of been caught in the future.

The logical thing to do at this point was to kill the plumber.

The right's and wrongs legalities we can decide but not the validity of the action.

Slippin Jimmy

Stark wrote: »

Where does it say she was hanging with scumbags? The knackers probably mistook their car for a similar looking one.

How do you know they were knackers? They think it was a fued, so they knew exactly who they were after.

ntlbell

EnterNow wrote: »

In that case, saying the plumber was shot for a reason, implies he was in some way shape of form involved in something he shouldn't have been.

He was an innocent victim, & was shot for no valid reason. Murdering him to prevent identification of the assassin is not a valid reason in my book. It's just downright disgusting.

but your book or opinion is irrelevant here.

So all this talk of disgusting an OTT responses is nonsensical.

You're getting too emotional.

Bruthal

Seachmall wrote: »

Which is probably why nobody said it was a valid reason.

It was said its not for us to decide of it was a valid reason or not (plumber). Not a lot better than saying it is valid really.

Seachmall

ntlbell wrote: »

The right's and wrongs legalities we can decide but not the validity of the action.

The validity of the action in a moral sense is for us to decide.
The validity of the action in a legal sense if for us to decide.
The validity of the action in a practical sense is for the gun man to decide, and I'm not questioning the fact 0 witnesses are better than 1.

ntlbell

Seachmall wrote: »

The validity of the action in a moral sense is for us to decide.
The validity of the action in a legal sense if for us to decide.
The validity of the action in a practical sense is for the gun man to decide, and I'm not questioning the fact 0 witnesses are better than 1.

So you agree then.

Good lad.

Stark

You're really distracting from the point here. The "shot for a reason" thing wasn't brought into this thread for the purposes of starting an intellectual discussion on killer motives, it was brought up to imply that the girl was a scumbag who got what was coming to her.

Myrddin

Seachmall wrote: »

The validity of the action in a moral sense is for us to decide.
The validity of the action in a legal sense if for us to decide.
The validity of the action in a practical sense is for the gun man to decide, and I'm not questioning the fact 0 witnesses are better than 1.

I hate to tell you, that unless your privy to all the facts, your fit to decide nothing.

ntlbell

robbie7730 wrote: »

It was said its not for us to decide of it was a valid reason or not (plumber). Not a lot better than saying it is valid really.

you keep playing on specific words.

The simple fact that was been made right from the start is this.

If you get shot in Ireland, it is highly likely but not always you did something to instigate the action.

In this particular case we don't know if that was the case but in general in these cases that is true.

So why is the assumption so horrible today? because it was a 16yr old girl?

if it was a 25yr old man from jobstown would you be so quick to defend him?

my arse you would.

Seachmall

ntlbell wrote: »

So you agree then.

Good lad.

Perhaps next time you could word your posts better so as to avoid any confusion.

Good lad.

EnterNow wrote:

I hate to tell you, that unless your privy to all the facts, your fit to decide nothing.

Are you suggesting it's better to have 1 witness than 0? From the gunman's perspective, obviously.

lippy11

Apparently it was a case of mistaken identity..
And seems to be the result of feuding families. (Just heard it on the radio)

So, so sad.... Taking a persons life seems to be the solution to all feuds nowadays.

Stark

Duffff-Man wrote: »

How do you know they were knackers? They think it was a fued, so they knew exactly who they were after.

The words "traveller feud" were a bit of a give away.

Myrddin

ntlbell wrote: »

So why is the assumption so horrible today? because it was a 16yr old girl?

if it was a 25yr old man from jobstown would you be so quick to defend him?

my arse you would.

This is true & I'm guilty of this myself, I've no problem holding my hands up there. I've tried to distance myself from the innate, ingrained Irish cynicism that we can all hold dear, & you'd be surprised how much preconceptions can be wrong. Now I try to view all situations with an open mind.

The man who knows everything cannot be educated

Myrddin

Seachmall wrote: »

Are you suggesting it's better to have 1 witness than 0? From the gunman's perspective, obviously.

What I'm suggesting, is that taking an innocent mans life to protect a murderer, is wrong from where I look at it. If you want to empathize with the gunman go ahead, I'll look at it from the plumbers family's perspective.

ntlbell

EnterNow wrote: »

This is true & I'm guilty of this myself, I've no problem holding my hands up there. I've tried to distance myself from the innate, ingrained Irish cynicism that we can all hold dear, & you'd be surprised how much preconceptions can be wrong. Now I try to view all situations with an open mind.

The man who knows everything cannot be educated

The man who thinks he knows everything will learn nothing

Bruthal

ntlbell wrote: »

So why is the assumption so horrible today? because it was a 16yr old girl?

if it was a 25yr old man from jobstown would you be so quick to defend him?

my arse you would.

I would if he was shown to be an innocent man going about his normal daily life and he was being mentioned in this thread.

stovelid

I note with interest that the only way to avoid a deluge of spiteful generalizations about you based on your social, gender and class background is to get shot.

Myrddin

ntlbell wrote: »

The man who thinks he knows everything will learn nothing

Depends on your perspective

Slippin Jimmy

Stark wrote: »

The words "traveller feud" were a bit of a give away.

Taveller fued, not knacker fued. Call them by their proper title.

Seachmall

Duffff-Man wrote: »

Taveller fued, not knacker fued. Call them by their proper title.

They shot and killed an innocent 16 year old girl.

I think "knacker" is an appropriate title.

EnterNow wrote:

What I'm suggesting, is that taking an innocent mans life to protect a murderer, is wrong from where I look at it. If you want to empathize with the gunman go ahead, I'll look at it from the plumbers family's perspective.

Next time try to comprehend the post before responding with an irrelevant accusation.

skregs

Duffff-Man wrote: »

Taveller fued, not knacker fued.

Would you **** off, they're knackers

Slippin Jimmy

Seachmall wrote: »

They shot and killed an innocent 16 year old girl.

I think "knacker" is an appropriate title.

Next time try to comprehend the post before responding with an irrelevant accusation.

No its a derogatory name. They "believe" it may have been part of a fued among the travelling community.

Slippin Jimmy

skregs wrote: »

Would you **** off, they're knackers

Where you there? Did you see that they were travellers? There's nothing concrete to say they were or weren't.

Seachmall

Duffff-Man wrote: »

No its a derogatory name. They "believe" it may have been part of a fued among the travelling community.

It is a derogatory term.

One these child killers are fully deserving of.

Did you see that they were travellers?

Travellers or not is irrelevant.

They're scumbag knackers. They opened fire into a car on a public street killing a 16 year old.

Stark

Duffff-Man wrote:

Where you there? Did you see that they were travellers? There's nothing concrete to say they were or weren't.

A Garda report is a lot more solid than your baseless assumption that the girl was in a car full of scumbags.

mikemac1

Young Dublin man from inner city flats shot in Finglas
Young working apprentice plumber shot by gang

It's the exact same story but each headline brings up completely different assumptions

And this thread is nothing but speculation and assumptions, some of you seem to know more then the gardai about what the plan was and all about the driver

Thread should be locked imo

Slippin Jimmy

Stark wrote: »

A Garda report is a lot more solid than your baseless assumption that the girl was in a car full of scumbags.

They weren't shot at for no reason. And they "believe" it might have been part of a feud among travellers. Not confirmed.

Guy:Incognito

Sykk wrote: »

Regardless.. She was a Child... You didn't get up to no good as a teenager? Cop yourself on.

I did, but nothing close to anythign that would get me shot.

KeithM89_old

Easily one of the worst threads iv seen in AH in a long time.

RIP to the poor girl,
Locked