'Psychotic boyfriend kicked, punched and threw my baby around like he was a toy'

KamiKazeKitten

Sick, sick sick man, he deserves far worse than what he got imo.

goose2005

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Well if he isn't given any treatment and subjected to beatings he is likely to be worse. Given that the best solution would be simply to kill him . Wounder what the people who would dish out such punishments are going to be like.

The chances are he was subjected to beatings when younger too. He is most likely a victim himself. People will say that is some hippy liberal thought but with a few exceptions violent people are generally from violent back grounds.

You might as well complain Chineese people should speak English without ever being given any education.

Exactly. He probably will kill himself, whether in prison or afterwards, not just because of the guilt but because he has strong tendencies for violent, impulsive rage.

Johnny D. Mudd wrote: »

Well such a heinous crime usually brings out the vengeful wish for bloodshed in some and while I can understand such a visceral to what is a horrifying story, violence in return is certainly not the answer. What is the answer however is a much stiffer sentence for a psychotic madman who clearly has no concept of empathy. Just looking at that degenerate, you can tell just how much of a gormless, waster, scobie that scumbag is and he was never going to be anything more than a labourer at best.

3 years is clearly not nearly enough for an attack on a helpless infant who will no doubt suffer serious consequences as a result of this abuse. It seems like this violence took place over a period of time too which begs the question, why didn't the mother do something if the baby was in danger there? Still rat-faced bastard should not be on the streets until he is at least in his late 40's for what is a startling run of attacks on an infant.

A ****ing infant for ****'s sake!!!!

Seriously!?!

What's the betting that the child in question will be the subject of several future AH threads?

2020: "Toerags throwing eggs at cars"
2025: "Scumbag kid robs pensioner"
2030: "Absolute scummer, 20 previous convictions, headbutts teacher"
2035: "Junkie bastard kills 3; send him to moon prison colony"

And so the cycle is complete.

A lot of people are beyond help and permanent psychiatric prisons are too expensive for the state to pay for for them; so they're just put out there for the rest of us to deal with.

frozenfrozen

I went to primary school with that fcuk. He was a bastard then from a **** family and is still a bastard today. Got in a fight with his brother when I was about 9 and had to apologise to this **** and his brothers for speaking my mind about their family. Look who was right, I should have strangled the whole family. Filth.

woodoo

Justice hasn't been served here. I hope he gets killed in prison.

Potatoeman

Julie London wrote: »

This is Ireland people. we live here. How can this happen. I tell you why because we live in a country of liberals, we have no justice here.

Ireland is not a liberal country. We have a mammy state because people seem to think we can't be trusted.

Einhard

Julie London wrote: »

Beacause the system we have now is not working. do you think 3 years is justice? no its not therefore we have an extremely flawed system. He deserves numerous beatings. and he will get it in prison if there is any justice.

LOL ah yes, prison justice, the best kind of justice!

Superwhy

seamus wrote: »

He wasn't making a statement, just asking a question.

It's fair question, Connors being a popular traveller surname.

Of course, whether he's a traveller or not is utterly irrelevant, though it would shed more light on why the child's mother allowed the abuse to continue for 3 weeks.

How is hi being a Traveller irrelevant but it would explain the mothers actions? And how would him being a Traveller or her being a Traveller have anything to do with her allowing child abuse??

Pacifist Pigeon

"Connors has a very poor level of education. He comes from a very dysfunctional family background. . .

"It is not an excuse for this kind of conduct."

He added: "He realises that he is going to prison and hopes that this will be the first step on the road to recovery for him."

"Road to recovery for him" ... ? Wow! Not one word of apology or care for the recovery or welfare of the child. At the behest of political correctness, I don't think I'd begin to describe the things I'd do to this nutcase if he crossed my path. This subhuman fiend should never be allowed to tread on free soil again.

Sean Bateman

A shocking crime.

The 3 year sentence is farcical.

He should have been jailed for at least 10 years.

Personally, I'd like to see him serve at least 10 years in jail and be chemically castrated.

steddyeddy

AngryBollix wrote: »

Julie London wrote: »

do you have a child? i find it hard to believe your a parent. if he did it to my child ihe would not have got to court walking.

People say that. I guarantee you wouldnt lay a finger on him.

Why are you criticising people who want to hurt this man? Wanting to hurt a man who attacked a baby is human and perfectly understanable imo.

xii

http://www.independent.ie/multimedia/dynamic/01013/Larry-Connors_1013889t.jpg


Thick looking nacker to boot.

Quote from mother "at the height of the abuse" begs the question was there levels???

Parental vetting required me thinks.

Dudess

Fozzydog3 wrote: »

http://www.limerickpost.ie/index.php/navigation-mainmenu-30/local-news/3814-west-limerick-farmer-to-be-imprisoned-indefinitely.html

From the same judge, I use the term loosely

“People have to obey court orders, You are going to stay in prison until you purge your contempt”.

In my opinion he is as much as a danger to society as Larry Connors

The judge isn't an ultraviolent, child-abusing thug so I don't see how you'd come to that conclusion.

The bastard deserves to be sentenced to several years more in a maximum security facility - I cannot believe he will be just 23 when he gets out. But as said, a judge doesn't just decide a sentence arbitrarily - it's the law itself that's in need of an overhaul. Saying such a law is the result of liberal attitudes is just... lol. People who say that kinda stuff just pluck it from their holes. And what's the issue with letting the courts decide, as if there's an alternative? Vigilanteism would be kinda difficult when he's arrested and in custody.
I and others would not like a state to have the power to inflict violence (bar in self defence) because that is lowering itself to the level of the criminal, and there is the potential for it to be abused. There are crooked guards even without such an allowance. There is nothing "liberal" (derp) about that, it's just logic.
That said, I completely understand people saying they'd like the f'ucker to get a severe beating (torture though - no; how the hell do people dream that depraved stuff up?) and you don't need to be a parent to have that understanding. I'd also disagree it's as bad as what he did to the child - hardly. He's a young man, not a baby. And attacks on a small child are unprovoked. But while I wouldn't blame e.g. a member of the little boy's family carrying it out, they're emotionally involved, the state isn't. If someone went to prison for killing/assaulting a person who hurt their child, it would be further crap for the child, but it's understandable that their rage would get the better of them.
If he gets beatings from other criminals I wouldn't lose any sleep, but I do find that phenomenon rather ludicrous when the perpetrators are violent criminals themselves and taking on the role of "moral guardian". No doubt in a lot of those instances they're just pouncing on an excuse to be violent, and don't give a sh1t about the victim.
The word "psychotic" might not be meant literally - many of us use it just as a term for very violent. If he had a crap upbringing, it might have led to him turning out the way he did, but he's still totally responsible. I cannot fathom what stopped the mother from protecting her child. Even if she was in fear of him, could she not have left the home? It looks like she failed her son.

Dudess

drdeadlift wrote: »

AngryBollix wrote: »

People say that. I guarantee you wouldnt lay a finger on him.

So whats your solution,just tell him not to do it again?

Why, just because he disagrees with state violence, do you suggest that he'd therefore advocate the kid-gloves approach? It's not like there's only one or the other.

up for anything

Herb Powell wrote: »

It doesn't work. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
You would think that, logically, it would be a deterrent. But humans are not logical, especially the kinds who commit this kind of crime.

The nice part of the death sentence is that while it might not act a deterrent to others it stops the dead guy from killing more people in the future.

lastlaugh

Having a child brings a lot of stress aswell as happiness into a home.
Sleep deprivation, finacial difficulties, loss of 'freedom' to a certain extent can all bring stress.
If someone had a f*cked up childhood, like no affection shown to them, being physically or sexually abused, I think it would lead to creating a dangerous person to have in a stressful situation with an infant.
Maybe he couldn't handle the pressure and snapped.

Obviously, I am not in any way condoning what he did and he deserves a custodial sentence. But realistically, is a longer sentence benificial in any way besides locking him up for the sake of it?

If he gets councilling or something it would be 'better' for him, and he might one day have a remotely 'normal' relationship with his child.

The mother has a lot to answer for aswell though, she either should have left or got the Guards. Although she was probably afraid.

Some people should NOT be allowed to have children, it's too much for some people and unfair & dangerous for the children involved, and they'll probably grow up to be disturbed and f*cked up themselves.

Hootanany

Absolutly no excuse for that behavair 25 yrs min

LH Pathe

These guys can be avoided u know...

I could never do this.

Dudess

lastlaugh wrote: »

I am not in any way condoning what he did and he deserves a custodial sentence. But realistically, is a longer sentence benificial in any way besides locking him up for the sake of it?

Well obviously I've no insight into whether he can be reformed or not, but it's fair to say he's a dangerous piece of work, so locking him up for the safety of others, not merely for the sake of it, seems reasonable to me. I don't blame anyone who's not comfortable with the idea of him being back on the outside, simply because of what he's capable of.

The child isn't his btw.

ziggy23

That poor poor baby:mad::(
If somebody had locked themselves in a room with my child I'd be straight through that door before they could lay a finger on him. And yes he deserves a severe beating then to be locked up in prison or a pscychiatric unit for the rest of his life. He is obviously not right in the head.

Potential-Monke

To clear it up, once and for all, the reason it was 3 years is the following:

It was assault causing harm, which carries a maximum term of 7 years. He would have got near 7 years if he pleaded innocent and the whole case went to court. But, because he pleaded guilty, the sentence gets reduced for a number of reason, some of which being the admission itself, no need for an overlong and expensive court case, no interfering of other peoples lives, and no need for the victims to attend court to give evidence (which is very hard for some). It is an incentive for a guilty plea, and an incentive in general usually has a good return for doing something, in this case a reduced sentence.

This is covered by Section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999:

29.—(1) In determining what sentence to pass on a person who has pleaded guilty to an offence, other than an offence for which the sentence is fixed by law, a court, if it considers it appropriate to do so, shall take into account—

(a) the stage in the proceedings for the offence at which the person indicated an intention to plead guilty, and

(b) the circumstances in which this indication was given.

(2) To avoid doubt, it is hereby declared that subsection (1) shall not preclude a court from passing the maximum sentence prescribed by law for an offence if, notwithstanding the plea of guilty, the court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence which warrant the maximum sentence.

(3) In this section, “fixed by law”, in relation to a sentence for an offence, means a sentence which a court is required by law to impose on a person of full capacity who is guilty of the offence.

What bothers me, though, is subsection 2 of that Section, which allows the court to still give the full sentence if they were satisfied that there were "exceptional circumstances", which imo it did...

Odysseus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why are you criticising people who want to hurt this man? Wanting to hurt a man who attacked a baby is human and perfectly understanable imo.

Spot on, it is very human and understandable, the human psyche is very aggressive or non-pc. However, then coming on to a message board and and takling some utter sh!te like some posters have, that is a tad different. Would you not agree?

It different when I come into contact with people who have committed what I percieve as terrible acts, within work I still have to be professional and be respectful; yet I still have those thoughts and need to explore why. However, having the thoughts is one thing, coming on here and mouthing off as some not all people have is different. Some people merely experssed their opinions, others went a bridge too far imo. Between brain and mouth the interlocutor appears to be missing, or at least taking some time off.

Dudess

Potential-Monke wrote: »

To clear it up, once and for all, the reason it was 3 years is the following:

It was assault causing harm, which carries a maximum term of 7 years. He would have got near 7 years if he pleaded innocent and the whole case went to court. But, because he pleaded guilty, the sentence gets reduced for a number of reason, some of which being the admission itself, no need for an overlong and expensive court case, no interfering of other peoples lives, and no need for the victims to attend court to give evidence (which is very hard for some). It is an incentive for a guilty plea, and an incentive in general usually has a good return for doing something, in this case a reduced sentence.

This is covered by Section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999:

29.—(1) In determining what sentence to pass on a person who has pleaded guilty to an offence, other than an offence for which the sentence is fixed by law, a court, if it considers it appropriate to do so, shall take into account—

(a) the stage in the proceedings for the offence at which the person indicated an intention to plead guilty, and

(b) the circumstances in which this indication was given.

(2) To avoid doubt, it is hereby declared that subsection (1) shall not preclude a court from passing the maximum sentence prescribed by law for an offence if, notwithstanding the plea of guilty, the court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence which warrant the maximum sentence.

(3) In this section, “fixed by law”, in relation to a sentence for an offence, means a sentence which a court is required by law to impose on a person of full capacity who is guilty of the offence.

What bothers me, though, is subsection 2 of that Section, which allows the court to still give the full sentence if they were satisfied that there were "exceptional circumstances", which imo it did...

Wo... Rein in the carefully compiled legal mumbo jumbo! The mob has spoken - this sentence is light because Ireland is full of liberals!!! :mad:

And no evidence required Mr Law expert man. :cool:

LH Pathe

Honestly what could justify such an action.

.. What kind of toy?

lastlaugh

Dudess wrote: »

Well obviously I've no insight into whether he can be reformed or not, but it's fair to say he's a dangerous piece of work, so locking him up for the safety of others, not merely for the sake of it, seems reasonable to me. I don't blame anyone who's not comfortable with the idea of him being back on the outside, simply because of what he's capable of.

The child isn't his btw.

Oh OK, I re-read it there and it is indeed not his, probably didn't feel any kind of bond with the child.

There has to be some kind of mental disorder for someone to do anything like that.

Teagwee

Dudess wrote: »

I cannot fathom what stopped the mother from protecting her child. Even if she was in fear of him, could she not have left the home? It looks like she failed her son.

This is what gets to me and worries me most for the child and his future. Rather than the mother wanting to see 'justice done' after the event(s), surely a parent's first instinct is to protect the child and prevent harm in the here and now?

If someone (anyone) locked a door with my child behind it, no matter what their intentions, all my energies would be maniacally focused on getting my child out and to safety. I wouldn't be waiting around for any court or law enforcement to distribute justice on my behalf weeks/months later.

Then (and really only then) would I feel free and be justified in unleashing all the fires of hell on the perpetrator to save my baby. After the fact, keeping him locked up and away from other vulnerable children is the only civilised solution. I find it hard to believe, however, that he will ever be sufficiently rehabilitated - and no amount of punishment of any kind will change that

previous user

I'd say he's gonna get the sh*t beaten out of him in prison for what he's done, and that makes me feel delighted.

Melion

I wish people would stop giving out about the girl in question who was 16 at the time and was basically a prisoner in her own home at the hands of this cúnt. Its all very easy to sit here on our keyboards saying she should be ashamed to have let this continue for 3 weeks without having lived her life or seen how she was treated by him.

JP Liz V1

Was he the baby's daddy?

Not that it matters what he did was horrendous

Phoenix Park

previous user wrote: »

I'd say he's gonna get the sh*t beaten out of him in prison for what he's done, and that makes me feel delighted.

You're deluded if you think this actually happens. No one gives a fck inside.

as125634do

Hilarious alrite that whole mafia goodfellas bs rarely exists anymore. He got jail for assault he didnt kill the kid. Stop being a pack a vleedin heart pussies. If push came to shove the majority of u wud just ...have another baby if u lost one to violence and retaliation bs its just a pack of keyboard pussy warriors

Mod Note: Poster Banned.

Paparazzo

as125634do wrote: »

Hilarious alrite that whole mafia goodfellas bs rarely exists anymore. He got jail for assault he didnt kill the kid. Stop being a pack a vleedin heart pussies. If push came to shove the majority of u wud just ...have another baby if u lost one to violence and retaliation bs its just a pack of keyboard pussy warriors

I'd love to be a pussy warrior. Sounds great

Gophur

as125634do wrote: »

Hilarious alrite that whole mafia goodfellas bs rarely exists anymore. He got jail for assault he didnt kill the kid. Stop being a pack a vleedin heart pussies. If push came to shove the majority of u wud just ...have another baby if u lost one to violence and retaliation bs its just a pack of keyboard pussy warriors

My spell checker has just exploded!

What language was that?

thebigbiffo

as125634do wrote: »

Hilarious alrite that whole mafia goodfellas bs rarely exists anymore. He got jail for assault he didnt kill the kid. Stop being a pack a vleedin heart pussies. If push came to shove the majority of u wud just ...have another baby if u lost one to violence and retaliation bs its just a pack of keyboard pussy warriors

here troll away there horsebox but i'll tell ya this - anybody held an iron to my kids legs and they'll be getting a major kicking at the very least.

i find it fairly hilarious that people who generally accuse other people of being keyboard warriors are generally just being keyboard warriors themselves. you walk up to me and say that after somebody's badly hurt my kid and you know what? you're getting a 9 iron across your skull or being buried alongside the c'unt that did it in the first place.

liz2

ziggy23 wrote: »

That poor poor baby:mad::(
If somebody had locked themselves in a room with my child I'd be straight through that door before they could lay a finger on him.

plus 1 on that..
omg, i cant believe this, its shocking :mad:

lastlaugh

Gophur wrote: »

My spell checker has just exploded!

What language was that?

I think it is Troll speak.

The King of Moo

I hope the child doesn't suffer any permanent mental or physical injuries, and doesn't continue to live in a violent environment.
They've already suffered far more than any individual should in a lifetime.

I understand the emotional reactions to this, I feel the same way, but I'd never want the justice system to be based on such primal instincts.
Looked at in isolation, this case does seem to be a travesty of justice. But the maximum sentence this guy could've got within the system was seven years.
The judge should be questioned as to why he didn't consider exceptional circumstances to be involved and give the maximum sentence despite his guilty plea. However, I think most people would still see seven years as too lenient.

The difficulty is finding some way to allow for a stronger sentence to be passed for assault on an infant. Allowing judges to choose the sentence at their discretion would be disastrous and would lead to inconsistency and the possibility of abuse.
Having different punishments for assault on a child or an an adult might be easier to work, but that would still lead to some problematic grey areas such as whether a sentence should be higher for assault on an adult with a disability which makes them less able to defend themselves.
I'm guessing this is why it's easier for the law to focus on the actions of the criminal rather than the suffering of the victim as the basis of sentencing. It's more clear-cut and easier to legislate for.

In this case, the law does look like an ass, but unfortunately there will always be cases like this where a crime is particularly heinous but still falls within the bounds of a particular bracket of crimes which carry a punishment which seems too lenient.
Maybe some more legally-knowledgeable people here might know some ways in which things might legally have been arranged in this case to allow a heavier sentence to have been passed down?

Also, now that he's been sentenced, is there any way for the state's interest in Connors to extend beyond his three years in jail?
If he's assessed and found to be likely to reoffend in a similar manner, can he be placed within some kind of programme in which he's closely monitored and his access to children, for example, is restricted?
Or will he simply be released after three years and be pretty much completely free, regardless of assessments?

Calibos

as125634do wrote: »

Hilarious alrite that whole mafia goodfellas bs rarely exists anymore. He got jail for assault he didnt kill the kid. Stop being a pack a vleedin heart pussies. If push came to shove the majority of u wud just ...have another baby if u lost one to violence and retaliation bs its just a pack of keyboard pussy warriors

I am sure that is the reaction of most people alright. "Ah jaysus, someone broke dis one on me, I'll have te make a new one so....."

Wow, its taking all my willpower not to say something that would get me banned. :rolleyes:

Fozzydog3

Melion wrote: »

I wish people would stop giving out about the girl in question who was 16 at the time and was basically a prisoner in her own home at the hands of this cúnt. Its all very easy to sit here on our keyboards saying she should be ashamed to have let this continue for 3 weeks without having lived her life or seen how she was treated by him.

Sorry that excuse doesnt fly with me , every mother should put their children's safety before their own

Sanity_Saviour

AngryBollix wrote: »

Just expressing an opinion. Is that OK?

Right. So I saw this and thought: "What a humble post. Let's look for his learned opinion."

AngryBollix wrote: »

so your solution to assault is assault.

what happens to the child when you end up in jail too

It appears he is some sort of pacifist, protecting the innocent from unnecessary violence, what a nice man. Foregoing the unyielding and disgusting abuse to the child, maybe he will recover once he tells us his "opinion"

AngryBollix wrote: »

Do mothers these days always allow psychotics lock themselves in a room with their baby?

Ah. Due to noone biting for his last post, he proceeds to lambast the mother whilst not mentioning the violence yet. Still no sign of this "opinion".

AngryBollix wrote: »

It isnt. Its the same thing

So he is not the nice man I thought him to be. Apparently burning basically a breathing ragdoll with an iron is the same as assaulting scum for being scum due to scummy actions. Cute. Opinion: It'd be worse if it was an adult? I'm confused.

AngryBollix wrote: »

Hanging (the ultimate retribution) didnt work. What makes you think violence will?

When did he get hung?

AngryBollix wrote: »

I assume you'll be waiting for him when he's released. Prove your manliness to us all

But, you just said retribution doesn't work, seems a bit contradictory. Your your erudite "opinion" needs to be consistent no?

AngryBollix wrote: »

You dont condone vioence but you'd willingly paralyse someone.

Contradictory

Ah it all seems to be coming together, as he has ignored the rest of the post concerning children: Maybe he can't read? His opinion his now blurred due to his illiteracy.

AngryBollix wrote: »

People say that. I guarantee you wouldnt lay a finger on him.

Laying down a challenge? But you said violence wouldn't work?

AngryBollix wrote: »

I'm not a judge

Ah. It appears he cannot provide a real answer, his web of pure anger seems to be unravelling. When challenged Angrius Bollixus retreats back to his cave...

AngryBollix wrote: »

We know what a ten month old baby looks like

...only to return with this gem. Even though you're seemingly illiterate at least he can see pictures.

AngryBollix wrote: »

The Human race has never really left the cave has it? Whatever way you look at it.

Lonely in his cave, he throws out one more piece of bait, but finds no real takers.

Unfortunately, I seem to have lost the post concerning his superbly researched "opinion", but I'm sure it was sheer class. Some of these posts are among the worst I have ever seen.
Angry Bollix is like that weird kid in the playground who calls everyone a "gay pr*ick fag" that comes up to him when he's sitting in the corner. I appreciate the effort he puts in but it doesn't seem to be working bud.

staker

What riles me is the fact that he can hide behind this "psychotic" tag.
Who dishes out these condition names? And why should he be treated different to any other child beater? Sometimes I wish we didn't know so much, decisions could be made so much easier.

pah

as125634do wrote: »

Hilarious alrite that whole mafia goodfellas bs rarely exists anymore. He got jail for assault he didnt kill the kid. Stop being a pack a vleedin heart pussies. If push came to shove the majority of u wud just ...have another baby if u lost one to violence and retaliation bs its just a pack of keyboard pussy warriors

So... It wasn't a "kid" as you say, it was a baby, 10 months old. Do you know what a 10 month old baby looks like.

As you have no kids your lack of empathy isnt surprising. Perhaps you were beaten yourself as a child and were grateful not to be killed by your agressor. Your post certainly comes across as such. You must share some of this man Connors personality traits however as anyone not emotionally affected by this story must not be "normal" as we say.

Speaking from experience, anyone who lost a child for ANY reason would not "just.....have another baby" firstly it's not that simple for a lot of people, your lack of compassion in this situation is mind boggling.

Having had a quick browse through your posting history I am saddened to say that this is probably your actual opinion as opposed to a throwaway troll post. Sad indeed.

If you do ever grow up and have children I hope you come back and have a look at this post and read the article again as you hold that baby in your arms and pray that nothing like this ever happens to them.

the_syco

I'd say he'll get out after two years for good behaviour.

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Was he the baby's daddy?

The article says no.

2012 Rio

:mad::mad:He is a traveller it seems. I think then that, altough he was not the father, it is possible that the mother is also a traveller. I mean seriously, what normal settled person, even of the lower class, would shack up with a pikey.

I am infuriated at this, but somehow if it were revealed or confirmed that the whole lot of them, baby and all, were members of the travelling community, then I would not be quite so appalled. Scum. Waste. Thats what you expect from sub human filth like that.

Anyway, if what I read about what happens to child abusers in prison is any way correct, I sincerely hope that he has his asshole reamed on a daily basis in the showers.
F*cker should be made an example of, pitch-capped and broken on the wheel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_wheel

paddyismaddy

2012 Rio wrote: »

:mad::mad:He is a traveller it seems. I think then that, altough he was not the father, it is possible that the mother is also a traveller. I mean seriously, what normal settled person, even of the lower class, would shack up with a pikey.

I am infuriated at this, but somehow if it were revealed or confirmed that the whole lot of them, baby and all, were members of the travelling community, then I would not be quite so appalled. Scum. Animals. Thats what you expect from sub human filth like that.

Anyway, if what I read about what happens to child abusers in prison is any way correct, I sincerely hope that he has his asshole reamed on a daily basis in the showers.
F*cker should be made an example of, pitch-capped and broken on the wheel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_wheel

the scumbag is probably her cousin

2012 Rio

paddyismaddy wrote: »

the scumbag is probably her cousin

That Wiki article has a very apt Dutch saying: "to grow up for the gallows and the wheel". This less than useless degenerate certainly fits that description. Rot in hell Connors.

Sean Bateman

Potential-Monke wrote: »

To clear it up, once and for all, the reason it was 3 years is the following:

It was assault causing harm, which carries a maximum term of 7 years. He would have got near 7 years if he pleaded innocent and the whole case went to court. But, because he pleaded guilty, the sentence gets reduced for a number of reason, some of which being the admission itself, no need for an overlong and expensive court case, no interfering of other peoples lives, and no need for the victims to attend court to give evidence (which is very hard for some). It is an incentive for a guilty plea, and an incentive in general usually has a good return for doing something, in this case a reduced sentence.

This is covered by Section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999:



What bothers me, though, is subsection 2 of that Section, which allows the court to still give the full sentence if they were satisfied that there were "exceptional circumstances", which imo it did...

Then the law is an ass.

Why wasn't this degenerate up for attempted murder rather than assault causing harm?

Our legal system IS too liberal in nature and there are too many bleeding heart liberals only too happy to defend the rights of scumbags.

Scum like this guy and scum like these feuding gangs in Jobstown and Limerick should be interned on the word of senior Gardai until the law is sufficient to deal with them.

Dudess

Melion wrote: »

I wish people would stop giving out about the girl in question who was 16 at the time and was basically a prisoner in her own home at the hands of this cúnt. Its all very easy to sit here on our keyboards saying she should be ashamed to have let this continue for 3 weeks without having lived her life or seen how she was treated by him.

True. He's the violent maniac, not her - she is not "just as bad". No doubt he would have brutalised her also. And yeah, we don't know the ins and outs of why she was so paralysed to do anything, but it's just so hard to comprehend it happening under her nose a number of times. I'm trying to be openminded, but that is just so mind-blowing, it's difficult not to feel some degree of disgust towards her.

Teagwee

Melion wrote: »

I wish people would stop giving out about the girl in question who was 16 at the time and was basically a prisoner in her own home at the hands of this cúnt. Its all very easy to sit here on our keyboards saying she should be ashamed to have let this continue for 3 weeks without having lived her life or seen how she was treated by him.

Where does it say she was 16? According to the article, she is 19 now and the attacks happened a year ago. Nevertheless, nowhere does it mention that the mother was attacked and hurt by Connors. She may well have been afraid and threatened but I still maintain that the normal instinct of a parent (and in particular a mother) is to protect her child at all costs.
I cannot imagine anyone standing outside a locked door wringing their hands and not at least going for help. When this child grows up and hears of the sustained abuse, THAT is what he is going to have trouble with too.

Dudess

Yeah her job is to protect him as best she can. That doesn't seem the case...

Dudess

as125634do wrote: »

Hilarious alrite that whole mafia goodfellas bs rarely exists anymore. He got jail for assault he didnt kill the kid. Stop being a pack a vleedin heart pussies. If push came to shove the majority of u wud just ...have another baby if u lost one to violence and retaliation bs its just a pack of keyboard pussy warriors

Lesson for today: bleeding hearts wouldn't agree with violence. Next lesson in a week's time, when you might just about have grasped today's.