Man who knocked down burglar in court

gerryo777

tayto lover wrote: »

Well he was out and about a few months after the incident. Maybe he's a fast healer.

Well he walked into court yesterday and no sign of a limp or anything!

mconigol

I think the lesson here is that if you're going to go after a scumbag you might as well make it worth your while and pummel him into the ground...

get your moneys worth so to speak

Ficheall

ash23 wrote: »

Two girls, late teens living alone and woken to find a gang of guys standing in their bedrooms. Scary doesn't even cut it.
BUT our main thing was our safety. We screamed at them and thank god, they ran, taking our stuff with them. Did we run after them? Did we hell!

No offence intended, but a pair of teenage girls chasing after a gang of thugs would be pretty stupid.

Bruthal

MrPudding wrote: »

The home owner is a fcuking idiot and deserves everything he gets.

MrP

Complete nonsense.

The law has told this dirt bag that he will get suspended sentences for robbing peoples homes.

gerryo777

We need a few more people like Padraig Nally in this country.
It's about time the law abiding people were protected and the law breakers were seen for what they are.
There's far too many do-gooders here for my liking.:mad:

MrPudding

Ficheall wrote: »

It's not just revenge. It may help alleviate the fear that the person, who since they got away scot-free the first time, might be tempted to come back.
Also - they have your stuff.

Having a million quid would help alleviate my fear that I might not be able to protect my family from the danger of the current economic climate. Can I use that as a defence if I rob the money?

We live in a generally civilised society. Yes, there are scumbags that take advantage of this to their own benefit, and this is most unfortunate, but part of being in a civilised society is that we leave the dealing with these scumbags tot he authorities. I will be the first to admit that they quite often get this wrong, but in the VAST majority of cases it works well.

Ficheall wrote: »

Are you of the opinion that if someone goes to the effort of breaking into your house and stealing stuff, then they should just be allowed to keep it?

Of course not. Why would you think that? Just because I don't think it is right for an idiot to chase and man down in a car, run him over twice causing him fairly severe injuries and resulting in him getting a €175k payout doesn't mean I think people should be allowed to steal other peoples sh1t.

The guy was almost home. The idiot could have called the police and given then the guy's fcuking address. Instead, he severely injures him, gives him €175k for his troubles and probably guarentees that he won't be prosecuted for the burglary. Yeah. Well done home owner. You're the smartest. When I grow up I want to be just like you. Nice work on protecting your family. How is that protection going to work out when you are in fcuking prison and your house has to be sold to pay the compensation (assuming insurance doesn't ocver it).

MrP

ash23

Ficheall wrote: »

No offence intended, but a pair of teenage girls chasing after a gang of thugs would be pretty stupid.

Absolutely. But so is running off leaving your kids and wife alone in an unsecured house, not knowing if all were safe and the house was clear, to chase down some scumbag who may or may not be armed.

Dunny

ash23 wrote: »

I can't understand his reaction.

I can.

rsole1

gerryo777 wrote: »

We need a few more people like Padraig Nally in this country.
It's about time the law abiding people were protected and the law breakers were seen for what they are.
There's far too many do-gooders here for my liking.:mad:

Too many "turn the other cheek" merchants in this country. The "meek shall inherit the earth". If they do they won't feckin have it for long.

ash23

gerryo777 wrote: »

We need a few more people like Padraig Nally in this country.
It's about time the law abiding people were protected and the law breakers were seen for what they are.
There's far too many do-gooders here for my liking.:mad:

Yeah a man who will chase down someone for walking onto his land, shoot him in the leg while he is running and then when the injured man is still trying to get away, shoot him in the back. What a hero! :rolleyes:

You do know that once you shoot someone in the back who is trying to run away, you are not "law abiding".

mconigol

I wonder how much the home-owner would get if he sued the burglar for the emotional trauma etc...???????????

Bruthal

MrPudding wrote: »

The guy was almost home. The idiot could have called the police and given then the guy's fcuking address.

MrP

Should he, really?

And why was that, for the burglar to get another suspended sentence?

You call the real victim of crime here an idiot in every mention. Very strange.

mconigol

ash23 wrote: »

Yeah a man who will chase down someone for walking onto his land, shoot him in the leg while he is running and then when the injured man is still trying to get away, shoot him in the back. What a hero! :rolleyes:

You do know that once you shoot someone in the back who is trying to run away, you are not "law abiding".

But that's not the full story is it? There was plenty of intimidating activity leading up the event, culminating in the shooting.

It wasn't an isolated incident.

Ficheall

MrPudding wrote: »

Of course not. Why would you think that? Just because I don't think it is right for an idiot to chase and man down in a car, run him over twice causing him fairly severe injuries and resulting in him getting a €175k payout doesn't mean I think people should be allowed to steal other peoples sh1t.

Because had the driver not done what he did, nothing would have happened to the crook.

MrPudding wrote: »

The guy was almost home. The idiot could have called the police and given then the guy's fcuking address.

You seem to be under the illusion that it is easy to follow someone who is running away from you. And had the crook made it home, the driver would have had no evidence that the robbery ever took place.

MrPudding

robbie7730 wrote: »

Complete nonsense.

The law has told this dirt bag that he will get suspended sentences for robbing peoples homes.

The home owner is an idiot. That is fairly obvious. He went from the position of being a victim to being the defendant in 5 minutes flat. he is an idiot and deserves whatever he gets. That said, i am sure there is a fair chance he won't get much more than a slap on the wrist, and to be honest, for his family's sake I hope that is the case. But he is an idiot.

ash23 wrote: »

Absolutely. But so is running off leaving your kids and wife alone in an unsecured house, not knowing if all were safe and the house was clear, to chase down some scumbag who may or may not be armed.

Exactly. Or what if there was two of them? Or what if he looped back once the car got rounf the corner? Or what if there was an accomplice waiting for him? Or what if the burglar had died?

There are so many other possible scenarios that would leave the idiot home owner, dead, injured or in prison for a long time. He is an idiot.

And any of you that think he is a hero and in the same position you would do the same? Well...

MrP

Bruthal

ash23 wrote: »

Yeah a man who will chase down someone for walking onto his land, shoot him in the leg while he is running and then when the injured man is still trying to get away, shoot him in the back. What a hero! :rolleyes:

You do know that once you shoot someone in the back who is trying to run away, you are not "law abiding".

If the same fella repeatedly came back robbing your house, you might well view it differently. Sometimes a particular event has to be tested in law, to see was it law abiding.

MrPudding

robbie7730 wrote: »

Should he, really?

And why was that, for the burglar to get another suspended sentence?

You call the real victim of crime here an idiot in every mention. Very strange.

the suspended sentences will run out. Not the best answer, but it is what we have.

I call the "victim" an idiot because that is what he is.

Ficheall wrote: »

Because had the driver not done what he did, nothing would have happened to the crook.

You don't know that.

Ficheall wrote: »

You seem to be under the illusion that it is easy to follow someone who is running away from you. And had the crook made it home, the driver would have had no evidence that the robbery ever took place.

He was able to follow him enough to fcuking run him over. It is obviously not that hard.

MrP

gerryo777

ash23 wrote: »

Yeah a man who will chase down someone for walking onto his land, shoot him in the leg while he is running and then when the injured man is still trying to get away, shoot him in the back. What a hero! :rolleyes:

You do know that once you shoot someone in the back who is trying to run away, you are not "law abiding".

I see you've studied that case well.

benway

Yes, he should. Whether you like it or not, there are two crimes and two victims here. Just because the guy who got run over is a gouger doesn't make it less of a crime.

mconigol wrote: »

I wonder how much the home-owner would get if he sued the burglar for the emotional trauma etc...???????????

Would need be diagnosed with a mental illness owing to the incident to sue on that basis, but there's nothing stopping him if he is. Compensation would depend on the extent of the illness.

secman

Everyone of the victims (the real victims) family should have individually issued law suits against the burglar to the tune of €175,000 and should have applied for an injunction to stop the scumbag from reducing his assets below that level.

Goose & Gander and all that..............


Secman

Kolido

JonathanAnon wrote: »

The only mistake the house owner made was not killing him outright so that he couldnt sue him... Any incident like this, where a person is injured while in the process of committing a crime, should be considered as "misadventure" and the crime itself should prevent the perpetrator from being allowed to take a civil case against the victim of the their crime.. Those civil rights crowds have the country fkd up..

Looked like a junkie from what I saw of the scumbag..

I think from reading the OP that the crime was completed, the burglar was injured on this way home.
If you consider the two crimes, petty larcany v attempted murder, there is a big difference.

Show Time wrote: »

Ah see now i understand why you are talking a load of rubbish.

Come back to us when you have an idea of what it feels like to have an uninvited guest go through your house.

Nobody is debating that one might feel irrate in this situation but that doesn't make it right to do what the home owner did.

ash23

gerryo777 wrote: »

I see you've studied that case well.

I live locally and it was a hot topic at the time.

Stark

Kolido wrote: »

If you consider the two crimes, petty larcany v attempted murder, there is a big difference.

If the judges in his previous burglarly cases hadn't considered his crimes to be "petty" then chances are neither party would have ended up in the situation. It's about time we stopped giving criminals the equivalent of saying prayers on a rosary bead every time they're caught doing something.

gerryo777

mconigol wrote: »

But that's not the full story is it? There was plenty of intimidating activity leading up the event, culminating in the shooting.

It wasn't an isolated incident.

I know one thing, that scumbag won't do it again and maybe a lot like him will think twice before they try it.

ash23

gerryo777 wrote: »

I know one thing, that scumbag won't do it again and maybe a lot like him will think twice before they try it.

Truthfully, if he'd shot him in the head while he was entering his home I'd have probably defended him. But I can't defend what he did because of the situation and this driver is the same.
If someone is running away from you, let them go. If they come back, shoot them in the head.

Dyr

Kolido wrote: »

Nobody is debating that one might feel irrate in this situation but that doesn't make it right to do what the home owner did.

Legally perhaps not, i dont think there was anything morally wrong with what the home owner did, don't go breaking into peoples homes and not expect there to be consequences.

Ficheall

MrPudding wrote: »

You don't know that.

I don't know it for sure, that's true. I'm fairly sure that the statistics would back me up though.
My personal experience is that nothing came of getting the guards out either of the two times we were broken out, or when my bike was stolen from the hall in our office block. And had the culprits been apprehended, I sincerely doubt whether anything would have happened to them other than a slap on the wrist.

MrPudding wrote: »

He was able to follow him enough to fcuking run him over. It is obviously not that hard.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is deliberately obtuse, or else that you've not thought through the difficulties of following someone who is on foot through a neighbourhood in a car.

Ficheall

gerryo777 wrote: »

I know one thing, that scumbag won't do it again and maybe a lot like him will think twice before they try it.

Well... that doesn't hold if they think there's a chance they'll get 175k for their troubles...


edit: wrong case - apologies.

brandon_flowers

MrPudding wrote: »

Having a million quid would help alleviate my fear that I might not be able to protect my family from the danger of the current economic climate. Can I use that as a defence if I rob the money?

We live in a generally civilised society. Yes, there are scumbags that take advantage of this to their own benefit, and this is most unfortunate, but part of being in a civilised society is that we leave the dealing with these scumbags tot he authorities. I will be the first to admit that they quite often get this wrong, but in the VAST majority of cases it works well.

Of course not. Why would you think that? Just because I don't think it is right for an idiot to chase and man down in a car, run him over twice causing him fairly severe injuries and resulting in him getting a €175k payout doesn't mean I think people should be allowed to steal other peoples sh1t.

The guy was almost home. The idiot could have called the police and given then the guy's fcuking address. Instead, he severely injures him, gives him €175k for his troubles and probably guarentees that he won't be prosecuted for the burglary. Yeah. Well done home owner. You're the smartest. When I grow up I want to be just like you. Nice work on protecting your family. How is that protection going to work out when you are in fcuking prison and your house has to be sold to pay the compensation (assuming insurance doesn't ocver it).

MrP

Are you a spokesman for some civil liberties organisation?!!

I hope to God none of that €175,000 has been paid yet and if so the business man or his family members should be counter suing.

The scumbag is also getting free-legal aid which means we are paying the Cnut whether he is in jail or on the street.

The law is an ass.

gerryo777

Eh, he's dead!