Man who knocked down burglar in court

Jaysoose

ash23 wrote: »

His first instinct was to run out leaving his wife and kids and mow down the guy. He didn't check on his kids and wife or check to see if there was anyone else still in the house.
If he were my husband I'd kick his hole for running off and leaving me and the kids there on our own while he took off on some macho male vendetta.

In fairness this is a complete fantasy on your part , you have no idea if he checked on his wife or kids so your talking complete crap here.

previous user

The King of Moo wrote: »

You can't run someone over with your car!

Jebus, of course there are mitigating circumstances, but the man's family were not in danger at that stage, and looked at objectively, trying to run someone over is a worse crime than burglary.

I can't believe people might think that the burglary victim was right to do what he did.
A justice system based on emotional reactions and revenge. That'd be just great.

What is ridiculous is that the burglar got so much money. His treatment should've been paid for, and that's it. I haven't been to the hospital, but I'm sure his treatment didn't cost €175,000.



Why? What would that achieve? His hands would probably heal fairly quickly, so it wouldn't be much of a deterrent, unless you'd like them to be rebroken every time they heal.

yes break them every time they heal, then he cant steal



:pac:

The King of Moo

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.

Oh ok, I guess, like lots of people with regards to emotive cases like this, I'll disregard my sense of morality and knowledge of human psychology which leads me to think that chasing after the burlgar was reckless and criminal, but somewhat understandable.

I can't say that, you see, as I've never been burgled, and that's the only way I can have an opinion on this issue (it's surprising that so many people have been burgled in Ireland, indicating the number of people posting in this thread!).

In fact, why don't we replace the entire judicial system with groups of prior victims of the crime in question. Seemingly they're the only ones qualified to know what a fit sentence would be, and would therefore be completely fair.

I understand people get emotional with cases like this, especially when home invasion is involved.
But I truly hope that some of the more extreme opinions expressed here are due to the anonymity and lack of inhibitions online, and aren't representative of the actual opinions of many people in this country.
If we lived in a world where one could pursue a criminal through the streets in a car in an act of revenge, we would quickly descend into chaos, especially if people were free to pursue more violent vendettas against the perpetrators of worse crimes.

"His hands should be broken," "he should have killed him," "citizen's arrest," "all his civil rights should be forfeit" - but no, I'm the one talking rubbish.

Corruptable

The uncertainty needs to be taken out of these cases. This man is currently facing serious charges (endangerment up to 5 years, and assault causing harm up to 7 years). He's in a very precarious situation for attempting to apprehend a criminal, and that sends out the wrong message.

There should be a policy decision that a lot of these cases (I'd say many already do) should be canned at investigation/DPP level. Criminals clearly know the risks they're running and should not be entitled to expect a duty of care.

cynder

ash23 wrote: »

His first instinct was to run out leaving his wife and kids and mow down the guy. He didn't check on his kids and wife or check to see if there was anyone else still in the house.
If he were my husband I'd kick his hole for running off and leaving me and the kids there on our own while he took off on some macho male vendetta.

What and let the guy get away and maybe come back the next night or the night after or the night after that? forever wondering if his out there watching, looking at the kids, following them, it would be constant torment.

I dont see it as macho male vandetta, i see it as he was protecting his family.

benway

Corruptable wrote: »

An exemption from civil and criminal liability for those who effect a citizens arrest in textbook style, utilizing objectively judged reasonable force, for one thing.

Far too much emphasis on the rights of career criminals in this country. Yes, they have certain human rights. It's a pity if you end up getting your human rights denied by a nice fella with 240 previous convictions (yes, there have been people with that many on the streets) I won't be able to see your reaction.

So ... tacitly encourage joe punter to take on potentially armed, potentially dangerous criminals? Allow them take a snap judgment that circumstances justify an arrest by force? And to trust that they will not end up using excessive force? In circumstances where there's no immediate threat to anyone or anything?

Good luck with that.

Human rights apply to everyone equally. If they're watered down for one group, so-called "scumbags" for instance, then they're watered down for everyone. Of course, a certain Indo/Tory/Daily Mail mindset is more than comfortable with ordinary people's rights being undermined with anti "scumbag" sentiment being used as a trojan horse to achieve this.

ash23

Jaysoose wrote: »

In fairness this is a complete fantasy on your part , you have no idea if he checked on his wife or kids so your talking complete crap here.

It is presumption yes. But the article stated that he was dressed in his underwear. Hardly likely that he went back in, upstairs, checked on his wife and 3 kids, checked all the rooms in the house and then ran back out in his boxers, into his car and still managed to meet the burglar at the other end of the next estate as he hopped a wall.......

So instead I'll say if it were my husband who left me and the kids alone before the gardai arrived to go off and chase on some macho male vendetta, I'd kick his hole.

As for the guy coming back, well he was well able to identify him when he mowed him down with the car so I'm sure he'd have been able to identify him to the gardai.
And if someone is in your home and runs when you shout at them, it's a bit unlikely they're going to stalk your children.
That's just paranoia.
I can't knock someone down because I think they might have looked at my kid funny once.

Guill

If i came across someone in my home I would cut them up into small pieces.

I don't know why they are there! Money? Electronics? Rape? Murder?

I would have no hesitation in acting fast and decisively, remove the threat and ask questions later, if at all.

I would probably chase someone too if need be, but, only to ensure they were caught. At that stage once they were away from my wife and child I would leave them to the law, maybe one sneaky kick though...

cynder

ash23 wrote: »

It is presumption yes. But the article stated that he was dressed in his underwear. Hardly likely that he went back in, upstairs, checked on his wife and 3 kids, checked all the rooms in the house and then ran back out in his boxers, into his car and still managed to meet the burglar at the other end of the next estate as he hopped a wall.......

So instead I'll say if it were my husband who left me and the kids alone before the gardai arrived to go off and chase on some macho male vendetta, I'd kick his hole.

I would presume the wife was in bed next to him. He could easly wake her up say check on the kids.

ash23

grindelwald wrote: »

I would presume the wife was in bed next to him. He could easly wake her up say check on the kids.

That's not protecting her though.

Stark

ash23 wrote: »

That's not protecting her though.

She's a fully grown woman, how much protection is she supposed to need?

ilovelamp2000

Jaysoose wrote: »

Absolute nonsense this scumbag created the entire situation and you say it was revenge..he was trying to stop the guy and inadvertantly knocked him down he did not go out with the implicit intention of running him over so your talking out your hat.

This scumbag is a drain on society and if he wanted to sue the homeowner should have been made pay his own legal fees. The same guy views the laws of the land as something he can ignore and rob houses etc but then he wants the same society to pay his legal bills. If he wants to ignore the laws and break into somebodies home then he shouldnt be allowed to hide behind the law and get this disgraceful payment which essentially rewards him for causing the entire situation.

The real kicker is that the money has to come from somewhere and the insurance company will pass the cost on to other customers to recoup it this affecting more and more people all to pay off some worthless piece of scum like this.

He didn't receive legal aid to sue McCaughey.

ART6

OK, accepted that the guy over reacted and was, it seems, looking for revenge rather than protecting his family. However, the problem I have is that I don't know what constitutes "reasonable force". I was not trained in unarmed combat by the Gardai or the defence forces. It's been many a year since I had to fight to defend myself. If I find someone in my house in the dark having broken in, how do I know if he is threatening my family? How do I know if he is armed with a knife of a gun?

Perhaps I should ask him politely, and only respond with force if he states that he is going to stab or shoot me or infect the kids with HIV. Then, I should only use enough force to disarm him and throw him out, but not sufficient to cause him any injury (including to his self-esteem) because he has "human rights" and I, apparently, don't.

Alternatively of course, I might, in a panic and being inexperienced in violence, grab the nearest heavy object and smack him hard with it. Exit one intruder with head injuries. Now I am in court facing a gang of lawyers who are going to attempt to screw me to the wall because that is what the state's legal aid system will pay them to do.

So, rather than the dark threats that others in this thread have made, I don't know whether I would kill him or not. I don't know if I would deliberately set out to injure him. All I am sure about is that my reaction might well not be rational and carefully thought out to the extent that the lawyers and their law expects.

ash23

Stark wrote: »

She's a fully grown woman, how much protection is she supposed to need?

2 adults are more than one adult. Especially when there are 3 kids to also protect.
Man or woman, 2 people are better able to protect 3 children and each other from an intruder than one person.

bbam

The two big mistakes I see in this case are :
1. What planet was the judge on that gave that scumbag €175k damages. I mean really, that poor family in Cork only got a shade more and that was for letting a decent father of two die through mistreatment in hospital. This is just an example of how disconnected the judges are.
2. What the fluck were the DPP thinking in sending this guy up for trial for knocking down the scumbag who'd admitted breaking into his house. What public good is being served by this trial?

cynder

ash23 wrote: »

2 adults are more than one adult. Especially when there are 3 kids to also protect.
Man or woman, 2 people are better able to protect 3 children and each other from an intruder than one person.

What do you suggest he stays with wife, should she hide under the covers while he checks on the kids? or go with him? does he or they walk into each of the kids rooms check their ok, then phone cops?? Do they all huddle together in one room then phone the cops or does he check the house to make sure no one else is there? Should the wife have got into the car too and left the kids on their own?

Or does he chase the scumbag away and in the process injure the guy, if the intruder had a weapon the car is a good defensive weapon one of the best, besides a bullet proof vest.


I think the guy protected his family the best he could and he did a dam good job of it.

Jaysoose

ash23 wrote: »

It is presumption yes. But the article stated that he was dressed in his underwear. Hardly likely that he went back in, upstairs, checked on his wife and 3 kids, checked all the rooms in the house and then ran back out in his boxers, into his car and still managed to meet the burglar at the other end of the next estate as he hopped a wall.......

So instead I'll say if it were my husband who left me and the kids alone before the gardai arrived to go off and chase on some macho male vendetta, I'd kick his hole.

So you dont know what happened and cant give any evidence to prove it yet you see it as a valid stance to argue your point?

You can call it a presumption if you like it doesnt stop it however being completely false.

Macho vendetta? the man was defending his home from a scumbag and you call it a macho vendetta..the mind boggles.

steve9859

benway wrote: »

So ... tacitly encourage joe punter to take on potentially armed, potentially dangerous criminals? Allow them take a snap judgment that circumstances justify an arrest by force? And to trust that they will not end up using excessive force? In circumstances where there's no immediate threat to anyone or anything?

Good luck with that.

Human rights apply to everyone equally. If they're watered down for one group, so-called "scumbags" for instance, then they're watered down for everyone. Of course, a certain Indo/Tory/Daily Mail mindset is more than comfortable with ordinary people's rights being undermined with anti "scumbag" sentiment being used as a trojan horse to achieve this.

What a load of nonsense. Someone breaks in to my house, they are going to be sorry. Hopefully the Irish courts will follow the precedent set by the UK courts where in recent months defendants (both shopkeepers and homeowners) have been cleared of assault or manslaughter, on the basis that they were tackling a "scumbag" who was robbing them

ash23

grindelwald wrote: »

What do you suggest he stays with wife, should she hide under the covers while he checks on the kids? or go with him? does he or they walk into each of the kids rooms check their ok, then phone cops?? Do they all huddle together in one room then phone the cops or does he check the house to make sure no one else is there?

Or does he chase the scumbag away and in the process injure the guy, if the intruder had a weapon the car is a good defensive weapon.

Personally to me it would make the most sense if they both went together to check the kids and the house, secure the house and then call the cops.

It makes no sense to me for one person to leave and chase down the criminal who has run away and hit him twice with his car, breaking both his legs. But I guess I'm a fairly placid kind of person and my priorities are not revenge and retribution.
If he had killed the bloke he could end up in prison for a long time. That's hardly thinking about his family. Over a petty thief? Hardly worth his freedom.

gerryo777

hollypink wrote: »

He has already been in court for the burglary and was given a 3 year suspended sentence.

Suspended so he can go and do it again.
Mind you, he mightn't bother for a while, at least until he pi$$es his compo up against a wall or sticks it up his nose!!!

ash23

Jaysoose wrote: »

So you dont know what happened and cant give any evidence to prove it yet you see it as a valid stance to argue your point?

You can call it a presumption if you like it doesnt stop it however being completely false.

Macho vendetta? the man was defending his home from a scumbag and you call it a macho vendetta..the mind boggles.

You can't offer anything to say that it wasn't some bloke just losing his head and chasing after a guy with the intent to do him damage. You can't say he was defending his home because the man was no longer IN his home.
We're all just bandying about opinions after all. The court will decide if the man was defending his home or if he just has a temper on him and was over zealous.

Jaysoose

ash23 wrote: »

You can't offer anything to say that it wasn't some bloke just losing his head and chasing after a guy with the intent to do him damage. You can't say he was defending his home because the man was no longer IN his home.
We're all just bandying about opinions after all. The court will decide if the man was defending his home or if he just has a temper on him and was over zealous.

There are opinions and then there is nonsense..your firmly in the second camp.

gerryo777

benway wrote: »

Weasel words, son. I understand why he'd lose the head as well. But what he did was inexcusable.

And who's to say who the "scumbags" are? Bankers and Fianna Fáil is it? Or does it only apply to lads in track suits?

Different types of scumbags!

ash23

Jaysoose wrote: »

There are opinions and then there is nonsense..your firmly in the second camp.

oooh touchy.
Thankfully I don't really care what someone on the internet thinks of me
I am nonsense. How eloquent.

benway

ART6 wrote: »

OK, accepted that the guy over reacted and was, it seems, looking for revenge rather than protecting his family. However, the problem I have is that I don't know what constitutes "reasonable force". I was not trained in unarmed combat by the Gardai or the defence forces. It's been many a year since I had to fight to defend myself. If I find someone in my house in the dark having broken in, how do I know if he is threatening my family? How do I know if he is armed with a knife of a gun?

Perhaps I should ask him politely, and only respond with force if he states that he is going to stab or shoot me or infect the kids with HIV. Then, I should only use enough force to disarm him and throw him out, but not sufficient to cause him any injury (including to his self-esteem) because he has "human rights" and I, apparently, don't.

Alternatively of course, I might, in a panic and being inexperienced in violence, grab the nearest heavy object and smack him hard with it. Exit one intruder with head injuries. Now I am in court facing a gang of lawyers who are going to attempt to screw me to the wall because that is what the state's legal aid system will pay them to do.

So, rather than the dark threats that others in this thread have made, I don't know whether I would kill him or not. I don't know if I would deliberately set out to injure him. All I am sure about is that my reaction might well not be rational and carefully thought out to the extent that the lawyers and their law expects.

Due respect, but you're way off the mark here.

First up you *always* have the same human rights as a burglar. ALWAYS. It's the nature of human rights - they adhere by virtue of being a human being.

This is why I object so strongly to all this guff about criminals having "too many" rights and all the other nonsense that gets trotted out. A criminal has the same rights I do. If his rights are diminished, so are mine.

And, just say there's an exception made for "scumbags" ... well, who's to say who the "scumbags" are? Plus, if you're to allow an underclass with reduced rights to develop, that's basically a road to fascism.

But again, it's not like the Indo/Tories/FG/Daily Mail, etc., etc. don't have fascist leanings. And you can guarantee it that they're not looking to help your average citizen protect his home, it's about reducing your average citizen's rights as against the state and elites.

As for reasonable force, it's such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as you believe them to be according to the new "Home Defense" Act. Basically, a jury will decide whether it's reasonable or not. But if you're inexperienced with violence, it's probably best to get yourself out of harms way and not risk a confrontation.

bbam wrote:

The two big mistakes I see in this case are :
1. What planet was the judge on that gave that scumbag €175k damages. I mean really, that poor family in Cork only got a shade more and that was for letting a decent father of two die through mistreatment in hospital. This is just an example of how disconnected the judges are.
2. What the fluck were the DPP thinking in sending this guy up for trial for knocking down the scumbag who'd admitted breaking into his house. What public good is being served by this trial?

Again, you're way off the mark. A "scumbag" who's been injured in circumstances where no reasonable excuse can be made, like this, has the same right to compensation as anyone else. If we're to start excluding people for being "scumbags", where will it end?

As for the amount involved, this covers ongoing medical treatment, etc. Where the misfortunate father has died, there will be no ongoing treatment. I would say that it's unlikely that the burglar here will see very much of that compensation as "profit".

Public good of the trial is to show that you can't go running down people who pose no threat to you, your property, family or friends at the time. Simple as.

cynder

ash23 wrote: »

Personally to me it would make the most sense if they both went together to check the kids and the house, secure the house and then call the cops.

It makes no sense to me for one person to leave and chase down the criminal who has run away and hit him twice with his car, breaking both his legs. But I guess I'm a fairly placid kind of person and my priorities are not revenge and retribution.
If he had killed the bloke he could end up in prison for a long time. That's hardly thinking about his family. Over a petty thief? Hardly worth his freedom.

Also you take.the.kids with.you while checking the house or leave them in a room on their own?



Did the man ask him while he was in his bedroom if he was a petty theif or if he was there to rape and murder his wife. The man violated their home, the husbands role protect the family, he did that. He stopped short if killing the guy he could have but he didn't.

Jaysoose

ash23 wrote: »

oooh touchy.
Thankfully I don't really care what someone on the internet thinks of me
I am nonsense. How eloquent.

Thats the best thing about the internet it gives people an anonymous platform to spout whatever nonsense they like.

not touchy at all by the way.

ash23

grindelwald wrote: »

Did the man ask him while he was in his bedroom if he was a petty theif or if he was there to rape and murder his wife. The man violated their home, the husbands role protect the family, he did that. He stopped short if killing the guy he could have but he didn't.

Um he shouted at the guy and the guy ran away.
End of.
If shouting at him was enough to get rid, great. If it had taken more force then that's fine too. You do what it takes. In this case it took letting a roar and disturbing the man.
No need to do more than that.
The law can't speculate. It can only go on what happened.
I can't say my next door neighbour MIGHT be a childabuser so it's ok for me to stab him to death with a butter knife.
:rolleyes:

I don't think it's admirable that he didn't kill someone that he could have......

Voodu Child

ash23 wrote: »

Personally to me it would make the most sense if they both went together to check the kids and the house, secure the house and then call the cops.

It makes no sense to me for one person to leave and chase down the criminal who has run away and hit him twice with his car, breaking both his legs. But I guess I'm a fairly placid kind of person and my priorities are not revenge and retribution.
If he had killed the bloke he could end up in prison for a long time. That's hardly thinking about his family. Over a petty thief? Hardly worth his freedom.

The guy was a serial offender, if he had gotten away scot-free then he would have been out the next night invading another persons home.

It might even have been your home, so you should be thanking this guy. By catching and maiming the burlar he has potentially protected you from a home invasion.

Meanwhile the justice system in this country has not protected you because this guy was a repeat offender and known danger yet was roaming free.

cynder

ash23 wrote: »

Um he shouted at the guy and the guy ran away.
End of.
If shouting at him was enough to get rid, great. If it had taken more force then that's fine too. You do what it takes. In this case it took letting a roar and disturbing the man.
No need to do more than that.
The law can't speculate. It can only go on what happened.
I can't say my next door neighbour MIGHT be a childabuser so it's ok for me to stab him to death with a butter knife.
:rolleyes:

I don't think it's admirable that he didn't kill someone that he could have......

He ran out of the room he could have ran into one if the kids room, daddy didn't just dit there in bed he made sure the man left and didn't come back. Personally it wouldn't bother me if he had of killed the man.