Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Man who knocked down burglar in court

Options
1…1314161819…29

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    The King of Moo wrote: »
    That's what a lot of people calling for removing all rights from criminals (or most criminals) don't seem to realise.

    I know I've definitely broken some laws, mostly very minor traffic violations like jaywalking, passing through a red light on my bike a few seconds after it turned red.

    I also know that in the future, I might find myself in a position where I commit some more serious crime.

    And if that day ever comes, I still want to be considered a human with basic human rights in the eyes of the law.
    Human rights?
    Its not as if this particular scumbag was kept at guantanamo bay or something, getting waterboarded and being forced to listen to westlife all night.
    Human rights for criminals?
    What about human rights for the law abiding citizen in this country taking priority over those who continually break the law??


  • Options
    #453
    The King of Moo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭The King of Moo


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Human rights?
    Its not as if this particular scumbag was kept at guantanamo bay or something, getting waterboarded and being forced to listen to westlife all night.
    Human rights for criminals?
    What about human rights for the law abiding citizen in this country taking priority over those who continually break the law??

    I believe in human rights for everyone. They are human rights.

    I'm not saying criminals should be favoured. I'm saying that human rights apply to everybody. Literally everyone on the planet.

    Which human rights do you think a burglar is not entitled to, taking into account the fact that the law already allows for the use of reasonable violence against intruders?


  • Options
    #454
    cynder
    Registered Users Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    ash23 wrote: »
    I was talking about human rights which are "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being".
    Which covers everything from genocide to opression to vigilantism.
    Every person in our country has the same rights. And the same laws apply to everyone. We cannot decide where and when to punish what we deem to be a bad person outside of the legal system.
    MLK fought for human rights, equality for ALL, not just black people and lost his life for that cause. Like many others. It's not "wise discrimination" to decide a petty thief can be greviously injured. The system doesn't work like that.

    I dont think the victims would refer to him as a petty thief. I would think they would see him as someone who made them feel unsafe in their own home, someone who has impacted on their life in a bad way and will have an impact on them for a long time, i bet they feel their home was violated. I bet they could even have nightmares the kids could have security issues the list goes on Petty thief my arse....


  • Options
    #455
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Human rights?
    Its not as if this particular scumbag was kept at guantanamo bay or something, getting waterboarded and being forced to listen to westlife all night.
    No, he was just run over by a car. Twice. When he wasn't posing any threat to anyone's personal safety or property. And some internet tough guys are trying to say that this should be fine, because he's a criminal.


  • Options
    #456
    batm!ke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭batm!ke


    grindelwald wrote: »
    I dont think the victims would refer to him as a petty thief. I would think they would see him as someone who made them feel unsafe in their own home, someone who has impacted on their life in a bad way and will have an impact on them for a long time, i bet they feel their home was violated. I bet they could even have nightmares the kids could have security issues the list goes on Petty thief my arse....

    You're bang on the money.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    Corruptable
    Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭Corruptable


    benway wrote: »
    There's no such thing, yet. Things were going pretty well until the mid-70s, when the forces of reaction and entrenched privilege had regained their strength after the second world war, and started to reassert control. I agree with you that the job is only half done, but the struggle isn't over, not by any means.

    So, basically you're saying that you want to go back to the "old view"?
    If we're going to go all socio-political on it, then I have to say I've no time for the "ruling elites" as you call them, but then crime is very rarely an issue for them. It's Joe and Mary Public and Paudy and Saddie Farmer that crime reaps a horrendous effect upon, and ordinary people are scared enough of crime without having to worry about adverse legal consequences in my view (such as being bankrupted by a burglar who falls in an unmarked, unlit trench in a back garden).

    I want to go back to the "new old view". I want an huge carrot but an even bigger stick than were used previously to deal with crime. Yes, prevention is better than cure but it's too late to prevent it when they're taking your jewellery out of your ensuite or the best part of a grand in home heating oil out of your oil tank.


  • Options
    #458
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Human rights?
    Its not as if this particular scumbag was kept at guantanamo bay or something, getting waterboarded and being forced to listen to westlife all night.
    Human rights for criminals?
    What about human rights for the law abiding citizen in this country taking priority over those who continually break the law??

    Two wrongs don't make a right. The home owner should not have taken the law into his own hands.
    He was protecting his home and family but when he ran him over his family were no longer at risk.


  • Options
    #459
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    grindelwald wrote: »
    I dont think the victims would refer to him as a petty thief. I would think they would see him as someone who made them feel unsafe in their own home, someone who has impacted on their life in a bad way and will have an impact on them for a long time, i bet they feel their home was violated. I bet they could even have nightmares the kids could have security issues the list goes on Petty thief my arse....

    Petty theft generally refers to the amounts stolen. I'm not referring to the emotional side of things.
    Even leaving out the petty thief definition, the statemnt still stands.
    It's not "wise discrimination" to decide a thief can be greviously injured. The system doesn't work like that.


  • Options
    #460
    Corruptable
    Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭Corruptable


    Fine then, in this particular case the result should be:

    If you are currently a juror in this trial you know you should not be on Boards.ie, therefore you must certainly not read the following spoiler
    Guilty, suspended sentence of 3 years duration


  • Options
    #461
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    black francis wrote: »
    I believe he is claiming that he accidently ran down another person while trying to stop him escaping.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0214/mccaugheym.html

    He rammed the thief twice with his car and threatened to kill him if he got back up. That's not an accident.

    Nor is it citizens arrest, as another poster suggested.

    It's overkill pure and simple.

    The amount of would-be vigilantes here is disturbing tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    doncarlos
    Registered Users Posts: 2,838 ✭✭✭doncarlos


    ash23 wrote: »
    The system doesn't work like that.

    The system is broken. I don't necessarily agree with taking the law in to your own hands but when the law fails you what other option do you have.

    If the home owner hadn't of given chase but reported the crime like a good citizen what would the result have been? Where is the justice in that?


  • Options
    #463
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    benway wrote: »
    No, he was just run over by a car. Twice. When he wasn't posing any threat to anyone's personal safety or property. And some internet tough guys are trying to say that this should be fine, because he's a criminal.

    My mothers house was broken into a couple of years ago, luckily enough I live about 200 meters from her. They grabbed her and asked where she kept her money and valuables.

    She's 84.

    I happened to be passing and called in, the same brave lads legged it out the back door and across some fields to our local town. I rang the guards and went looking for them in my car and found them at the bus stop down town.
    Hopped out with my trusty 9 iron to confront these morons just as the guards arrived on the scene, lucky f***ers I can tell you because the red mist was down.

    Anyway, as they were being arrested, in the middle of a scuffle, one of the same scumbags fired a screwdriver at me, stabbing me in the stomach. Nothing too serious but the f***ker drew blood.

    So the scumbags were taken away and the guards called back to my seriously distraught mother to take a statement.
    I called in to see her and the first thing the guard said to me was that I could get done for interfering in an arrest!

    Couldn't believe it.

    In the end of the day they were released after a couple of hours free to do the same to some other old and fragile man/woman.
    When it went to court they were let off because of insufficient evidence.

    Do you think these scum have the same rights as my 84 year old mother?
    Have they the same rights as me?

    The law in this country is a complete ass and it's being laughed at by these type of lowlife so I couldn't care less about these type of sub-human d***heads, the more of them that get what's coming to them, the better!


  • Options
    #464
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    doncarlos wrote: »
    The system is broken. I don't necessarily agree with taking the law in to your own hands but when the law fails you what other option do you have.

    If the home owner hadn't of given chase but reported the crime like a good citizen what would the result have been? Where is the justice in that?

    He didn't give the law a chance.


  • Options
    #465
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    ash23 wrote: »
    He didn't give the law a chance.
    The law has no chance!!!


  • Options
    #466
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,992 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    ash23 wrote:
    He didn't give the law a chance.

    Judging by his string of previous convictions, I think the law had plenty of chance.


  • Options
    #467
    man.about.town
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭man.about.town


    Tea 1000 wrote: »
    Couple of things I'm wondering about though... completely aside from whether you agree that running the thief over was right or wrong...
    Where did the 175k figure come from? Why not 10k or 15k?
    Why should it go to the thief? Lost earnings while he couldn't walk?
    Why can't there now be a separate trial to convict him of breaking an entry, burglary, invasion of privacy and anything else that can be thought up? Given that he admitted he was there in order to win his case, shouldn't that now be proof for a counter case?
    And why can't the wife of the home owner now claim trauma and sleepless nights, depression, anxiety, and anything else that she may be feeling after a scumbag was in her room while she and her kids slept?

    answer to your queries:
    1. 175k would have been awarded by the judge in the civil court for injuries sustained etc...

    2. it went to the thief because ireland is backwards and protects scumbags

    3. that has already been to court and the thief got 3 months suspended

    4. interesting, id say the wife could sue him now, probably would have been pointless seeings as the thief was claiming welfare but now hes worth 175k, could become a viable venture


  • Options
    #468
    The King of Moo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭The King of Moo


    grindelwald wrote: »
    I dont think the victims would refer to him as a petty thief. I would think they would see him as someone who made them feel unsafe in their own home, someone who has impacted on their life in a bad way and will have an impact on them for a long time, i bet they feel their home was violated. I bet they could even have nightmares the kids could have security issues the list goes on Petty thief my arse....

    Of course they would. Anyone would have such an emotional response.

    But that's exactly the kind of emotional response which can't be a factor when legislating and sentencing for crime.

    Firstly, because an emotional response to a crime will easily but understandably be disproporionate to the crime itself. If someone stole my bike, for example, I'd feel like giving them a good hiding, but logically I don't want the courts operating based on that same feeling. I want them to be cold, clinical and logical.

    Secondly, emotional responses vary. If two identical burglaries occur but one person is more affected by it, should the burglar in their case receive a stronger sentence?


  • Options
    #469
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    man.about.town wrote: »
    answer to your queries:
    1. 175k would have been awarded by the judge in the civil court for injuries sustained etc...

    2. it went to the thief because ireland is backwards and protects scumbags

    3. that has already been to court and the thief got 3 months suspended

    4. interesting, id say the wife could sue him now, probably would have been pointless seeings as the thief was claiming welfare but now hes worth 175k, could become a viable venture

    I wonder is he still claiming welfare?


  • Options
    #470
    cynder
    Registered Users Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0214/mccaugheym.html

    He rammed the thief twice with his car and threatened to kill him if he got back up. That's not an accident.

    Nor is it citizens arrest, as another poster suggested.

    It's overkill pure and simple.

    The amount of would-be vigilantes here is disturbing tbh.
    well he needed to incapacitate him until the cops arrived....


  • Options
    #471
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    The law has no chance!!!


    Well sure then why are ye worried about him getting convicted. If the law has no chance then surely this guy won't get any sentence for running down the guy.
    So ye can all sleep easy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    cynder
    Registered Users Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    The King of Moo wrote: »
    Of course they would. Anyone would have such an emotional response.

    But that's exactly the kind of emotional response which can't be a factor when legislating and sentencing for crime.

    Firstly, because an emotional response to a crime will easily but understandable be disproporionate to the crime itself. If someone stole my bike, for example, I'd feel like giving them a good hiding, but logically I don't want the courts operating based on that same feeling. I want them to cold, clinical and logical.

    Secondly, emotional responses vary. If two identical burglaries occur but one person is more affected by it, should the burglar in their case receive a stronger sentence?

    I stated what I did because ash downgraded the man to a petty thief in criminal terminology the man us a burglar. A recurrent burglar he is not a petty theif and to call him such is an insult to the victims.


  • Options
    #473
    man.about.town
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭man.about.town


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0214/mccaugheym.html

    He rammed the thief twice with his car and threatened to kill him if he got back up. That's not an accident.

    typical, you believe the scum, whats wrong with you??? what about the other witness who said he was making tea and saw the whole thing, said it was an accident, he was trying to block him, after he knocked him down he looked distraught and non threatening?


  • Options
    #474
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    grindelwald wrote: »
    well he needed to incapacitate him until the cops arrived....
    Maybe he should have just drove up beside him and said something like,
    "STOP WHERE YOU ARE THIEF, I have called the guards and they will be along in a couple of hours to arrest you, be a good sport and just wait there will you?"


  • Options
    #475
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    grindelwald wrote: »
    well he needed to incapacitate him until the cops arrived....
    So if one of your kids egged a house and the home owner needed to incapacitate them until the gardai arrived, you'd be ok with said owner breaking both your kids legs?


  • Options
    #476
    The King of Moo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭The King of Moo


    grindelwald wrote: »
    I stated what I did because ash downgraded the man to a petty thief in criminal terminology the man us a burglar. A recurrent burglar he is not a petty theif and to call him such is an insult to the victims.

    In the grand scheme of things, and I mean no offense to burglary victims at all as I know it's a horrible experience, it's not a major crime, compared to others (especially in the many burglary cases where no assault is involved) as it usually involves trespassing and the theft of material goods.

    I'm not defending burglary, but I do believe that calling for the death penalty and the removal of unspecified human rights from burglars is ludicrous.


  • Options
    #477
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    ash23 wrote: »
    So if one of your kids egged a house and the home owner needed to incapacitate them until the gardai arrived, you'd be ok with said owner breaking both your kids legs?
    BS alert!


  • Options
    #478
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    grindelwald wrote: »
    I stated what I did because ash downgraded the man to a petty thief in criminal terminology the man us a burglar. A recurrent burglar he is not a petty theif and to call him such is an insult to the victims.
    Petty theft is a term used by courts.
    I wasn't being emotional about it, you were. I didn't downgrade him to anything. That's what he was. The impact on the family is an entirely different matter and not one that I was referring to.
    Read the term in the context of the post, not the emotional spin you are putting on it.
    I didn't say his crime was petty. I said he was a petty thief.
    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #479
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    man.about.town wrote: »
    typical, you believe the scum, whats wrong with you??? what about the other witness who said he was making tea and saw the whole thing, said it was an accident, he was trying to block him, after he knocked him down he looked distraught and non threatening?

    It was no accident, he hit him twice, I'm sure he is sorry for what he did in the heat of the moment.
    Why did he go after him in the car in the first place? did he not wait the other side of the wall for you man to appear?


  • Options
    #480
    cynder
    Registered Users Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    ash23 wrote: »
    So if one of your kids egged a house and the home owner needed to incapacitate them until the gardai arrived, you'd be ok with said owner breaking both your kids legs?

    So now kids who throw eggs are in the same league as burglars!

    WOW.... no wonder they are getting suspended sentences, so they are free to do it again and agian and again, are you a judge by any chance?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    man.about.town
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭man.about.town


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    I wonder is he still claiming welfare?

    but of course, hes no longer claiming jobseekers, he is now claiming disability benefit, scum like this never work and we the tax payers piggy back them through life,


Advertisement