Man who knocked down burglar in court

ash23

gerryo777 wrote: »

BS alert!

Why? I'd be pissed if someone damaged by property. I might feel the need to have them punished. They might have frightened me. I amy be frightened their intentions were to harm me. I may be frightened they will come back. Apparantly if that is how I feel I could go out and run over some youngster in my car just to make sure they get away? Maybe he was 14 and looked 18. How would I know?

Grindelwald you're the one who got upset over me calling the burglar a petty thief and now you're saying I'm being too harsh about people damaging property.
Which proves my point. It's not up to us as individuals to decide the punishment because what I might think as a misdeamenour, someone else might snap at an hurt someone.

hondasam

The King of Moo wrote: »

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.

Having someone break into your home is frightening, this is the place you feel safe in, I think it is a terrible crime tbh.
I don't believe we should injure or kill someone overmaterial goods, if your family is in danger it's a bit different.

cynder

ash23 wrote: »

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:

He wasn't prosecuted for petty theft. A petty theft is not breaking into someones home. Breaking into someones home is burglary, his a burglar not a petty thief, BIG DIFFERENCE.

gerryo777

ash23 wrote: »

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.

I've seen the law in action, up close!

ash23

grindelwald wrote: »

He wasn't prosecuted for petty theft. A petty theft is not breaking into someones home. Breaking into someones home is burglary, his a burglar not a petty thief, BIG DIFFERENCE.

Potato, potatoe. I consider him a petty thief because he stole very little.
Comment still stands, even if you change it to burglary.
Someone should not be maimed for burglary.

man.about.town

hondasam wrote: »

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?

personally i dont think it was an accident BUT i do think it was justifiable to incapacitate him till the gardai arrive.

honestly, i dont think this is vigilantism, it was one mans reaction to scum. he is not a criminal, hes a hard working business man, he should be treated with respect and not dragged through the courts with the rest of the low lifes,

man.about.town

ash23 wrote: »

Potato, potatoe. I consider him a petty thief because he stole very little.
Comment still stands, even if you change it to burglary.
Someone should not be maimed for burglary.

your an idiot, he has ruined there family home, whats wrong with you? i take it your not a home owner because if you were you would understand the effects it has on homeowners once they have been burgled

gerryo777

ash23 wrote: »

Potato, potatoe. I consider him a petty thief because he stole very little.
Comment still stands, even if you change it to burglary.
Someone should not be maimed for burglary.

This guy wasn't 'maimed' FFS!
He strode into court yesterday no problem!

Corruptable

gerryo777 wrote: »

This guy wasn't 'maimed' FFS!
He strode into court yesterday no problem!

That's very true. RTE even showed him walking into court, and there wasn't a bother on him, puffing his fag and laughing as he strolled up the steps.

grindelwald

grindelwald wrote: »

First instinct protect your family, make sure the person wont come back and finish whatever he started. You dont have time to think is he just robing the place or did he come here to kidnap one of the kids or did he come here to murder us or to rape my wife.

First instinct protect the family and that's what he did. He obeyed his first instinct.

He had already left the property - having stolen very little - and was no longer a threat to anyone. So, no, the homeowner was not protecting his family. 'Obeying instinct' (while understandable) does not excuse his actions. I have no doubt that the people in this thread calling for the burglar's head on a stake would laugh at the idea of him using the instinct to survive as an excuse for breaking into a home. The fact that he was intoxicated would add further weight to this. The homeowner can't play this card: he was completely sober.

grindelwald wrote:

Wonder what would have happened if the man slept through it all, would he have woken to find one of his children gone or raped or murdered, or would he have just robbed the place and got away with it?

Who cares what would have happened? That doesn't justify running someone over twice. This delusional, 'hard-line' stance (read: scaremongering) on social issues like this is what perpetuates those social issues.

man.about.town wrote:

hes a hard working business man, he should be treated with respect

You are advocating preferential treatment in the eyes of the law. No. That has no place in a civilised democracy. It doesn't matter what crime someone commits; their status is irrelevant.

ash23

man.about.town wrote: »

your an idiot, he has ruined there family home, whats wrong with you? i take it your not a home owner because if you were you would understand the effects it has on homeowners once they have been burgled

You make a lot of assumptions.
I'm no idiot and please don't refer to me as such.
I was burgled before as I previously stated. I just didn't completely over react :rolleyes:


According to the Irish Times, the man "Both of his legs were broken and he was in hospital for two and a half weeks. He was in a wheelchair for six to eight weeks and then on crutches."
If he has so much as one scar then he was maimed.

mikom

man.about.town wrote: »

your an idiot, he has ruined there family home, whats wrong with you? i take it your not a home owner because if you were you would understand the effects it has on homeowners once they have been burgled

'No but yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah but no because I'm not even going on the Pill because Nadine reckons they stop you from getting pregnant.'

hollypink

Not sure if this has been posted already but the Judge instructed the jury to return a not guilty verdict on a charge of reckless endangerment. There is a second charge of assault causing harm though.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0215/mccaugheym.html

Judge Gerry Griffin instructed the jury at Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court to return a verdict of not guilty on a charge of reckless endangerment against Martin McCaughey.

edit: the jury are still considering their verdict so it's not over yet.

gerryo777

ash23 wrote: »

You make a lot of assumptions.
I'm no idiot and please don't refer to me as such.
I was burgled before as I previously stated. I just didn't completely over react :rolleyes:


According to the Irish Times, the man "Both of his legs were broken and he was in hospital for two and a half weeks. He was in a wheelchair for six to eight weeks and then on crutches."
If he has so much as one scar then he was maimed.

You might want to check out the definition of 'maimed'.

hondasam

man.about.town wrote: »

personally i dont think it was an accident BUT i do think it was justifiable to incapacitate him till the gardai arrive.

honestly, i dont think this is vigilantism, it was one mans reaction to scum. he is not a criminal, hes a hard working business man, he should be treated with respect and not dragged through the courts with the rest of the low lifes,

Lots of people are this before they commit a crime, good people do bad things, does not excuse it.

cynder

ash23 wrote: »

Why? I'd be pissed if someone damaged by property. I might feel the need to have them punished. They might have frightened me. I amy be frightened their intentions were to harm me. I may be frightened they will come back. Apparantly if that is how I feel I could go out and run over some youngster in my car just to make sure they get away? Maybe he was 14 and looked 18. How would I know?

Grindelwald you're the one who got upset over me calling the burglar a petty thief and now you're saying I'm being too harsh about people damaging property.
Which proves my point. It's not up to us as individuals to decide the punishment because what I might think as a misdeamenour, someone else might snap at an hurt someone.

Im not upset, im annoyed that you down played the guys criminal past. Something that has serious repercussions for the victims.

When someone is prosecuted they can have trial by jury, a jury of our peers, the jury decide innocent or guilty.

cynder

hollypink wrote: »

Not sure if this has been posted already but the Judge instructed the jury to return a not guilty verdict:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0215/mccaugheym.html

WHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


DELIGHTED

gerryo777

grindelwald wrote: »

WHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


DELIGHTED

ONE FOR THE GOOD GUYS!!!!!
Presuming the jury have listened to the judge!

hollypink

grindelwald wrote: »

WHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


DELIGHTED

well it's not over yet - the jury has retired to consider their verdict.

cynder

ash23 wrote: »

Potato, potatoe. I consider him a petty thief because he stole very little.
Comment still stands, even if you change it to burglary.
Someone should not be maimed for burglary.

THE LAW does not consider him a petty thief. Doesnt matter what you think....

cynder

hollypink wrote: »

well it's not over yet - the jury has retired to consider their verdict.

I know but thats a bloody good sign.

ash23

grindelwald wrote: »

Im not upset, im annoyed that you down played the guys criminal past. Something that has serious repercussions for the victims.

When someone is prosecuted they can have trial by jury, a jury of our peers, the jury decide innocent or guilty.

I didn't comment on his past. You are being pedantic as the post in which I referred to him as a petty thief was about human rights. It was not about the impact of the crime. It was about the rights of others to take the law into their own hands, to deprive a criminal of their human rights etc etc .

ash23

gerryo777 wrote: »

You might want to check out the definition of 'maimed'.

As per the times the mans shin bone was sticking out of his leg when the gardai arrived at the scene

Maim
1. To injure, disable, or disfigure, usually by depriving of the use of a limb or other part of the body.
2. To make imperfect or defective; impair.

YOU might want to look up the definition

ash23

grindelwald wrote: »

THE LAW does not consider him a petty thief. Doesnt matter what you think....

I don't believe I said that they did......Doesn't matter what I think,,,,well shut down boards because it doesn't actually matter what any of us think!! It's a dicussion forum, no?

Maximus Alexander

Kristopherus wrote: »

That driver should get a medal, not be put on trial:mad:

This post got thanked by Boards.ie?

The King of Moo

hondasam wrote: »

Having someone break into your home is frightening, this is the place you feel safe in, I think it is a terrible crime tbh.
I don't believe we should injure or kill someone overmaterial goods, if your family is in danger it's a bit different.

I agree that burglary is definitely a worse experience than mere theft, even when no assault occurs.
I just think that a burglar doesn't deserve to be injured or even killed after they've committed the crime.

benway

That's what €175k odd of medical treatment will do for you. People still aren't realising that he's not "worth" €175k, his doctors will have charged this, it's unlikely that he'll have received a huge amount on top of the cost of his treatment.

gerryo777 wrote:

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.

Sorry to hear that, you're lucky he didn't have a knife. This is why I think citizens' arrests and "have-a-go-heroism" are a bad idea.

Corruptable wrote:

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.

What do you mean by "new old view"? Are we talking about rights-based, or might-based? For me, human rights discourse is a powerful weapon in the hands of the ordinary people against the powers that be, which is why I would hate to see it discredited or undermined. Of course, there are plenty of people who very much want to see this happen, for exactly the same reason.

In any event, I don't think there's any chance that repressive measures will solve the crime problem - the criminals will just . For one thing, you may dismiss the possibility of an equal society, but it's been shown that greater equality correlates with less crime. Before anyone tries to paint this as some kind of bleeding heart liberalism, I don't think it absolves criminals of blame, but I'm more interested in what will be effective rather than getting up on my soapbox ranting about "subhuman scumbags".

I didn't mention "ruling elites" ... although if you want to put it like that, I'm certainly more worried about being bankrupted by the burglars in Anglo and other offices across the country. People start frothing at the mouth over petty thieving "scumbags", but they seem to give these guys a free pass, despite the much, much greater damage they've done to the country. Perspective, people.

gerryo777

ash23 wrote: »

As per the times the mans shin bone was sticking out of his leg when the gardai arrived at the scene

Maim
1. To injure, disable, or disfigure, usually by depriving of the use of a limb or other part of the body. See Synonyms at batter1.
2. To make imperfect or defective; impair.

YOU might want to look up the definition

I prefer the Oxford dictionary myself.
maim; wound or injure (a person or animal)so that part of the body is permanently damaged.

I think you should take a bit of a break, have a coffee or something.

cynder

ash23 wrote: »

I don't believe I said that they did......

So do you believe you above the law? He is to you, after all, only a petty thief! The law says his a burglar, you say his a petty thief.

hollypink

benway wrote: »

That's what €175k odd of medical treatment will do for you. People still aren't realising that he's not "worth" €175k, his doctors will have charged this, it's unlikely that he'll have received a huge amount on top of the cost of his treatment.

I thought he would have received hospital treatment for free as a public patient? Is that not how it works?