Man who knocked down burglar in court

twinQuins

Oceanbunny wrote: »

well I mean legal rights firstly......your right to take a civil case.

civil and human rights have been mis-used by people to cover the full spectrum - form the right not to be tortured....all the ways through to the right to rob and beat others.....

Uh... How could the right not to be tortured possibly be abused? Are you being facetious?

Do you think it is okay to torture people?

ash23

Oceanbunny wrote: »

thanks ash23.
someone els eon here mentioned he had 32 convictions - would you happen to know if he is now barred from legal aid in the future? or how that works?

No idea but I doubt it. Legal aid is means tested so I doubt he would be exempt from it in the future unless his income was too high.
But I am open to correction on that.

Oceanbunny

no - i meant at one end of the scale you have absolute human rights - i.e. right not to be tortured.......

but then at the other complete end - you have people mis-using the protection of rights

Oceanbunny

thanks ash 23

frogcheese

undeserved in my opinion. sad how that man can get away with it and benefit from it ? shows how the system is ridiculous..

Ormus

frogcheese wrote: »

undeserved in my opinion. sad how that man can get away with it and benefit from it ? shows how the system is ridiculous..

What kind of insurance policy could provide that claims be refused if the claimant had previously burgled a house?

Imagine in the small print of the policy there was a line saying "All claims are null and void if it served the claimant right".

That would be my idea of a ridiculous system.

The guy got hit by a car and had his legs broken. Him robbing the house has nothing to do with the insurance claim.

Curly Judge

Ormus wrote: »

The guy got hit by a car and had his legs broken. Him robbing the house has nothing to do with the insurance claim.

You mean to say that if the scumbag had stayed in bed that morning, and had not broken into that man's house brandishing a screw driver, he would have still been chased and had his legs broken regardless?

Ormus

Ormus wrote: »

The guy got hit by a car and had his legs broken. Him robbing the house has nothing to do with the insurance claim.

:pac:Similarly, the guy driving round in his boxers at 5.40am looking to run over an innocent member of society, had nothing to do with the house being robbed.

Stark

Ormus wrote: »

What kind of insurance policy could provide that claims be refused if the claimant had previously burgled a house?

Imagine in the small print of the policy there was a line saying "All claims are null and void if it served the claimant right".

That would be my idea of a ridiculous system.

Don't think something along the lines of "claims can be denied if they were incurred in the course of criminal activity" (not a lawyer so exact wording would vary) would sound too ridiculous at all tbh. Of course, it would require a change to national law to allow them to apply this to third party claims.

Ormus

Curly Judge wrote: »

You mean to say that if the scumbag had stayed in bed that morning, and had not broken into that man's house brandishing a screw driver, he would have still been chased and had his legs broken regardless?

No, I mean to say that the insurance claim was for a car accident. The insurance company didn't have any way of refusing a claim based on the "he started it by robbing my house" argument.

Do people still really not get it?

ash23

Stark wrote: »

Don't think something along the lines of "claims can be denied if they were incurred in the course of criminal activity" (not a lawyer so exact wording would vary) would sound too ridiculous at all tbh. Of course, it would require a change to national law to allow them to apply this to third party claims.

So if I'm walking down the road, listening to my illegally downloaded music on my ipod and I get hit by a drunk driver who disables me, rendering me unable to work and needing care 24/7, the insurance company could say "she downloaded the number one song the night before she was hit and was listening to it when she was hit so we are not paying for her injuries".
Mmmm, sure.

benway

Curly Judge wrote: »

You mean to say that if the scumbag had stayed in bed that morning, and had not broken into that man's house brandishing a screw driver, he would have still been chased and had his legs broken regardless?

He got his legs broken while he was going down the street, not breaking any laws or being negligent himself at that stage. What happened before is irrelevant for the purposes of the insurance claim.

McCaughey ran the guy over, intentionally or negligently, causing him injury. He can sue. End of.

Even if there were a bar to suing for injuries incurred in the course of committing a crime, the crime was over, and he was a long way from the scene. No, wait, let me guess. "Criminals" and "scumbags" shouldn't be allowed to sue "respectable people" ever, right?

***

Stark wrote: »

Don't think something along the lines of "claims can be denied if they were incurred in the course of criminal activity" (not a lawyer so exact wording would vary) would sound too ridiculous at all tbh. Of course, it would require a change to national law to allow them to apply this to third party claims.

So, what then - disallow the insurance claim and have the driver/householder bear the liability themselves? This is basically what you're suggesting.

ash23

ash23 wrote: »

So if I'm walking down the road, listening to my illegally downloaded music on my ipod and I get hit by a drunk driver who disables me, rendering me unable to work and needing care 24/7, the insurance company could say "she downloaded the number one song the night before she was hit and was listening to it when she was hit so we are not paying for her injuries".
Mmmm, sure.

But if it was 50 cent that was drunk driver and the music was 50 cent music downloaded illegaly, you can bet the claims would cancel each other out or in fact 50 cent would get more compo than the injured party!!!:pac::pac:

Mammanabammana

Ormus wrote: »

Ah, so you went to one of those countries where it's legal to run over a man on the street if you suspect he took some jewellery from your house?

What other cool laws have you got there? Is it legal to gouge out a man's eyeballs if you catch him looking at your girlfriend?

Your country rules man, you made the right decision? Stay there.

No. Leaving your pithy and inflammatory comments aside. I went to a country that, quite simply, wasn't fucked up by the government, the bankers and the nationalisation of debt - a debt which included huge bonuses and payoffs for everybody responsible for the mess the country is in now. A debt which is still being taken out of every worker's pay packet every week or month.

And to take your points seriously for a moment, and taking the OP's point into account, I believe that if I was driving down the road after a man who I had discovered in my ensuite bedroom, bearing in mind that he would have had to walk through my bedroom and past the bed where I was sleeping securely beside the woman I had chosen to spend my life with, having passed my daughter's bedroom, and perhaps NOT having passed her room but instead decided to pay a little visit in there, I would not be in control of my actions.

It's all very easy for keyboard warriors to get stuck into defending the offenders based on some sort of theorising of their intentions or their education or their underprivileged background - but that's not going to change the fact that the people who who do this, burglary, rioting, rape, mugging, car theft - all the so called "petty" crimes - are all fucking cunts who deserve to be beaten to within an inch of their lives, because the justice system has let us all down, and that's really the only way they're going to learn anything.

Stark

ash23 wrote: »

So if I'm walking down the road, listening to my illegally downloaded music on my ipod and I get hit by a drunk driver who disables me, rendering me unable to work and needing care 24/7, the insurance company could say "she downloaded the number one song the night before she was hit and was listening to it when she was hit so we are not paying for her injuries".
Mmmm, sure.

Yes, that's exactly what I suggested. :rolleyes:

AudreyHepburn

ash23 wrote: »

So if I'm walking down the road, listening to my illegally downloaded music on my ipod and I get hit by a drunk driver who disables me, rendering me unable to work and needing care 24/7, the insurance company could say "she downloaded the number one song the night before she was hit and was listening to it when she was hit so we are not paying for her injuries".
Mmmm, sure.

As some-one who works in insurance claims I can tell that a claim will not be entertained if it goes against what is morally acceptable to society. So you couldn't for example claim for loss of earnings whilst in prison because society's morals would say you have comitted a crime and should not benefit from it.

The above is for household claims, it may well differ for health insurance....I'll check and post again.

Ormus

Stark wrote: »

Don't think something along the lines of "claims can be denied if they were incurred in the course of criminal activity" (not a lawyer so exact wording would vary) would sound too ridiculous at all tbh. Of course, it would require a change to national law to allow them to apply this to third party claims.

But the guy wasn't doing anything illegal at the time. He was running down the street.

He had been engaged in criminal activity moments previously, but is that the same thing? What if he had committed the crime the previous day and the guy had finally tracked him down? Does that make it ok? What about if it was a week ago?

You might think I'm splitting hairs, but where do you draw the line?

I really don't want to defend this guy, and I find it hard to believe that he didn't deserve more than a suspended sentence, but at the same time I wish people would try to understand the way the system works. It will never be all perfect but before you condemn it try to think of the consequences of everything that is being proposed.

ash23

Stark wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly what I suggested. :rolleyes:

I'm not saying it's what you suggested. However, there are a range of "criminal" activities, Ranging from downloading music to not having car tax up to date or driving on a provisional licence.
Putting a clause in saying that insurers don't have to pay third party injury claims if the third party was involved in criminal activity at the time is, quite frankly, not possible.
It's leaving a whole host of people who are technically breaking the law open to having claims revoked for injuries they sustained. For minor things like their car tax being a week out of date when another driver smashes into them.

ash23

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

As some-one who works in insurance claims I can tell that a claim will not be entertained if it goes against what is morally acceptable to society. So you couldn't for example claim for loss of earnings whilst in prison because society's morals would say you have comitted a crime and should not benefit from it.

The above is for household claims, it may well differ for health insurance....I'll check and post again.

Oh I know. I work in insurance too
I was just pointing out that "criminal" activity covers a wide range of things and putting a clause in like that would be impossible.

Stark

I don't think you understand what "criminal activity" entails. Running a red light for example, isn't a crime, it's a traffic offence or misdimeanour. Same was as downloading a song is a misdimeanour. Besides, an insurance company can refuse your claim at present if you were driving without a valid license.

Maximus Alexander

ash23 wrote: »

I'm not saying it's what you suggested. However, there are a range of "criminal" activities, Ranging from downloading music to not having car tax up to date or driving on a provisional licence.
Putting a clause in saying that insurers don't have to pay third party injury claims if the third party was involved in criminal activity at the time is, quite frankly, not possible.
It's leaving a whole host of people who are technically breaking the law open to having claims revoked for injuries they sustained. For minor things like their car tax being a week out of date when another driver smashes into them.

What? Driving without motor tax is not a criminal offence!!

BeerDrinker

Its bloody terrible alright :mad:
I actually despise the legal system, solicitors and the like.

Its the classic line from Liar Liar:

Secretary:

"...several years ago a friend of mine had a burglar on her roof, a burglar. He fell through the kitchen skylight, landed on a cutting board, on a butcher's knife, cutting his leg. The burglar sued my friend, he sued my friend. And because of guys like you *he won*. My friend had to pay the burglar $6,000. Is that justice?..."

Jim Carrey:
"..NO!
... I'd have got him ten"

AudreyHepburn

Stark wrote: »

Don't think something along the lines of "claims can be denied if they were incurred in the course of criminal activity" (not a lawyer so exact wording would vary) would sound too ridiculous at all tbh. Of course, it would require a change to national law to allow them to apply this to third party claims.

It's not ridiculous at all....see my post above.

A claim can and will usually be denied if it goes against what is socially acceptable.

Again it may differ for Health Insurance, as that is provided in completely different way to house or motor insurance.

benway

Stark wrote: »

I don't think you understand what "criminal activity" entails. Running a red light for example, isn't a crime, it's a traffic offence or misdimeanour. Same was as downloading a song is a misdimeanour. Besides, an insurance company can refuse your claim at present if you were driving without a valid license.

Woopsies. No distinction between a felony and misdemeanor these days. Traffic offenses most certainly are crimes...

AudreyHepburn

ash23 wrote: »

Oh I know. I work in insurance too
I was just pointing out that "criminal" activity covers a wide range of things and putting a clause in like that would be impossible.

Yes of course. I was making my point more for the benefit of other posters here who would not have much experience with insurance and claims.

Ormus

Mammanabammana wrote: »

No. Leaving your pithy and inflammatory comments aside. I went to a country that, quite simply, wasn't fucked up by the government, the bankers and the nationalisation of debt - a debt which included huge bonuses and payoffs for everybody responsible for the mess the country is in now. A debt which is still being taken out of every worker's pay packet every week or month.

And to take your points seriously for a moment, and taking the OP's point into account, I believe that if I was driving down the road after a man who I had discovered in my ensuite bedroom, bearing in mind that he would have had to walk through my bedroom and past the bed where I was sleeping securely beside the woman I had chosen to spend my life with, having passed my daughter's bedroom, and perhaps NOT having passed her room but instead decided to pay a little visit in there, I would not be in control of my actions.

It's all very easy for keyboard warriors to get stuck into defending the offenders based on some sort of theorising of their intentions or their education or their underprivileged background - but that's not going to change the fact that the people who who do this, burglary, rioting, rape, mugging, car theft - all the so called "petty" crimes - are all fucking cunts who deserve to be beaten to within an inch of their lives, because the justice system has let us all down, and that's really the only way they're going to learn anything.

I was responding to your calling Ireland a "****ing ****hole of a country" and you say my comments were inflammatory? You're a laugh!

But yeah, lets not even bother with courts or any of that justice system malarkey anymore, if a guy seems to be guilty lets all beat him to within an inch of his life. Seems like the classy thing to do.

Hail civilisation!

ash23

Stark wrote: »

I don't think you understand what "criminal activity" entails. Running a red light for example, isn't a crime, it's a traffic offence or misdimeanour. Same was as downloading a song is a misdimeanour. Besides, an insurance company can refuse your claim at present if you were driving without a valid license.

It can refuse a claim for own damages but not for a third party. That's a different kettle of fish altogether.
You are suggesting that if the injured party is guilty of a criminal offence they should not be compensated for injuries but that's not fair because the person who hit them is at fault. No matter how morally dubious the injured party may be or have been, if they are on a path and a car mows them down, they become the third party and they must be indemnified.

An insurer can also go after the person who caused the accident to claim back what they paid the third party if for example the driver was drunk or on a provisional. But the third parties costs will always be covered first and foremost. And rightly so.
A person who was injured shouldn't have to wait for their claim to be settled while the insurer and insured squabble.

Ormus

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It's not ridiculous at all....see my post above.

A claim can and will usually be denied if it goes against what is socially acceptable.

Again it may differ for Health Insurance, as that is provided in completely different way to house or motor insurance.

But it's never socially acceptable to run someone over twice and break their legs. That really is the point here.

It's also worth noting that he wasn't actually engaged in any criminal activity at the time.

Stereomaniac

Yeah, Ormus. I think Mammanabammana was calling your comments inflammatory, because that's exactly what they appeared to be. You were blowing things out of proportion there and seemed to be taking it very personally that he called this country a "****ing ****hole." Chill, like. How many times a week do you hear people call Ireland that?

AudreyHepburn

Ormus wrote: »

But it's never socially acceptable to run someone over twice and break their legs. That really is the point here.

It's also worth noting that he wasn't actually engaged in any criminal activity at the time.

Of course not, hence why his claim was paid.

If on the other hand he had tried to make a claim for an injury done him by the home-owner while engaged in robbing the home or attacking the home-owner he might not have been so lucky.