Man who knocked down burglar in court

Stiffler2

I've been thinking about this and here is what i would have done differently.

After discovering my house was just robbed I jump in my car chasing the ba$tard.

After catching him and running him over once and not being totally satisfied with this I reverse and run him over a second time breaking both his legs.

Now here's where my idea kicks in.

After breaking his legs with my car throw him into the boot and bring him back to my house.

Then ring the guards. his word against mine and who would the Judge believe ?? hmmm ?

Wasn't there a law passed just recently where you can basically kill someone or beat the complete $hite out of them IF they are in your house.

Anyway - that's what I would have done and if the situation ever arises this is what I will do.

( Obviously tell the judge you broke both his legs in your house and that you were never in the car and that he is lying )

Oceanbunny

i am not a lawyer or in insurance so would appreciate clarification here-:

- if the police had followed him and accidently hit him would it be different from an insurance point of view ? resisting arrest etc?

- as he was running from the crime with the stolen property in his pockets- does that stretch out the scene of the crime. as in someone grabs my bag when i am walking down the street and my husband runs after them catches them and punches them and takes my bag back.....is the punch a separate assault - as opposed to relying on the protection of your property and self defence?

ash23

Stiffler2 wrote: »

I've been thinking about this and here is what i would have done differently.

After discovering my house was just robbed I jump in my car chasing the ba$tard.

After catching him and running him over once and not being totally satisfied with this I reverse and run him over a second time breaking both his legs.

Now here's where my idea kicks in.

After breaking his legs with my car throw him into the boot and bring him back to my house.

Then ring the guards. his word against mine and who would the Judge believe ?? hmmm ?

Wasn't there a law passed just recently where you can basically kill someone or beat the complete $hite out of them IF they are in your house.

Anyway - that's what I would have done and if the situation ever arises this is what I will do.

( Obviously tell the judge you broke both his legs in your house and that you were never in the car and that he is lying )

Mmmm, all good except you're forgetting the witnesses and the tyre tracks on the guys legs along with the blood on your car. And the occasional CCTV cameras dotted around the route.
See you in court!!!

ash23

Oceanbunny wrote: »

i am not a lawyer or in insurance so would appreciate clarification here-:

- if the police had followed him and accidently hit him would it be different from an insurance point of view ? resisting arrest etc?

- as he was running from the crime with the stolen property in his pockets- does that stretch out the scene of the crime. as in someone grabs my bag when i am walking down the street and my husband runs after them catches them and punches them and takes my bag back.....is the punch a separate assault - as opposed to relying on the protection of your property and self defence?

Pretty sure the guy could sue the government if the guards hit a pedestrian who was escaping from them.
Also pretty sure that in scenario two, your husband could be done for assault because it's not self defence if someone is running away from you.

Mammanabammana

Ormus wrote: »

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!

My comments about the country were my opinion, which I'm perfectly entitled to.

My other comments related to people who operate outside, and know how to manipulate, our justice system.

Also, if you choose to reply to my comments, I would prefer you avoid personal insults. Thank you.

If a guy seems to be guilty, by all means, let him go through the proper channels. And let the law take its course.

But if a guy is guilty, convicted, and ends up being released, with a huge payday, such as in this case, how is he going to learn not to do it again? Especially since he had previous convictions. He admitted what he did. At what point do we stop letting these people off the hook?

Ormus

Stereomaniac wrote: »

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?

I think if you read his posts, they were a lot more inflammatory than mine, which were playful in comparison.

I'm a patriotic person, so yeah I do take it to heart when someone who doesn't live here says things like that about Ireland. I think that's almost the definition of inflammatory.

AudreyHepburn

Oceanbunny wrote: »

i am not a lawyer or in insurance so would appreciate clarification here-:

- if the police had followed him and accidently hit him would it be different from an insurance point of view ? resisting arrest etc?

- as he was running from the crime with the stolen property in his pockets- does that stretch out the scene of the crime. as in someone grabs my bag when i am walking down the street and my husband runs after them catches them and punches them and takes my bag back.....is the punch a separate assault - as opposed to relying on the protection of your property and self defence?

Well if he wanted to claim against the Gardai he would have to prove negligence on their part or perhaps that they deliberatly hit him but again as he would have been engaged in criminal activity at the time and was technically resisting arrest by refusing to stop he would certainly have a difficult time in getting any insurer to pay out.

Again this would against what was morally acceptable to society - eg it would not be acceptable to most people for a criminal to be compensated for injuries sustained committing a crime and/or resisting arrest.

In terms of your husband running after the criminal and punching him, that would be assault rather than self defense because your husband would have instigated the punch up as opposed to being forced to defend himself from attack.

ash23

There have been cases taken against gardai for injuries sustained during arrests but it has to be proven that the force was excessive. I would imagine that using a car on a pedestrian to stop them would be deemed excessive.

Ormus

Mammanabammana wrote: »

My comments about the country were my opinion, which I'm perfectly entitled to.

My other comments related to people who operate outside, and know how to manipulate, our justice system.

Also, if you choose to reply to my comments, I would prefer you avoid personal insults. Thank you.

If a guy seems to be guilty, by all means, let him go through the proper channels. And let the law take its course.

But if a guy is guilty, convicted, and ends up being released, with a huge payday, such as in this case, how is he going to learn not to do it again? Especially since he had previous convictions. He admitted what he did. At what point do we stop letting these people off the hook?

So surely I'm entitled to my opinion about your opinion?

Where did I personally insult you? I don't know anything about you.

You're proposing that where a guy is convicted but you don't think he has been punished enough, the best thing to do is for you to beat him within an inch of his life? Cool man, sounds good.

The King of Moo

Stiffler2 wrote: »

I've been thinking about this and here is what i would have done differently.

After discovering my house was just robbed I jump in my car chasing the ba$tard.

After catching him and running him over once and not being totally satisfied with this I reverse and run him over a second time breaking both his legs.

Now here's where my idea kicks in.

After breaking his legs with my car throw him into the boot and bring him back to my house.

Then ring the guards. his word against mine and who would the Judge believe ?? hmmm ?

Wasn't there a law passed just recently where you can basically kill someone or beat the complete $hite out of them IF they are in your house.

Anyway - that's what I would have done and if the situation ever arises this is what I will do.

( Obviously tell the judge you broke both his legs in your house and that you were never in the car and that he is lying )

Would you wash his trousers before the police arrived to get rid of the dirt and tyremarks?

Stiffler2

ash23 wrote: »

Mmmm, all good except you're forgetting the witnesses and the tyre tracks on the guys legs along with the blood on your car. And the occasional CCTV cameras dotted around the route.
See you in court!!!

I wouldn't be overly concerned about it.
Ireland has hardly any CCTV for starters.

As for tyre tracks, tyre marks on his legs ??

Prove it, it wasn't me, anyway if I got to the point where he was in the boot I might as well just make the full trip to either dalkey or ticknock

Ellis Dee

All's well that ends well. I'm glad the householder, who was pursuing a fleeing thief in a car and naturally is not a trained stunt driver and bumped into the criminal, was not given a criminal conviction. He was only doing his inexpert best to recover his property and effect a citizen's arrest. None of the malice that is an a priori requirement for an act to be criminal was in evidence.:)

As for the thief, who got off far too lightly when he had his day in court, the judge will probably know better the next time he he is up on charges, as he inevitably will be, and a meaningful punishment will hopefully result.:rolleyes:

And, of course, we mustn't forget karma. That scumbag has built up a huge store of the bad kind and his ill-gotten €175,000 won't help him much when that lady, who can be a real bitch when you cross her, decides it's comeuppance time for him.:eek:

fat bloke

Maybe we should hand every thief in the country a couple of hundred thousand quid?

It'd stop them robbing people for a while, at least until the money ran out.

Mammanabammana

Ormus wrote: »

I think if you read his posts, they were a lot more inflammatory than mine, which were playful in comparison.

I'm a patriotic person, so yeah I do take it to heart when someone who doesn't live here says things like that about Ireland. I think that's almost the definition of inflammatory.

No Ormus, you've missed my point completely. I love the country as much as you do. But the government and the bamkers have basically destroyed any chance I have of making a real living there based on what I do. I would love to be able to make a living in Ireland. But I can't. Simple as. So I left. Not through choice, but through necessity.

jessiejam

I would have done more than just break his 2 legs if I found him creeping around in my bedroom while I slept, looking for something to rob.

Scumbag should have been locked up

suspended sentence my ass, and as for the 175k?????
The mind boggles

The King of Moo

Stiffler2 wrote: »

I wouldn't be overly concerned about it.
Ireland has hardly any CCTV for starters.

As for tyre tracks, tyre marks on his legs ??

Prove it, it wasn't me, anyway if I got to the point where he was in the boot I might as well just make the full trip to either dalkey or ticknock

How on earth do you intend to break his legs with a car? If you'd do it just with the impact from the bumper/bonnet, you might be there for quite a while!

Stereomaniac

Yeah but Ormus, why do you let him get to you, rather than becoming, as was said above a keyboard-warrior? Living well is the best revenge on these people. There's no need to get into a nationalist debate over what is at the end of the day, a bizarre court case.

benway

Mammanabammana wrote: »

...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.

First up, there is a particular defense to criminal charges where the offender is not in control of their actions. It wasn't raised in this case. In fact there's no suggestion that the accused didn't know exactly what he was doing.

What I'm really interested in is that, in the first sentence of that last paragraph, you're refuting an argument that nobody has really made. Think a couple of other posters have already made the same point as well - is this some kind of stock argument they teach you in Daily Mail debating techniques 101?

I think you'll find that the keyboard warriors and internet tough guys have been saying that they'd have knocked the guy's brains out with a brick. Sure they would ... and not one of them would wet their pants.

Not sure I even need to bother with the rest of it, except to say that some people seem to be mad keen on the rules only when it suits them ... :rolleyes:

Oceanbunny wrote: »

i am not a lawyer or in insurance so would appreciate clarification here-:

- if the police had followed him and accidently hit him would it be different from an insurance point of view ? resisting arrest etc?

- as he was running from the crime with the stolen property in his pockets- does that stretch out the scene of the crime. as in someone grabs my bag when i am walking down the street and my husband runs after them catches them and punches them and takes my bag back.....is the punch a separate assault - as opposed to relying on the protection of your property and self defence?

Whether he was resisting arrest wouldn't really have a massive bearing on the first scenario, I don't think. It would really come down to whether the police were negligent as to his physical safety in effecting the arrest. It is possible that if it was the force used was no more than is reasonable in arresting him, it might be justifiable, and he might it might be found that running away constituted contributory negligence, reducing the claim. But I doubt that hitting someone with a car will ever be such reasonable force as to disallow a claim completely.

In the second, first up are you sure he had stolen property in his pockets? But, from where I see it, it doesn't "stretch" the scene of the burglary. He would be committing the separate offence of possessing stolen property.

Under the Non Fatal Offenses Against the Person Act you're entitled to use reasonable force to prevent your or anyone else's property from "appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act", so a punch would seem to be ok.

Breaking both his legs, on the other hand...

Ormus

Ellis Dee wrote: »

All's well that ends well. I'm glad the householder, who was pursuing a fleeing thief in a car and naturally is not a trained stunt driver and bumped into the criminal, was not given a criminal conviction. He was only doing his inexpert best to recover his property and effect a citizen's arrest. None of the malice that is an a priori requirement for an act to be criminal was in evidence.:)

As for the thief, who got off far too lightly when he had his day in court, the judge will probably know better the next time he he is up on charges, as he inevitably will be, and a meaningful punishment will hopefully result.:rolleyes:

And, of course, we mustn't forget karma. That scumbag has built up a huge store of the bad kind and his ill-gotten €175,000 won't help him much when that lady, who can be a real bitch when you cross her, decides it's comeuppance time for him.:eek:

I think there may have been malice in him running him over twice and saying "If you get up again, I'll kill you"

I agree, he will surely be back in court in no time, and his suspended sentence will then be activated, so he will do time for this crime.

Ormus

Mammanabammana wrote: »

No Ormus, you've missed my point completely. I love the country as much as you do. But the government and the bamkers have basically destroyed any chance I have of making a real living there based on what I do. I would love to be able to make a living in Ireland. But I can't. Simple as. So I left. Not through choice, but through necessity.

Well I think I did miss your point when you called Ireland "a complete ****ing ****hole of a country" yeah.

But I won't argue with you about the bankers etc, and I know some people have had to leave to make a living.

We won't get into all that cos it's not what this thread is about.

Ormus

Stereomaniac wrote: »

Yeah but Ormus, why do you let him get to you, rather than becoming, as was said above a keyboard-warrior? Living well is the best revenge on these people. There's no need to get into a nationalist debate over what is at the end of the day, a bizarre court case.

Fair point, lets drop it.

Live well!

benway

Ellis Dee wrote: »

All's well that ends well. I'm glad the householder, who was pursuing a fleeing thief in a car and naturally is not a trained stunt driver and bumped into the criminal, was not given a criminal conviction. He was only doing his inexpert best to recover his property and effect a citizen's arrest. None of the malice that is an a priori requirement for an act to be criminal was in evidence.:)

The what now? Malice is NOT a prerequisite for criminal liability. What about recklessness?

Really starting to think that there should be a compulsory basic law course for the junior cert, people seem to be seriously misinformed.

The fact that he's inexpert is exactly why he shouldn't have tried to tackle the guy in the first place.

benway

benway wrote: »

The fact that he's inexpert is exactly why he shouldn't have tried to tackle the guy in the first place.

Drumroll.....corny music........The A-Team

Hannibal Smith

RVP 11 wrote: »

Drumroll.....corny music........The A-Team

You called?

shaunsweb

I just read the article today about the businessman in Dundalk. I can't believe the burglar got compensation for breaking into guys house and then breaking his legs by running under the wheels of the businessman's car.

I wonder can the businessman now sue the burglar for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for him and his family brought on by the fact the guy was in his house? I think he should sue for 200K.

Thoughts please

benway

shaunsweb wrote: »

I wonder can the businessman now sue the burglar for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for him and his family brought on by the fact the guy was in his house? I think he should sue for 200K.

Thoughts please

Nothing stopping him, so long as there is a diagnosis of PTSD, or another recognised mental illness that can be that attributed to the incident, that will stand up to a defence expert and counsel poking at it.

Seems from this thread that a lot of people have no idea how damages work, though. You don't generally sue "for 200k" in this country - you can claim the cost of medical treatment, days lost from work, loss of future earnings as calculated by an actuary, and more nebulous "general damages", covering pain, suffering, emotional distress, etc.

Damages are supposed to put you in the position that you would have been in had the accident never happened - it's actually quite difficult to make a massive "profit" once all the medical bills have been paid, and lost earnings have been made up for.

shaunsweb

It's always nice to have someone imply how ignorant other subscribers to the boards service are.

I think you missed my point entirely. The point is that no scumbag should be allowed to receive 175K for something that was essentially his fault to begin with. To elaborate: If he hadn't taken drink, he wouldn't have gotten into a drunken haze and broken into someone's house and miraculously suddenly came round in a bathroom with a pocket full of the home owers jewellry in his pocket!!! If that hadn't of happened, then he might not have run himself under the wheels of the home owners car and accidentally broekn his legs (sarcastic comment in case you didn't know)

We could probably even take it a step further. If he hadn't been born then he would have subjected all the previous victims to the ordeal of having their privacy violated and their property stolen. Personally speaking; he can come round to my house any day and I'll be happy to present my point of view to him in person (day or night doesn really matter).

jackal

Ellis Dee wrote: »

....

And, of course, we mustn't forget karma. That scumbag has built up a huge store of the bad kind and his ill-gotten €175,000 won't help him much when that lady, who can be a real bitch when you cross her, decides it's comeuppance time for him.:eek:

Its a ****ing sad state of affairs when we have to rely on Karma instead of the actual justice system we have. :mad:

flanders1979

May he walk bandy legged for the rest of his life as a warning to other magpies.

benway

shaunsweb wrote: »

It's always nice to have someone imply how ignorant other subscribers to the boards service are.

I'm not implying, I'm saying straight out - seems that a lot of posters here have no idea how damages work, and are badly misinformed on the legal system in general. I've pointed out two examples in the last two pages or so, there are many, many more.

Not saying this is a their faults or that it necessarily invalidates the points they're making, it's just an observation.

Seeing as you seemed to be asking a simple question in the second part of your post, you got a simple answer. Might not be as exciting as playing the internet tough guy and braying about how the law is an ass, the judges are all bleeding heart liberals and how we'd love to go out and smash "scumbags" in the face with a hammer ... but there you have it.