Man who knocked down burglar in court

grizzly

You couldn't make it up

cofy

This person has been shown leniency by the courts previously even when he has been violent. Why should the Gardai do their jobs, imo they are being undermined by the courts. Why has he been shown leniency to this person by the courts, in the past. Why has this situation been allowed to escalate to this.

mikom

Have you seen the state of this cunt.......... http://www.independent.ie/multimedia/archive/01017/Daniel-McCormack-i_1017475t.jpg

u_c_thesecond

realies wrote: »

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

Mr McCormack said he could not recall if he went into the bedrooms of the three children in the accused's house.

how is this not the creepiest part of all???????????

cofy

mikom wrote: »

Have you seen the state of this cunt.......... http://www.independent.ie/multimedia/archive/01017/Daniel-McCormack-i_1017475t.jpg

And to think that solicitors and barristers have to do their jobs to the best of their ability for this.

My sympathies to Mr. McCaughey and his family for what they have been put through because of this scumbag for the last 3 years.

cofy

u_c_thesecond wrote: »

how is this not the creepiest part of all???????????

I have known people in this state, not be able to go though their own house without wakeing up everyone, yet this person was able to manoeuvre his way though a strange house, not only that but be able to make his way out of the house through a downstair window, run across a field and jump over a wall. And all the time being that close to a black out. It's just utterly ludicrous.

casandra

When the law, made by politicians does not reflect the views of the mojority of the people of the country, it is bad law.

LH Pathe

But sure half the country'd say string im up

n d' udder half would say string the other fillah

greendom

dark crystal wrote: »

But what if the 'victim' had not lost any earnings (i.e; unemployed) and had a medical card (no medical bills)?

Also, is there any liability attributed to the 'victim' for having placed himself in the situation in the first place?

Lastly, is the judge allowed to use their own discretion when awarding compensation? I mean, could he have found in favour of the plaintiff, but awarded him a perfunctory amount (i.e €1)?

He had to pay €50,000 towards his medical costs apparently (his sister was interviewed on Newstalk this morning and mentioned this).

He was also apparently taken into care at the age of 4 and was mourning the loss of his mother on the day he committed the crime. Not making excuses for him here, just stating the facts.

Dunny

greendom wrote: »

He had to pay €50,000 towards his medical costs apparently (his sister was interviewed on Newstalk this morning and mentioned this).

He was also apparently taken into care at the age of 4 and was mourning the loss of his mother on the day he committed the crime. Not making excuses for him here, just stating the facts.

Anywhere to listen to this?

greendom

Dunny! wrote: »

Anywhere to listen to this?

www.newstalk.ie

I think it will be available to download on this website at some point.

gandalf

Heard the interview on Newstalk and nearly crashed the car in a rage. This guy broke into a house, was armed with a screwdriver, skulked through the upper rooms with people asleep and they expect us to believe that he is the victim!

Corruptable

gandalf wrote: »

Heard the interview on Newstalk and nearly crashed the car in a rage. This guy broke into a house, was armed with a screwdriver, skulked through the upper rooms with people asleep and they expect us to believe that he is the victim!

Enter someone's house armed and you've no right to expect that you'll come out the other side of that alive, in my opinion. It's sad to say, but all these types of cases seem show that your better not to bother to use reasonable force, rather you should use lethal force so that it's your word versus a dead man's.

Yes, it wasn't right to hit the burglar on the public road when he was no longer a threat. But he should have the right to do everything possible to apprehend him, using reasonable force. All he achieved is a six figure legal fee for his defence which he has to somehow pay.

facemelter

Laisurg wrote: »

can't go around running people over, burglar or not :rolleyes:

I dont agree with that , its a form of self defence , the burglar lived near by , whats to stop him returning ? if someone breaks into my house i wont them to know that im not going to lie back and take it , i'd like to see him rob a house now , knowing the irish legal system , he'd sue the next victim for not having a wheelchair ramp :mad:

Plazaman

Love the front of The Star today, burglar thinks he got a raw deal out of it.

He wasn't available for interview yesterday as he was in bed "exhausted" after 2 days in court. You'd think he'd be use to it.

The only consolation is that with that kind of money, he'll have no self-control so more than likely will probably be found very soon OD'd behind a dumpster.

Corruptable

At least everyone in this thread now knows the secret is not to let them off your property.

Mr. Presentable

Yup. Should have thrown him in the boot and brought him home.

Corruptable

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Yup. Should have thrown him in the boot and brought him home.

If it was out my way in the Shticks I'd say that's what would happen. In fact last night, I wondered how many of the missing people down through the years are "missing" due to such situations.

In the instant case however, there were several witnesses and Mr. McCaughey, thinking he was being a good citizen, had reported the incident to the Gardai, so there was already a trail left behind.

benway

Corruptable wrote: »

At least everyone in this thread now knows the secret is not to let them off your property.

You should know at this stage that this may not save you if you use your "lethal force" gratuitously, tough guy. The verdict was tight, 7-5 before a home-town jury, could have been very different on a different day. And if you went up for murder or manslaughter at the Central Criminal Court, you can pretty much factor out local sympathy.

We both know that if the law had been applied, McCaughey would have been convicted, and that there's no legal right to apply "lethal force" to an intruder on your property where that would go beyond reasonable force, so I think it's dangerous to suggest that these things are ok.

casandra wrote:

When the law, made by politicians does not reflect the views of the mojority of the people of the country, it is bad law.

I like the way that the lynch mob automatically assume they're in the majority. Although, if you were to listen to the radio or read any of the papers, you'd swear that they were.

dark crystal wrote:

But what if the 'victim' had not lost any earnings (i.e; unemployed) and had a medical card (no medical bills)?

Also, is there any liability attributed to the 'victim' for having placed himself in the situation in the first place?

Lastly, is the judge allowed to use their own discretion when awarding compensation? I mean, could he have found in favour of the plaintiff, but awarded him a perfunctory amount (i.e €1)?

You have to bear in mind that this was a settlement - the insurance paid out rather than go to full trial. There is a doctrine of contributory negligence that they could have relied on, chances of success are questionable, not sure the judge could have gone for token damages, though. The "specials" consisting of medical bills and loss of earnings will be paid to the extent that they can be vouched - including receipts etc.

Again, if this case had been contested, the Plaintiff's actuary would be examined on the loss of earnings point - he or she calculates the lost earnings and lost future earnings taking such things as earning capacity before the incident and social welfare payments. Where there's a compensation payment, medical bills will be paid out of it rather than on the medical card. Again, in this case the insurer decided to settle for that amount, it has very little to do with the courts.

Jake187 wrote:

Whats more sickening is the people who defended his right to. you should be ashamed of yourself.

Just trying to point out how the system works. Would you rather have the state paying his medical bills? That's what it comes down to.

There's plenty of people on here fantasizing about cold-blooded murder and having "I hate scumbags more" d!ck measuring contests - I'm pretty confident that I know who should be ashamed of themselves.

Corruptable

benway wrote: »

You should know at this stage that this may not save you if you use your "lethal force" gratuitously, tough guy. The verdict was tight, 7-5 before a home-town jury, could have been very different on a different day. And if you went up for murder or manslaughter at the Central Criminal Court, you can pretty much factor out local sympathy.

We both know that if the law had been applied, McCaughey would have been convicted, and that there's no legal right to apply "lethal force" to an intruder on your property where that would go beyond reasonable force, so I think it's dangerous to suggest that these things are ok.

Of course, everyone now knows full well that, to put it colloquially, the system will lock you up and rape you in an almost literal sense if you act in any way consistent with reality.

If McCaughey had killed McCormack stone dead in the bedroom when he was there with a screwdriver, I feel that would be a completely appropriate response using reasonable and proportionate force, and I don't think any jury composed of 12 ordinary people would convict a person in that situation. The test is subjective, it was the common law position and it's now codified by the new Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling Act) 2011.

In any event, the only witnesses would likely be the householder, and whatever silent forensic evidence the gardai could recover. We could also go down the path, as I suggested, that the incident isn't reported and the burglar simply disappears, and I pondered how many of the missing persons on file may actually be "victims" of this natural justice.

In the past two days I have not heard any sympathetic views for Mr. McCormack, rather what I've heard is absolutely vitriolic hatred for him and those who represented him in the civil case, both online and offline, and from people from ordinary members of the public to experienced legal practitioners.

RobFowl

Icepick wrote: »

Why is this country so scumbag-friendly?

I know, human rights are such a bitch....

Been injured while trying to steal someones car?

Got run over after stealing from someones bedroom whilst they were asleep?

Call Ormus & Benway on 1800-999-999


We believe in YOU!!!!

LOL sounded like a real solicitors.

benway

Corruptable wrote: »

In the past two days I have not heard any sympathetic views for Mr. McCormack, rather what I've heard is absolutely vitriolic hatred for him and those who represented him in the civil case, both online and offline, and from people from ordinary members of the public to experienced legal practitioners.

What I've heard is absolute vitriolic hatred for "scumbags" in general, from people who, in general, know nothing about McCormack or McCaughey aside from the basic facts. Not the same thing.

I've also heard many more cool, considered, reasonable opinions ... but I suppose you're only in touch with "reality" if you're hysterical to the point of foaming at the mouth.

You can take your chances as to whether a jury would convict, and you can take it for granted that your account would be believed over the word of some "scumbag" or forensic evidence ... but you would undoubtedly be charged, and could easily be in for a rude awakening.

You're basically saying that it's the prerogative of every citizen to make a call in what constitutes "natural justice" and to act as judge, jury and executioner. Odd position for someone who's so caught up on law and order in other contexts.

benway

RVP 11 wrote: »

Been injured while trying to steal someones car?

Got run over after stealing from someones bedroom whilst they were asleep?

Call Ormus & Benway on 1800-999-999


We believe in YOU!!!!

LOL sounded like a real solicitors.

And if any of y'all keyboard warriors make the transition from online chest-beating to IRL violence ... and don't just wet yourselves ... you know I'll be there for you.

And yes sweetie, I do believe that you really, really hate "scumbags". Such a nice little pastime for you.

Corruptable

benway wrote: »

What I've heard is absolute vitriolic hatred for "scumbags" in general, from people who, in general, know nothing about McCormack or McCaughey aside from the basic facts. Not the same thing.

I've also heard many more cool, considered, reasonable opinions ... but I suppose you're only in touch with "reality" if you're hysterical to the point of foaming at the mouth.

You can take your chances as to whether a jury would convict, and you can take it for granted that your account would be believed over the word of some "scumbag" or forensic evidence ... but you would undoubtedly be charged, and could easily be in for a rude awakening.

You're basically saying that it's the prerogative of every citizen to make a call in what constitutes "natural justice" and to act as judge, jury and executioner. Odd position for someone who's so caught up on law and order in other contexts.

Well that's the problem, the homeowner or legal occupier is the one that has to take the chance while the burglar doesn't give a ****.

What about the occupiers human rights? Article 12 and Article 17 of the UDHR seem relevant. But it's so vague and rubbishy, hence why I'd rather take a big scoury ****e than sit through a module on Human Rights, and to take some people take their Masters is that like.

Corruptable

Further, I think it's a shocking indictment of the legal profession in this country that this man is being faced with a six figure sum for the cost of his defence, rather than someone (all those young BL's whinging over in Legal Discussion) representing this man pro bono or at a minimum fee.

But then again, they're generally whining because they're "struggling" on €100,000 per annum.

benway

If a burglar cuts and runs then you don't need to take any risk, just call the cops. If he stands his ground then you can do what you need to so as to drive him away or incapacitate him...although its probably better for most people to keep themselves out of harm's way. What more do you need, exactly?

Do you think that the homeowner's human rights should extend to a blanket right to kill intruders? Or some kind of prerogative of vengeance? Seems to be where you're going with this.

droidus

Why didnt he just follow the burglar back to his house and call the guards on the way?

Does this judgment mean we now have license to take the law into our own hands? If Im mugged tomorrow, can I pursue the mugger in a fit of rage and then stab him a few times to 'stop him escaping'?

Dunny

His sister on newstalk

http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/news/sister-of-burglar-disgusted-by-acquittal-of-louth-businessman/?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150563236681662_21483271_10150563274536662#f1be9e3dec

Corruptable

benway wrote: »

If a burglar cuts and runs then you don't need to take any risk, just call the cops. If he stands his ground then you can do what you need to so as to drive him away or incapacitate him...although its probably better for most people to keep themselves out of harm's way. What more do you need, exactly?

Do you think that the homeowner's human rights should extend to a blanket right to kill intruders? Or some kind of prerogative of vengeance? Seems to be where you're going with this.

benway wrote: »

If a burglar cuts and runs then you don't need to take any risk, just call the cops. If he stands his ground then you can do what you need to so as to drive him away or incapacitate him...although its probably better for most people to keep themselves out of harm's way. What more do you need, exactly?

Do you think that the homeowner's human rights should extend to a blanket right to kill intruders? Or some kind of prerogative of vengeance? Seems to be where you're going with this.

Many people, and certainly myself would feel that if wronged, it would be necessary to ensure that the culprit is apprehended and handed over to the gardai, rather than calling them and waiting while he flees and/or dumps or destroys evidence. Using a car or weapon for that purpose would be a mistake, I accept that, but the instinctive desire for one who has been wronged is to seek justice.

No, of course not. A thorough investigation should be instituted at every level of the case, but in certain circumstances I don't feel that it would be just to put someone through the ordeal of having to defend themselves in a jury trial. You're essentially turning the victim into a criminal for defending his/her family and property.

In this case, I don't dispute that Mr. McCaughey went about it the wrong way, and as you've pointed out the jury was clearly divided on that issue. Had I been in the box and heard the facts and relevant law, I would probably have found him guilty, while acknowledging the mitigating circumstances.

Now, you who is an inspiring Kings Inn's, give me your views on the general disinterest of the legal profession in taking on such emotionally and politically charged cases pro bono? If this was the States, I'd say he'd have few light legal costs to pay as he would have been represented pro bono by some group.

And whether he's a developer or not is irrelevant before the law, you know that.