Man who knocked down burglar in court

benway

Corruptable wrote: »

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..

He would've gotten legal aid if he couldnt afford his own defense. Why would anyone take on a property developer - clearly someone with some spare cash - as a pro bono client? You're off into cloud cuckoo land now, chief. How do you know the cost of his defense anyway?

You seem to be taking it for granted that everyone agrees that McCaughey is blameless in all of this - why is it so difficult to grasp that the victim in one context can be the perpetrator in another ... "victimhood" does not absolve you of all sins.

Corruptable

benway wrote: »

He would've gotten legal aid if he couldnt afford his own defense. Why would anyone take on a property developer - clearly someone with some spare cash - as a pro bono client? You're off into cloud cuckoo land now, chief. How do you know the cost of his defense anyway?

You seem to be taking it for granted that everyone agrees that McCaughey is blameless in all of this - why is it so difficult to grasp that the victim in one context can be the perpetrator in another ... "victimhood" does not absolve you of all sins.

That's not what I asked. In general there is far too much reluctance to take pro bono cases in this country, surely some group of citizens and practitioners should have come forward to meet this man's costs (and for that matter, Padraig Nally's, even though he did take donations which I gave plentifully).

It doesn't require everyone to agree, I know there are always more practitioners who are more than happy with milking the current system. But where's all the idealism? It only seems to apply to politically correct causes like criminals "human rights", and helping homeowners hold onto their homes because of the nasty banking/developer conspiracy.

Liam Byrne

greendom wrote: »

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.

How are they "facts" if they're hearsay from a biased party and even you had to use the word "apparently" ?

And what was he "mourning" all the other days that he decided to act like a complete low-life and ended up getting suspended sentences ?

This award is a disgrace and whoever authorised it is the same mindset as the ****wits who landed us in this mess - looking after the wrong people.

I think a counter-suit for distress and disgust and harassment would be ideal, with an ethical judge the real victim would get about - I dunno - €175,000 maybe ?

tayto lover

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.

Yes i know his history. He had it rough as a child BUT everything the state could offer was put in place for him from care orders to social workers. Not everyone who had a bad upbringing turns to crime.

benway

Corruptable wrote: »

That's not what I asked. In general there is far too much reluctance to take pro bono cases in this country, surely some group of citizens and practitioners should have come forward to meet this man's costs (and for that matter, Padraig Nally's, even though he did take donations which I gave plentifully).

It doesn't require everyone to agree, I know there are always more practitioners who are more than happy with milking the current system. But where's all the idealism? It only seems to apply to politically correct causes like criminals "human rights", and helping homeowners hold onto their homes because of the nasty banking/developer conspiracy.

Why would you take on a pro bono case? Because someone is in dire financial straights - not the case here. Or because someone is clearly subject to a gross injustice or being tried for political reasons - again, not the case here. I personally don't see much idealism in pandering to middle-class prejudice.

The fact is that McCaughey is in the wrong on this, in so far as I see it, and got off lightly. Let him pay up and count himself lucky, and let it be a warning to other wannabe action heroes that there will be some consequences if they take the law into their own hands with a burglar, much and all as they may feel like it, and feel justified in doing so.

Liam Byrne wrote:

This award is a disgrace and whoever authorised it is the same mindset as the ****wits who landed us in this mess - looking after the wrong people.

I think a counter-suit for distress and disgust and harassment would be ideal, with an ethical judge the real victim would get about - I dunno - €175,000 maybe ?

Dealt with the second point about a page back - nothing stopping him, although you can't sue for a specific figure in this country, unlike in the states and you need to have a strong diagnosis of a recognised mental illness to claim, one that will stand up to cross examination. Re the €50k, I wouldn't be sure on the exact figure, but this is usually how these things work. Do you think the insurer gives out cash just for the craic?

Funny enough, I've been saying all along that if people could raise the same level of vitriol towards the ****wits who landed us in this mess as they do for small-time "scumbags", this country would be in a much better state.

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes i know his history. He had it rough as a child BUT everything the state could offer was put in place for him from care orders to social workers. Not everyone who had a bad upbringing turns to crime.

Nobody's saying that they do - will have to point out that "everything the state could offer" in my experience doesn't amount to f*ck all. Ye'll all be up on your high horses, no doubt, saying that I'm coddling the guy, but the fact is that there's an awful tendency to paint him as some stereotypical "scumbag" rather than a real human being with a real life story. That's not trying to defend him, that's just stating the facts.

Just because he's had it rough doesn't justify him turning to crime, and just because he's a criminal or you think he's a "scumbag" doesn't mean you can do what you like with him. To allow that would be a first step along a very dangerous road.

benway

benway wrote: »

Funny enough, I've been saying all along that if people could raise the same level of vitriol towards the ****wits who landed us in this mess as they do for small-time "scumbags", this country would be in a much better state.

There you go folks, it's the bankers fault, again!!!:pac:

benway

RVP 11 wrote: »

There you go folks, it's the bankers fault, again!!!:pac:

No it isn't, sweet-cheeks.

It's just that Liam above suggested that "looking after the wrong people" is what's ruined this country - I've been making a not dissimilar point, but going in the opposite direction, that it's a actually a disproportionate focus on lower-class "scumbags" and selective blindness / apathy towards the activities of upper-class "scumbags" that's played a major role in getting this country into the mess it's in.

Off topic, of course, but I thought I'd answer the man seeing as he brought up a tangential point.

:pac:

Dohnny Jepp

benway wrote: »

No it isn't, sweet-cheeks.


:pac:

Ah good ould after hours, posters always flirting with each other!

benway

What can I say? All this heated debate has me hornier than a 4-balled tomcat.

Ormus

I'm not on McCormack's side on this. I can't get my head around his award of €175,000, especially when hospital bills only came to €50,000 and he presumably doesn't work. It also seems that a suspended sentence appears quite lenient, given the fact that he is a repeat offender. I can only guess that we don't have all the facts with regard to the insurance claim and the court verdict.

But I'm also not on McCaughey's side. I sympathise with him that it makes a man understandably angry to find a guy in his house in the middle of the night and I think it would have been a very courageous story if he had gone after him and used reasonable force to make a citizen's arrest. But he didn't. He seriously assaulted him. It's understandable but it's also illegal, and if it wasn't illegal, there would be innocent people being legally murdered every day on the streets out of anger and revenge and mistaken identity and mob justice.

steve9859

Ormus wrote: »

He seriously assaulted him. It's understandable but it's also illegal, and if it wasn't illegal, there would be innocent people being legally murdered every day on the streets out of anger and revenge and mistaken identity and mob justice.

Well, happy to say that it's not as illegal as you might want to think given he was found not guilty of said assault.

It's like if a scumbag nicked my wallet and ran off, I would run after him and give him a good dig in the head* It's not like the crime is over as soon as he has put some distance between me and him.

*and I'm a big fella before anyone accuses me of being an internet tough guy!

tinkerbell

This case makes my blood boil. Whoever awarded that scumbag €175k was off their feckin mind. That scumbag got himself into the situation! He robbed someone's house and the owner decided to go after him. Well maybe if he hadn't been such a scumbag and had not broken into that man's house armed with a screwdriver and walked into his bedroom, well he would not have got the injuries he got from the car. Whatever happened to negligence? If you cause some accident via negligence, they don't necessarily have to pay out!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh, honestly the supposed "justice" system in this country really is fecked up.

tayto lover

benway wrote: »

Why would you take on a pro bono case? Because someone is in dire financial straights - not the case here. Or because someone is clearly subject to a gross injustice or being tried for political reasons - again, not the case here. I personally don't see much idealism in pandering to middle-class prejudice.

The fact is that McCaughey is in the wrong on this, in so far as I see it, and got off lightly. Let him pay up and count himself lucky, and let it be a warning to other wannabe action heroes that there will be some consequences if they take the law into their own hands with a burglar, much and all as they may feel like it, and feel justified in doing so.


Dealt with the second point about a page back - nothing stopping him, although you can't sue for a specific figure in this country, unlike in the states and you need to have a strong diagnosis of a recognised mental illness to claim, one that will stand up to cross examination. Re the €50k, I wouldn't be sure on the exact figure, but this is usually how these things work. Do you think the insurer gives out cash just for the craic?

Funny enough, I've been saying all along that if people could raise the same level of vitriol towards the ****wits who landed us in this mess as they do for small-time "scumbags", this country would be in a much better state.


Nobody's saying that they do - will have to point out that "everything the state could offer" in my experience doesn't amount to f*ck all. Ye'll all be up on your high horses, no doubt, saying that I'm coddling the guy, but the fact is that there's an awful tendency to paint him as some stereotypical "scumbag" rather than a real human being with a real life story. That's not trying to defend him, that's just stating the facts.

Just because he's had it rough doesn't justify him turning to crime, and just because he's a criminal or you think he's a "scumbag" doesn't mean you can do what you like with him. To allow that would be a first step along a very dangerous road.

I am only stating facts and if you read through my previous posts you will see that I said McCaughey was mad to hit him with his car and was very lucky not to be convicted. I never called anyone a scumbag or derogatory term.

Ormus

steve9859 wrote: »

Well, happy to say that it's not as illegal as you might want to think given he was found not guilty of said assault.

It's like if a scumbag nicked my wallet and ran off, I would run after him and give him a good dig in the head* It's not like the crime is over as soon as he has put some distance between me and him.

*and I'm a big fella before anyone accuses me of being an internet tough guy!

What I meant was that assault causing harm is illegal in this country.

I'm not sure how he got off, fair chance it was a sympathetic jury, and I think there seemed to be a neighbour witness in his favour.

If someone nicked my wallet and ran off I too would run after him and probably give him a good kick in the stones*. But I would be aware that I was committing an assault.

If someone came into my house I would probably get away with kicking him on the basis that it was reasonable force.

*Also big.

Liam Byrne

benway wrote: »

RVP 11 wrote: »

There you go folks, it's the bankers fault, again!!!:pac:

No it isn't, sweet-cheeks.

It's just that Liam above suggested that "looking after the wrong people" is what's ruined this country - I've been making a not dissimilar point, but going in the opposite direction, that it's a actually a disproportionate focus on lower-class "scumbags" and selective blindness / apathy towards the activities of upper-class "scumbags" that's played a major role in getting this country into the mess it's in.

Off topic, of course, but I thought I'd answer the man seeing as he brought up a tangential point.

:pac:

Liam's post re "looking after the wrong people" included BOTH sets that you are referring to.

And while I can't speak for those who support the Ahern's, Gallaghers, Quinns, Drumms, Fitzpatricks & Ronans of this world, you can be sure that personally I have the same level of vitriol for all levels of scumbags.

The definition is in their actions and attitude, and not - as you seem to want to imply - their background, class or profession.

Unfortunately a certain B Ahern will never be in striking distance of my car.

steve9859

Ormus wrote: »

What I meant was that assault causing harm is illegal in this country.

I'm not sure how he got off, fair chance it was a sympathetic jury, and I think there seemed to be a neighbour witness in his favour.

If someone nicked my wallet and ran off I too would run after him and probably give him a good kick in the stones*. But I would be aware that I was committing an assault.

If someone came into my house I would probably get away with kicking him on the basis that it was reasonable force.

*Also big.

yeh, if I decked a scanger that had nicked my girlfriends bag, bust his nose, and got charged with assault, I doubt right now there is a jury in the land that would convict.

So bearing that in mind, the law is an ass. Such an "assault" can hardly be illegal if a jury does not recognise it as such. So maybe after this the law beeds to be changed to allow for a certain degree of vigilantiism, and let the lawmakers define what is fair in that circumstance, rather than a jury.

benway

I am only stating facts and if you read through my previous posts you will see that I said McCaughey was mad to hit him with his car and was very lucky not to be convicted. I never called anyone a scumbag or derogatory term.

Yeah, 100% - didn't mean to address that to you, there's just a lot of posters who seem to be hating the stereotype rather than talking about the actual case, apologies for any confusion.

steve9859 wrote: »

Well, happy to say that it's not as illegal as you might want to think given he was found not guilty of said assault.

It's like if a scumbag nicked my wallet and ran off, I would run after him and give him a good dig in the head* It's not like the crime is over as soon as he has put some distance between me and him.

*and I'm a big fella before anyone accuses me of being an internet tough guy!

What are you wearing?

But nah, I'm 6'5" and a bit over 18 stone myself, played rugby, do the odd bit of kick boxing, but I'd still hesitate to take on a burglar or a street thief in case I end up stuck with a knife over a few trinkets. I really think that all this gung ho stuff is going to lead to someone getting seriously hurt or killed, it's not something that should be encouraged imho.

The thing is, you're entitled to use reasonable force to get your stuff back, but only reasonable force - breaking both legs wouldn't really be excusable. McCaughey was lucky in this case, it was a 7-5 majority decision, could very easily have gone against him. It's still very much illegal, and you could still expect to be charged and take your chances with the jury if you go overboard.

Now, I'm as wild as the next man when the red mist descends, but I still like to think that I'd have enough self control to only use enough force as necessary, and not to give the guy a going over just to prove a point - and I wouldn't expect to get away scott free if I did something like that.

steve9859 wrote: »

So bearing that in mind, the law is an ass. Such an "assault" can hardly be illegal if a jury does not recognise it as such. So maybe after this the law beeds to be changed to allow for a certain degree of vigilantiism, and let the lawmakers define what is fair in that circumstance, rather than a jury.

To repeat, the Non Fatal Offenses Against the Person allows force that is reasonable in the circumstances to be used. The Defense of the Dwelling Act allows "lethal force" to be used on a burglar if if the circumstances warrant, although this had been permitted under the previous common law, that Act didn't really change much.

If you go overboard, you're likely to be charged, but it you restrain yourself in so far as possible you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Even if you are charged, a jury may come down on your side, but that's a risk you don't want to be taking.

Where is the law an "ass" here? Just wondering, like.

Ormus

steve9859 wrote: »

yeh, if I decked a scanger that had nicked my girlfriends bag, bust his nose, and got charged with assault, I doubt right now there is a jury in the land that would convict.

So bearing that in mind, the law is an ass. Such an "assault" can hardly be illegal if a jury does not recognise it as such. So maybe after this the law beeds to be changed to allow for a certain degree of vigilantiism, and let the lawmakers define what is fair in that circumstance, rather than a jury.

There wouldn't often be a jury for assault, and even if there was, I wouldn't be so confident, this was a 7-5 majority. You are definitely way off thinking that it would always go your way.

I can't believe people are genuinely advocating vigilantism. Have people really stopped to think about it? Please believe me, it's not always going to be a case of the hero defending his family and the scumbag getting what he deserves.

It's called 'taking the law into your own hands' because it means that the average Joe Soap becomed judge, jury and executioner. Do you have any idea of the amount of wrong decisions that would be made? The amount of mistaken identity, breakdown in communications, heat of the moment incidents there will be. Carnage on the streets. Murder in the pubs. Revenge followed by revenge. I'm not exaggerating here.

Stark

Ormus wrote: »

It's called 'taking the law into your own hands' because it means that the average Joe Soap becomed judge, jury and executioner. Do you have any idea of the amount of wrong decisions that would be made? The amount of mistaken identity, breakdown in communications, heat of the moment incidents there will be. Carnage on the streets. Murder in the pubs. Revenge followed by revenge. I'm not exaggerating here.

Oh I know how bad it would be. I've seen traveller feuds. But it's the law who's at fault imo here. The burglar in question was a know repeat offender. The law knew he was repeatedly breaking into homes. They had 32 chances to put a stop to it. They would have known it would eventually turn ugly (just look at all the cases of pensioners found dead in their homes after burglaries) but they let him continue anyway. To then turn around and punish the victim when a victim finally reacted would be grossly unfair. The law should have protected him from being put in that situation in the first place.

Even after the ugliness, the justice system still hasn't learn its lesson as evidenced by the suspended sentence.

Ormus

Stark wrote: »

Oh I know how bad it would be. I've seen traveller feuds. But it's the law who's at fault imo here. The burglar in question was a know repeat offender. The law knew he was repeatedly breaking into homes. They had 32 chances to put a stop to it. They would have known it would eventually turn ugly (just look at all the cases of pensioners found dead in their homes after burglaries) but they let him continue anyway. To then turn around and punish the victim when a victim finally reacted would be grossly unfair. The law should have protected him from being put in that situation in the first place.

Even after the ugliness, the justice system still hasn't learn its lesson as evidenced by the suspended sentence.

Yeah I'll be honest with you, I don't understand how he has gotten off so easily on a repeated basis. There must be more to it than we have been told.

Either way that is no reason to be lenient on McCaughey this time. I know it's cliche but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Stark

Ormus wrote: »

There must be more to it than we have been told.

I'm doubtful. It's like every time you hear of a joyrider found dead with his car wrapped around a lamppost, you also hear that he had 40-odd previous convictions. Again, the justice system completely shirking its responsibilities (it's only "petty crime" shur) until the **** hits the fan.

benway

Stark wrote: »

Oh I know how bad it would be. I've seen traveller feuds. But it's the law who's at fault imo here. The burglar in question was a know repeat offender. The law knew he was repeatedly breaking into homes. They had 32 chances to put a stop to it. They would have known it would eventually turn ugly (just look at all the cases of pensioners found dead in their homes after burglaries) but they let him continue anyway. To then turn around and punish the victim when a victim finally reacted would be grossly unfair. The law should have protected him from being put in that situation in the first place.

Even after the ugliness, the justice system still hasn't learn its lesson as evidenced by the suspended sentence.

I agree with you that the current system isn't working, but I'm willing to hazard a guess that we disagree on what's needed - a more jails, longer sentences, three strikes will only make the problem worse.

No doubt this makes me some kind of out of touch wooly liberal bleeding heart looney left academic, but the facts speak for themselves:

benway wrote: »

Robbery, extortion and hijacking offences in Ireland: 55.35 per 100,000
Larceny-theft in the United States: 2,060.9 per 100,000

Both figures are for 2009. Data has slightly different titles, but measures pretty much the same thing.

Incarceration rate in Ireland: 95 per 100,000 (2011)
Incarceration rate in the United States: 743 per 100,000 (2009)

Long prison sentences are really helping, obviously.

tayto lover

Ormus wrote: »

Yeah I'll be honest with you, I don't understand how he has gotten off so easily on a repeated basis. There must be more to it than we have been told.

Either way that is no reason to be lenient on McCaughey this time. I know it's cliche but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Finding 12 members of the public to act as a jury and who have not been effected by crime in one way or another must be nigh impossible. If you only watch the smug appearances of some of the people who are on trial on T.V. News and see them giving the fingers, swearing at the cameras or spitting at someone as we all have seen over the years then people, even juries, might just have it in for them. This I feel may be the case in many trials where the alleged accused have family histories and family names synonymous with crime and where media reporting gives the game away.
I am not saying that this was the case in this trial but we knew the details and his history prior to the trial. Also whether we like it or not the public loves a have-a-go-hero.

Dyr

benway wrote: »

ed - a more jails, longer sentences, three strikes will only make the problem worse.

orly? How many houses are broken into by burglars that are locked up?

benway wrote: »

No doubt this makes me some kind of out of touch wooly liberal bleeding heart looney left academic, but the facts speak for themselves:

What facts liberal bleedin heart academics tend to think that whatever they feel is automatically backed up by facts :pac:

benway

Bambi wrote: »

orly? How many houses are broken into by burglars that are locked up?

What facts liberal bleedin heart academics tend to think that whatever they feel is automatically backed up by facts :pac:

Ya rly. The destructive social effects of mass incarceration far outweigh the incapacitative effects. The more burglars and thieves you lock up, the more you create, pretty much.

Here's a fact - the US has an incarceration rate eight times higher than Ireland's, but a rate of robberies 37 times higher than Ireland's. This is despite 30 years of zero tolerance, get tough, three strikes, eye for an eye death penalty nonsense.

It. Does. Not. Work.

The level of equality in a society is one of the strongest indicators of the crime rate, even the notoriously wooly and liberal World Bank admit this:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf

Maybe not as exciting or satisfying (for some of you anyway) as bringing back hanging or a vigilante's charter, but if we want to make a real impact on the crime rate, we need to look at making the country a fairer and more equal place.

tayto lover wrote:

Finding 12 members of the public to act as a jury and who have not been effected by crime in one way or another must be nigh impossible. If you only watch the smug appearances of some of the people who are on trial on T.V. News and see them giving the fingers, swearing at the cameras or spitting at someone as we all have seen over the years then people, even juries, might just have it in for them. This I feel may be the case in many trials where the alleged accused have family histories and family names synonymous with crime and where media reporting gives the game away.
I am not saying that this was the case in this trial but we knew the details and his history prior to the trial. Also whether we like it or not the public loves a have-a-go-hero.

To be honest, I've felt like giving the fingers to the press and spitting on them a few times around the courts, shower of f*cking vultures the lot of them.

The thing is that the media completely distort our view of the crime problem, disproportionately covering the more extreme cases and consistently dehumanising criminals and "scumbags". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're making the whole thing up, but I am saying that they frame and define the issues and limit the possible scope for action.

I don't think it's any co-incidence that most sections of the press continually bang on about punitive measures - their paymasters wouldn't like it very much if it got out that promoting a more equal society would probably be more effective, would they?

Even the phrase "have a go hero" ... neat piece of spin/PR/propaganda, innit. In all honesty, I don't see much heroism in running over a guy twice with your car, no matter what he's done.

Solair

The United States' is a very poor model to look at for dealing with crime and more importantly, the causes of crime.

The single biggest cause of crime in Ireland seems to be drugs, especially heroin dependency.

Our approach to dealing with heroine addicts simply does not work. We need to harshly target major dealers. They should be gone after both criminally, and also financially to ensure they're absolutely destroyed by the state.

Treat addicts as ill / victims. They are a danger to society and to themselves and should be given no option about treatment programmes. It should be a compulsory programme and if they do not attend or cooperate it should be a secure residential treatment programme until they are off drugs.

Jailing addicts, even those who commit crimes, is pretty pointless. They commit crimes, mostly theft of property / cash, to get a fix because they are basically mentally ill due to substance abuse and dependence and are not in control of their own actions. You need to get them off drugs otherwise they will just keep reoffending. They're not evil people, they're addicts with serious problems who need help, not punishment.

If we managed to break the drugs cycle in Ireland, we would massively reduce almost all of our petty and serious crime problems.

The US gung-ho, throw everyone in jail approach simply does not work at all. They're very much stuck in a Wild-west mentality when it comes to policing and justice.

We should be looking at how European countries that have had success with tackling these problems have done things and follow their lead and try to innovate ourselves too!

We also need to look at other alternatives for dealing with non-violent crime. We waste prison service resources for absolutely stupid offenses like non-payment of fines. These should be dealt with through community service orders and liens on peoples wages/welfare etc for non-payment of fines / tax issues.
There could be much wider use of things like electronic tagging of non-violent / non-dangerous offenders too for certain issues e.g. holding people on remand pre trial.

Electronic tagging / community service etc would also have a pretty serious potential role in youth crime. For example, you could impose enforceable curfews on youth offenders using a tag, rather than just giving them a telling off in court.

Jail spaces need to be reserved for people who need to be in jail...

greendom

Maybe the home owner can think himself lucky that his "driving" wasn't caught on camera...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17063165

coleria

not sure if this has been posted but check it out,

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ive-got-a-shotgun-and-guard-dog-in-case-intruders-strike-my-home-again-3023161.html

Ye're not gonna believe it, the guys a rich developer with a pretty nice house, and it was his car insurance company that paid the compensation.

Sunnyisland

coleria wrote: »

not sure if this has been posted but check it out,

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ive-got-a-shotgun-and-guard-dog-in-case-intruders-strike-my-home-again-3023161.html

Ye're not gonna believe it, the guys a rich developer with a pretty nice house, and it was his car insurance company that paid the compensation.

And your point being

mikom

coleria wrote: »

not sure if this has been posted but check it out,

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ive-got-a-shotgun-and-guard-dog-in-case-intruders-strike-my-home-again-3023161.html

Ye're not gonna believe it, the guys a rich developer with a pretty nice house, and it was his car insurance company that paid the compensation.

So.
He was hardly riding a BMX.