Man who knocked down burglar in court

MagicSean

It is actually legal to take the law into your own hands. The criminal law act allows members of the public to make a citizens arrest. They can also use reasonable force to make the arrest. This would be a legitimate defence to an assault charge. It's possible that the jury considered the force to be reasonable and the injury to be an unintentional or unforeseeable outcome.

CB19Kevo

Anyone else spot the big thick head on this scumbag,
It is some cheek to break into a house and when he gets 2 broken legs for his efforts, He turns around and gets 175,000 for his actions.
This is why criminals laugh at our legal system.
Yes he should not have been knocked down but he caused the situation and there is no justice to the family who had there house broken into.
I consider myself peaceful but if someone broke into my house and i felt it was safe to do so i would use whatever force required to detain them without risking my well being.
Ask yourself who is the real victim in this case, I believe that answer to be very clear.

CarrickMcJoe

Judging by the head of Mr Skanger, he looks like he may be joining Whithey Houston in the not too distant future.

nlgbbbblth

benway wrote: »

I just wish there was this kind of reaction every time the banks chased down a widow whose husband had killed himself over unfeasible, and irresponsibly lent, debts. Or every time another young family is put out on the street through no real fault of their own. Or small businesspeople bullied and harassed by banks, before being put out of business.

What about irresponsible borrowers? It's not as one-sided as you paint it.

hmmm

coleria wrote: »

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.

The amount of begrudgery and general left wing apologism is shocking.

Yes there is a difference between this and bankers/white collar crime. To paraphrase what someone else said, you're not going to find a drunk Sean Fitzpatrick emerging from your daughters bedroom with a screwdriver in his hand. People do want violent criminals locked up.

Neither does the fact that the guy has money make any difference. He earned his money and he should be allowed to enjoy peace and safety in his own home.

ozmo

coleria wrote: »

it was his car insurance company that paid the compensation.

yes - but without his knowledge.

It was not until four weeks before the trial that Mr McCaughey learnt that his insurance company had paid out to the burglar.

"I'm not very pleased about that.

benway

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

What about irresponsible borrowers? It's not as one-sided as you paint it.

Actually, it is. Many of the worst, most irresponsible loans, had already been packaged and sold as collateralized debt obligations, the onus on the branches was to find some sucker to take on the loan at base level. It's not 100% fair to say that loans were forced on people, but it's not far off the mark. The banks were winning each way, or so they thought.

hmmm wrote: »

The amount of begrudgery and general left wing apologism is shocking.

Yes there is a difference between this and bankers/white collar crime. To paraphrase what someone else said, you're not going to find a drunk Sean Fitzpatrick emerging from your daughters bedroom with a screwdriver in his hand. People do want violent criminals locked up.

Neither does the fact that the guy has money make any difference. He earned his money and he should be allowed to enjoy peace and safety in his own home.

It's the amount of rabid, mindless, right-wing thrashing, flailing and chest-beating that I'm finding shocking.

Nobody's saying the fact that there's a disproportionate focus on lower-class rather than upper-class "scumbags" makes burglary ok. But people are saying that the fact that someone's a burglar or "scumbag" makes killing them in cold blood ok - this is the main apologism I've seen on this thread...aside from the outright apologists for upper-class crime.

If you're in denial about the damage done by white-collar crime, or think that it's a totally distinct phenomenon, that kinda proves my point. Upper-class "scumbags" don't even need to lay eyes on your home to violate it, and the results are every bit as traumatic as those of a burglary. I deal with the victims, day-in day-out.

nlgbbbblth

benway wrote: »

Actually, it is. Many of the worst, most irresponsible loans, had already been packaged and sold as collateralized debt obligations, the onus on the branches was to find some sucker to take on the loan at base level. It's not 100% fair to say that loans were forced on people, but it's not far off the mark. The banks were winning each way, or so they thought.

This is probably a debate for another thread. However your analysis seems to be based on absolving personal responsibility from the borrowers. I can recall several instances of customers being declined loans (on the basis of repayment capacity being an issue) only for them to find another institution to hand out the funds. Some people would not take no for an answer.

It's also pretty traumatic to have a gun pointed in your face with some guy shouting "give us the f*cking money NOW".

benway

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

This is probably a debate for another thread. However your analysis seems to be based on absolving personal responsibility from the borrowers. I can recall several instances of customers being declined loans (on the basis of repayment capacity being an issue) only for them to find another institution to hand out the funds. Some people would not take no for an answer.

It's also pretty traumatic to have a gun pointed in your face with some guy shouting "give us the f*cking money NOW".

Who's saying burglary isn't massively traumatic? It's an awful thing and I have every sympathy for victims. This doesn't translate to some kind of carte blanche vigilantes' vengeance charter.

As for upper-class "scumbags", it very definitely is for another thread, I've been saying this for maybe 20 pages now. But people keep going back to it and misrepresenting or misunderstanding the point.

By no means am I attempting to say that all borrowers were blameless, but I'm not going to entertain any attempt to absolve the banks of responsibility and turn it back round on the victims. "We all partied", right? I seem to recall a concerted PR campaign encouraging people to borrow and buy property, even people who may not necessarily have known what they were getting in to: remember "I don't know what a tracker mortgage is"? Or the 10 years of media cheerleading?

Dublinman12

For what its worth...

Junkie scumbag with criminal record breaks into a family home with a weapon and steals valuables whilst entering bedrooms etc....homeowner wakes up to find him in the bedroom goes ape**** and eventually runs him down etc...

The burglar had numerous previous convictions and got a suspended sentence for the burglary in question...in other words he got off scott free and will do it again and again and again until somebody runs him over 3 times....this guy knew exactly what he was doing and wanted cash to fund his drug habit...

In fact the burglars are more afraid of being caught by the homeowners than the guards....

its the disgraceful legal system that is at fault here because the same guys are committing these crimes knowing they will get a slap on the wrist....

jluv

benway wrote: »

Who's saying burglary isn't massively traumatic? It's an awful thing and I have every sympathy for victims. This doesn't translate to some kind of carte blanche vigilantes' vengeance charter.

As for upper-class "scumbags", it very definitely is for another thread, I've been saying this for maybe 20 pages now. But people keep going back to it and misrepresenting or misunderstanding the point.

By no means am I attempting to say that all borrowers were blameless, but I'm not going to entertain any attempt to absolve the banks of responsibility and turn it back round on the victims. "We all partied", right? I seem to recall a concerted PR campaign encouraging people to borrow and buy property, even people who may not necessarily have known what they were getting in to: remember "I don't know what a tracker mortgage is"? Or the 10 years of media cheerleading?

ok..Am I the only person who does not understand what bankers and tracker mortgages have to do with this thread . You are the ONLY person who has mentioned "Upper class scum". Everyone else I believe was referring to the individual who broke into someones house.AND possibly the fact that the victim had a few bob. Sorry I just don't get it.Apologies if it's just me..

benway

benway wrote: »

Who's saying burglary isn't massively traumatic? It's an awful thing and I have every sympathy for victims. This doesn't translate to some kind of carte blanche vigilantes' vengeance charter.

As for upper-class "scumbags", it very definitely is for another thread, I've been saying this for maybe 20 pages now. But people keep going back to it and misrepresenting or misunderstanding the point.

By no means am I attempting to say that all borrowers were blameless, but I'm not going to entertain any attempt to absolve the banks of responsibility and turn it back round on the victims. "We all partied", right? I seem to recall a concerted PR campaign encouraging people to borrow and buy property, even people who may not necessarily have known what they were getting in to: remember "I don't know what a tracker mortgage is"? Or the 10 years of media cheerleading?

You are a politician......:pac:

Freddie59

Dublinman12 wrote: »

In fact the burglars are more afraid of being caught by the homeowners than the guards....

Great post. Isn't it a truly shocking indictment of our legal system?

benway

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good .... and I've made it clear earlier that if you don't get the connection, it kinda proves my point. See what I did there?

***

Dublinman12 wrote:

In fact the burglars are more afraid of being caught by the homeowners than the guards....

Great post. Isn't it a truly shocking indictment of our legal system?

I'm also someone who can't help but point out that you have zero evidence for this proposition.

General General

benway wrote: »

I'm also someone who can't help but point out that you have zero evidence for this proposition.

Yer man might be a burgugular himself... or know one.. or know several...

Especially if he's from <place name>...

Ormus

Freddie59 wrote: »

Great post. Isn't it a truly shocking indictment of our legal system?

I think it's hilarious how many people are saying this.

Does anyone at all have any clue at all how to make a good legal system? and please don't suggest bigger jails, unless you have thought about how or where that could ever stop.

Is everyone under the impression that they have completely different laws in other countries? The justice systems of every country in every stage of history have always been extremely imperfect and I would say always will be.

Of course that doesn't mean we should stop trying to constantly improve things, but we have to be constructive and not just say how shocked we are at the lack of justice. Life is unfair. Sometimes the legal system will provide some redress. Oftentimes it won't.

Ormus

General General wrote: »

Yer man might be a burgugular himself... or know one.. or know several...

Especially if he's from <place name>...

Lets lynch him!

We could be heroes!

tayto lover

It seems its not just burglars who get suspended sentences
http://www.dundalkdemocrat.ie/news/local/outrage_over_child_porn_sentencing_1_1978439
Went on to re-offend.

http://www.argus.ie/news/broke-gardas-jaw-in-five-places-3020146.html

Given suspended sentence now.

Is it any wonder the crime is nearly out of control and that people are taking the law into their own hands ? I don't like to see that happening but some of the things that are happening in our courts seem to make it more likely.

toexpress

A lot of anger on this thread!!

In theory right we have the rule of law, it seems these days that it's pretty hard to apply said rule of law to criminals and I recently saw, on boards.ie someone justifying breaking the law but that's another story. As a dispassionate viewer I say the driver was in the wrong, we cannot allow vigilantes to rule it will descend into hell and before you know it we will be shooting each other for not bringing our bins in quick enough.

That said, I had a pretty nasty situation with some bloody awful neighbours of mine, it took every ounce of self restraint not to let loose with a .38

However, we do now have the reasonable force law! Nice and subjective so if you can get them inside your own property GO NUTS!

Ormus

toexpress wrote: »

A lot of anger on this thread!!

In theory right we have the rule of law, it seems these days that it's pretty hard to apply said rule of law to criminals and I recently saw, on boards.ie someone justifying breaking the law but that's another story. As a dispassionate viewer I say the driver was in the wrong, we cannot allow vigilantes to rule it will descend into hell and before you know it we will be shooting each other for not bringing our bins in quick enough.

That said, I had a pretty nasty situation with some bloody awful neighbours of mine, it took every ounce of self restraint not to let loose with a .38

However, we do now have the reasonable force law! Nice and subjective so if you can get them inside your own property GO NUTS!

Isn't it more like if you can get them inside your own property, GO REASONABLE?

benway

After my smash and grab raid on this thread's lazy preconceptions, tabloid posturing, knee jerk hysteria and reactionary frothing, I guess that I'd have it coming.

But nah, the reason I'm so stubborn about this is that I see a definite agenda behind these consistent attacks on the legal system and the judiciary for being "too soft".

Firstly, with the kind of world our elites would like to create, there's likely to be much more crime, because there will be much more inequality ... their war on crime really equates to a war on the lower classes.

The fact is that all you keyboard warriors could bring back hanging, bury land mines in your garden and shoot M16s out your windows at anyone who looks like a "scumbag" to you, and I absolutely 100% guarantee you that it would do nothing to reduce the crime rate. In fact, I'm fully confident that the crime rate would increase significantly. But I only studied criminology for a couple of years, what would I know about it?

In any event, I don't think these reaction threads are about looking for solutions, are they? Seems to me it's more about an "I hate scumbags more" dick measuring contest combined with a bit of mindless judge-bashing. Feels good though, amirite?

Also, these attacks on the judiciary and legal system fall neatly in to the standard neoliberal agenda, usurping the power of local elites - medical and legal professionals being the most obvious examples - to the benefit of global elites. Not surprised to see that Freddie59's taken a break from running down the civil service to weigh in here.

Fact is, if we were to listen to most of the media, and many people, unfortunately, we'd think that gangs, public servants,beggars, travelers, single mothers, dole fraud, girls in pyjamas on the dole, anyone on the dole, really, burglars, anyone having trouble with their mortgages, etc, are the greatest threat facing this country.

All of these things are problems, to varying degrees, but what's really tearing this country apart is elite malfeasance, but this never gets the same degree of concerted attention, and blatantly skewed reporting, in the popular press, aside from attacks on Seánín Fitz and a couple of other token bogeymen.

@toexpress we always have had laws allowing for reasonable force, don't believe the hype.

toexpress

Ormus wrote: »

Isn't it more like if you can get them inside your own property, GO REASONABLE?

No don't go at all then but when you find them on your own property then I am all for violence. As someone who has experienced this it's hard to feel comfortable and happy in your home after someone has violated it.

I have to admit I do think we should have more open gun laws in Ireland. I personally don't see the issue with someone having a means of protecting themselves against break-ins and worse!

Ormus

Ormus wrote: »

Isn't it more like if you can get them inside your own property, GO REASONABLE?

Offer them tea?
Ask them do they need representation after they leave?

Ormus

RVP 11 wrote: »

Offer them tea?
Ask them do they need representation after they leave?

Haha, so you really think the law of reasonable force means GO NUTS?

Ormus

toexpress wrote: »

No don't go at all then but when you find them on your own property then I am all for violence. As someone who has experienced this it's hard to feel comfortable and happy in your home after someone has violated it.

I have to admit I do think we should have more open gun laws in Ireland. I personally don't see the issue with someone having a means of protecting themselves against break-ins and worse!

More guns yeah, that would probably solve things. Only the good people would have them right? And nobody would shoot themselves or other people by accident. Innocent people wouldn't get caught in the crossfire.

It's a win win situation really.

Ormus

Ormus wrote: »

Haha, so you really think the law of reasonable force means GO NUTS?

It means however you percieve the threat, act accordingly.

But you would still hold a board meeting to see if holding a screwdriver in your bedroom is a threat?

benway

tayto lover wrote:

crime is nearly out of control

What gives you that impression? Serious question.

That first article is a good example of biased journalism - lead on the "outrage", hit hard on the emotional response, it won't matter to most people the facts in your story are flimsy as hell.

I have every sympathy for the girl that's interviewed, but what expertise does she have to comment on the case? It's like putting forward someone who was hit by a car when they were 7 as a road safety expert, on that basis. And the considered opinion of a local father who has "no faith in rehabilitation programmes." Presumably he has subjected these programs to extensive empirical testing before forming this view?

The whole thing is designed to lead to a conclusion as if it were obvious. Needless to say, the perpetrator only exists as a two dimensional, hate figure "scumbag". I'm glad that the newspapers in my town aren't so trashy, Tamsin there is obviously angling for a job with the Sunday World.

Fact is, it's nigh on impossible to second guess a judge based on a couple of hundred of weasel words, when you consider that the Court may have sat through a couple of weeks and a couple of thousand pages of evidence. For all the gnashing of teeth, I'm sure that many of you might find that things aren't quite as clear when you sit through a full trial or two.

RVP 11 wrote: »

It means however you percieve the threat, act accordingly.

But you would still hold a board meeting to see if holding a screwdriver in your bedroom is a threat?

Christ on a bike, nobody's talking about a board meeting, "if you perceive a threat, act accordingly" is exactly what reasonable force means. If there's an armed intruder, smashing them in the face with whatever comes to hand is perfectly acceptable, anything to incapacitate them and remove the threat.

I personally don't recommend taking on a burglar - I think that, in general, people would be better off staying out of harm's way if possible. No point in getting stuck with an knife where you could just barricade yourself into a room and call the cops. But if you have no choice or feel capable, than you're entitled to do what you need to.

The problem is that people seem to think that it's legal and acceptable to work someone over once they've ceased to be a threat or once they're off the property. It isn't - you might get lucky, like the hero of our tale here, but you still have to take your chances with a jury and with a possible civil action.

How many times do I have to say this? You have every right to protect yourself, your family, and your property, the problem is when it turns into gratuitous violence or a revenge attack, to all intents and purposes.

You kids :rolleyes:

Zen65

benway wrote: »

In any event, I don't think these reaction threads are about looking for solutions, are they?

Well, this is AH!. Solutions are not a recognised currency here.

After some years trying to be reasonable and logical in this forum I have come to the conclusion that this is just for kicks and giggles, and I reserve most of my serious comments for the PI/RI & MA threads.

Be at peace,

Z

Ormus

RVP 11 wrote: »

It means however you percieve the threat, act accordingly.

But you would still hold a board meeting to see if holding a screwdriver in your bedroom is a threat?

Where are you getting this board meeting / cup of tea stuff from? Where is the force in that?

It's reasonable force. Two words. Has to be force, has to be reasonable. I'm not sure how many other ways I can explain it.

qc3

Not sure if it's been posted before but here goes.
http://www.tv3.ie/article.php?article_id=67313&locID=1.2&pagename=news

The sister looks as if she'll injoy helping him spend his award.