Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Man who knocked down burglar in court

Options
1…34689…29

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    The King of Moo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭The King of Moo


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Well because posters here seem to think they will be thinking calmly, and clearly, while a person is inside their house.

    I think what's more important is that even if no-one would be thinking clearly in such situation, it doesn't mean that they should be excused for any crimes they might commit.

    Anyway, he attempted to run the guy over well outside his house, when any potential threat to his family was over.

    Twice.

    That sounds more like he was thinking about what he was doing to some extent.


  • Options
    #153
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    Dohnny Jepp wrote: »
    yes

    Why? He was not there to hurt the kids, he might not even know there was kids there.


  • Options
    #154
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,941 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    hondasam wrote: »
    I don't get why people always think because kids are involved the crime is worse or more sympathy is justified.
    Does it make a difference whether there were kids there or not?

    In fairness it does matter as to his state of mind.
    If the house was empty then he would only think that property was the target, but if you have young children you think of them first and you think of what the burglar might have done to them if they woke. I know honestly that I too might lose it and do damage to a burglar if I found him upstairs and my children in their beds. In fairness Hondasam you might do the same in those circumstances.


  • Options
    #155
    Show Time
    Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭Show Time


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    and what happens if it your fit of rage, you realise that it was the wrong person, what do you then do?
    All the evidence says he had the right man.


  • Options
    #156
    The King of Moo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭The King of Moo


    tayto lover wrote: »
    In fairness it does matter as to his state of mind.
    If the house was empty then he would only think that property was the target, but if you have young children you think of them first and you think of what the burglar might have done to them if they woke. I know honestly that I too might lose it and do damage to a burglar if I found him upstairs and my children in their beds. In fairness Hondasam you might do the same in those circumstances.

    Shouldn't he have stayed in the house with them to protect/comfort them then?

    I'm not accusing him of being a bad father, but I think his desire for revenge was foremost on his mind.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    tayto lover wrote: »
    In fairness it does matter as to his state of mind.
    If the house was empty then he would only think that property was the target, but if you have young children you think of them first and you think of what the burglar might have done to them if they woke. I know honestly that I too might lose it and do damage to a burglar if I found him upstairs and my children in their beds. In fairness Hondasam you might do the same in those circumstances.

    I agree with protecting your kids but burglars are not there to hurt kids, they are there to steal.
    He chased him, he knew his kids were in no danger at this stage, he had time to think about what he was doing.
    If he lost the head with him in the house at the time I would understand but not how it happened. He was out for revenge.


  • Options
    #158
    Ace2007
    Registered Users Posts: 19,705 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    Show Time wrote: »
    All the evidence says he had the right man.

    but if it wasn't, what then?
    would it make a difference, if it a fit of rage, he knocked down the wrong person?


  • Options
    #159
    gigino
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭gigino


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    It's probably more profitable to break in to the house and sit on the couch till they catch you and kick the **** out of you than actually stealing anything.:)

    this is a S*** country.

    Scumbags like that burgular contribute nothing to society.


  • Options
    #160
    Ficheall
    Registered Users Posts: 9,034 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    The King of Moo wrote: »
    I think what's more important is that even if no-one would be thinking clearly in such situation, it doesn't mean that they should be excused for any crimes they might commit.
    Being "under the influence" is used as an excuse for countless misdemeanours around the country on a regular basis. I think it's a lawyer's first port of call when trying to come up with a defence for any client.


  • Options
    #161
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,941 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    The King of Moo wrote: »
    Shouldn't he have stayed in the house with them to protect them then?

    I'm not accusing him of being a bad father, but I think his desire for revenge was foremost on his mind.

    His wife stayed in the house and he went after the burglar. What he did afterwards was wrong but he was obviously not thinking clearly. None of us know how we would react until put in the situation. A man's home is his castle as they say.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Dudess wrote: »
    It doesn't mean people looking at it objectively can't say the guy went too far. I don't think URL said he knows what he'd do in the situation or that he'd be calm.
    A guy getting away scot-free with knocking down a robber twice is like something in Iran tbf. There has to be a limit in a civil society.

    The person being burgled in this case, was unlikely to have the relaxed frame of mind to look at it objectively though. Maybe some elderly person will be saved from this fella in the future, as the only limits in this civil society seems to be the degree of sentences for such criminals.


  • Options
    #163
    gigino
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭gigino


    hondasam wrote: »
    If he lost the head with him in the house at the time I would understand but not how it happened. He was out for revenge.
    how was he to know he did not do anything to the kids when he was asleep.


  • Options
    #164
    coffee_cake
    Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    i don't think he should have gone after him.

    i DEFINITELY don't think the guy should have gotten 175k for breaking into someone's house. it should be awarded to charity or something as another poster said


  • Options
    #165
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    The King of Moo wrote: »
    I think what's more important is that even if no-one would be thinking clearly in such situation, it doesn't mean that they should be excused for any crimes they might commit.

    Anyway, he attempted to run the guy over well outside his house, when any potential threat to his family was over.

    Twice.

    That sounds more like he was thinking about what he was doing to some extent.

    Well then, maybe he robbed some psycho`s house. The poor burglar.


  • Options
    #166
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    He had three kids in the house, I'm not at all surprised he saw red. I'll shake him by the hand if I ever meet him.

    i'll happlily donate €50 to the fella to cover hiss expenses


  • Options
    #167
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    gigino wrote: »
    how was he to know he did not do anything to the kids when he was asleep.

    You suggest breaking his legs first and then asking if he did anything to the kids.
    The kids are not a factor in this at all as far as I am concerned. Would he have reacted the very same way if there was no kids in the house?


  • Options
    #168
    Ace2007
    Registered Users Posts: 19,705 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    gigino wrote: »
    how was he to know he did not do anything to the kids when he was asleep.

    how was he to know, that there wasn't a second person in the house, it didn't stop him getting his car keys, getting in his car and chasing this guy into an estate, looking for him and hitting him with his car twice.


  • Options
    #169
    LaFlammeRouge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 177 ✭✭LaFlammeRouge


    bluewolf wrote: »
    i don't think he should have gone after him.

    i DEFINITELY don't think the guy should have gotten 175k for breaking into someone's house. it should be awarded to charity or something as another poster said

    Eh the man would still have to pay the 175k.

    He should have been given a new car and told to finish the job.


  • Options
    #170
    The King of Moo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭The King of Moo


    tayto lover wrote: »
    His wife stayed in the house and he went after the burglar. What he did afterwards was wrong but he was obviously not thinking clearly. None of us know how we would react until put in the situation. A man's home is his castle as they say.

    At that stage his house was no longer under threat.

    I'm not sure how much his actions can be excused by him not being in his right mind.

    It's not like it was a purely emotional or instinctive reaction like hitting the guy with a golf club or something while he was in the house. That I could understand.

    But he got his keys, started up his car and hit the guy twice.
    He's not a cold-blooded killer and he was influenced by his emotional state, but he was still definitely thinking about what he was doing to some extent.

    I can't say what I would've done in the situation, but if I was able to think to that extent, I wouldn't like to leave my family in the house, knowing how vulnerable they might feel, and the presence of a second burglar still on the premises would probably occur to me.


  • Options
    #171
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,941 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    hondasam wrote: »
    I agree with protecting your kids but burglars are not there to hurt kids, they are there to steal.
    He chased him, he knew his kids were in no danger at this stage, he had time to think about what he was doing.
    If he lost the head with him in the house at the time I would understand but not how it happened. He was out for revenge.

    He was definitely out to catch the burglar. This man is a very quiet soft spoken individual who was never in any kind of trouble before and is highly respected. He obviously flipped. I can safely say that this incident has had a huge effect on him and his family too. It is very easy to be wise in hindsight.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    bluewolf wrote: »
    i don't think he should have gone after him.

    i DEFINITELY don't think the guy should have gotten 175k for breaking into someone's house. it should be awarded to charity or something as another poster said

    He did not get money for breaking into the house, he got it because the owner chased him, ran him down and broke both his legs.


  • Options
    #173
    coffee_cake
    Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    LaFlammeRouge wrote: »
    Eh the man would still have to pay the 175k.
    .

    yes and?


  • Options
    #174
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Dudess wrote: »
    It doesn't mean people looking at it objectively can't say the guy went too far. I don't think URL said he knows what he'd do in the situation or that he'd be calm.
    A guy getting away scot-free with knocking down a robber twice is like something in Iran tbf. There has to be a limit in a civil society.

    The person being burgled in this case, was unlikely to have the relaxed frame of mind to look at it objectively though. Maybe some elderly person will be saved from this fella in the future, as the only limits in this civil society seems to be the degree of sentences for such criminals.
    I'm not disagreeing - I understand the guy's rage. The original post though was voicing objection to him being in court. All things considered, there is nothing untoward about him being in court.

    Nobody is saying "poor burglar" either. Just because people say the other guy went too far doesn't mean they give a sh1t about the burglar, just the precedent it could set.


  • Options
    #175
    coffee_cake
    Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    hondasam wrote: »
    He did not get money for breaking into the house, he got it because the owner chased him, ran him down and broke both his legs.

    okay okay s/for/while/ or during or whatever
    i was obviously being flippant


  • Options
    #176
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    tayto lover wrote: »
    He was definitely out to catch the burglar. This man is a very quiet soft spoken individual who was never in any kind of trouble before and is highly respected. He obviously flipped. I can safely say that this incident has had a huge effect on him and his family too. It is very easy to be wise in hindsight.

    I'm sure he is a very nice man but a man with a temper he could not control.
    This might seem harsh I know.


  • Options
    #177
    Ace2007
    Registered Users Posts: 19,705 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    this is similiar to the farmer who went back for a gun and shot someone a few years ago - farily sure he got jail


  • Options
    #178
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    hondasam wrote: »
    The kids are not a factor in this at all as far as I am concerned.
    Really?


  • Options
    #179
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,941 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    hondasam wrote: »
    I'm sure he is a very nice man but a man with a temper he could not control.
    This might seem harsh I know.

    I understand and I also know that that burglar has a history of crime, some of it violent. If he had a knife it could have worked out even worse for the homeowner than it is now. he was mad to go after him but again how do any of us know how we would react in a similar situation.


  • Options
    #180
    token101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,050 ✭✭✭token101


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    this is similiar to the farmer who went back for a gun and shot someone a few years ago - farily sure he got jail

    No his conviction was quashed and he was found not guilty in retrial


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Ficheall
    Registered Users Posts: 9,034 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    hondasam wrote: »
    I'm sure he is a very nice man but a man with a temper he could not control.
    This might seem harsh I know.
    Quite harsh - I don't know if I'd call how one reacts when someone breaks into your house and steals your stuff a "temper". It's not like the two lads were just having an argument down the pub...


Advertisement