Drink-Driver endangering others is beaten to death

Dan133269

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/court-hears-motorist-looked-possessed-as-he-killed-drinkdriver-in-road-rage-attack-3082059.html

Mr Bates's widow Brenda wept in court as it emerged her husband had drunk up to 10 pints of Guinness in a pub before getting behind the wheel of his Mitsubishi Pajero and tailgating and flashing Donohoe, who was travelling with his 18-month-old daughter.

Witnesses said Donohoe stopped in Irishtown, where both drivers got out of their cars and had an argument on the street, with Mr Bates shouting: "Don't be breaking like a f***ing fanny, just drive your f**king car."

Shortly afterwards Mr Bates overtook Donohoe's Toyota Rav 4 and mounted a central island before cutting in on the Dublin man, who later claimed he feared he was going to be rammed off the road.

The court was told Donohoe took a hurley stick from the boot of his car and hit the Mitsubishi Pajero as it blocked his path, and then hit Mr Bates several times when he got out of the car, including a fatal blow to the left temple as he lay defenceless on the ground.

So, what thinks ye? did he get what he deserved? difficult to have much sympathy for this "victim" I think. Here's the funny bit.

In a statement Mr Bates's brother Gary said the dead man should be remembered as a hard-working man with strong moral values.

"He had respect for law and order ... never a man of violence," he added.

MickySticks

Nobody deserves to be beaten to death no matter what they've done.






*Except Justin Bieber

aidan_walsh

Did he get what he deserved?

What he deserved was fines, jail and his license revoked, not his head caved in.

phasers

They both sound like tossers, but he didn't deserve to die for it

This is why it's best to avoid confrontation on the road. It can escalate and you never know what nutter is going to pull a hurley or tyre iron from the boot.

What the killer should have done is just pull over and let yer man off. Then get on the phone to the guards and tell them where he is and what direction he's heading.

IM0

mister bates, stop! it you're killing me...how ironic

MickySticks

Don't be breaking like a f***ing fanny

Canard

He didnt deserve to die but seriously, **** drink-drivers. Scum of the earth.

MickySticks

MickySticks wrote: »

"breaking"... breaking what exactly, wind?

Fcuckin Indo.

Does nobody in the Indo know how to spell? Seriously?

Anyway no of course he didn't deserve to die - he deserved to lose his licence, fines, etc

Dubit10

Drink drivers are scum. What goes around comes around.

L'prof

Why did he need to hit him in the head when he was lying on the ground?

Alias G

OP, I really don't think you should be implying that the dead man possibly got what he deserved. Ireland is a small country and Boards is a popular forum and member of the deceased family could easily come across this thread. Have a go at his drink driving by all means...its indefensible, but suggesting he got what he deserved is a little insensitive.

john reilly

would like to hear the dead mans version of the story

My name is URL

Dan133269 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/court-hears-motorist-looked-possessed-as-he-killed-drinkdriver-in-road-rage-attack-3082059.html



So, what thinks ye? did he get what he deserved? difficult to have much sympathy for this "victim" I think. Here's the funny bit.

Why did you put victim in quotes? Was he not the victim of a crime in your eyes?

He shouldn't have been drink-driving obviously, but it's stupid to say that he got what he deserved. Was he a greater threat to society than the lad who reacted so violently to the situation?

john reilly

why had he got a hurley stick in the car. sounds like intent

scamalert

beating him up then calling the guards(yes),and i suppose the guy wasn't intending to kill him,but thats for the court to decide.as yes the guy could of pulled over and let him pass,but lets say if he then crashed into someone else and killed someones family.

Gee Bag

john reilly wrote: »

why had he got a hurley stick in the car. sounds like intent

Or maybe he just played hurling

mackg

Dubit10 wrote: »

Drink drivers are scum. What goes around comes around.

john reilly wrote: »

would like to hear the dead mans version of the story

john reilly wrote: »

why had he got a hurley stick in the car. sounds like intent

Are these jokes?

MickySticks

Dubit10 wrote: »

Drink drivers are scum. What goes around comes around.

But he didn't kill anybody.

up for anything

In my opinion anyone getting in a car to drive it after drinking should be automatically found guilty of attempted murder if caught as well as of drink driving.

MickySticks

up for anything wrote: »

In my opinion anyone getting in a car to drive it after drinking should be automatically found guilty of attempted murder if caught as well as of drink driving.

Jesus :rolleyes:

Logical Fallacy

Pretty crazy case.

Don't **** with another persons child tbh.

john reilly

up for anything wrote: »

In my opinion anyone getting in a car to drive it after drinking should be automatically found guilty of attempted murder if caught as well as of drink driving.

a lot of fatal accidents dont involve drink driving can we then assume anybody driving a car should be convicted of attempted murder

Gee Bag

up for anything wrote: »

In my opinion anyone getting in a car to drive it after drinking should be automatically found guilty of attempted murder if caught as well as of drink driving.

That would be a legal impossibility, to commit murder you have to intentionally set out to kill someone.

I think you might mean manslaughter, if so do you really think it would be practical or fair to imprison every drink driver for 4-12 years?

Kevwoody

Lads I can't say the man got what he deserved, but you can't help but feel sorry for the other fella.

He had his 18month old child in the car and seeing a pajero on your bumper with a drunk behind the wheel would make anyone snap.

He then overtook him and blocked him in, so I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for him.

The other guy has to live with this for the rest of his life, he's the one I feel sorry for

CageWager

I'm sorry the guy got killed, to bash someones head in with a stick is a bit OTT for tailgating but anyone who drinks 10 pints and gets into a jeep to drive home has significant potential to take the life of an innocent road user or pedestrian. Maybe this story can make some drink drivers wake up and realise that its not on any more..

Fizman

aidan_walsh wrote: »

What he deserved was fines, jail and his license revoked, not his head caved in.

Yes, just as Eddie Halvey got.

Oh wait.......

:mad:

john reilly

Kevwoody wrote: »

Lads I can't say the man got what he deserved, but you can't help but feel sorry for the other fella.

He had his 18month old child in the car and seeing a pajero on your bumper with a drunk behind the wheel would make anyone snap.

He then overtook him and blocked him in, so I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for him.

The other guy has to live with this for the rest of his life, he's the one I feel sorry for

poor excuse if he was worried about his child he should have pulled in and let the other driver **** off. not get out and confront him then kill him and he wont be much good to his child in jail

Logical Fallacy

Gee Bag wrote: »

That would be a legal impossibility, to commit murder you have to intentionally set out to kill someone.

I think you might mean manslaughter, if so do you really think it would be practical or fair to imprison every drink driver for 4-12 years?

You could just leave them on a little island somewhere. No need to run up a big prison services bill.

Just let them die or Lord of the Flies their way into the future.

Gee Bag

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

You could just leave them on a little island somewhere. No need to run up a big prison services bill.

Just let them die or Lord of the Flies their way into the future.

They already are on a little island!

Logical Fallacy

Gee Bag wrote: »

They already are on a little island!

Nah, I mean like somewhere between the island Robinson Crusoe ended up on and the one from Lost.

The biggest I'd go would be Isla Sorna, but only if the dinosaurs were still there.

Morlar

I remember hearing this story at the time and being pretty shocked by the whole thing. I have to say that new information (new to me anyway) puts a completely different perspective on what happened.

flyswatter

JamesL85 wrote: »

This is why it's best to avoid confrontation on the road. It can escalate and you never know what nutter is going to pull a hurley or tyre iron from the boot.

What the killer should have done is just pull over and let yer man off. Then get on the phone to the guards and tell them where he is and what direction he's heading.

Giving him more time to kill someone on the road? Great idea that.

Gee Bag

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Nah, I mean like somewhere between the island Robinson Crusoe ended up on and the one from Lost.

Send criminals to a fancy tropical island with palm trees and coconuts!!!!!!

The Daily Mail would be able to get a weeks worth of front pages out of that!

bwatson

Gee Bag wrote: »

That would be a legal impossibility, to commit murder you have to intentionally set out to kill someone.

I think you might mean manslaughter, if so do you really think it would be practical or fair to imprison every drink driver for 4-12 years?

I'm not sure but I don't think That is quite right - if you intend to seriously injure someone and they end up dead as a result of your actions then that too is murder.

jblack

Gee Bag wrote: »

Send criminals to a fancy tropical island with palm trees and coconuts!!!!!!

The Daily Mail would be able to get a weeks worth of front pages out of that!

"hurley stick" - f***ing Independent is a toilet rag. Hurley stick; have they farmed their journalism out to a call centre in Mumbai?

Logical Fallacy

Gee Bag wrote: »

Send criminals to a fancy tropical island with palm trees and coconuts!!!!!!

The Daily Mail would be able to get a weeks worth of front pages out of that!

True, but you could combat the pleasant environs by ensuring there was lots of Malaria and rape.

IM0

L'prof wrote: »

Why did he need to hit him in the head when he was lying on the ground?

so he wouldnt get back up

jblack

bwatson wrote: »

I'm not sure but I don't think That is quite right - if you intend to seriously injure someone and they end up dead as a result of your actions then that too is murder.

I am sure and you are quite right bwatson, mens rea may be sufficient for murder where there is an intention to kill or seriously injure someone.

Dubit10

MickySticks wrote: »

But he didn't kill anybody.

He did'nt but he had drank 10 pints of beer and could have. He won't now that's for sure.

My name is URL

flyswatter wrote: »

Giving him more time to kill someone on the road? Great idea that.

So should we just kill anyone and everyone who we perceive as a threat to others? In that case a bystander should have murdered Donohoe for beating an unconscious man over the head. Rinse and repeat until your own reactions land you in a position where you're the one seen as a threat.

Dubit10

up for anything wrote: »

In my opinion anyone getting in a car to drive it after drinking should be automatically found guilty of attempted murder if caught as well as of drink driving.

+1

IM0

the moral of the story? just as in nature, dont fcuk with a parent when they have their offspring around and feel threated..

Gee Bag

bwatson wrote: »

I'm not sure but I don't think That is quite right - if you intend to seriously injure someone and they end up dead as a result of your actions then that too is murder.

The key word there is intent. You have to set out with the intention to carry out the action (in legal-ese this is called mens rea meaning 'guilty mind')

Drink drivers involved in fatal crashes (generally speaking) do not set out with the intent to kill someone

up for anything

Gee Bag wrote: »

That would be a legal impossibility, to commit murder you have to intentionally set out to kill someone.

I think you might mean manslaughter, if so do you really think it would be practical or fair to imprison every drink driver for 4-12 years?

Fair enough, manslaughter if you want to be picky. For me though, drink driving is the same as heading out with a knife or a gun after a few drinks - you might not be intending to kill or maim someone but the intent to look for trouble is there. If every drink driver was taken to court for driving a deadly weapon and there was a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for the same amount of time as they are presently banned for drink driving then I think we'd see a sharp decrease in the amount of drink driving. I hate the sneaking sympathy for drink drivers that is shown in this country.

Morlar

IM0 wrote: »

the moral of the story? just as in nature, dont fcuk with a parent when they have their offspring around and feel threated..

An 18 month old in the back seat of your car and an utterly langered, aggressive drunk driver, beligerently pursuing you off the road is not a good mix. My sympathies in this one are with the father of the infant, I don't think he belongs in mountjoy to be honest.

jblack

IM0 wrote: »

the moral of the story? just as in nature, dont fcuk with a parent when they have their offspring around and feel threated..

Moral of the story is several lives are ruined in an instant. One stupid man gets jarred and drives home and acts like an arsehole, puts someone else in danger and then that person, totally disproportionately takes his life.

I think it's tragic from all sides.

Although I would think there should be culpability on the behalf of the wife if she knowingly let her husband drive home drunk all the time.

Logical Fallacy

Morlar wrote: »

An 18 month old in the back seat of your car and an utterly langered, aggressive drunk driver, beligerently pursuing you off the road is not a good mix. My sympathies in this one are with the father of the infant, I don't think he belongs in mountjoy to be honest.

Well, the fact that he killed someone kind of means he does.

Morlar

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Well, the fact that he killed someone kind of means he does.

Context is everything.

Logical Fallacy

Morlar wrote: »

Context is everything.

Not really. It wasn't really self defence. And even after he delivered his own brand of justice he was striking a defenseless man, in the head as he lay on the ground.

So the guy gets off, no time to serve. What's the next thing that makes him snap? Do you really want this chap walking the streets just ticking away?

Like i said earlier, don't **** with the life of someone's kid, which i imagine was this guys source of anger. But he still killed a guy. Actions have consequences.