Drink-Driver endangering others is beaten to death

gurramok

Just to put into perspective the geography of where this happened, Irishtown Garda station is a short stroll away. Perhaps its the length of 2 football fields from the scene of the crime. I think the option was there for the defendant to go to the Garda station straight away when threatened by the drunk driver.

Gee Bag

up for anything wrote: »

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.

I'm not being picky, the differnce between manslaughter and murder is enormous. I don't think any western country has a policy on drink driving like this. The punishment is supposed to be proportionate to the crime.

Tails142

This new information from the courts today puts a whole new angle on this story.

Just goes to show how much we base our opinions on the very poor reporting in these rags of newspapers.

If the guy was blocked in by the dead guys car, it's almost self defence, I bet he felt physically threatened when he reached for the hurley.

It takes two to tango in situations like this. It's not as if he beat him to death there and then either, the guy apparently went to hospital the next day complaining of headache and died several days later.

Ideo

can't beleive this is the first i've heard about the deceased havin 10 pints in him. Did RTE deliberately omit this earlier because it's a fairly important point in the whole incident!

Morlar

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

......Actions have consequences.

The 'action' in this case being the decision to choose to drink 10 pints of guinness and threaten the safetly and well being of a 18 month old infant.

My way of looking at this is simple :

Party A - set out to get totally langered and he did. He chose not just to drink-drive his ass home, but to do so in a beligerent, aggressive manner, choosing to tailgate aggressively and abuse someone trying to mind their own business. Putting innocent people in fear of their safety.

Party B - set out to drive his 18 month old infant home.

If ever there was a case for a suspended sentence it's this one. There appear to be actual extenuating circumstances (& I don't mean in the normal way of suspended sentences which are the result of bull**** formula sob stories to judges about rough childhoods or drug abuse).

Dyr

So being drunk, stupid and in charge of a car can be fatal? Quelle suprise.

To quote bill hicks "we've lost a moron"

mikemac1

I'm interested to know what sentance he will get

Could be quite small, pleading guilty will go in his favour as will the fact the drunk overtook him and boxed him in

He'll get a sentance but I don't think it will be much at all
I don't see suspended but it's possible

Logical Fallacy

Morlar wrote: »

The 'action' in this case being the decision to choose to drink 10 pints of guinness and threaten the safetly and well being of a 18 month old infant.

My way of looking at this is simple :

Party A - set out to get totally langered and he did not just drink-drive his ass home, he chose to do so in a beligerent, aggressive manner, choosing to tailgate aggressively and abuse someone trying to mind their own business.

Party B - set out to drive his 18 month old infant home.

If ever there was a case for a suspended sentence it's this one. There appear to be actual extenuating circumstances (& I don't mean in the normal way of suspended sentences which are the result of bull**** formula sob stories to judges about rough childhoods or drug abuse).

So what? Party A deserves death lying in the street and Party B deserves a parade?

Not a ****ing change.

2Scoops

You'd think from these posts that the guy with the hurley bashed the other guy's brains in and left him for dead in the middle of the road. In fact, both drivers left the scene alive. He was just unlucky that there was some kind of intracranial bleeding and he didn't get to hospital in time. He died 4 days after the incident.

Kidchameleon

jblack wrote: »

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.

Oh yeah she's responsible for a grown mans actions :rolleyes:

Morlar

gurramok wrote: »

Just to put into perspective the geography of where this happened, Irishtown Garda station is a short stroll away. Perhaps its the length of 2 football fields from the scene of the crime. I think the option was there for the defendant to go to the Garda station straight away when threatened by the drunk driver.

I think people in stressful situations don't always react in exactly the same way as people who are not in that same stressful situation. It's easy to second guess after the fact. He should have done this, he could have done that. There is such a thing as heat of the moment. Extreme emotions of being threatened by a total stranger who is aggressive and quite drunk. Who knows how any of us would react in that same situation. If I had an 18 month old infant and was driving them home when someone started doing that to me I honestly don't know what I would do but I could certainly come to blows over something like that with fists or whatever was to hand.

Morlar

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

So what? Party A deserves death lying in the street and Party B deserves a parade?

Not a ****ing change.

That is actually not what I said at all. Read it again - either reply to what I said or don't bother. You will notice I am not taking what you say and twisting it into something completely different - so neither should you.

positron

I wonder how many of you here who is arguing for Mr. Bates have experienced fatherhood? It's easier to understand when you have been thru it, the urge to protect your offspring is primal - seriously primal, and seriously powerful. There were moments were I really wanted to pick up and throw toddlers / very young children (of friends / relatives) out of the door for messing with my tiny defenseless daughter - It's a very primal feeling, and very real but usually easily controlled in every day situations. At night, a drunk driving armed with an SUV, driving so close to my child who is sitting in the back seat, and the same drunk person, after exchanging words, cuts you off the road - I feel sorry for both parties involved, but my honest opinion is that it would take an immense amount of self control from the father's part to have taken a different tact to handle the situation.

Dudess

I can understand the guy losing the head with the drunk driver but not to that extent.

2Scoops

Indo wrote:

Mr Bates returned home, but was unwell the next morning and feeling disoriented. A friend sought help and Mr Bates was taken by ambulance to St Vincent's Hospital but was later transferred to Beaumont where he died on Thursday night.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/row-over-slow-driving-led-to-roadrage-killing-2361814.html

deandean

Drunk thug using large jeep as a weapon went looking for trouble and found it, paid the price. No winnere.

EarlERizer

john reilly wrote: »

would like to hear the dead mans version of the story

Derek Acora prehaps?

john reilly wrote: »

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

Intent to what? play GAA?

scamalert wrote: »

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.

I reckon the guys only intention was getting home with his child,I doubt he anticipated an encounter with an agressive drunk driver,I think if I was in the same situation I wouldnt be of the mindset of "better pull in and let this lunatic pass,jaysus he might kill someone" but more of the mindset "this crazy bastard is going to cause us to crash", there's also the primeval instinct to protect your offspring when under threat,thats were logic & rational thinking goes out the window!

john reilly wrote: »

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

No,just to ones who knowingly drink enough alcohol to impair their ability to drive safely,thats why we have limits,currently amounts to 1 pint afaik.

Gee Bag wrote: »

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

Nor do fathers taking their kids home!

Two families lives are turned upside down but imo the only innocent party in all this is the 18month old child,because of a tragic chain of events they face growing up without a father or atleast with an absent father for part of their life.

p.s. Why would anyone knowingly allow their father/mother, husband/wife/son or daughter drive a vehicle while pi$$ed drunk? and when the fook is this country going to get tougher on drink drivers? TV campaigns are not the answer!

IM0

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.

he obviously missed the part where he cornered the accused, got out and 'road raged' with him. and also the bit where he acted the wanker and was killed for his troubles

this tit did this kind of **** before Id say, its just that this time he picked the wrong guy to fcuk with. tosser

Motorist

My first instinct would have been to get the reg plate and call 112. Mr. Donohoe is a liability walking the streets - anyone can snap a bit (maybe give the finger to another driver before regretting it) but who takes a hurley out and starts bashing someones car in first of all, then starts bashing their head in and then continues while they are lying unconscious on the ground.

Hopefully Donohoe will serve a lengthy sentence for this horrific crime and will get some anger management rehabilitation and learn to deal with stress when behind bars.

My name is URL

positron wrote: »

I wonder how many of you here who is arguing for Mr. Bates have experienced fatherhood? It's easier to understand when you have been thru it, the urge to protect your offspring is primal - seriously primal, and seriously powerful. There were moments were I really wanted to pick up and throw toddlers / very young children (of friends / relatives) out of the door for messing with my tiny defenseless daughter - It's a very primal feeling, and very real but usually easily controlled in every day situations. At night, a drunk driving armed with an SUV, driving so close to my child who is sitting in the back seat, and the same drunk person, after exchanging words, cuts you off the road - I feel sorry for both parties involved, but my honest opinion is that it would take an immense amount of self control from the father's part to have taken a different tact to handle the situation.

But presumably you fought the urge to do so, and are not now in a shitload of trouble for it. What exactly are you suggesting.. that the guy should not be held to account for his actions because they were that of a primal nature? How could that ever be applied in law?

wes

Can't really take any side on this one.

On the one hand we have a drunk driver, who the moment he got behind the wheel did something very dangerous and stupid, and imho he can hardly be seen to be completely innocent, but at the same time he didn't deserve to be killed that way.

The guy who killed him went way, way to far. The situation did not justify brutally killing the drink driver like that.

Awful situation all round.

mikemac1

Did the fact his child was with him when he got overtaken and boxed in cause him to kick into a state
And maybe if he was on his own he would have just let it go


No idea, just thinking out loud here
Not looking for an answer, was just pondering it.

Put a parent into a protective state and I suppose some will snap
The action might be unjustifiable but the reason they did it may be understandable

EarlERizer

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Oh yeah she's responsible for a grown mans actions :rolleyes:

There's the contradiction,she's responsible for knowingly allowing him to drive whilst drunk! If it were my father,mother,brother,sister I'd have done whatever it took to make sure they didnt,yes even reporting them to the gardai!

Or are drunk drivers only a disgrace and a danger as long as it's not one of your own? Wait until something bad happens and then start singing shoulda coulda woulda?

Motorist

Where does this excuse that he only snapped because of the child in the back stop? Someone in the supermarket cuts off his trolley and he starts bashing their head in because he thought his daughter might get injured?

The fact is he could have pulled over, called the gardai, did a U turn, did not have to get out of his car, could have just had a verbal argument with the other driver, could have stopped himself after bashing the other car. He obviously has a underlying predisposition to violence which he can clearly not control.

tonyangelino

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.

or like Escape from New York movie

branbee

mikemac1 wrote: »

Did the fact his child was with him when he got overtaken and boxed in cause him to kick into a state
And maybe if he was on his own he would have just let it go


Put a parent into a protective state and I suppose some will snap
The action might be unjustifiable but the reason they did it may be understandable

If i was alone in a car with my child i wouldn't get out shouting the odds and beat someone with a hurl while my child sat in the car watching! Regardless of the fact the child was very young i still wouldn't do that **** while they were sitting alone in the car. Well i wouldn't do it at all!

jblack

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Oh yeah she's responsible for a grown mans actions :rolleyes:

Is she elected to make a victim impact statement and pleaded for a strict sentence then I think the Court should have regard that she knew her husband broke the law.

mikemac1

branbee wrote: »

If i was alone in a car with my child i wouldn't get out shouting the odds and beat someone with a hurl while my child sat in the car watching! Regardless of the fact the child was very young i still wouldn't do that **** while they were sitting alone in the car. Well i wouldn't do it at all!

Ultimately nobody knows how they will react until they are put in a pressure situation

Some will confront, some will freeze and others will do something else
Nobody knows

It's much the same as finding a burglar in your house
You might tell the world that any burglar will be sorry he entered your house but it's just as likely you'd freeze and do nothing

EarlERizer

Motorist wrote: »

Where does this excuse that he only snapped because of the child in the back stop? Someone in the supermarket cuts off his trolley and he starts bashing their head in because he thought his daughter might get injured?

The fact is he could have pulled over, called the gardai, did a U turn, did not have to get out of his car, could have just had a verbal argument with the other driver, could have stopped himself after bashing the other car. He obviously has a underlying predisposition to violence which he can clearly not control.

How big is your wooden spoon? Theres no other explaination for you suggesting what happened here can be put in perspective with an example to a hypothetical incident in a fookin shopping centre ffs!

positron

My name is URL wrote: »

But presumably you fought the urge to do so, and are not now in a shitload of trouble for it. What exactly are you suggesting.. that the guy should not be held to account for his actions because they were that of a primal nature? How could that ever be applied in law?

It doesn't matter what I think, but imho, it's 40% death by misadventure, 40% diminished responsibility similar to self defense, and perhaps 20% guilty to the father for doing what he did. I know, it's easy to make up such arguments when I am so removed from the scene, and incensitised by media and movies.. my sympathies to everyone involved!

Motorist

EarlERizer wrote: »

How big is your wooden spoon? Theres no other explaination for you suggesting what happened here can be put in perspective with an example to a hypothetical incident in a fookin shopping centre ffs!

The point is that what happened Mr Donohoe is by no means some rare, isolated incident that he was put in. He came across a drink driver who was losing his cool. Do you think that is some extraordinary situation that would never happen to you?

The fact is Mr Donohoe could have stopped that situation as soon as it occurred by pulling over. He decided instead to take the law into his own hands. As he said to the gardai several days after "I hope he died" and "he got what he deserved". Even after his adrenalin had passed, he thought his actions were justifiable.

up for anything

Gee Bag wrote: »

I'm not being picky, the differnce between manslaughter and murder is enormous. I don't think any western country has a policy on drink driving like this. The punishment is supposed to be proportionate to the crime.

The crime is climbing into a lethal weapon and knowing that your reaction times and judgement are far from what they should be but going ahead and then mowing down an innocent pedestrian(s) or wiping out a car driver and passengers. What does it take to prove intent?

Motorist

mikemac1 wrote: »

Well he was pulled over, he had to be as he got boxed in and had a loud drunk swearing and aggressive road rager approaching his car with his child in the back seat

Sure how did he know he wasn't about to have his windows smashed in

Donohoe was the one who got out of his car and began attack the victims car. He was not under any imminent threat.

jluv

Motorist wrote: »

The point is that what happened Mr Donohoe is by no means some rare, isolated incident that he was put in. He came across a drink driver who was losing his cool. Do you think that is some extraordinary situation that would never happen to you?

The fact is Mr Donohoe could have stopped that situation as soon as it occurred by pulling over. He decided instead to take the law into his own hands. As he said to the gardai several days after "I hope he died" and "he got what he deserved". Even after his adrenalin had passed, he thought his actions were justifiable.

You obviously know the person who died. That is how it comes across to me.My sympathys if you do.
But for me it always goes back to who's actions made the situation happen?Every action has a reaction.And if the reaction was OTT you still have some culpability if you are the one to start the chain of reaction..

up for anything

Motorist wrote: »

Donohoe was the one who got out of his car and began attack the victims car. He was not under any imminent threat.

So why did the other guy bother to box him in? Was he going to sit in his car for a few minutes and then drive off after frustrating Donohoe just to be a bastard or did he intend to get out of his car to go back to Donohoe but didn't have time because Donohoe reacted too the situation too quickly? If someone pulled over and boxed me in I would perceive that I was under some sort of threat even if it was only the person coming back to hurl abuse at me through my closed car window.

jam_mac_jam

I cant believe the logic here. Because he had a child in the car this was ok? the child was threatened? Sounds like complete scum to me, both of them. A real man would walk away for the safety of his child not put them in more danger.

kincsem

Pajero and Rav 4. It couldn't end well.

jam_mac_jam

up for anything wrote: »

So why did the other guy bother to box him in? Was he going to sit in his car for a few minutes and then drive off after frustrating Donohoe just to be a bastard or did he intend to get out of his car to go back to Donohoe but didn't have time because Donohoe reacted too the situation too quickly? If someone pulled over and boxed me in I would perceive that I was under some sort of threat even if it was only the person coming back to hurl abuse at me through my closed car window.

So you pick up the phone and ring the gaurds not get out and beat them to death with a hurl.

EarlERizer

Motorist wrote: »

The point is that what happened Mr Donohoe is by no means some rare, isolated incident that he was put in. He came across a drink driver who was losing his cool. Do you think that is some extraordinary situation that would never happen to you?

The fact is Mr Donohoe could have stopped that situation as soon as it occurred by pulling over. He decided instead to take the law into his own hands. As he said to the gardai several days after "I hope he died" and "he got what he deserved"

He encountered a dangerous,agressive,drunk driver whilst driving home with his child,they have a verbal exchange,he was then subject to threatening behaviour by the drunk in his aggressive driving manner,then was approached by the guy in an aggressive manner.Given that kind of experience I'd be defensive,agitated and ready to lash out!

Where was it I said this is an extraordinary situation? or was ever unlikely to find myself in such a situation?

What I put to you was my feeling that you were merely trying to stir the pot as I couldnt see a sensible argument in trying to liken what happened to Mr Donohoe with an incident like an overtaking trolley in a supermarket! Are you really suggesting that you would deal with an aggressive drunk driver trying to run you off the road just the same as you would a shopper skipping past you in Dunnes?

Kevwoody

kincsem wrote: »

Pajero and Rav 4. It couldn't end well.

^^^^^
What kind of ****e is this??
Some people would make a joke about anything, have some ****ing respect

My name is URL

Mr. Donohoe initially told Gardaí ‘I hope he dies, he got what he deserves’ but later apologised accepting it blew up out of nothing, he reacted and lost the head.

http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/news/man-involved-in-fatal-road-rage-incident-i-hope-he-dies-gardai-told/

Primal instinct my hole, yer man sounds like a typical hot headed fool. I hope that it's determined whether or not the guy ever actually played Hurling.

seamus

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Pretty crazy case.

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

Pretty much boils down to this. Deserve? No, of course not. But endanger the life of another man's child and you're playing with fire. Even the most level headed man could completely lose it in the same scenario.

As much as I hate victim blaming, it's a pretty good moral as to why you shouldn't act like a tosser.

Motorist

jluv wrote: »

You obviously know the person who died. That is how it comes across to me.My sympathys if you do.
But for me it always goes back to who's actions made the situation happen?Every action has a reaction.And if the reaction was OTT you still have some culpability if you are the one to start the chain of reaction..

Of course the victim is not without blame or culpability. Unfortunately he will not be able to answer the charges against him as he was brutally killed, and in my opinion unnecessarily killed, by Donohoe. Remeber the fatal blow to the temple was delivered while the victim lay defenceless on the ground.

Also given all the nonsense thought in IBT training to get a learner permit now, there should be a module on dealing with red mist when it comes down on a driver, to learn to objectively recognise the symptoms they are experiencing and what is happening to them, before they become emotionally involved in the situation.

kincsem

Kevwoody wrote: »

^^^^^
What kind of ****e is this??
Some people would make a joke about anything, have some ****ing respect

I find that jeep drivers are most aggressive. I also have the opinion that GAA players are aggressive. In my opinion these are indicators of aggressive personalities.
What do you think?

RichieC

jblack wrote: »

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

Kevwoody

kincsem wrote: »

Kevwoody wrote: »

^^^^^
What kind of ****e is this??
Some people would make a joke about anything, have some ****ing respect

I find that jeep drivers are most aggressive. I also have the opinion that GAA players are aggressive. In my opinion these are indicators of aggressive personalities.
What do you think?

I think your a gob****e

Gee Bag

Kevwoody wrote: »

I think your a gob****e

Steady on old chap, no need for a copy cat killing.

Motorist

kincsem wrote: »

I find that jeep drivers are most aggressive. I also have the opinion that GAA players are aggressive. In my opinion these are indicators of aggressive personalities.
What do you think?

That's kind of funny and interesting. I'm not sure if it could really be backed up though.

KeithM89_old

Kevwoody wrote: »

I think your a gob****e

I think youre Banned

Dudess

RichieC wrote: »

jblack wrote: »

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

As far as I know, Independent Newspapers has outsourced some of its production to France - or did at one point anyway.