Road Rager gets 12 years

Motorist

BattleCorp wrote: »

Another way of looking at things.

Maybe the guy with the hurley saved more innocent lives by killing the drunk driver there and then. Possibly, had the drunk driver not been in this altercation, maybe he would have killed innocent people due to his drunken driving.

A hero medal for the guy with the hurley maybe?

Too speculative. By extension of that logic, do you think a law allowing people to beat drunk drivers to death should be brought in?

tfitzgerald

The sentence is way too harsh in my opinion . He should have got 12/18 months at the most

BattleCorp

Motorist wrote: »

Too speculative. By extension of that logic, do you think a law allowing people to beat drunk drivers to death should be brought in?

No, I don't think a law allowing people to beat drunk drivers to death should be brought in. Fcuk no.

All I am saying is that this beating to death could have been a blessing in disguise for some innocent motorist and their family who may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and had their lives fcuked up by a prick of a drunk driver.

Speculative, yes. Possible, yes.

Wattle

King of Kings wrote: »

initially I though he was a scumbag but when I read the media reports on the trial I don't see what he did that was wrong. he was defending child from a drunken manic who was threatening them with his jeep.

Did he even know that there was a child in the car? And why not get the guys reg and report it to the police instead of going ballistic with a hurley and beating him to death? Once the guy is on the ground he's not presenting much of a threat so why continue to cave his head in?

Motorist

BattleCorp wrote: »

No, I don't think a law allowing people to beat drunk drivers to death should be brought in. Fcuk no.

All I am saying is that this beating to death could have been a blessing in disguise for some innocent motorist and their family who may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and had their lives fcuked up by a prick of a drunk driver..

The remote chance of that speculative prevention having occurred is far, far outweighed by the harsh reality that a man's life was brutally taken, another's has been ruined and two families have been devastated.

Jimoslimos

King of Kings wrote: »

initially I though he was a scumbag but when I read the media reports on the trial I don't see what he did that was wrong. he was defending child from a drunken manic who was threatening them with his jeep.
.........
grounds for self defence (imo) esp with the kid in the car.

Since when does having a child give you special dispensation to kill?

My name is URL

The baby gives you primal instinct like. Ya cant be done for primal instinct. This one time I had a baby and its mother locked in the boot and some fcukin' cop rammed the car from behind so I stopped and shot him 7 times in the face.. just to protect the baby like ya know.

Having a baby in the boot is almost as useful as having a hurley in the boot.

humberklog

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

He wasn't defending his family.

I can't find the link but during the court procedings it was said that the guy that died said he'd throw the other guy's kid in the river.

I've an 8 year old, I'd have beat him to an inch of his life in pure fury. I'd be wrong to do it, but my word, I'd have taken him out. Not killed him, but wouldn't care either.

Bruthal

BattleCorp wrote: »

Another way of looking at things.

Maybe the guy with the hurley saved more innocent lives by killing the drunk driver there and then. Possibly, had the drunk driver not been in this altercation, maybe he would have killed innocent people due to his drunken driving.

A hero medal for the guy with the hurley maybe?

Yes get out there and batter all drunk drivers to death.

Its more likely locking up the roadside hurler has saved some anyway.

Wattle

If he was defending his kid it's completely backfired as he is now going to miss a big chunk of his formative years.

Guy:Incognito

gerryo777 wrote: »

At the same court an old farmer who's in a home and has parkinson's disease gets life for killing his brother in a dispute over where their mother was to be buried.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0423/farmer-gets-life-sentence-for-murdering-brother.html



We have a funny system here, there's no doubt.

Whats funny about it? The guy shot his brother in the chest with a shotgun in a row over where the mother was buried. Thats crazier than beating a drunk guy to death that tries to run you off the road.

Are you expecting a free pass for having parkinsons, being old, or both? If he was 20 years younger would it be ok to lock him up?

Free murder tuesday for pensioners maybe?

admiralofthefleet

i read the thread title as 'roger rabbit gets 12 years'

celticcrash

If someone put one of my kids lives in danger I would do a Vinnie Jones on him.

Doc Ruby

Prick should be locked up and the key thrown into a deep, dark bog.

humberklog

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Prick should be locked up and the key thrown into a deep, dark bog.

No point now, he's dead. The other fcukwit killed him.

Bruthal

celticcrash wrote: »

If someone put one of my kids lives in danger I would do a Vinnie Jones on him.

Yes you might have been able to revive the victim here.

Doc Ruby

humberklog wrote: »

No point now, he's dead. The other fcukwit killed him.

Interesting. The story I read earlier in the Irish Times, which has since disappeared, had it that the hurley wielder was the one who had drunk the ten pints and the English guy was protecting his child in the car. I wonder which version made it to print? It was a different picture too.

Local-womanizer

gurramok wrote: »

By the way, the woman who rammed the elderly man to death in Mulhuddart got 6 years, perhaps a car is less of a lethal weapon than a hurley!

don't see how a weapon can be less lethal than another when they both result in death!

But she may have not had any previous, also courts seem to be a little bit more lenient in certain cases involving females.

There is no self defence in this case whatsoever, no matter which way you cut it.

If someone came into my house now and verbally abused me and I proceed to take out a hurly and beat that person to the ground and beat him while they lay defenceless while on the ground I would be charged with manslaughter or murder, even with the new legislation that allows me to protect my property and family.

Most rational people would be pissed off if this happened to them but they wouldn't beat a man to death over it.

gurramok

Local-womanizer wrote: »

don't see how a weapon can be less lethal than another when they both result in death!

But she may have not had any previous, also courts seem to be a little bit more lenient in certain cases involving females.

There is no self defence in this case whatsoever, no matter which way you cut it.

If someone came into my house now and verbally abused me and I proceed to take out a hurly and beat that person to the ground and beat him while they lay defenceless while on the ground I would be charged with manslaughter or murder, even with the new legislation that allows me to protect my property and family.

Most rational people would be pissed off if this happened to them but they wouldn't beat a man to death over it.

She had 15 convictions, previous for drugs possession, 3 yr conviction
http://www.herald.ie/news/carkiller-nolan-was-on-drugs-binge-after-release-from-custody-3047638.html

In comparing cases, this fella getting 12 years for beating a drunk driver is harsh.

King of Kings

Wattle wrote: »

Did he even know that there was a child in the car? And why not get the guys reg and report it to the police instead of going ballistic with a hurley and beating him to death? Once the guy is on the ground he's not presenting much of a threat so why continue to cave his head in?

It doesn't matter if he didn't know there was a kid in the car - the fact is he was threatening them and there was a kid there and the father acted in the manner he did.
Personally I think he went over board but it's understandable and I don't think he should be where he is today as a result. Esp as he was forced into that situation by the other lunatic.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Since when does having a child give you special dispensation to kill?

he didn't set out to kill him - hence the mansluaghter charge.
And clearly it give you no right (see this case) however I believe it does give you the right to defend yourself and you family and if that means violence so be it.


As referenced above the same judge gave claire nolan 8 year with 2 suspended.

How is her case less worthy of jail time.
If anything she deserved more.
I believe judges should be held accountable and answerable.

Dubit10

The man did what most would have done to protect his kids. Harsh sentence hopefully the guy is out in 6. The guy he killed seemed like a complete scummer.

davet82

RichT wrote: »

He got 12 years for manslaughter, not 12 years for road rage which your sensationalist thread title implies.

was it for manslaughter? i didnt realise... :eek:

sensationalist thread, well sorry i couldnt fit the whole article into the title but everyone besides you and the other knob that thanked you, knew exactly what the thread refered to

hate petty posts like that

davet82

anyways i think the sentence was suprisingly harsh imo but probably deserved, i believe if he hit the guy once and killed him he should have walked but when he hit him a few times, it was rage as the threat was removed.

School of french

What I find repulsive in the whole sad story is that an innocent child had to witness such wanton violence. Why are children always the silent victims?

jcf

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0423/man-sentenced-to-12-years-for-manslaughter.html


Karl Donohue gets 12 years for killing that drunk driver with a hurley in that road rage incident.

Too strong a sentence maybe?

How is this too strong a sentence ????

scumbag , did that with his baby daughter in the car, what a role model he is ....

davet82

jcf wrote: »

How is this too strong a sentence ????

scumbag , did that with his baby daughter in the car, what a role model he is ....

i should have included; in comparison to others

Cokeistan

Shocking stuff really, he deserves at least 12 years. Belting a guy over the head with a hurley just because of an argument is appalling really. The man's actions have probably ruined both the lives of his family and the family of the man he murdered.

jcf

I mean when i read the title I thought : " OK , road rage, the guy he hit over the head probably just ran his kid over or something" - but over a f*cking petty argument ... jesus ... 30 years minimum...

davet82

jcf wrote: »

I mean when i read the title I thought : " OK , road rage, the guy he hit over the head probably just ran his kid over or something" - but over a f*cking petty argument ... jesus ... 30 years minimum...

ya gotta take into account this guy was minding his own business, driving his child home when the drunk guy starts abusing him, tailgating him and then over takes his car and blocks him in on a the road. i can see how this situation esculated so 30 years is a bit OTT but multiple blows to the head with a hurley is OTT too admitedly

Stiffler2

the groutch wrote: »

if you're a Garda you get away with a fine :mad:

Yeah - I believe if you're a guard you get fined €450 per kill

StephenHendry

Mickey Dazzler wrote: »

That will get knocked down to 8 on appeal and he will be out in 4-5 years. FACT.

agree, 12 (2 yrs off that = 10) include 25% remission which will leave 7.5,
with good behaviour you are talking 4/5 years

StephenHendry

davet82 wrote: »

ya gotta take into account this guy was minding his own business, driving his child home when the drunk guy starts abusing him, tailgating him and then over takes his car and blocks him in on a the road. i can see how this situation esculated so 30 years is a bit OTT but multiple blows to the head with a hurley is OTT too admitedly

its all ifs and buts, if he hadn't used the hurley , i doubt we would be talking 12 years. its excessive force that he used tbh. the other guy caused it, was the agressor you like but he didnt deserve to die.

this young man has had his life ruined either way you look at it, i don't believe he should get 30 years. its not like he set out to kill someone that day

JonathanAnon

I dont think enough mitigation was given to the fact that Karl Donohue (in spite of his previous convictions and possibly suspect character) did not initiate any confrontation or commit any crime until this situation was visited upon him.. If drunker Bates hadnt initiated the situation and then escalated it up to a physical confrontation, he would still be alive..

Donhue certainly used excessive force, but if your confronted by a seriously drunk, angry and unpredictable man, I think your primary concern is defending yourself and your child...

I found the statement from the victim's family quite nauseating tbh... They take no account of the fact that Bates was drunk, was driving drunk, and started the whole fight.. And though it's probably easier for them to blame Donohue for his death, if Bates had been behaving responsibly himself, then the situation would have never arisen and he would still be alive..

StephenHendry

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I dont think enough mitigation was given to the fact that Karl Donohue (in spite of his previous convictions and possibly suspect character) did not initiate any confrontation or commit any crime until this situation was visited upon him.. If drunker Bates hadnt initiated the situation and then escalated it up to a physical confrontation, he would still be alive..

Donhue certainly used excessive force, but if your confronted by a seriously drunk, angry and unpredictable man, I think your primary concern is defending yourself and your child...

I found the statement from the victim's family quite nauseating tbh... They take no account of the fact that Bates was drunk, was driving drunk, and started the whole fight.. And though it's probably easier for them to blame Donohue for his death, if Bates had been behaving responsibly himself, then the situation would have never arisen and he would still be alive..

he certainly would be alive. bates caused it and there could have been a situation where bates killed both donohoe and his kid by crashing in to them as a result of his actions.

Paparazzo

I hate anyone using his child as an excuse.
If he felt his childs life was in danger he would have pulled over well back and let the idiot pass. Somehow I reckon we would have the same outcome if the child wasn't in the car.

davet82

Paparazzo wrote: »

I hate anyone using his child as an excuse.
If he felt his childs life was in danger he would have pulled over well back and let the idiot pass. Somehow I reckon we would have the same outcome if the child wasn't in the car.

very true...

i keep changing my views on this story with every post :pac:

not yet

Nothing to see here folks move along there please.....

Frank Black

Dubit10 wrote: »

The man did what most would have done to protect his kids. Harsh sentence hopefully the guy is out in 6. The guy he killed seemed like a complete scummer.

Nope, if anything he should have gotten more - complete scumbag imo.

Hopefully in for a case of daily ass rape over the course of his sentance.

Capt'n Midnight

humberklog wrote: »

I can't find the link but during the court procedings it was said that the guy that died said he'd throw the other guy's kid in the river.

By whom ?

Was it a bystander or was it yer man trying to dream up an excuse or what ?