Where's the justice?!!

hairyprincess

Sweet Jebus, this has seriously put my blood pressure up :mad:

tl;dr: Trinity student, now lecturer walks free after giving a guy a fractured skull, facial palsy, hearing loss, a broken pelvis and left him needing plastic surgery :mad:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/trinity-lecturer-avoids-jail-for-throwing-man-down-15ft-drop-554535.html

A Trinity College lecturer has been given a suspended sentence for throwing a man down a 15ft drop causing him severe head injuries.

John Whipple (aged 35) claimed he attacked the victim because he had urinated on his shoes.

When an onlooker asked him why he had thrown the man over the wall, Whipple replied by shrugging his shoulders.

His victim was left with a fractured skull, bleeding on the brain and facial palsy. He spent two months in hospital and was unable to close his eyes or hear for six months.

Whipple of Ashley Avenue, Swords but originally from America, pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to causing serious harm to John Kennedy at Lower Abbey Street on February 11, 2011.

Judge Martin Nolan said it was unfortunate that there was a 15ft drop behind the railings. He accepted that Whipple probably did not realise how substantial the fall was but did know there was at least an 8ft drop behind the railing.

Killer Wench

I am fascinated by the random tidbits that hold no relevance to the story. Primarily:

1. He's formerly of "America".

2. He's a lecturer at Trinity.

3. He's married with a kid.

DarkJager

Article wrote:

When someone asked Whipple why he threw the man, Whipple responded: “He pissed on my shoes and I’m sick of it.”

He must have really ****ing awful taste in shoes if people keep pissing on them.

cocoshovel

Mr Kennedy sounds like a right scumbag to me.

DB10

cocoshovel wrote: »

Mr Kennedy sounds like a right scumbag to me.

He has to wear a tracksuit to be a scumbag according to some on here.

If it was the other way round and the big shot American Trinity lecturer got those life threatening injuries, I wonder would the drunk man have got a suspended sentence.

stupidusername

Killer Wench wrote: »

I am fascinated by the random tidbits that hold no relevance to the story. Primarily:

1. He's formerly of "America".

2. He's a lecturer at Trinity.

3. He's married with a kid.

They generally give details of where a person is from.

what I find unnecessary is the addition that he was voted student of the year. who gives a ****. it's meant to show his good nature, or good character, **** off

micropig

What's he lecturing American psycho - logy?

The King of Moo

cocoshovel wrote: »

Mr Kennedy sounds like a right scumbag to me.

And what about Mr. Whipple?

Ronin247

Dont care,piss on your shoes or no piss on your shoes, he should be glad to have a job.I blame the civil service.

hairyprincess

cocoshovel wrote: »

Mr Kennedy sounds like a right scumbag to me.

At least Mr. Kennedy had the excuse that he was drunk, I think we're all guilty of stupid actions while under the influence. But what is Mr. Whipple's excuse? A sober, educated man?

I think the scumbag tag clearly belongs to him in this case.

Pedant

If anyone urinated on my shoe, I would ask him to lick it off then and there. Who do these ruffians think they are?

Sinfonia

Some dick starts hassling him, then takes his wang out and starts pissing on his shoes; he sends him over a wall with an unexpectedly long drop on the other side. Afterwards, he pleads guilty and apologises. Sounds like the instigator was the 'scumbag' to me.

dr.bollocko

Judge Martin Nolan said it was unfortunate that there was a 15ft drop behind the railings. He accepted that Whipple probably did not realise how substantial the fall was but did know there was at least an 8ft drop behind the railing.

"It seems that it is unlikely that he intended to cause the injuries he had but if he had thought about it, he would have realised what he did would cause the victim serious injury," Judge Nolan said.

"He acted in the absence of judgement but does not deserve a custodial."

He sentenced him to six years in prison which he suspended entirely on the condition that he pay over €10,000 to the victim within a week.

Can someone who watches a lot of CSI NY please enhance the picture of the chap's shoes so we know if the victim did in fact piss on them?

DB10

Sinfonia wrote: »

Some dick starts hassling him, then takes his wang out and starts pissing on his shoes; he sends him over a wall with an unexpectedly long drop on the other side. Afterwards, he pleads guilty and apologises. Sounds like the instigator was the 'scumbag' to me.

According to the Gardai report, it was an obvious drop, very clear to the defendant. So that doesn't cut it.

He should be sacked from his job at the very least. In fact I would deport him.

coolbeans

At least Mr. Kennedy had the excuse that he was drunk, I think we're all guilty of stupid actions while under the influence.[/Quote]

Your attitude is utterly asinine, you do realise that don't you? Being drunk should in no way lessen an individual's responsibility for their actions no more than being high on cocaine would.

kryogen

Further evidence of what a fcuking joke of a legal system we hace here. Disgraceful decision, if I don't pay my TV license I can go to jail yet if I almost kill a man I can walk out of court a free man.

Make me dictator and this stuff would be put right straight away!

dr.bollocko

DB10 wrote: »

You can guarantee if it was an African American he would have been jailed and then deported.

No. In fact you can't guarantee that at all.

And to even suggest such a thing only lends more weight to those chips on your shoulder because now others can see them too.

Really clearly.

cocoshovel

hairyprincess wrote: »

At least Mr. Kennedy had the excuse that he was drunk, I think we're all guilty of stupid actions while under the influence. But what is Mr. Whipple's excuse? A sober, educated man?

I think the scumbag tag clearly belongs to him in this case.

I dont know. He was hassling him and then pissed on his shoes. I think there is a lot more to it than what the article says. Perhaps Mr Whipple acted in self defense from some gob****e with his cóck hanging out up in someones face maybe acting threatning. Drunk or not its not acceptable. I think the sentence was somewhat fair.

yore

DB10 wrote: »

According to the Gardai report, it was an obvious drop, very clear to the defendant. So that doesn't cut it.
He should be sacked from his job at the very least. In fact I would deport the ****er. You can guarantee if it was an African American he would have been jailed and then deported.

Where does it say he was or wasn't?
Plus, Trinity lecturer.....incident occured in 2011 when he was doing a Masters...not too many lecturers in Trinity with only a Masters I'd say (Unless of course he went back to do an MSc. after doing a PhD....)

DB10

dr.bollocko wrote: »

No. In fact you can't guarantee that at all.

And to even suggest such a thing only lends more weight to those chips on your shoulder because now others can see them too.

Really clearly.

Maybe not deported, it rarely happens here. I still think his fashionable background (upper class white American, lecturing at Trinity College) has helped him.

And I don't think that is right or just.

Varied

A smack in the mouth would have sufficed. Not that much damage.

Sinfonia

yore wrote: »

Where does it say he was or wasn't?
Plus, Trinity lecturer.....incident occured in 2011 when he was doing a Masters...not too many lecturers in Trinity with only a Masters I'd say (Unless of course he went back to do an MSc. after doing a PhD....)

There are some lecturers in Trinity with no PhD.

DB10 wrote: »

his fashionable background (upper class white

Where did you get that?

yore

Sinfonia wrote: »

There are some lecturers in Trinity with no PhD.

I didn't say there weren't...but not too many. Maybe for medicine or law or things like that. And most would probably have been grandfathered in and be older than mid-30s. Especially in this day and age when there are large amounts of new PhDs leaving college and finding it very difficult to get work!

Unsurprisingly enough, he's not listed in their staff directory...
http://peoplefinder.tcd.ie/pls/peoplefinder/telephone_system_pub.people_finder.main

steddyeddy

Killer Wench wrote: »

I am fascinated by the random tidbits that hold no relevance to the story. Primarily:

1. He's formerly of "America".

2. He's a lecturer at Trinity.

3. He's married with a kid.

Well they all add up to you would have thought he knew better.

Edit: apart from being american

Fenian Army

Its because he is a trinners lecturer, if he was some ordinary joe soap from tallaght he'd be behind bars.

Dr. Jonathan Crane

If a drunken scumbag is ever to piss on my shoes, I'll make sure to remember this thread and do absolutely nothing.

Cuddlesworth

Meh, I had three guys run me over in a car and beat me with a Tire Iron leaving me in Hospital for three months. All because they didn't like the look of me when I was passing by, with them doing lines of coke in the car. The driver had over thirty previous convictions, had no license, tax or insurance was intoxicated from a day in the pub, was found to be in possession of Class A drugs and assaulted a Gardai after a chase. He got a one year suspended sentence.

For no previous convictions and the apparent finality of the act it seems like quite a harsh sentence in comparison.

jiltloop

I dunno, this doesn't make my blood boil at all tbh. The guy was minding his own business waiting for a bus when some drunk Ahole starts hassling him and won't leave him alone and then pisses on his shoes? I think most people would get physical in that situation.

Also I don't believe the guy knew there was such a big drop over the wall. He stayed at the scene, admitted everything to the gardai, expressed remorse and told the gardai that he hoped the guy was ok.

I don't think he deserved a custodial sentence either. There's been much worse cases of terrible judgements and sentencing than this. Namely that scumbag girl who purposely drove a car into that poor lad and crushed him to death against a wall. Now THAT case made my blood boil!

Oranage2

The lecture taught your man some lesson -

The King of Moo

Pissing on someone's shoes = throwing someone over a wall you know has a drop of at least eight feet behind it, apparently.

Welcome to After Hours, folks.

Battered Mars Bar

Does this man not lose more than say a mere commoner, regardless of sentence. His up til now good reputation tarnished, all those years devoted to academia could well be down the swany and to top it all off a 6 year suspended sentence...all because some drunken lout enraged him into a state of temporary insanity by pissing on his shoes...I think he has been punished enough imo.

Reverse the tables, some scumbag throws a drunk over a bridge for pissing on his shoes. What does the scumbag lose??? probably revered among his peers, same sentence would apply I imagine and we'd be here complaining about scumbags getting off too lightly. Bottom line, taking your willy out and pissing on another mans shoes is a bad idea.

golden lane

Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Does this man not lose more than say a mere commoner, regardless of sentence. He's up til now good reputation tarnished, all those years devoted to academia could well be down the swany and to top it all off a 6 year suspended sentence...all because some drunken lout enraged him into a state of temporary insanity by pissing on his shoes...I think he's been punished enough imo.

Reverse the tables, some scumbag throws a drunk over a bridge for pissing on his shoes. What does the scumbag lose??? probably revered among his peers, same sentence would apply I imagine and we'd be here complaining about scumbags getting off too lightly. Bottom line, taking your willy out and pissing on another mans shoes is a bad idea.

did he aim to do it.....

xsiborg

the scumbags attempts to intimidate and humiliate the defendant backfired spectacularly, if more people like him were to stand up to these scumbags and "hard men", there'd be a lot less of them around to bother decent people who are making a valuable contribution to society.

the defendant saw red and snapped, and was entirely apologetic for his out of character behaviour. i understand where he was coming from at least.

where was the scumbag coming from that he thought it was ok to harass, intimidate, and humiliate an innocent civillian who was minding his own business?

jiltloop

The King of Moo wrote: »

Pissing on someone's shoes = throwing someone over a wall you know has a drop of at least eight feet behind it, apparently.

Welcome to After Hours, folks.

You're being overly dramatic there I think, just like the OP. The guy was clearly in the wrong but I still think the sentence is fair. It was a rush of blood to the head action. It wasn't a prolonged physical assault. To say it makes your blood boil and it's an injustice is frankly ridiculous.

Chucky the tree

The same judge in the garlic case.

My name is URL

He was awarded €10,000. That'll hardly even cover the guys medical bill will it? Like with everything else, it'll be us that end up paying for both of these idiots actions. The lecturer should be required to cover any future costs of providing medical care to the now permanently brain damaged scobe.

xsiborg

The King of Moo wrote: »

Pissing on someone's shoes = throwing someone over a wall you know has a drop of at least eight feet behind it, apparently.

Welcome to After Hours, folks.

humiliation = retribution, and about time too.

now im reminded of it, remember the thread here before where everybody congratulated a kid for pile-driving another kid into the ground after the kid "only gave him a few slaps".

you drive someone to that point that isnt normally within their character and you can guarantee they will react with excessive force because they want to show the bully that they will not let them humiliate them any more. it may not be "measured force", but the point is to overcome the bully and leave them in such a way that they are left incapable of tormenting you again.

Battered Mars Bar

golden lane wrote: »

did he aim to do it.....

Are you getting at the temporary insanity thing I said? Perhaps he did aim to do it but I doubt his actions could be premeditated rationally to any great extent. The shrug of the shoulders as an eye witness said speaks volumes to me.

yore

Fenian Army wrote: »

Its because he is a trinners lecturer, if he was some ordinary joe soap from tallaght he'd be behind bars.

As posted above, he's not on their system as staff.
[Mod] SNIP There's no need for singling the guy out on here.[/Mod]

The King of Moo

jiltloop wrote: »

You're being overly dramatic there I think, just like the OP. The guy was clearly in the wrong but I still think the sentence is fair. It was a rush of blood to the head action. It wasn't a prolonged physical assault. To say it makes your blood boil and it's an injustice is frankly ridiculous.

I'm just repeating what others are suggesting.

I think it's overly dramatic to suggest that one would fly into an uncontrollable rage upon having their shoes pissed upon.
This is Ireland and things like this probably happen all the time, yet we don't often hear about people suffering serious head injuries because of it.

But it's the all-too-common detached-from-reality response you find here when it comes "to scumbags."
"Just give me five minutes with them...hurr durr."

In reality, most people would not react as Mr. Whipple did, though they might like to think they would.
There's a big difference between pissing on someone's shoes and throwing someone down a drop of at least eight feet (which Whipple was aware of, according to the judge). That's not being overly dramatic: it's fact.

What Whipple did was a wildly disproportionate reaction to what happened. It was not an instinctive response. You don't throw someone over a wall in one single movement. It's a calculated act.

Anyone who seriously thinks he was justified in doing so, and that they'd do the same, is either quite deluded or incredibly violent.

Rasheed

Yanks. So dramatic!

jiltloop

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm just repeating what others are suggesting.

I think it's overly dramatic to suggest that one would fly into an uncontrollable rage upon having their shoes pissed upon.
This is Ireland and things like this probably happen all the time, yet we don't often hear about people suffering serious head injuries because of it.

But it's the all-too-common detached-from-reality response you find here when it comes "to scumbags."
"Just give me five minutes with them...hurr durr."

In reality, most people would not react as Mr. Whipple did, though they might like to think they would.
There's a big difference between pissing on someone's shoes and throwing someone down a drop of at least eight feet (which Whipple was aware of, according to the judge). That's not being overly dramatic: it's fact.

What Whipple did was a wildly disproportionate reaction to what happened. It was not an instinctive response. You don't throw someone over a wall in one single movement. It's a calculated act.

Anyone who seriously thinks he was justified in doing so, and that they'd do the same, is either quite deluded or incredibly violent.

That is really only the view of a few people here and one not shared by me. My main point is that I find the incredulous nature of the OP and other posters who seem to be baying for this guy's blood, completely over the top and more than a bit silly.

xsiborg

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm just repeating what others are suggesting.

I think it's overly dramatic to suggest that one would fly into an uncontrollable rage upon having their shoes pissed upon.
This is Ireland and things like this probably happen all the time, yet we don't often hear about people suffering serious head injuries because of it.

But it's the all-too-common detached-from-reality response you find here when it comes "to scumbags."
"Just give me five minutes with them...hurr durr."

In reality, most people would not react as Mr. Whipple did, though they might like to think they would.
There's a big difference between pissing on someone's shoes and throwing someone down a drop of at least eight feet (which Whipple was aware of, according to the judge). That's not being overly dramatic: it's fact.

What Whipple did was a wildly disproportionate reaction to what happened. It was not an instinctive response. You don't throw someone over a wall in one single movement. It's a calculated act.

Anyone who seriously thinks he was justified in doing so, and that they'd do the same, is either quite deluded or incredibly violent.

im not a violent person myself by any means, i've only lost my temper three times in my life, at 35 years of age, i have however endured plenty of intimidation and harrassment from ass-hats who thought they were clever or thought i would not retaliate. most of the time they were right, i didnt retaliate, and for the three that i did retaliate- no, i didnt leave them brain damaged, but i did in that moment want them dead. i wasnt thinking about the consequences of my actions or "teaching this scumbag a lesson", i just literally saw red and wanted them dead, that in my mind at that moment was the only way they were going to be stopped.

the same as the defendant in question- i was ashamed of myself and my actions afterwards because i saw it as i had lowered myself to the scumbags level.

The King of Moo

jiltloop wrote: »

That is really only the view of a few people here and one not shared by me. My main point is that I find the incredulous nature of the OP and other posters who seem to be baying for this guy's blood, completely over the top and more than a bit silly.

I honestly don't see how the following is baying for blood:

hairyprincess wrote: »

Sweet Jebus, this has seriously put my blood pressure up :mad:

tl;dr: Trinity student, now lecturer walks free after giving a guy a fractured skull, facial palsy, hearing loss, a broken pelvis and left him needing plastic surgery :mad:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/trinity-lecturer-avoids-jail-for-throwing-man-down-15ft-drop-554535.html

That sounds quite calm to me.
Man causes serious injuries to another, gets suspended sentence, OP feels angry.

In fact, if the case were about a member of the underclass causing such injuries to a drunk student who'd pissed on his shoes as a joke, I'm sure there'd be a few posters arguing that the OP's not baying for blood enough and that the guy should be executed.

xsiborg

The King of Moo wrote: »

In fact, if the case were about a member of the underclass causing such injuries to a drunk student who'd pissed on his shoes as a joke, I'm sure there'd be a few posters arguing that the OPs not baying for blood enough and that the guy should be executed.

you're honestly telling me you've never heard of drunken students on their way home from a night out, píssing on homeless people?

and who the HELL písses on someone's shoes "as a joke", sure why not spit in their face while they're at it, for the lulz like?

Princess Peach

Whipple is a funny name for a teacher.

hairyprincess

jiltloop wrote: »

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm just repeating what others are suggesting.

I think it's overly dramatic to suggest that one would fly into an uncontrollable rage upon having their shoes pissed upon.
This is Ireland and things like this probably happen all the time, yet we don't often hear about people suffering serious head injuries because of it.

But it's the all-too-common detached-from-reality response you find here when it comes "to scumbags."
"Just give me five minutes with them...hurr durr."

In reality, most people would not react as Mr. Whipple did, though they might like to think they would.
There's a big difference between pissing on someone's shoes and throwing someone down a drop of at least eight feet (which Whipple was aware of, according to the judge). That's not being overly dramatic: it's fact.

What Whipple did was a wildly disproportionate reaction to what happened. It was not an instinctive response. You don't throw someone over a wall in one single movement. It's a calculated act.

Anyone who seriously thinks he was justified in doing so, and that they'd do the same, is either quite deluded or incredibly violent.

That is really only the view of a few people here and one not shared by me. My main point is that I find the incredulous nature of the OP and other posters who seem to be baying for this guy's blood, completely over the top and more than a bit silly.

Hmmm, no definitely not baying for blood.

I am annoyed at the justice system that a man who is educated and high profile in the world of academia can get off so lightly.

He admitted that he knew there was an eight foot drop, I really don't think his retaliation was in any way appropriate. A kick in the balls our a punch to the nose would have sufficed.

The article states he has a child, I hope the child doesn't piss on him. They have a tendency to that at the most inopportune moments.

If Mr. Whipple had been ordered to take anger management classes I would be more accepting of his 'punishment'. But he wasn't. Nor did he offer any excuse for his unreasonable behaviour.

The King of Moo

xsiborg wrote: »

you're honestly telling me you've never heard of drunken students on their way home from a night out, píssing on homeless people?

I have. I said earlier that pissing on shoes/other things must be incredibly common in this country.

What I don't hear about often is people suffering serious injuries because of it.

Whipple's reaction was excessive, and even if it could be put down to a rush of blood to the head (which I don't buy in this case), I still think a suspended sentence is far too lenient, and I don't often call for harsher sentences, in general.
He knew the drop was at least eight feet, according to the judge, and even eight feet could be lethal.
It's a completely disproportionate response to someone pissing on his shoes and people just can't do things like that.

xsiborg wrote: »

and who the HELL písses on someone's shoes "as a joke", sure why not spit in their face while they're at it, for the lulz like?

As above, drunk students would be the most likely candidates, I'd say.

jiltloop

jiltloop wrote: »

That is really only the view of a few people here and one not shared by me. My main point is that I find the incredulous nature of the OP and other posters who seem to be baying for this guy's blood, completely over the top and more than a bit silly.

The King of Moo wrote: »

I honestly don't see how the following is baying the blood:

Please see the print in bold, I wasn't refering to the OP baying for blood. It's 2am I don't have the energy to be pointing out how you're misquoting me and deliberately bending what I'm saying to make it easier to argue against.

carbon nanotube

DB10 wrote: »

According to the Gardai report, it was an obvious drop, very clear to the defendant. So that doesn't cut it.

He should be sacked from his job at the very least. In fact I would deport him.

or line up a prank and have all the guys piss all over him as he enters a lecture one morning, and then casually zip up and be seated.

'morning sir'

The King of Moo

jiltloop wrote: »

Please see the print in bold, I wasn't refering to the OP baying for blood. It's 2am I don't have the energy to be pointing out how you're misquoting me and deliberately bending what I'm saying to make it easier to argue against.

I'm honestly not deliberately misquoting you.
The phrase "the incredulous nature of the OP and other posters who seem to be baying for this guy's blood" is ambiguous. It can mean that you think only the other posters are baying for blood, which I now assume you meant, or that the OP and the the other posters were baying for blood, which is what I think most people, including myself, would have taken it to mean.