Where's the justice?!!

Unavailable for Comment

Sinfonia wrote: »

Have a read: Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997

Kennedy is guilty of - at least - assault and harassment.
Whipple should have been acquitted as per Section 18.

Whipple would have been justified in using a reasonable amount of force. It would be difficult to show that the amount of force he used was reasonable when compared to the threat he was under though.

Somebody frightening you or shouting at you or indeed urinating on you does not allow you carte blanche to retaliate. At most Kennedy is guilty of a section 2 assault which carries with it a maximum term of imprisonment of 6 months.

That just doesn't justify smashing him to bits.

Sinfonia

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

Whipple would have been justified in using a reasonable amount of force. It would be difficult to show that the amount of force he used was reasonable when compared to the threat he was under though.

It says in the Act "...if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be...", so that kind of leaves the interpretation in the hands of the defendant, in this case Whipple.
Subsections (3)(b) and (5) also back this up.

I left (3)(d) in the quote below because I only just noticed it, so if Kennedy was indeed intoxicated, I guess they should both go free, although (3)(d) might not be valid for Kennedy even if he was intoxicated, because he was the instigator. Not sure on that one.

18.—(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—


(a) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or


(b) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or


(c) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or
[...]

(e) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.

[...]

(3) For the purposes of this section an act involves a “crime” or is “criminal” although the person committing it, if charged with an offence in respect of it, would be acquitted on the ground that—
[...]
(b) he or she acted under duress, whether by threats or of circumstances;

[...]
(d) he or she was in a state of intoxication;

[...]

(5) For the purposes of this section the question whether the act against which force is used is of a kind mentioned in any of the paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1) shall be determined according to the circumstances as the person using the force believes them to be.

The King of Moo

Sinfonia wrote: »

Have a read: Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997

Kennedy is guilty of - at least - assault and harassment.
Whipple should have been acquitted as per Section 18.

This:

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

Whipple would have been justified in using a reasonable amount of force. It would be difficult to show that the amount of force he used was reasonable when compared to the threat he was under though.

Somebody frightening you or shouting at you or indeed urinating on you does not allow you carte blanche to retaliate. At most Kennedy is guilty of a section 2 assault which carries with it a maximum term of imprisonment of 6 months.

That just doesn't justify smashing him to bits.

Both men were in the wrong, of course, but you have to look at the results of their actions: some harrassment (not much detail on that element) and pissed-on shoes, vs serious head injuries.

There's no way Whipple's actions could be interpreted as reasonable force, even if he believed the drop were only eight feet. You could still easily kill someone from that height. I doubt he really believed he was at great risk, given how often drunken antics occur on our streets.

Overall, I don't think this is the worst judgement. I'd prefer to see Whipple doing some community service as well as his fine, but I think a custodial sentence would have been too much.

However, I could never accept that Whipple was justified in doing what he did. Both men are guilty of wrongdoing, but what Whipple did (*sends suggestion for episode title to Midsomer Murders writers*) was much more severe than what Kennedy did.
A few pushes or digs would be fine, but what he did was too over the top.

But unfortunately the fact that Whipple is "respectable" and Kennedy is apparently a "scumbag"* who's been lumped in with heroin addicts in some posts seems to be colouring some people's interpretations of the incident.
I really think that if the case were about an "apparent" scumbag throwing a student who pissed on his shoes down a 15-foot drop, some people would be saying very different things.

*this all seems to be based on this case alone, which seems odd in a country where drunken stupidity is the norm. If Kennedy's a scumbag for this act, then half the country probably is too.

Unavailable for Comment

Sinfonia wrote: »

It says in the Act "...if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be...", so that kind of leaves the interpretation in the hands of the defendant, in this case Whipple.
Subsections (3)(b) and (5) also back this up.

I left (3)(d) in the quote below because I only just noticed it, so if Kennedy was indeed intoxicated, I guess they should both go free, although (3)(d) might not be valid for Kennedy even if he was intoxicated, because he was the instigator. Not sure on that one.

Yep I'm familiar with the statute but unfortunately the law in practice cannot be so clear cut. Society cannot allow the person defending themselves to decide what is a reasonable amount of force to use without any comparison to what the average person might think. Some people might think a punch was warranted, others might insist a shove while many might think a shout was enough.

There aren't many reasonable people that would say that causing serious harm to a clearly intoxicated man was justified no matter the provocation. Whipple was reckless to the potential for causing serious harm that his actions might cause Kennedy. That's how he committed an offense.

Whipple should have claimed he was terrified of contracting hepatitis from Kennedy's actions (despite the implausibility) became overcome with terror and lashed out unthinkingly. That would have given him a stronger legal defense for causing harm than being humiliated or "snapping".

Dangerous Man

I'd like to see an image of the wall in question - if anyone has a link please post it. Incidentally, I did google John Whipple and he's an extremely unassuming looking young gentleman - he wears glasses and is quite slim - the type of guy some drunken asshole would just love to pick on. He picked on the wrong guy this time.

My initial thought on this was that Mr Whipple did more than over-react but as I thought more about it, and put myself in his shoes, ahem, I think that's all he did. He over-reacted. I don't really have much sympathy for the shoe pisser though. What he was did was disgusting - subhuman.

It seems that anti-social behaviour is getting worse and worse in Dublin - the police never take it seriously nor do the courts. To a large degree, it's left to individuals to take care of themselves. As far as I'm concerned, in this case, that's what Mr Whipple did; I'm glad he can get on with his life and leave this episode with the hard man Kennedy behind.

He defended himself and his dignity, if I had to criticise the sentence it would be for being too harsh. If I had to :pac:

latenia

Dangerous Man wrote: »

I'd like to see an image of the wall in question - if anyone has a link please post it.

I'm guessing it's this one at the 41 (Swords) bus stop. I find it a bit hard to believe that the defendant never noticed the drop despite using the same stop every day.


http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&ll=53.349056,-6.255577&spn=0.000006,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.349094,-6.255371&panoid=POgsmKP0UmhYOiyFdkQ3Zw&cbp=12,351.95,,0,3.7

Show Time

Warper wrote: »

So it would be perfectly acceptable to leave the guy needing treatment for the rest of his life? That's really fair. I would love to see the reaction if the tables were turned and some Trinity lecturer got thrown over some railings by some riff-raff

A few years in the slammer would teach the piece of riff-raff not to mess with his social betters.

Dangerous Man

latenia wrote: »

I'm guessing it's this one at the 41 (Swords) bus stop. I find it a bit hard to believe that the defendant never noticed the drop despite using the same stop every day.


http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&ll=53.349056,-6.255577&spn=0.000006,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.349094,-6.255371&panoid=POgsmKP0UmhYOiyFdkQ3Zw&cbp=12,351.95,,0,3.7

I know the one now. Yeah - that's a bit of a drop alright. Not only that but he must have realized how far a drop it was if not before, then at least as soon as he began lifting the guy towards the edge. Still - I think the judge got this one right.

Ficheall

Warper wrote: »

I would love to see the reaction if the tables were turned and some Trinity lecturer got thrown over some railings by some riff-raff

If some Trinity lecturer got drunk and went and hassled and pissed on some riff-raff, is it? I'm fairly sure that many people would say that he had only himself to blame.

goodgolfer64

Warper wrote: »

You obviously dont know prison. How is a person that doesnt pay fines etc. be considered a danger to society? This guy willingly threw a guy over railings which obviously was going to cause serious harm. A respectable man, where did you get that from, lecturer from Trinity was it? A once-off life-threatening outburst should be jail. What would have happened if the guy was killed, would you still agree with a suspended sentence. The guy is permanently disabled due to this scumbag's actions. Justice in this country is a joke.

all i can say is the guy will remember where he pisses the next time.......

Sinfonia

The King of Moo wrote: »

Both men were in the wrong, of course, but you have to look at the results of their actions: some harrassment (not much detail on that element) and pissed-on shoes, vs serious head injuries.

There's no way Whipple's actions could be interpreted as reasonable force, even if he believed the drop were only eight feet. You could still easily kill someone from that height. I doubt he really believed he was at great risk, given how often drunken antics occur on our streets.

First of all, in my opinion you're paying too much attention to outcome and not enough to intent. Even if Kennedy had died from the fall, and Whipple was charged with involuntary manslaughter, don't you think that an ordinarily unassuming and basically 'good' citizen has a right to defend himself (and others) from a threatening situation? And what is the alternative? Turn the other cheek while another man harasses you and urinates on you? I am in no way violent, and I've never been in a physical altercation (nor do I want to be), but if cornered with no other option (and I'm not suggesting that was Whipple's position), I'd probably want to make the first hit count, because I sincerely doubt I could hold my own very well for very long. I would imagine Whipple may have felt the same way.
Also, the frequency of drunken antics on our streets is not a justification for Kennedy's actions, nor should it be a reason to criticise Whipple's actions; you can hardly say "You shouldn't have been standing at a public bus stop on a major city centre street without expecting something like this to happen". Additionally, why would the frequency of drunken antics on our streets make him feel like he wasn't at great risk?

The King of Moo wrote: »

A few pushes or digs would be fine, but what he did was too over the top.

They would?? So where do you draw the line at which a reaction becomes over-the-top? If the fall had been 2ft, would that have been ok? 3ft? 4ft? How ridiculous it is that you admonish Whipple's actions, but still advocate physical violence!

The King of Moo wrote:

But unfortunately the fact that Whipple is "respectable" and Kennedy is apparently a "scumbag"* who's been lumped in with heroin addicts in some posts seems to be colouring some people's interpretations of the incident.
I really think that if the case were about an "apparent" scumbag throwing a student who pissed on his shoes down a 15-foot drop, some people would be saying very different things.

'Scumbag' is obviously a difficult term to precisely define, but I would feel justified in applying it to a person who - without provocation - harasses people, then takes his dick out in public and urinates on people.

The King of Moo wrote:

*this all seems to be based on this case alone, which seems odd in a country where drunken stupidity is the norm. If Kennedy's a scumbag for this act, then half the country probably is too.

None of this is the norm for me, you (presumably!) or anybody I know; half the country?

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

Yep I'm familiar with the statute but unfortunately the law in practice cannot be so clear cut. Society cannot allow the person defending themselves to decide what is a reasonable amount of force to use without any comparison to what the average person might think. Some people might think a punch was warranted, others might insist a shove while many might think a shout was enough.

Is that not in direct opposition to how the law was written?
I do understand that things may not play out in practice as they should according to theory, but the theory is still relevant.

Unavailable for Comment wrote:

There aren't many reasonable people that would say that causing serious harm to a clearly intoxicated man was justified no matter the provocation.

Assuming there was no actual intent to cause serious harm or to kill, and appreciating the fact that intoxication can often mean a lack of rationality in the mind of the aggressor (suggesting unpredictability), following the provocation involved in this case, I think it reasonable to consider the reaction justifiable.

Unavailable for Comment wrote:

Whipple was reckless to the potential for causing serious harm that his actions might cause Kennedy. That's how he committed an offense.

That was really all it was though, reckless. But under the pressure of the situation, recklessness is a fairly obvious automatic by-product, unless you're trained to deal with that kind of situation.

Unavailable for Comment wrote:

Whipple should have claimed he was terrified of contracting hepatitis from Kennedy's actions (despite the implausibility) became overcome with terror and lashed out unthinkingly. That would have given him a stronger legal defense for causing harm than being humiliated or "snapping".

In legal practice, probably yes, but he didn't: he plead guilty and apologised, effectively willing to accept any decision made by a judge, which is a pretty fair, honest and honourable reaction considering he could have lied.

senordingdong

Come to think of it, if he lives in Swords and was waiting for the bus home after his night class, then chances are that was not his first visit to that bus stop. I think he knew full well the height behind the railings.

Dyr

Why are people arguing about this guy being innocent when his own counsel entered a guilty plea? Did they expect the judge to disagree?

Dyr

Sinfonia wrote: »

In legal practice, probably yes, but he didn't: he plead guilty and apologised, effectively willing to accept any decision made by a judge, which is a pretty fair, honest and honourable reaction considering he could have lied.

People don't plead guilty because they're fair and honest, they plead guilty because their legal advice will tell them that they don't have a hope of contesting the case.

Sinfonia

Bambi wrote: »

People don't plead guilty because they're fair and honest, they plead guilty because their legal advice will tell them that they don't have a hope of contesting the case.

He also admitted it when the Gardaí arrived, presumably before speaking to a lawyer.

The King of Moo

Sinfonia wrote: »

First of all, in my opinion you're paying too much attention to outcome and not enough to intent. Even if Kennedy had died from the fall, and Whipple was charged with involuntary manslaughter, don't you think that an ordinarily unassuming and basically 'good' citizen has a right to defend himself (and others) from a threatening situation? And what is the alternative? Turn the other cheek while another man harasses you and urinates on you? I am in no way violent, and I've never been in a physical altercation (nor do I want to be), but if cornered with no other option (and I'm not suggesting that was Whipple's position), I'd probably want to make the first hit count, because I sincerely doubt I could hold my own very well for very long. I would imagine Whipple may have felt the same way.
Also, the frequency of drunken antics on our streets is not a justification for Kennedy's actions, nor should it be a reason to criticise Whipple's actions; you can hardly say "You shouldn't have been standing at a public bus stop on a major city centre street without expecting something like this to happen". Additionally, why would the frequency of drunken antics on our streets make him feel like he wasn't at great risk?

Would walking away not be an alternative? That would seem like the safest option to me, with the least risk.
Also, I don't equate throwing someone from a dangerous height because he pissed on your shoes with defending oneself from a serious threat. That just doesn't compute.

The frequency doesn't justify what Kennedy does, but it shows that Whipple's reaction was excessive, or else we'd hear about such cases much more often, as there are drunken altercations occurring every night in Ireland and they don't always end in serious injuries.

Sinfonia wrote: »

They would?? So where do you draw the line at which a reaction becomes over-the-top? If the fall had been 2ft, would that have been ok? 3ft? 4ft? How ridiculous it is that you admonish Whipple's actions, but still advocate physical violence!

Obviously it's hard to draw a particular line between reasonable and excessive force, but the situation would have been much less serious if the fall was from 2 feet. That's a lot less dangerous, obviously.
But Whipple pushed Kennedy over a drop he was clearly aware was a dangerous one. That's excessive force. Pushing someone over a two-foot wall would not be considered so excessive, as it's less dangerous.
I wouldn't always advocate reasonable violence, but I'd understand if someone gave someone a shove or even one punch.
I don't understand how someone could knowingly push another person from such a height, even in the heat of the moment. It's scary behaviour, and it doesn't matter if he'd done it before or not.

Sinfonia wrote: »

'Scumbag' is obviously a difficult term to precisely define, but I would feel justified in applying it to a person who - without provocation - harasses people, then takes his dick out in public and urinates on people.

So would I, and I'd also apply it to someone who pushes someone over a fifteen-foot drop.
But whenever I see the word used on this forum I assume, due to past experience, that at least some people use it to mean "Hurr durr Dutch Gold tracksuit junkie!!"

Sinfonia wrote: »

None of this is the norm for me, you (presumably!) or anybody I know; half the country?

Go to any town or city centre after dark, especially on the weekend. You might be shocked.

hardCopy

If you piss on someone's shoes you don't get to complain about their response. F*ck him

Ficheall

The King of Moo wrote: »

Would walking away not be an alternative? That would seem like the safest option to me, with the least risk.

Would it? How far away from the bus stop should he have walked, on his own, and possibly with Mr. Kennedy following him?
Or should he have assumed that Mr. Kennedy would stay at the bus stop and hassle the other commuters instead, who might not have been able to handle themselves as well as Mr. Whipple was?

My name is URL

Why was he only ordered to pay €10,000?.. That's what I can't understand. I said earlier in the thread that it probably wouldn't cover the 'victim's' medical bill, but looking at the extent of treatment he had to undergo, and will need to undergo in future, €10,000 won't even put a dent in it.

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.

Mr Kennedy’s other injuries included a broken pelvis and facial nerve damage for which he required plastic surgery. He spent four weeks in hospital but then contracted bacterial meningitis there and had to be hospitalised for another month.

Whatever about the guy deserving what he got, Whipple is more deserving of picking up his tab than the state is.

The King of Moo

Ficheall wrote: »

Would it? How far away from the bus stop should he have walked, on his own, and possibly with Mr. Kennedy following him?
Or should he have assumed that Mr. Kennedy would stay at the bus stop and hassle the other commuters instead, who might not have been able to handle themselves as well as Mr. Whipple was?

It might not definitely have worked, but it would've been worth trying (and maybe he did try it first, in fairness, though I don't recall that being mentioned).
Most drunks aren't too focussed on who they want to annoy and won't follow someone very far. Generally.

As for whether Kennedy would've stayed at the bus stop and hassled other people, and whether or not they would've been capable of handling him physically, that's all speculation, and I don't see the use of it.
Maybe there was a karate black belt there, maybe not. Maybe Kennedy would've wandered off somewhere else, maybe not. We don't know.
But I wouldn't have expected Whipple to have been thinking too much about potential outcomes in the situation.

But I don't see why things would have to come to such a violent conclusion. When very drunk people come to talk to me or annoy me on the street I ignore them, and it usually works. I don't want to spend any time and effort on such people, and they usually give up easily.
Occasionally I might walk a short distance away, a matter of ten to twenty feet even, and they'll usually give up.

Now maybe Whipple tried all these things first and Kennedy persisted.
Even if that were the case, I still don't see how any right-thinking person, even under pressure, would do what Whipple did. There are a whole range of options ranging from turning away to reasonable violence which would occur to the majority of people before they considered throwing someone from a potentially-fatal height.

Ellis Dee

I read the media reports on the case and feel the sentence was just enough. Mr. Whipple will not have to do any jail time as long as he does not commit any further offence in the next few years, and there is nothing to indicate that he is likely to. :cool:

There was no premeditation and Mr. Whipple reacted to an act of extreme provocation by someone who sounds like a total scumbag. He just had enough of an obnoxious drunk getting in his face, refusing to leave him alone and pissing on him and finally he pushed him away. He couldn't have known that there was such a big drop on the far side of the barrier he pushed the pest over. The fact that he had no previous convictions and is a useful member of society who is both working and further educating himself certainly played a part in the judge's sentence determination, as is only proper.:)

To be honest, the lack of justice here is that Kennedy was not sentenced for his disgraceful behaviour. He should just recognise how lucky he is that he didn't break his neck or stumble under a bus. Not that he would have been much loss to society by the looks of it.:D:D

Gandhi

Kennedy should be picking up most of the tab himself, not to mention buying Whipple new shoes.

Kennedy was not walking innocently along when Whipple attacked him (the opposite, in fact). Kennedy got injured primarily because Kennedy started a fight that he couldn't handle with an innocent bystander, and secondarily because Whipple overreacted.

My name is URL

Gandhi wrote: »

Kennedy should be picking up most of the tab himself, not to mention buying Whipple new shoes.

Kennedy was not walking innocently along when Whipple attacked him (the opposite, in fact). Kennedy got injured primarily because Kennedy started a fight that he couldn't handle with an innocent bystander, and secondarily because Whipple overreacted.

Are you capable of seeing things in a pragmatic way? How exactly is a guy (who many have already deemed to be a jobless layabout) that has been effectively disabled for over a year, going to pay for anything himself?

Are you suggesting that Whipple should bare no responsibility for his own actions? Why the hell should we be the ones to pay for either of their actions?

And before you come back with that 'he isn't responsible' line, he is.. he was found to be guilty. That's why I'm asking the question.

Ms.M

Ellis Dee wrote: »

He couldn't have known that there was such a big drop on the far side of the barrier he pushed the pest over.

According to another post he knew the drop was at least 8 foot.

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.

I would think eight foot is a substantial fall, certainly enough to kill someone.

Ficheall

The King of Moo wrote: »

As for whether Kennedy would've stayed at the bus stop and hassled other people, and whether or not they would've been capable of handling him physically, that's all speculation, and I don't see the use of it.

Well, the point of such speculation is that Mr. Whipple might have felt much worse had Mr. Kennedy done some harm to one of the other people waiting at the bus stop. If that were the case, I imagine not only he, but also the AH jury, would be wondering why none of the more capable bystanders had stepped in and done something about it. "Society is full of people not looking out for others etc." I'm not saying that Mr. Whipple acted out of concern for others, and I don't know what kind of people were waiting at the bus stop, but of all the people who might have "lost" in the scenario, Mr. Kennedy is certainly the one I'd have the least sympathy for.

The King of Moo wrote: »

But I don't see why things would have to come to such a violent conclusion. When very drunk people come to talk to me or annoy me on the street I ignore them, and it usually works. I don't want to spend any time and effort on such people, and they usually give up easily.
Occasionally I might walk a short distance away, a matter of ten to twenty feet even, and they'll usually give up.

Well for you. The last time a drunk approached me, he followed my friend and me about nine hundred feet asking us for drink, pushing us, threatening to stab us with a knife which it turned out he'd lost (he was, completely incidentally, a member of a much-maligned community of traditionally mobile abode), and eventually swung the buckle end of his belt at my friend's face. It was at this point that my friend forced him to the ground and held him there while I rang the guards and we waited for them to arrive.
Fortunately my friend is a big lad - I would probably just have legged it had I been on my own, as the drunk would have been in no fit state to catch me, but had things been otherwise, I would have had no qualms about incapacitating him as quickly as possible, if I were able.

Ellis Dee

My name is URL wrote: »

--- Why the hell should we be the ones to pay for either of their actions?

If by we you mean Irish society, yes indeed we should have to pay the costs that ensue when we are not able to guarantee that a law-abiding and peaceful citizen can stand at a bus stop and be left alone. I don't know how old you are, but I can tell you it is no fun to be old or infirm or both - or indeed to be just a timid sort of person of any age - and have to experience real fear when obnoxious and intimidating drunks and junkies bother you, refuse polite requests to leave you alone, and you don't know when you are going to be punched, stabbed, smashed in the face with a broken bottle or pricked with a HIV-infected needle.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

If our state can't just put plenty of Gardai on the beat and enforce a zero-tolerance policy on thuggish behaviour, then yes indeed it should have to pick up the tab when innocent citizens - or as in this instance, fortunately, the violent aggressor - get hurt.:cool:

Dangerous Man

Ficheall wrote: »

Well, the point of such speculation is that Mr. Whipple might have felt much worse had Mr. Kennedy done some harm to one of the other people waiting at the bus stop. If that were the case, I imagine not only he, but also the AH jury, would be wondering why none of the more capable bystanders had stepped in and done something about it. "Society is full of people not looking out for others etc." I'm not saying that Mr. Whipple acted out of concern for others, and I don't know what kind of people were waiting at the bus stop, but of all the people who might have "lost" in the scenario, Mr. Kennedy is certainly the one I'd have the least sympathy for.


Well for you. The last time a drunk approached me, he followed my friend and me about nine hundred feet asking us for drink, pushing us, threatening to stab us with a knife which it turned out he'd lost (he was, completely incidentally, a member of a much-maligned community of traditionally mobile abode), and eventually swung the buckle end of his belt at my friend's face. It was at this point that my friend forced him to the ground and held him there while I rang the guards and we waited for them to arrive.
Fortunately my friend is a big lad - I would probably just have legged it had I been on my own, as the drunk would have been in no fit state to catch me, but had things been otherwise, I would have had no qualms about incapacitating him as quickly as possible, if I were able.

You should have kicked him into a coma.

Oranage2

It would be interesting if a drunk Mr. Whipple was thrown over the wall by Mr Kennedy and the young lecturer who was newly married and has young child suffered a broken pelvis and facial nerve damage for which he required plastic surgery.

That said it wasnt the case - but €10,000 seems ridiculously low I know someone with just a broken arm in a car crash get more.

Phil the Greek

Wow. Scumbag receives outpouring of sympathy from Boards.ie members. Surely a first? Ok, own up, who's sent him flowers?

It's a pity the fúcker isn't being fed through a tube and shítting into a bag for the rest of his life.

My name is URL

Ellis Dee wrote: »

If by we you mean Irish society, yes indeed we should have to pay the costs that ensue when we are not able to guarantee that a law-abiding and peaceful citizen can stand at a bus stop and be left alone. I don't know how old you are, but I can tell you it is no fun to be old or infirm or both - or indeed to be just a timid sort of person of any age - and have to experience real fear when obnoxious and intimidating drunks and junkies bother you, refuse polite requests to leave you alone, and you don't know when you are going to be punched, stabbed, smashed in the face with a broken bottle or pricked with a HIV-infected needle.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

If our state can't just put plenty of Gardai on the beat and enforce a zero-tolerance policy on thuggish behaviour, then yes indeed it should have to pick up the tab when innocent citizens - or as in this instance, fortunately, the violent aggressor - get hurt.:cool:

He wasn't old or infirm, or unable to take care of himself. A court has already found that. He was sentenced to 6 years for reacting in a way deemed not to be appropriate in the given situation.

Carry on throwing emotive red herrings though, by all means.

The King of Moo

Ficheall wrote: »

Well, the point of such speculation is that Mr. Whipple might have felt much worse had Mr. Kennedy done some harm to one of the other people waiting at the bus stop. If that were the case, I imagine not only he, but also the AH jury, would be wondering why none of the more capable bystanders had stepped in and done something about it. "Society is full of people not looking out for others etc." I'm not saying that Mr. Whipple acted out of concern for others, and I don't know what kind of people were waiting at the bus stop, but of all the people who might have "lost" in the scenario, Mr. Kennedy is certainly the one I'd have the least sympathy for.


Well for you. The last time a drunk approached me, he followed my friend and me about nine hundred feet asking us for drink, pushing us, threatening to stab us with a knife which it turned out he'd lost (he was, completely incidentally, a member of a much-maligned community of traditionally mobile abode), and eventually swung the buckle end of his belt at my friend's face. It was at this point that my friend forced him to the ground and held him there while I rang the guards and we waited for them to arrive.
Fortunately my friend is a big lad - I would probably just have legged it had I been on my own, as the drunk would have been in no fit state to catch me, but had things been otherwise, I would have had no qualms about incapacitating him as quickly as possible, if I were able.

That sounds like a horrible situation but this case might have been very different from that. I suspect what Kennedy was up to wasn't so violent, as it would have been mentioned if it was.

Even if he were threatening Whipple's life (and I doubt he was), throwing someone from such a height is incredibly dangerous behaviour, and not the only option available, and probably not the instinctive response to someone harassing you.
I don't think Whipple was completely wrong to retaliate: it's understandable.
I do think he was wrong to react so excessively.

There are no good guys in this story: just a pair of d*icks. I don't care how respectable or placid someone might be: if they throw someone from fifteen feet or piss on someone's shoes, they're a d*ck.

I just think that Whipple's wrong is greater than Kennedy's and don't think that he should be made out to be some sort of vigilante hero, as some people have done.
Batman he ain't.

The King of Moo

Phil the Greek wrote: »

Wow. Scumbag receives outpouring of sympathy from Boards.ie members. Surely a first? Ok, own up, who's sent him flowers?

It's a pity the fúcker isn't being fed through a tube and shítting into a bag for the rest of his life.

Quote the outpourings of sympathy for Kennedy please (I'm assuming "Scumbag" refers to Kennedy).

Carter P Fly

I once saw a drunk guy grab a crutch from under a random guy on the street and the guy in crutches smashed the drunken lads head open with several swift sharp smacks. There was blood everywhere and by strange luck an ambulance was passing which I flagged down who took the fool away.

Served the Cnut right.

lecturer was completly in the right to throw the yer man over the fence. People shoudln't ghave to put up with drunk knackers being prícks.

Gandhi

My name is URL wrote: »

Are you capable of seeing things in a pragmatic way? How exactly is a guy (who many have already deemed to be a jobless layabout) that has been effectively disabled for over a year, going to pay for anything himself?

Are you suggesting that Whipple should bare no responsibility for his own actions? Why the hell should we be the ones to pay for either of their actions?

And before you come back with that 'he isn't responsible' line, he is.. he was found to be guilty. That's why I'm asking the question.

I am seeing this pragmatically. Whipple is already bearing part of the responsibility, which IMO he should. He has already paid E10k and has a six-year suspended sentence hanging over him. He is going to have a tough time getting a job with that on his record. Not to mention he is supporting a wife and child on a part-time ESL teacher salary while going to college, so he is not exactly flush with cash himself.

Kennedy is primarily responsible for his own situation here. It is not Whipple's fault that Kennedy did not stockpile a medical reserve fund before he decided to go around pissing on random people's shoes.

I hate that the public are picking up the tab for this, but I would blame the guy who initiated the situation. Just because Whipple may have more means to pay for the consequences does not mean he automatically gets handed the bill.

The King of Moo

Carter P Fly wrote: »

I once saw a drunk guy grab a crutch from under a random guy on the street and the guy in crutches smashed the drunken lads head open with several swift sharp smacks. There was blood everywhere and by strange luck an ambulance was passing which I flagged down who took the fool away.

Served the Cnut right.

lecturer was completly in the right to throw the yer man over the fence. People shoudln't ghave to put up with drunk knackers being prícks.

Where are we getting all this information about Kennedy from?

Shryke

Some ugly class bias in here. A guards statement said that it was clear that their was a dangerous drop. It was something that a person would have known was there.
It's disgusting that anyone would try to defend such a casually barbaric and traumatic thing for the victim.
This guy did not use reasonable force to defend himself. He went out of his way to mess a man up for life, for peeing on his shoes. That's ****ing psychotic.

kowloon

Someone pisses on your shoes, so presumably their tackle is hanging out.
It says he held him by the groin when throwing him.

o_0

Sinfonia

The King of Moo wrote: »

Also, I don't equate throwing someone from a dangerous height because he pissed on your shoes with defending oneself from a serious threat. That just doesn't compute.

I would be afraid of a drunken man harassing and assaulting me and others around me. I would have no way of predicting what he might do next. I would consider it a serious threat, and the law, as quoted above, protects me on that. How I defend myself in a state of fear and anger is very likely to not be a carefully reasoned decision in the heat of the moment.

The King of Moo wrote:

The frequency doesn't justify what Kennedy does, but it shows that Whipple's reaction was excessive, or else we'd hear about such cases much more often, as there are drunken altercations occurring every night in Ireland and they don't always end in serious injuries.

No they don't, but on the other hand we are ignorant to most events that happen in the city: they're not all reported upon; they're not all reported on widely; they're not all reposted on popular internet forums with provocative and biased titles. And even if they are, we're not always listening.

The King of Moo wrote:

Obviously it's hard to draw a particular line between reasonable and excessive force, but the situation would have been much less serious if the fall was from 2 feet. That's a lot less dangerous, obviously.
But Whipple pushed Kennedy over a drop he was clearly aware was a dangerous one. That's excessive force. Pushing someone over a two-foot wall would not be considered so excessive, as it's less dangerous.
I wouldn't always advocate reasonable violence, but I'd understand if someone gave someone a shove or even one punch.
I don't understand how someone could knowingly push another person from such a height, even in the heat of the moment. It's scary behaviour, and it doesn't matter if he'd done it before or not.

As per the article, he was not aware of the depth.

The King of Moo wrote:

Go to any town or city centre after dark, especially on the weekend. You might be shocked.

Har har. I'm aware of city problems. But in the absence of trained law enforcement officers (who I understand can't be everywhere), one must take it upon oneself to take care of their own personal safety. Kennedy in this case was a threat to the personal safety of others. Whipple restrained him. It just so happened that he fell from a great height. Do you really, truly believe that Whipple intended to cause serious harm or death to Kennedy?

The King of Moo wrote: »

It might not definitely have worked, but it would've been worth trying (and maybe he did try it first, in fairness, though I don't recall that being mentioned).
Most drunks aren't too focussed on who they want to annoy and won't follow someone very far. Generally.

Yeah. Generally.
In this case the whole issue that one cannot know what the aggressor is going to do, and Whipple didn't want to take chances with his personal safety.

The King of Moo wrote:

But I wouldn't have expected Whipple to have been thinking too much about potential outcomes in the situation.

Me neither.

The King of Moo wrote:

But I don't see why things would have to come to such a violent conclusion. When very drunk people come to talk to me or annoy me on the street I ignore them, and it usually! works. I don't want to spend any time and effort on such people, and they usually give up easily.
Occasionally I might walk a short distance away, a matter of ten to twenty feet even, and they'll usually give up.

Have they ever pissed on you?

The King of Moo wrote:

Now maybe Whipple tried all these things first and Kennedy persisted.
Even if that were the case, I still don't see how any right-thinking person, even under pressure, would do what Whipple did. There are a whole range of options ranging from turning away to reasonable violence which would occur to the majority of people before they considered throwing someone from a potentially-fatal height.

Once again, he didn't know how long the drop was. Therefore, for all he knew, the drop was 2ft, which according to you, would be reasonable.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

To be honest, the lack of justice here is that Kennedy was not sentenced for his disgraceful behaviour.

If he's in the hospital, I assume he'll be charged upon release.

Phil the Greek

The King of Moo wrote: »

Pushing someone over a two-foot wall would not be considered so excessive, as it's less dangerous.

Pfft. Never a two-foot wall around when you need one.

The King of Moo

Sinfonia wrote: »

I would be afraid of a drunken man harassing and assaulting me and others around me. I would have no way of predicting what he might do next. I would consider it a serious threat, and the law, as quoted above, protects me on that. How I defend myself in a state of fear and anger is very likely to not be a carefully reasoned decision in the heat of the moment.


No they don't, but on the other hand we are ignorant to most events that happen in the city: they're not all reported upon; they're not all reported on widely; they're not all reposted on popular internet forums with provocative and biased titles. And even if they are, we're not always listening.


As per the article, he was not aware of the depth.

The judge said he knew it was at least eight feet, a potentially fatal height.

Sinfonia wrote: »

Har har. I'm aware of city problems. But in the absence of trained law enforcement officers (who I understand can't be everywhere), one must take it upon oneself to take care of their own personal safety. Kennedy in this case was a threat to the personal safety of others. Whipple restrained him.

He didn't. He threw him over a fence. Restraining someone means holding them to stop them doing something. Whipple committed an act of violence, not restraint.

And I don't think we can definitely say that Kennedy was threatening people's safety. I don't recall any mention of that in the article.
Whipple said he did what he did because of Kennedy's anti-social behaviour, not his potential violence.

Sinfonia wrote: »

It just so happened that he fell from a great height. Do you really, truly believe that Whipple intended to cause serious harm or death to Kennedy?

Yes! I really do. He threw a man from a height he knew to be at least eight feet. Any relatively sane person, even under extreme stress, knows that that's going to at least cause some serious harm to someone, and I can't fathom how anyone could excuse that as an appropriate response to having one's shoes pissed upon.

Sinfonia

Shryke wrote: »

Some ugly class bias in here. A guards statement said that it was clear that their was a dangerous drop. It was something that a person would have known was there.
It's disgusting that anyone would try to defend such a casually barbaric and traumatic thing for the victim.
This guy did not use reasonable force to defend himself. He went out of his way to mess a man up for life, for peeing on his shoes. That's ****ing psychotic.

"Casually barbaric"! How can you just insert the word "casually"?!
Whipple defends himself against Kennedy who harasses him and urinates on him, and you think people coming to Whipple's defence is what is disgusting?
How absurd. Have you read anything within this thread (the article for example)? He did not go "out of his way to mess a man up for life".

The King of Moo

Phil the Greek wrote: »

Pfft. Never a two-foot wall around when you need one.

Good point. Pushing people over walls or fences is the only possible response to anti-social behaviour, and seeing as there wasn't a two-foot wall nearby, Whipple really didn't have a choice, did he?

I'm still waiting for you to quote all the outpourings of sympathy for Kennedy you mentioned earlier by the way. I doubt you'd imagine them simply to get outraged about them.

Ficheall

The King of Moo wrote: »

The judge said he knew it was at least eight feet, a potentially fatal height.

Two foot is a potentially fatal height too...

Ellis Dee

My name is URL wrote: »

He wasn't old or infirm, or unable to take care of himself. A court has already found that. He was sentenced to 6 years for reacting in a way deemed not to be appropriate in the given situation.

Carry on throwing emotive red herrings though, by all means.

I suggest a course in reading comprehension. I never said Mr. Whipple was old, inform or unable to take care of himself.:rolleyes: I also said in an earlier post that I agreed with the sentence he had been given by the court.:)

I was referring in general to people who are not as able-bodied or determined as Mr. Whipple obviously is. Many of them are terrified every time an aggressive drunk bothers them, and many have been injured - and worse. This time it was the bad guy that got hurt, and who can lose much sleep over that?;)


The newspapers are full of accounts of perfectly innocent people being assaulted by scumbags pissed our of their minds or high on junk. I just hope it never happens to you or anyone belonging to you. But maybe it would make you change your nonchalant attitude to general thuggery - and that might be some kind of silver lining.:)

The King of Moo

Ficheall wrote: »

Two foot is a potentially fatal height too...

Obviously. Knocking someone to the ground on a level surface is potentially fatal. But not nearly to the extent that an eight or fifteen-foot fall is.

Sinfonia

The King of Moo wrote: »

The judge said he knew it was at least eight feet, a potentially fatal height.

That's the interpretation of the judge, not an admission by Whipple. We don't know how high a drop he thought it to be.

The King of Moo wrote:

He didn't. He threw him over a fence. Restraining someone means holding them to stop them doing something. Whipple committed an act of violence, not restraint.

I meant that he restrained Kennedy's ability to harass or assault.

The King of Moo wrote:

And I don't think we can definitely say that Kennedy was threatening people's safety. I don't recall any mention of that in the article.
Whipple said he did what he did because of Kennedy's anti-social behaviour, not his potential violence.

I don't recall any mention of that in the article either. Source?
Also, we can't definitely say anything! The point is that if Whipple perceived that a man - who had harassed and assaulted him - was a threat to his safety or the safety of others, he is protected by law.

The King of Moo wrote:

Yes! I really do. He threw a man from a height he knew to be at least eight feet. Any relatively sane person, even under extreme stress, knows that that's going to at least cause some serious harm to someone, and I can't fathom how anyone could excuse that as an appropriate response to having one's shoes pissed upon.

Again, that was the interpretation of the judge. You don't know how high he thought the drop to be.

Ms.M

.

Originally posted by Ficheall. Two foot is a potentially fatal height too..

You wouldn't push someone over a 2 foot wall in an effort to kill them or do them serious damage. I think you'd be hoping for this outcome if you pushed them into an eight foot drop. The judge said Whipple must have known it was at least an eight foot drop. That was just his opinion, at the minimum Whipple knew it was an eight foot drop. The Garda report stated that Whipple, from his viewpoint would have had to know how deep the fall was. That's the whole 15 foot. It's all speculation but I don't think it can be argued that he used reasonable force. I think we can trust Garda at the scene / judge that knows the case speculation moreso than our own.
When you compare the judges statement on the incident with the sentence given it seems very lenient.
We might be missing details of Mr.Kennedy's behaviour, but if the worst of it was to piss on his shoes, Whipple went too far imo.

Kurz

Sinfonia wrote: »

"Casually barbaric"! How can you just insert the word "casually"?!
Whipple defends himself against Kennedy who harasses him and urinates on him, and you think people coming to Whipple's defence is what is disgusting?
How absurd. Have you read anything within this thread (the article for example)? He did not go "out of his way to mess a man up for life".

A vicious attack on the the man, severly injuring him and nearly killing him doesn't amount to self defence. It is disgusting and it's frightening to think that a guy like Whipple gets to walk away without any real consequence. He should be psychologically evaluated with the aim of rehabilitation at least. People get harassed by undesirables on the streets of Dublin every day of the week yet manage to end it without acting like a vicious caged animal. It's frightening to think that this man is still walking around.

Sinfonia

Ms.M wrote: »

.

You wouldn't push someone over a 2 foot wall in an effort to kill them or do them serious damage. I think you'd be hoping for this outcome if you pushed them into an eight foot drop. The judge said Whipple must have known it was at least an eight foot drop. That was just his opinion, at the minimum Whipple knew it was an eight foot drop. The Garda report stated that Whipple, from his viewpoint would have had to know how deep the fall was. That's the whole 15 foot. It's all speculation but I don't think it can be argued that he used reasonable force.

Think what you want, you can't possibly put yourself in the situation and predict your reaction.