Where's the justice?!!

Alessandra

endacl wrote: »

Indeed. One that existed before the incident. He was a shoepisser. The mindset that leads to shoepissing could indeed be seen as an impairment. One that probably wouldn't ever go away. His new impairment will hopefully prevent him acting on his old impairment in the future.

One less shoepisser roaming abbey street can't be a bad thing now, can it?

In the 'eye for an eye' justice system you seem to advocate, I surely hope you never make any mistakes in your life. The reality is, if everybody reacted as violently as Whipple, the very social fabric of society would unravel.

I think urinating on someone is an abhorrent disrespect, however it's not deserving of winding up disabled.

BIG BAD JOHN

tony-od wrote: »

Just curious can Kennedy sue Whipple for damages as well now?

Good point. Thinking back to when we were discussing "tort" in first-year law, I suppose he could.

Phil the Greek

Kurz wrote: »

It's frightening to think that this man is still walking around.

Yeah sure. Man the barricades. :rolleyes: Will you be having your milk delivered through your letterbox from now on?

tallus

I thought blasting with piss threads were banned here ...

Turpentine

JoeGil wrote: »

The country has a justice system which is the mechanism for people to take action if they feel aggrieved - the lecturer could have called the guards.

The justice system is there to ensure fairess, a civilised society and ensure that half the country isn't sitting in a wheelchair because somebody else didn't like something they did or said.

The justice system evolved over centuries - it would be a pity to lose it. Mr Whipple should do time for his actions.

And the guards would have laughed him out of it. Like I said earlier, only around the corner there was a scumbag fight involving hurls that lasted half an hour on broad daylight. It's on (or at least was on) youtube.

Irish Guitarist

I have a solution for anyone who thinks it's frightening that John Whipple isn't serving time in jail: don't urinate on people. I think you'll be alright if you live by that simple rule.

I know it's a lot to remember but you could write it on your hand. Go and get a pen now and write on the back of your hand "don't urinate on anyone". You could also write the same thing on your penis just to be sure.

Irish Guitarist

JoeGil wrote: »

The country has a justice system which is the mechanism for people to take action if they feel aggrieved - the lecturer could have called the guards.

The justice system is there to ensure fairess, a civilised society and ensure that half the country isn't sitting in a wheelchair because somebody else didn't like something they did or said.

The justice system evolved over centuries - it would be a pity to lose it. Mr Whipple should do time for his actions.

"Can you stop urinating on me for a minute while I call the guards on my mobile? Thanks."

The King of Moo

There's going to be a bloodbath on our streets tomorrow night after the match, with people responding appropriately to drunken anti-social behaviour.

Drunkenly singing in someone's face: have a finger broken.

Drunkenly singing in someone's face and giving out to them for getting annoyed or not having watched the match: broken leg.

Getting up in someone's face: fractured pelvis, little finger amputated.

I just hope no-one thinks of commits the heinous crime of pissing on someone's shoes, because apparently a man's shoes are his castle.
Hopefully Whipple's actions have sent a warning to the drunk people of Ireland: we're not going to take your behaviour anymore, especially not pissing on shoes!

Turpentine

The King of Moo wrote: »

I just hope no-one thinks of commits the heinous crime of pissing on someone's shoes, because apparently a man's shoes are his castle.
Hopefully Whipple's actions have sent a warning to the drunk people of Ireland: we're not going to take your behaviour anymore, especially not pissing on shoes!

Fingers crossed.

endacl

Turpentine wrote: »

The King of Moo wrote: »

I just hope no-one thinks of commits the heinous crime of pissing on someone's shoes, because apparently a man's shoes are his castle.
Hopefully Whipple's actions have sent a warning to the drunk people of Ireland: we're not going to take your behaviour anymore, especially not pissing on shoes!

Fingers crossed.

Legs crossed. Keep a tight grip on that bladder. Wouldn't do to accidentally release a blasht...

endacl

southcentralts wrote: »

Sorry but who is the scumbag here, which sounds more like scumbag behavior:
pissing on someones shoes or
throwing someone over some railings.
???

Good question. Pissing on somebody's shoes. Deffo.

endacl

Alessandra wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

Indeed. One that existed before the incident. He was a shoepisser. The mindset that leads to shoepissing could indeed be seen as an impairment. One that probably wouldn't ever go away. His new impairment will hopefully prevent him acting on his old impairment in the future.

One less shoepisser roaming abbey street can't be a bad thing now, can it?

In the 'eye for an eye' justice system you seem to advocate, I surely hope you never make any mistakes in your life. The reality is, if everybody reacted as violently as Whipple, the very social fabric of society would unravel.

I think urinating on someone is an abhorrent disrespect, however it's not deserving of winding up disabled.

An eye for an eye would surely have simply involved a retaliatory piddle?

If he hadn't have acted as such a complete and utter scumbag, he wouldn't have been injured. Maybe he picked the right target. Maybe the next guy in the queue would have stabbed him in the neck. Maybe he'd not have reacted at all. This is abbey street we're talking about after all.

He took his chance. It didn't go well for him. He came out ten grand richer. Maybe he even sees it as a good thing. I mean, realistically, what are the chances of a shoepisser ever seeing ten grand in one place?

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you entirely. However, if shoepisser has a non-existent sense of respect for people, I won't be losing sleep over injuries which will prevent him from being such a prat in future.

The very fact of shoepisser's existence demonstrates the societal unravelling you spoke of.

I back John Whipple's response. He spoke for me.

Battered Mars Bar

The King of Moo wrote: »

I just hope no-one thinks of commits the heinous crime of pissing on someone's shoes, because apparently a man's shoes are his castle.
Hopefully Whipple's actions have sent a warning to the drunk people of Ireland: we're not going to take your behaviour anymore, especially not pissing on shoes!

Damn straight :mad: If I see just one more willy unleashing a monsoon of piss in my direction...the sh*t will hit the fan :mad::mad:

suicide_circus

In getting out of his mind drunk and abusing citizens on the street, Kennedy put himself and others in danger
just as if he had gotten behind the wheel of a car drunk. Kennedy's unprovoked harassment and assault on Whipple resulted in Kennedy being injured. Kennedy, through his own actions, set in motion a chain of events which resulted in his injuries. Whipple was just trying to go home after work and Kennedy thought it was ok to piss on him. Whipple stoop up for himself and all decent right thinking people who won't tolerate abuse from lowlife pissheads.

endacl

suicide_circus wrote: »

In getting out of his mind drunk and abusing citizens on the street, Kennedy put himself and others in danger
just as if he had gotten behind the wheel of a car drunk. Kennedy's unprovoked harassment and assault on Whipple resulted in Kennedy being injured. Kennedy, through his own actions, set in motion a chain of events which resulted in his injuries. Whipple was just trying to go home after work and Kennedy thought it was ok to piss on him. Whipple stoop up for himself and all decent right thinking people who won't tolerate abuse from lowlife pissheads.

How many different ways does this have to be explained....?

CodyJarrett

On passing the suspended sentence, the judge asked Whipple had he anything final to add in his defense and he said:

Well judge, you can knock me down, step in my face, slander my name all over the place. Do anything that you want to do, but uh-uh honey, lay off of my shoes.

senordingdong

suicide_circus wrote: »

In getting out of his mind drunk and abusing citizens on the street, Kennedy put himself and others in danger
just as if he had gotten behind the wheel of a car drunk. Kennedy's unprovoked harassment and assault on Whipple resulted in Kennedy being injured. Kennedy, through his own actions, set in motion a chain of events which resulted in his injuries. Whipple was just trying to go home after work and Kennedy thought it was ok to piss on him. Whipple stoop up for himself and all decent right thinking people who won't tolerate abuse from lowlife pissheads.

A punch in the face would have sufficed, and would have been defendable.
Maybe even a kick in the gut while he is on the ground.

But grabbing him, picking him up and throwing him down a fifteen feet drop is not defendable. Even if he had landed on a pile of pillows his actions were not defendable.

endacl

senordingdong wrote: »

suicide_circus wrote: »

In getting out of his mind drunk and abusing citizens on the street, Kennedy put himself and others in danger
just as if he had gotten behind the wheel of a car drunk. Kennedy's unprovoked harassment and assault on Whipple resulted in Kennedy being injured. Kennedy, through his own actions, set in motion a chain of events which resulted in his injuries. Whipple was just trying to go home after work and Kennedy thought it was ok to piss on him. Whipple stoop up for himself and all decent right thinking people who won't tolerate abuse from lowlife pissheads.

A punch in the face would have sufficed, and would have been defendable.
Maybe even a kick in the gut while he is on the ground.

But grabbing him, picking him up and throwing him down a fifteen feet drop is not defendable. Even if he had landed on a pile of pillows his actions were not defendable.

Maybe not, but I'll defend them all the same.

There's at least one shoepisser the rest of us won't have to encounter.

Shoepissers 0: The Rest of Us United 1

Good result.

The King of Moo

endacl wrote: »

Maybe not, but I'll defend them all the same.

There's at least one shoepisser the rest of us won't have to encounter.

Shoepissers 0: The Rest of Us United 1

Good result.

Do you think severe violence is an appropriate response to all instances of anti-social behaviour?

If people were free to attack people they believed* were responsible for anti-social behaviour which had annoyed/frightened them, do you think that would be a healthy kind of society to live in?

*because people can be very wrong and might easily target the wrong person

endacl

The King of Moo wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

Maybe not, but I'll defend them all the same.

There's at least one shoepisser the rest of us won't have to encounter.

Shoepissers 0: The Rest of Us United 1

Good result.

Do you think severe violence is an appropriate response to all instances of anti-social behaviour?

If people were free to attack people they believed* were responsible for anti-social behaviour which had annoyed/frightened them, do you think that would be a healthy kind of society to live in?

*because people can be very wrong and might easily target the wrong person

Well, I kinda do, I suppose...

Oh, and shoepisser was definitely the right (sub)person in this instace. No 'belief' necessary.

The King of Moo

endacl wrote: »

Well, I kinda do, I suppose...

Such a society would not work. That seems self-evident to me. It would result in violent chaos and lead to serious injuries and death for many innocent people. It would also give violent people an excuse to indulge their violent ways. They could pretend someone said something to them, kill them, and if there were no witnesses, who could verify the case?

One man's anti-social behaviour is another man's "banter" too, so some people posting on this thread who've got up to drunken high-jinks might find themselves dead under such a regime.

endacl

The King of Moo wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

Well, I kinda do, I suppose...

Such a society would not work. That seems self-evident to me. It would result in violent chaos and lead to serious injuries and death for many innocent people. It would also give violent people an excuse to indulge their violent ways. They could pretend someone said something to them, kill them, and if their were no witnesses, who could verify the case?

Ho hum...

My name is URL

endacl wrote: »

Well, I kinda do, I suppose...

So if a passerby saw you knock the **** out of some scobe, and decided that your own behavior was anti-social; they'd be welcome to bate the head of you for it?

Won't be long before everyone is both a victim of and perpetrator of anti-social behavior in that case!

The King of Moo

endacl wrote: »

Ho hum...

If you're not going to bother making a case then just don't bother posting in the thread.
I don't want to waste my time and limited brainpower coming up with arguments for someone who can't be bothered to do the same.

endacl

The King of Moo wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

Ho hum...

If you're not going to bother making a case then just don't bother posting in the thread.
I don't want to waste my time and limited brainpower coming up with arguments for someone who can't be bothered to do the same.

I'm not arguing. I respect you position. I just hold a different one.

Madam_X

Lunatic reaction - can understand the guy seeing red, the other guy was being a dick, but his response was completely disproportionate and I'd be worried about a general understanding of him going to such lengths. And he seems very lacking in remorse. Should go to jail, which lots would no doubt agree with if the victim was a fellow academic.

xsiborg

The King of Moo wrote: »

Do you think severe violence is an appropriate response to all instances of anti-social behaviour?

If people were free to attack people they believed* were responsible for anti-social behaviour which had annoyed/frightened them, do you think that would be a healthy kind of society to live in?

*because people can be very wrong and might easily target the wrong person

do you believe then Moo that innocent people minding their own business, coming home from a days work, should tolerate being subjected to being píssed on by an ignorant twat?

maybe ignorant twats should learn to control their own behaviour first and then this tragic accident would never have happened in the first place.

Madam_X

It definitely shouldn't be tolerated, but there are other ways to retaliate, which aren't as extreme as what the guy did.

From reading this thread, I'm finding it weird the way a number of people aren't acknowledging that.

xsiborg

Onixx wrote: »

It definitely shouldn't be tolerated, but there are other ways to retaliate, which aren't as extreme as what the guy did.

From reading this thread, I'm finding it weird the way a number of people aren't acknowledging that.

its the humiliation and degredation factor in what kennedy did though onnyx, he didnt know whipple from adam, so it could've been anybody, so lets forget all this nonsense about him being trinity, etc.

the facts are that kennedy thought it'd be funny to humiliate a complete stranger, he thought he'd just carry on about his merry way after winding whipple up for his own amusement.

i dont think anybody could have foreseen what happened next, which was that whipple lost his rag, and in the heat of the moment wasnt thinking about the possible consequences of his actions either, its called "fight or flight" syndrome for a reason, but the way Moo wants us to see it is that kennedy was just having a bit of harmless drunken fun, and whipple is a violent deranged killer with psychopathic tendencies. he seeks to play down what the ignorant twat did, while at the same time trying to make out that whipple intentionally reacted with malice and forethought in his actions.

i just happen to think that wasnt the case here, and my reasoning for that is based on my own experience that i posted about earlier on in this thread.

The King of Moo

xsiborg wrote: »

do you believe then Moo that innocent people minding their own business, coming home from a days work, should tolerate being subjected to being píssed on by an ignorant twat?

maybe ignorant twats should learn to control their own behaviour first and then this tragic accident would never have happened in the first place.

No, I've stated that on many occasions.
Simply because I believe Whipple's response was extremely excessive doesn't mean that I think people should not respond at all. I've given specific examples of what I think would be appropriate and understandable responses.

It's not an all-or-nothing situation.

People can legally use reasonable force. But I see no possible way throwing someone from a height of fifteen feet for pissing on your shoes could be considered reasonable force.

And while I think someone who pisses on people's shoes (and Kennedy was drunk so this might have been a one-off situation, even though many people are happy to presume he's a serial-pissing untermensch) should expect to get negative reactions, I don't think anyone living in a civilized country should expect to be almost killed unless they're trying to kill someone.

The King of Moo

The King of Moo wrote: »

No, I've stated that on many occasions.
Simply because I believe Whipple's response was extremely excessive doesn't mean that I think people should not respond at all. I've given specific examples of what I think would be appropriate and understandable responses.

It's not an all-or-nothing situation.

People can legally use reasonable force. But I see no possible way throwing someone from a height of fifteen feet for pissing on your shoes could be considered reasonable force.

And while I think someone who pisses on people's shoes (and Kennedy was drunk so this might have been a one-off situation, even though many people are happy to presume he's a serial-pissing untermensch) should expect to get negative reactions, I don't think anyone living in a civilized country should expect to be almost killed unless they're trying to kill someone.

Now I'm considering subscribing and changing my username.

xsiborg

The King of Moo wrote: »

No, I've stated that on many occasions.
Simply because I believe Whipple's response was extremely excessive doesn't mean that I think people should not respond at all. I've given specific examples of what I think would be appropriate and understandable responses.

It's not an all-or-nothing situation.

it was an extreme emotional REACTION though Moo to what whipple had perceived to be extreme sustained provocation and humiliation. i genuinely dont think whipple actually MEANT to pick him up and toss him over a wall, in all fairness...

if as you say kennedy wouldnt be going around every weekend intimidating people for his own amusement, then surely we can also surmise that whipple isnt prone to flinging people over walls if they look at him the wrong way. he showed restraint during the altercation already, so kennedy went all out so to speak to humiliate him, and if whipple had still not reacted, just how far would kennedy have went then?

The King of Moo wrote: »

People can legally use reasonable force. But I see no possible way throwing someone from a height of fifteen feet for pissing on your shoes could be considered reasonable force.

And while I think someone who pisses on people's shoes (and Kennedy was drunk so this might have been a one-off situation, even though many people are happy to presume he's a serial-pissing untermensch) should expect to get negative reactions, I don't think anyone living in a civilized country should expect to be almost killed unless they're trying to kill someone.

i genuinely dont think whipple was calculating "what is reasonable force?" when he was confronted by kennedy, that would take calm, and logical thought- very hard to do when you have a thug in your face intimidating you. the urinating on his shoes is what drove whipple from being restrained, to becoming enraged, and i still dont think he had any intention of killing kennedy, he just wanted him to stop, to get him away. i dont think he had the thought process in his mind that if he grabs him this way, then is able to lift him, he can drop him over a wall and kill him.

this was simply an unfortunate and tragic accident, and even the prosecution saw it that way, or whipple would have been charged with manslughter.

of course it was an over-reaction, but if it makes even one thoughtless twat think twice this weekend about the possible consequences of their actions, then i for one am glad that this thoughtless bully was taken down a peg or two.

this incident is not going to make a massive dent in reducing anti-social behaviour, nor is it going to see an increase in retaliatory behaviour. it was a one-off incident, blown out of proportion by the media who thought it worthy of reporting simply because they had their facts wrong.

The King of Moo

xsiborg wrote: »

it was an extreme emotional REACTION though Moo to what whipple had perceived to be extreme sustained provocation and humiliation. i genuinely dont think whipple actually MEANT to pick him up and toss him over a wall, in all fairness...

if as you say kennedy wouldnt be going around every weekend intimidating people for his own amusement, then surely we can also surmise that whipple isnt prone to flinging people over walls if they look at him the wrong way. he showed restraint during the altercation already, so kennedy went all out so to speak to humiliate him, and if whipple had still not reacted, just how far would kennedy have went then?




i genuinely dont think whipple was calculating "what is reasonable force?" when he was confronted by kennedy, that would take calm, and logical thought- very hard to do when you have a thug in your face intimidating you. the urinating on his shoes is what drove whipple from being restrained, to becoming enraged, and i still dont think he had any intention of killing kennedy, he just wanted him to stop, to get him away. i dont think he had the thought process in his mind that if he grabs him this way, then is able to lift him, he can drop him over a wall and kill him.

this was simply an unfortunate and tragic accident, and even the prosecution saw it that way, or whipple would have been charged with manslughter.

of course it was an over-reaction, but if it makes even one thoughtless twat think twice this weekend about the possible consequences of their actions, then i for one am glad that this thoughtless bully was taken down a peg or two.

this incident is not going to make a massive dent in reducing anti-social behaviour, nor is it going to see an increase in retaliatory behaviour. it was a one-off incident, blown out of proportion by the media who thought it worthy of reporting simply because they had their facts wrong.

I'm sure Whipple was very emotional but I think that taking that into account, his reaction was still excessive. People suffer far worse things and don't react in the way he did, which strongly suggests that his actions were far beyond what most people would do in the situation.
And just because he was emotional it shouldn't excuse his actions to any great extent, just as Kennedy's drunkenness doesn't excuse his actions.

I also don't think that being very angry means someone could throw someone from such a height without realising the danger. Knowing the spot, it's very hard to throw someone from such a height and not realise how much damage it would do. You don't have to be consciously thinking about it; the brain immediately recognises such a height as dangerous.
Even if he were in a primal rage (and someone who reacts in such a way to someone pissing on their shoes and annoying them is a dangerous person, in my opinion) he still should not have done what he did.

xsiborg

maybe you missed this post earlier in the thread Moo, the point being that I for one dont think i am a violent nor dangerous person, but circumstances can sometimes turn the most placid individual into if you like, a violent and dangerous person. and i only qualify that by saying "in that moment!".

xsiborg wrote: »

no, you dont, because usually the person being humiliated is too scared to retaliate in any sort of fashion, and the person intimidating them would have thought about this beforehand, hence why they would pick on someone they thought they could get away with humiliating, for nothing other than their own amusement.




yes i agree the defendants reaction was excessive, i get that you dont buy it was a rush of blood to the head, but if you read the article-



entirely possible in one movement, without having given any thought to the consequences.



what you dont seem to be grasping here moo is the humiliation factor of such an act. have a look at this-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/13/us-marines-identified-video-court-martial

it is a dehumanising and degrading act, intended to let the victim know as such that they are considered by the perpetrator to be the lowest of the low, that they are "unworthy" as a human being. yet you choose to make light of it.

i think a suspended sentence here was fair (in my own case. in one particular incident, i managed to keep my job because i was seen as an otherwise exemplary employee whereas the perpetrator was known to management and HR as a constant troublemaker, he also got to keep his job and got €16k in compensation for his injuries) as the judge saw that this was a one-off act of violence, and the defendant had shown remorse for his actions, there was no need to castigate him any further and remove him from his role as a contributing member of society, as opposed to his assailant who chose to go out and get drunk and then think it was ok to humiliate a complete stranger in such a fashion.

bottom line moo- the guy thought he could humiliate him and get away with it scott free, he thought wrong and paid dearly for his actions. he'll think twice again before inflicting his particular brand of humor on a complete stranger.

i wonder if mr. whipple had gone to the gardai and made a complaint against mr. kennedy, would his complaint have been taken seriously? i doubt the gardai would have even bothered to check the CCTV, and that is why i say i am glad that mr. whipple was given a suspended sentence and ordered to compensate his assailant to the tune of €10k, i doubt he will repeat his actions in the six years he is on probation, and had he not reacted the way he did, how many more times in that six years would mr. kennedy have thought it was acceptable behaviour to humiliate complete strangers for his own amusement?

was it an over-reaction? not in whipple's mind it wasnt, i dont think if he had thought about the possible consequences of throwing a man to his death, he would have still done it. he is after all a civilised human being, and to be quite honest, im finding it hard to say the same thing about kennedy.

i know they are questions we'll never have answers to, but why did he pick on whipple of all people? why did he continue to attempt to provoke a reaction from him? why did he not like most people after a few drinks, have the bar call him a taxi and take him home. it's almost as if he was out looking to cause trouble that night, and he chose to take out his frustrated "small man syndrome" on whipple, who he assumed would offer no defense to his provocation (maybe it was the difference in their stature? who knows?).

also some posters who suggested whipple's was an over-reaction have also put forward the idea that he showed no remorse for his actions. i think he did, and i think he will carry it with him a hell of a lot longer than a six year suspended sentence!

Madam_X

Yes circumstances can cause some people to act completely out of character but they are still accountable and should face reprimand.

xsiborg

Onixx wrote: »

Yes circumstances can cause some people to act completely out of character but they are still accountable and should face reprimand.

whipple did face reprimand though, he has a criminal conviction for life, had a six year suspendended sentence imposed upon him, and was ordered to pay €10k to kennedy. that isnt exactly getting off lightly in my book for what should have been seen as an unfortunate and tragic accident.

BUBBLE WRAP

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/ae4/559/794/resized/pickup-line-panda-meme-generator-nice-shoes-blast-it-with-piss-e9a16d.jpg

Seriously though, To throw somebody of a ledge, I belive he was a scumbag.

The King of Moo

xsiborg wrote: »

maybe you missed this post earlier in the thread Moo, the point being that I for one dont think i am a violent nor dangerous person, but circumstances can sometimes turn the most placid individual into if you like, a violent and dangerous person. and i only qualify that by saying "in that moment!".



was it an over-reaction? not in whipple's mind it wasnt, i dont think if he had thought about the possible consequences of throwing a man to his death, he would have still done it. he is after all a civilised human being, and to be quite honest, im finding it hard to say the same thing about kennedy.

i know they are questions we'll never have answers to, but why did he pick on whipple of all people? why did he continue to attempt to provoke a reaction from him? why did he not like most people after a few drinks, have the bar call him a taxi and take him home. it's almost as if he was out looking to cause trouble that night, and he chose to take out his frustrated "small man syndrome" on whipple, who he assumed would offer no defense to his provocation (maybe it was the difference in their stature? who knows?).

also some posters who suggested whipple's was an over-reaction have also put forward the idea that he showed no remorse for his actions. i think he did, and i think he will carry it with him a hell of a lot longer than a six year suspended sentence!

I don't recall any gestures of remorse on his part.

And we know nothing about Kennedy so there's no point speculating on his motives and, being drunk, he probably didn't have any.

Anyway, circumstances can lead to lack of judgement, of course. Extreme circumstances.
These were not such circumstances.
Let's get some perspective. The man had his shoes pissed upon. In retaliation, he almost killed the pisser.
As I've already said, there's no way that can be considered reasonable force, and anyone who overreacts like that is a dangerous individual who probably has underlying issues to some extent. A few digs or a shove would be understandable.

I don't buy the "he wasn't thinking straight" argument for a second. No-one gets so angry over having pissy shoes, and people can't go around reacting like he did. Again, the fact that he got so angry means that he surely has anger issues and he's not someone I'd like to cross. He nearly killed a man who did him no real harm.
Now he was punished (not quite severely enough, I think) but it's ludicrous that many people here are saying he should get a medal and so on. It's the usual AH chest-puffery, hell-in-a-handcart nonsense by people who think that the judicial system ought to be entirely revenge-based when those who would suffer most from it wear tracksuits. They like to think they'd react like a Clint Eastwood character when encountering anti-social behaviour, when in reality, most of them would simply walk away, which is usually the most sensible option. And they sure as hell wouldn't want to walk the vigilante-filled streets they fantasise about.
Most people would not and should not do what Whipple did, despite what they want to think.
What he did is wrong, that's a simple fact.

Madam_X

Yeah I think it's strange that Whipple is seen as some sort of renegade who "stood up" to intimidation, as if his intention was such an honourable one. Both are scumbags.

The King of Moo

Onixx wrote: »

Yeah I think it's strange that Whipple is seen as some sort of renegade who "stood up" to intimidation, as if his intention was such an honourable one. Both are scumbags.

Unfortunately, for some posters anyway, I think the reason is that they've presumed that Kennedy is a "scumbag" (ie working class, underclass or junkie) and therefore fair game for being killed over anti-social behaviour.

I find this presumption really strange: in Ireland, people of any demographic are capable of getting drunk and acting the d*ck.

Smidge

I have a sneaking suspicion that Whipple may have had a superiority complex given his position of employment.

endacl

mishkalucy wrote: »

I have a sneaking suspicion that Whipple may have had a superiority complex given his position of employment.

TEFL teacher? I used to do that. Didn't feel very superior. Especially on payday...

Or did he feel superior by virtue of the fact that he had a job at all? That would be understandable. He would outrank a shoepisser.

Smidge

endacl wrote: »

TEFL teacher? I used to do that. Didn't feel very superior. Especially on payday...

Or did he feel superior by virtue of the fact that he had a job at all? That would be understandable. He would outrank a shoepisser.

Was Whipple not a TCD lecturer?

As stated by the OP?

endacl

laoch na mona wrote: »

Dangerous Man wrote: »

I'm a Trinity graduate and I'm not a scumbag. Why you don't you just cop on okay?

the lecturer in question clearly is a scumbag he tried to kill some one ffs

Is there a lecturer involved now?!?

endacl

The King of Moo wrote: »

Onixx wrote: »

Yeah I think it's strange that Whipple is seen as some sort of renegade who "stood up" to intimidation, as if his intention was such an honourable one. Both are scumbags.

Unfortunately, for some posters anyway, I think the reason is that they've presumed that Kennedy is a "scumbag" (ie working class, underclass or junkie) and therefore fair game for being killed over anti-social behaviour.

I find this presumption really strange: in Ireland, people of any demographic are capable of getting drunk and acting the d*ck.

I'd presume he's a scumbag based in the fact the he'd happily piss on a random stranger's shoes.

I don't think he's fair game for being killed. I do think that if he were to piss on somebody's shoes, then he would be, to a large degree, responsible for the consequences.

Plenty of people do get drunk and act the dick. Most manage it without an added need to humiliate and/or assault a random stranger.

Shoepisser Kennedy (has quite a ring to it...) didn't deserve a serious injury. Bur he certainly asked for it...

xsiborg

The King of Moo wrote: »

I don't recall any gestures of remorse on his part.

And we know nothing about Kennedy so there's no point speculating on his motives and, being drunk, he probably didn't have any.

come onnnn, ahh in fairness now, this is what im finding annoying, you say we know nothing about kennedy, and because he was drunk, we're supposed to give him a free pass? no motives? i've already pointed out that his motive was to humiliate a complete stranger for his own amusement.

The King of Moo wrote: »

Anyway, circumstances can lead to lack of judgement, of course. Extreme circumstances.
These were not such circumstances.
Let's get some perspective. The man had his shoes pissed upon. In retaliation, he almost killed the pisser.
As I've already said, there's no way that can be considered reasonable force, and anyone who overreacts like that is a dangerous individual who probably has underlying issues to some extent. A few digs or a shove would be understandable.

I don't buy the "he wasn't thinking straight" argument for a second. No-one gets so angry over having pissy shoes, and people can't go around reacting like he did. Again, the fact that he got so angry means that he surely has anger issues and he's not someone I'd like to cross. He nearly killed a man who did him no real harm.

now, this is the thing, you say we know nothing about kennedy, yet you readily make assumptions about whipple that he has anger issues and imply that he intentionally and rationally thought of a method with which to kill kennedy. this implies that there was malice of forethought towards a man who approached HIM, not the other way around. kennedy approached whipple, and had the forethought to sustain him to verbal intimidation at first, and when whipple did not engage him, kennedy upped his intimidation a notch, and if whipple had (lets not forget, he was a complete stranger to kennedy, minding his own business) still not engaged him who knows as i said, how far kennedy would have gone to provoke a reaction.

i would think a person who seeks out a stranger he can intimidate (there were plenty more people im guessing in the bar he had just left that he could have picked on but didnt! i wonder why?) is the one with deeper issues than whipple, and while i often hear of drunken ass-hats looking for fights, i hadnt heard of one before that would go so far as to urinate on a complete stranger in order to get a rise out of them. it's usually just mouthing off, so kennedy must have thought, even as drunk as he was, that he could overcome whipple if whipple had reacted by throwing a punch. for gods sake moo i really cannot see how you cannot see that whipple tried to maintain his dignity, but kennedy continued to provoke him, eventually humiliating him in the most undignified, disgusting and derogatory manner possible.

i personally think whipple had not intended to react as he did because i've been there, and when you are trying to maintain your dignity, you resist lowering yourself to the level of your assailant, but then something sets you off, the straw that breaks the camel's back so to speak. for me it was when the instigator (who WAS actually known to me), uttered the words "your wife does be at home on her own, doesnt she?". his insinuation was clear, he intended to have me think that my wife would come to harm. the last thing i remember thinking was "you wont get the damn chance!", i was intending only one thing, literally to kill him. but ten minutes later, when i came to my senses, i only then considered the consequences of my actions. that was nearly ten years ago now, and not a day goes by when the image of him lying there unconscious doesnt enter my head and make me shudder. i still carry that with me, and im disgusted by my behaviour, im disgusted that i lowered myself to his level.

i see him around town every so often and still he leers at me, and jeers me, hoping to provoke a reaction, but this time and from now on, i see what he's at and already im thinking with the logical part of my brain that i know what his game is, im not going to lower myself to his level again, i dont need to, i maintain my dignity.

you'd be surprised Moo because you never know how you're going to react, unless you're put in that situation yourself. sometimes it's the mental intimidation that can be worse than the physical intimidation if you get me? you might not see it as much some drunk guy urinating on you, but imagine, even for a second, what the mental humiliation could be like, to be made to feel that low that you are worth nothing more than being urinated upon.

The King of Moo wrote: »

Now he was punished (not quite severely enough, I think) but it's ludicrous that many people here are saying he should get a medal and so on. It's the usual AH chest-puffery, hell-in-a-handcart nonsense by people who think that the judicial system ought to be entirely revenge-based when those who would suffer most from it wear tracksuits. They like to think they'd react like a Clint Eastwood character when encountering anti-social behaviour, when in reality, most of them would simply walk away, which is usually the most sensible option. And they sure as hell wouldn't want to walk the vigilante-filled streets they fantasise about.
Most people would not and should not do what Whipple did, despite what they want to think.
What he did is wrong, that's a simple fact.

i never once said he should get a medal for what he did, of course it was an extreme and out of character reaction, but it's not every day a complete stranger urinates on you either now, is it? i dont think he would want a stupid medal anyway, i had people coming up to me after what i did and congratulating me and back-slapping, and tbh, that disgusted me as much as what i'd done, and i told these people so, what i did was nothing, nothing to be proud of or crow about, and im sure mr. whipple now feels the same way. thankfully my intimidator was not left brain damaged nor with any long term injuries, but mr. whipple will live with the guilt for the rest of his life knowing that he left another human being brain damaged. that is something that while he may physically be able to walk away from it, mentally it will stay with him forever, and his life will never be the same again.

one minute he was minding his own business waiting for his bus home, the next minute he had left a man brain damaged. that's not something you walk away from too easily, and you're damn right it stays with you.

as for the AH vigilantiism posts, i wouldnt lend any credence to those, as you say Moo, nothing but fantasy filled guff, and certainly the more sensible option is to walk away, but sometimes, just sometimes, you get a "crazy" notion in your head that you are not going to let yourself be intimidated nor humiliated.

most people would not do what whipple did, and i dont think anybody who has the forethought to think of the consequences would do what whipple did either, but as i said earlier too- most people dont go around urinating on other people either.

im not disputing what he did was wrong though, absolutely what he did was wrong, but can i understand why he did it? absolutely.

can i understand why kennedy would pick on a complete stranger to intimidate and humiliate him when he would have just left a full bar of people he could have intimidated? the only reason i can surmise is that he didnt feel he could intimidate them as easily as he could some innocent stranger where he thought nobody would see him and he could get away with it and carry on his merry way home, waking up in the morning and going out for more of the same the next weekend without giving mr. whipple a second thought.

xsiborg

mishkalucy wrote: »

I have a sneaking suspicion that Whipple may have had a superiority complex given his position of employment.

mishkalucy wrote: »

Was Whipple not a TCD lecturer?

As stated by the OP?

nope, this was a mistake in the original article, carried forward by the OP, and i dont think whipple had any superiority complex, tbh if anyone had a superiority complex here, it's the guy that thought he could urinate on somebody and get away with it.

i know nothing of kennedy's background so i dont make guesses about his upbringing nor his social status, i do know however that it takes a special kind of arrogant scumbag to think (EVEN when drunk!), that it's acceptable behaviour to urinate on somebody for your own amusement in order to humiliate and denigrate them.

Smidge

xsiborg wrote: »

nope, this was a mistake in the original article, carried forward by the OP, and i dont think whipple had any superiority complex, tbh if anyone had a superiority complex here, it's the guy that thought he could urinate on somebody and get away with it.

i know nothing of kennedy's background so i dont make guesses about his upbringing nor his social status, i do know however that it takes a special kind of arrogant scumbag to think (EVEN when drunk!), that it's acceptable behaviour to urinate on somebody for your own amusement in order to humiliate and denigrate them.

I think it has been stated before but surely isn't everything relative?

endacl

mishkalucy wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

TEFL teacher? I used to do that. Didn't feel very superior. Especially on payday...

Or did he feel superior by virtue of the fact that he had a job at all? That would be understandable. He would outrank a shoepisser.

Was Whipple not a TCD lecturer?

As stated by the OP?

No. The OP, in a presumed fit of reactionary outrage, quoted a badly researched report. Happens a lot around here. Provides fodder for the 'isn't it shocking, I'm outraged' type posts.

Joe Duffy style posting. The error, while having been corrected several times, persists.

The fact is, JW works as a TEFL teacher. For this, in a private language school, he probably gets paid anywhere from 12-18 quid an hour, with a likely max working week of c.25 hours. Not salaried, but paid by hours worked. Not terrible money, but clearly not the ivory tower cushiness that some here have alluded to.

10000 to a shoepissing scumbag would certainly not be easy to pay. He has been punished. And castigated here. And has a suspended sentence hanging over his head. He didn't 'get away' with his over reaction to shoepisser.

If shoepisser didn't piss on shoes, this thread would not exist. Bottom line.

Hope this clarifies things.

xsiborg

mishkalucy wrote: »

I think it has been stated before but surely isn't everything relative?

im not getting what you mean mishka?

sorry, how do you mean "isnt everything relative?"