Where's the justice?!!

endacl

xsiborg wrote: »

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?"

+1

Smidge

I mean pissing on someone's shoes which lets be honest the offender is a man and has probably had someone do that in a pub toilet before.
And causing serious injury by fecking the person over a wall????????????

Surely a dig or a clatter would have sufficed?

FISMA

Killer Wench wrote: »

1. He's formerly of "America".

Ah ha!

Somehow, this must be George Bush's fault!

Cussypat1974

I doubt this was the first time this man was assaulted. you get a build up of little things like people pissing on you and eventually you crack. I have had moments where I wanted to murder people, due to a build up of constant harassment and unending bullying. Even right now there are quite a few I would happily throw down a deep ravine. if anyone pissed on me I'd reserve the right to stamp on their ****ing head.

endacl

mishkalucy wrote: »

I mean pissing on someone's shoes which lets be honest the offender is a man and has probably had someone do that in a pub toilet before.
And causing serious injury by fecking the person over a wall????????????

Surely a dig or a clatter would have sufficed?

Maybe it would have. But it didn't happen. Maybe shoepisser was trying to provoke a dig or clatter so he could unload a few himself, and the best way to prevent this was what did happen?

We weren't there, so there's no point in speculating.

Bottom line is a chain of events unfolded, instigated by shoepisser, that ended in him being injured. Whipple over reacted. No argument there. We don't know why. We don't know what the provocation was. We don't know how long the harassment had gone on for. I suspect there's more to this story.

Case went to court, judgement was handed down. Which I suppose is the answer to OP's question, where is the justice?

xsiborg

mishkalucy wrote: »

I mean pissing on someone's shoes which lets be honest the offender is a man and has probably had someone do that in a pub toilet before.

in all fairness now lucy- two very different scenarios. in the pub toilets (and even then, despite what the ladies might think, lol, we can still be quite accurate, even when drunk! ), that would be classed as an unintentional accident. what this guy did was far from accidental- he stood in front of him and píssed directly on him, when his previous attempts at provocation failed.

mishkalucy wrote: »

And causing serious injury by fecking the person over a wall????????????

Surely a dig or a clatter would have sufficed?

it would, perhaps, maybe this is what mr. kennedy wanted to achieve, by goading him into it, trying to get him to "fight back" as such, but then mr. whipple was trying to maintain his dignity and trying not to rise to mr. kennedys provocations, and it was only when mr. kennedy went all out to provoke him, that mr. whipple was eventually driven to the point where he could no longer take mr. kennedy trying to humiliate him and provoke him. he tried to show restraint, he failed, and the consequences were a terrible accident that he will have to live with for the rest of his life.

Smidge

I just think that it was way out of proportion to the act itself.
Everything now ends up in serious injury instead of a "straightner"

What have we become.........................:pac:

Smidge

Actually, just for arguments sake ....;)
Mr Kennedy was drunk right?

Say he was going past Mr Whipple and puked on his shoes?

Same fate deserved?

endacl

mishkalucy wrote: »

I just think that it was way out of proportion to the act itself.
Everything now ends up in serious injury instead of a "straightner"

What have we become.........................:pac:

Not everything does end in serious injury. Most of the time the intimidation works, and the scumbag goes on his merry way.

The mythical 'straightener', when it was such, was always between consenting participants. It was done with and forgotten about afterwards. This was not a 'straightener' situation. Have you read the thread?

It was out of proportion. So what? Whipple was sentenced. Shoepisser might change his ways.

endacl

mishkalucy wrote: »

Actually, just for arguments sake ....;)
Mr Kennedy was drunk right?

Say he was going past Mr Whipple and puked on his shoes?

Same fate deserved?

No. If course not. Don't be daft.

Smidge

I'm curious because I have encountered many drunk sh1theads in my time who have done awful things to me(some worse than peeing on shoes) and have never chucked any of them over a wall causing major injury.

Spread

Where's the Justice? Try the Horseshoe Bar in the Shelbourne

But in all honesty, if that happened here, he would have been jailed for ....... among other charges - reckless endangerment. The cops stated that the drop was obvious ............ even to a man with damp shoes.

endacl

mishkalucy wrote: »

I'm curious because I have encountered many drunk sh1theads in my time who have done awful things to me(some worse than peeing on shoes) and have never chucked any of them over a wall causing major injury.

There's a world of difference between accidentally puking on somebody as you stagger past, and deliberately walking up to them, unzipping, and urinating on them.

I think you know this.

xsiborg

mishkalucy wrote: »

I just think that it was way out of proportion to the act itself.
Everything now ends up in serious injury instead of a "straightner"

What have we become.........................:pac:

what have we become indeed lucy, when one man thinks he has the right to intimidate a complete stranger that was minding his own business, and when he doesnt get a reaction from him, proceeds to urinate upon him. i'd heard of people urinating on homeless people, i've heard of lads kicking seven colors out of each other, bringing knives and hurls and even pitchforks to fights*, so the idea of walking up to a complete stranger and trying to provoke them into a fight is also not new, but then to go so far as to urinate on them to provoke a reaction?

i dont think it's a case of what have "we" become, i cant even think of scumbags that would do such a thing, so i dont think it's one we'll hear about too often thankfully.




*im originally from portlaoise- slieve bloom farmers, dangerous bunch!

been down in limerick (aka "stab city") for 15 years and never had ANY trouble when i've been out!

xsiborg

mishkalucy wrote: »

Actually, just for arguments sake ....;)
Mr Kennedy was drunk right?

Say he was going past Mr Whipple and puked on his shoes?

Same fate deserved?

of course not same fate deserved lucy, the guy is still a príck, but he wasnt going past mr. whipple, he actually stopped and went out of his way to intimidate and humiliate and provoke a reaction from him, walking up to somebody and píssing on them because you cant get a fight out of them is not your typical saturday night behaviour!

so as Moo alluded to earlier, i dont think it was mr. whipple who had any "underlying issues", i think in this case it was mr. kennedy who had the underlying issues, but its "harmless" because he was drunk, right? so that made it ok for him to píss on somebody because they wouldnt fight back...

i dont think so!

Spread

xsiborg wrote: »

[/SIZE]





*im originally from portlaoise- slieve bloom farmers, dangerous bunch!

been down in limerick (aka "stab city") for 15 years and never had ANY trouble when i've been out!

Just a word of caution big boy: if you're thinking of coming to Dublin ...... bring your wellies

xsiborg

mishkalucy wrote: »

I'm curious because I have encountered many drunk sh1theads in my time who have done awful things to me(some worse than peeing on shoes) and have never chucked any of them over a wall causing major injury.

i dont think mr. whipple intended to throw anybody over a wall that night either lucy, he was just minding his own business, heading home from work, when mr. kennedy approached him, and had the unfortunate mr. kennedy not been thrown over a wall, chances are that he would have went on his merry way, having amused himself by relieving himself on mr. whipple, and nothing further would have come of it.

mr. whipple would have been laughed out of the garda station had he gone to report the matter, and mr. kennedy would have gotten away with his actions as gardai would not even have bothered to check the CCTV.

if mr. kennedy had fatally injured mr. whipple, it still would have been hard for gardai to complete an investigation based on the fact that mr. kennedy would have been long gone home and tucked up in his bed.

mr. whipple stayed at the scene, this shows he felt responsible and took responsibility for what he had done, and assisted gardai in their investigation. could we have said the same for mr. kennedy if the tables had been turned? i doubt it. he was hoping to get away with his behaviour by picking on an innocent stranger, instead of one of a bar full of people he had just come from.

xsiborg

Spread wrote: »

Just a word of caution big boy: if you're thinking of coming to Dublin ...... bring your wellies

that's just it though, im not a big boy, and these were farmers that spent their days on hard graft on the farm, they'd throw bales of hay twenty foot in the air for sport, and they could drink, and drink a lot! and when we'd all go out on a saturday night, supermacs car park was where lads got broken up, but there was never, and i can say this hand on heart, there was NEVER, any malice in it (we kept that for the hurling pitch on a sunday! ), and we'd go into work on monday and work side by side, till the next weekend came around and we'd all be down the pub, slagging about the previous weeks events, and then suddenly it'd all kick off again!

but there was never anything nowadays like scumbags that glass each other, dirt like that, and the concept of urinating on someone never even entered our heads, and i still talk to a lot of those guys, unlike some scumbags nowadays i quite literally wouldnt píss on!

but yeah, i'll remember to bring my waders alright, and an umbrella next time im in dublin, not in case it rains at all, or i might get beer spilled over me, but in case somebody decides to use my body as a lamp post, actually no, even the dogs in the street wouldnt píss on another human being!

Killer Wench

FISMA wrote: »

Ah ha!

Somehow, this must be George Bush's fault!

Dude... it's the age of Obama. Obviously, Obama sanctioned the use of an unmanned drone that was full of rage that struck Mr. Trinity in the head, thus turning him red, white, and blue to the point that he was so overcome with patriotism and creationism that he grabbed Mr. Pizzle and zapped him over the edge with his nuclear eyes.

Kosseegan

If Mr. Trinity had pleaded made no statements to the Guards and pleaded not guilty there is a very good chance he would have been acquitted. The urinator would have got nothing for his troubles. That is why the sentence was suspended.

endacl

Kosseegan wrote: »

If Mr Studied At Trinity Some Time Ago But Doesn't Actually Work There Not Sure Why Trinity Is Relevant To The Discussion At All had pleaded made no statements to the Guards and pleaded not guilty there is a very good chance he would have been acquitted. The urinator would have got nothing for his troubles. That is why the sentence was suspended.

FYP

Just the name. Didn't bother with the strange sentence construction...

FISMA

Killer Wench wrote: »

Dude... it's the age of Obama. Obviously, Obama sanctioned the use of an unmanned drone that was full of rage that struck Mr. Trinity in the head, thus turning him red, white, and blue to the point that he was so overcome with patriotism and creationism that he grabbed Mr. Pizzle and zapped him over the edge with his nuclear eyes.

Hey - if the Democrats and Obama can keep blaming Bush for the economy, then why can't the Irish blame him too?
:pac:

senordingdong

FISMA wrote: »

Hey - if the Democrats and Obama can keep blaming Bush for the economy, then why can't the Irish blame him too?
:pac:

Because we are still blaming Bertie and the boys.

BUBBLE WRAP

senordingdong wrote: »

Because we are still blaming Bertie and the boys.

I thought we were blaming mr kenny these days.

senordingdong

Well Kenny and Co hardly caused it.

Unavailable for Comment

mishkalucy wrote: »

I just think that it was way out of proportion to the act itself.
Everything now ends up in serious injury instead of a "straightner"

What have we become.........................:pac:

I'd agree that a swift punch to Kennedy's head seems more appropriate than hurling him over a fence but then again James Tynan, Gearoid Walsh, Gary Butcher would all disagree on the risks of a "straightener". Or they would if each one hadn't been killed by a single blow. Indeed if Whipple had one punched Kennedy and killed him he would have had a solid claim for self defence. Heat of the moment and without the guilty plea obviously!

Really before you get into a physical confrontation of any severity you should realise that legally you are now acting with reckless disregard to the consequences of your actions. That means that any damage you inflict, even if it's not intentional, can be construed as an offence. That's why at all times a person should be guided by the reasonableness of the amount of force they apply.

It is difficult to see Whipple's use of force as reasonable nor his actions as reasonable. Added to that he didn't even claim self defence, instead trying to justify his actions as warranted because he was urinated on.

That's a ridiculous reaction to some provocation and it's also why he had to be punished. If anything the punishment errs on the light side for anyone who pleaded guilty to causing serious harm.