Dog allegedly lured to its death by University of Limerick students in drunken game?

h2005

Richard Dower wrote: »

^ it could be plausible or it could be a nice cover story........i would ask, they talk about ooh what could we do?

Did they leave the dead dog on the road and just disperse?....if it were me i'd have to do something, call the Guards, the council....if nothing but to have the dead dog removed from the road.

You cant have kids seeing it + the health risks, if push came to shove i'd have got plastic bags, covered him and buried him myself....but that me.

Sounds far more plausible to me than any other version presented.

Kess73

h2005 wrote: »

Sounds far more plausible to me than any other version presented.

Would find it more plausible if the person who wrote the letter went to the Gardai first to set the record straight.

Afterall isn't sending a letter to the paper without going to the gardai first not one of the things that many thought strange about the first letter? Just playing devil's advocate with that comment.


Going to the gardai makes the most sense though, given the gardai have already said they are involved. That way only the gardai would have the names of those that came forward, and the whole matter could be sorted out properly without the need for unsigned letters or signed letters.

jordainius

Kess73 wrote: »

The woman's motivation does not matter a lot and whether or not those that caused the death of the dog were students also does not matter a lot.


If the truth about the actual event comes close to what has been reported ( as in a playful little dog was killed thanks to the actions of some ignorant and cruel people) then scorn should be shown to one group only, and any legal action should be against one group only.


All the idiotic talk on various sites/twitter about trying to paint all students with the one brush or trying to make out that the women has agendas is nothing more than a mix of speculation and side taking.


What it looks like is that a family pet was killed thanks to the action of ignorant scum. Does not matter if they were students, factory workers, unemployed, tall, small, or otherwise. Their actions on the day the dog was killed helps to define them for me, rather than their occupation/status etc.

While I don't think you've said a thing wrong here, I do think the womans motivations matter somewhat, I say that based entirely on my assumption that I don't believe what she is saying is entirely true, and that she may have bent the truth somewhat due to her pre-existing dislike of students.

If the story is exactly as she tells it, then all of what you say is spot on.

I'm just not so sure she has been entirely truthful, and since you posted it has now emerged that a student has wrote in with an entirely different version of events.

One of the student who wrote to the Leader today, or the woman who wrote the first letter is lying through their teeth, I personally am inclined to believe that the students version of events is closer to the truth.

If she has lied, then she is scum. If her version of events is true then they are contemptible scum.

loveisdivine

I don't see why they just left it there. My partner and I woke up one morning not so long ago and a cat had been knocked down in the cul de sac opposiet ours. It was dead, lying right in the middle of the road, obviously we were not going to just leave it there to be run over even more. Or poked at by kids. So we picked it up, popped it into a black bag then took it elsewhere to bury it.

Now that cat was a stray. Had it been obviously a pet, we probably would have taken it to the nearest vets to be checked for a microchip. Something that will now be required by law.

mikeym

Theres two sides to every story.

Kess73

jordainius wrote: »

While I don't think you've said a thing wrong here, I do think the womans motivations matter somewhat, I say that based entirely on my assumption that I don't believe what she is saying is entirely true, and that she may have bent the truth somewhat due to her pre-existing dislike of students.

If the story is exactly as she tells it, then all of what you say is spot on.

I'm just not so sure she has been entirely truthful, and since you posted it has now emerged that a student has wrote in with an entirely different version of events.

One of the student who wrote to the Leader today, or the woman who wrote the first letter is lying through their teeth, I personally am inclined to believe that the students version of events is closer to the truth.

If she has lied, then she is scum. If her version of events is true then they are contemptible scum.

But why believe one side over the other at this point?

One side was willing to give her full name to put alongside her claim, and at this point the gardai will have all those details, so if she has made up the story and made false allegations against a group then I would imagine she would be open to some sort of legal recourse.

Whereas the other letter writer hid her name, also did not go to the gardai since the story broke, and it would seem that none of the other 10 to 15 people (her figure from her letter) went to give their side of the story to the gardai.

One side has to be lying about the other side, and is now doing so quite publically through the media, but it strikes me as odd that a group of 10 to 15 innocent people would not go after someone that lied about them and who went to the local media to further spread that lie.

If I was one of those students I would have sought legal advice and gone to the gardai, rather than writting an unsigned letter for a newspaper to print. As I said earlier she and her companions from that day could give their details to the gardai and that way those details would not be made public. They could clear their names through the proper channels. An unsigned letter to be circulated through the media is a worthless defence in my eyes, and all it does is further compound the fact that one side is lying, but does not in any way help answer the question as to which side is lying.

Kess73

mikeym wrote: »

Theres two sides to every story.

There are often three.

Your version, My version, and the cold hard truth. :P

jordainius

Kess73 wrote: »

But why believe one side over the other at this point?

I know what you're saying, seems a bit hypocritical to believe one and not the other. The truth usually lies somewhere in between what both sides say, in my head its kind of 25% woman : 75% student.

I believe that the students were acting the bollix a bit, they were being a bit loud and a bit of a nuisance as far as the permanent residents were concerned. And that they were playing the game as described in the students letter, and that the dog came along and that they carried on regardless. And that the dog got knocked down as a result of chasing the ball.

I don't believe that a group of the students decided that they should intentionally try to get the dog to run out in front of traffic, but I do think that they were indirectly responsible for the dog being hit, but I reckon it was an honest accident.

garv123

Kess73 wrote: »

Would find it more plausible if the person who wrote the letter went to the Gardai first to set the record straight.

Afterall isn't sending a letter to the paper without going to the gardai first not one of the things that many thought strange about the first letter? Just playing devil's advocate with that comment.


Going to the gardai makes the most sense though, given the gardai have already said they are involved. That way only the gardai would have the names of those that came forward, and the whole matter could be sorted out properly without the need for unsigned letters or signed letters.

If I was involved in that and wrote the letter I would not put my name to it either. Did you see the amount of death threats on the UL and ULSU page ? Most people are keyboard warriors at the end of the day but I still wouldn't be putting my name to it with the stuff that is said.

And the student side to the story does sound much more believable without lots of blanks and gaps in the story.

Jester252

IMO no one is telling truth. The resident is over selling what happen while the unknown student is playing innocence.
Just a few question about the students.
If they didn't cause the dog to die why not report to someone. Why did they not report the van driver after they could not find him? There is the same amount of holes in their story.

Kess73

garv123 wrote: »

If I was involved in that and wrote the letter I would not put my name to it either. Did you see the amount of death threats on the UL and ULSU page ? Most people are keyboard warriors at the end of the day but I still wouldn't be putting my name to it with the stuff that is said.

And the student side to the story does sound much more believable without lots of blanks and gaps in the story.

Easy to have a lack of blanks and gaps if one waits a few days to come up with a story. All one would have to do is put forward a well written and reasonable sounding version of events.

Anyway my suggestion was that the student should not have sent any letter at all to the paper, and instead got the proper legal advice and then approached the gardai.

That way, if innocent and being lied about, she and her companions could clear their names and also either force a retraction from the accusing party or take whatever legal action was available to them.


As for death threats and what not, I am sure the same amount of idiots could make use of the name/details of the woman who actually put her name beside her views.

To be honest there has been enough said by each side that sounds possible, and I would imagine that the views of most non involved parties will be polarised by whether they have a poor opinion of students or by whether they have a positive opinion of them.

I find it amazing though that only one unsigned letter was sent to the Student's union though, and the other 10 to 15 students that are alleged to have been present all have not done anything at all to defend their own names be it through going to the gardai or through aproaching the Student union.

Could get interesting if the dog's owner wants to take things further though. She and the gardai already will have the name of the first woman that claimed to have seen what happened, so if she wants to take it further then she can through the gardai or a solicitor look to get a statement from the person who gave the letter to the president of the stutent union because he will not be able to say he does not know who it is from if the gardai want that info as he is the one that verified the letter as being genuine and one cannot verify such a thing without knowing who the source is.

I cannot see anything in the two differing stories that makes me sway to oine side over the other to be honest. I don't dislike students as a whole and as such have no bias against them (was one so would be rich for me to slag them all off ), and I know nothing about the woman made the original claims so have no idea how credible or not she is.

But what I do see are two versions that contradict each other, so in my eyes it should either be completely dropped by the newspaper as a "story" as neither side is anymore valid a source than the other if letters are all we have as "proof" or it should be taken further by the gardai and the lying side should be punished as is appropriate for their wrongdoing.

Both sides have made claims that they sought to have published in the media, so one side has now made false allegations about the other in public. But if I was a gambling man and in a similar position, the one way to possibly get around being done for making a comment through the media that could be taken as being libelous would be to have no name attributed to the statement. Afterall how does one prove someone typed up a letter when there is no name to it? One could even go as far as to say they handed in the letter on behalf of someone else which would make the verification of the letter useless to a degree.

All in all I think the paper were very stupid to publish a letter like that, unless they are 100% sure that the name of the person who wrote the letter is 100% confirmed by the student union, which of course probably then negates my previous paragraph and leaves things open to gardai questioning and a possible legal approach should the dog owner pursue things.


A messy affair to follow if it gets pushed further methinks.

Part of me would like to see it go further though, because if the dog's death was the fault of others then I would like to see them punished, and if the dog's death was a genuine accident then I would like to see the person who tried to use a genuine accident as a means to falsely accuse others to be punished.

canned_ulkc

To be fair, I can fully see why someone would keep their name off this.

If you even look at the ravings of some on the FB page since this letter was published it's laughable.

One comment basically said why should this be believed when there is no name too it.

The same person expressed suspicion that the letter has appeared after the €3000 reward became available.

They said it with no hint of irony - obviously not realising that an unnamed person may have some difficulty claiming a €3000 reward.


At this point, we again have the Limerick Leader publishing with questionable integrity. While the story seems more plausible to me than the original which, it must be remembered, was 2 weeks after the incident and written by someone who didn't see what happened. Add to that the apparent lack of contact with any authority after it happened...

At this point though, we simply don't know and hopefully the investigation will reveal the truth.

Da Shins Kelly

Don't understand why someone would write a letter trying to defend the innocence of the people involved anonymously. Surely it would be far more credible to put a name to it?

Insect Overlord

I'd say it'd be tough getting all 15 people to agree to being represented. There could be people away on holidays or working abroad for the summer or any number of reasons why they couldn't all come forward themselves.

Itsdacraic

I remember a funny image going around when I was in college many moons ago. It was a group of people dressed in paramilitary garb reading a statement, with a speech bubble "We, the members of the college court resident association....."

Some things never change.

CatFromHue

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Don't understand why someone would write a letter trying to defend the innocence of the people involved anonymously. Surely it would be far more credible to put a name to it?

I dunno, if the person put their name to it suddenly they've become a spokesperson.

Also they'd be linked to something that hasn't really been proved yet either. If I remember right the original story was someone relating what their brother in law saw yet hasn't been proven.

Tigger

farmer once told me that if my (innocent) dog ever chased his sheep he'd shoot him (he's was never loose)
i said if you kill my dog i'll kill you (i ment it)
i don't know what i'd do if someone hurt my dogs (never loose never bad)
i don't what i'd do if i saw someone hurting any dog
the law needs to be changed to rflect that many people have strong emotional bonds with dogs (and other animals) and that hurting them is a serious offence

garv123

Tigger wrote: »

farmer once told me that if my (innocent) dog ever chased his sheep he'd shoot him (he's was never loose)
i said if you kill my dog i'll kill you (i ment it)
i don't know what i'd do if someone hurt my dogs (never loose never bad)
i don't what i'd do if i saw someone hurting any dog
the law needs to be changed to rflect that many people have strong emotional bonds with dogs (and other animals) and that hurting them is a serious offence

We'll if your dog was loose and harming livestock he's allowed to shoot the dog if other methods of stopping failed.. him giving you a warning is a method of stopping your dog chasing them so if your dog goes chasing sheep its no ones fault but your own and you will be liable to damage and vet bills if any ewes miss-carry or get injured.

You have nothing to worry about of course if you keep the dog under control

Da Shins Kelly

CatFromHue wrote: »

I dunno, if the person put their name to it suddenly they've become a spokesperson.

Also they'd be linked to something that hasn't really been proved yet either. If I remember right the original story was someone relating what their brother in law saw yet hasn't been proven.

Yeah, I'm not saying that UL students did it one way or another. I have no idea, I wasn't there. I'd like to think that they wouldn't be so cruel. At the moment it's just one person's word against another. I've seen some people on Facebook saying that the person won't put their name on it because of the threat of expulsion. I seriously doubt UL would expel people on the basis of hearsay or mob rule.

pepe02

I think this story has actually gone a lot further than it should have. I have heard of dogs been run over before, even my own dog was ran over in the estate I used to live in.

There was never this much of a fuss made about it.

I have heard some absolutely ludicrous demands for all sorts of punishments for these "students" who apparently lured the dog to its death.

I still question the responsibility of the driver. You can't go running over dogs and just continue about your business as if nothing happened. Especially when this has escalated to the levels that it has.

CatFromHue

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not saying that UL students did it one way or another. I have no idea, I wasn't there. I'd like to think that they wouldn't be so cruel. At the moment it's just one person's word against another. I've seen some people on Facebook saying that the person won't put their name on it because of the threat of expulsion. I seriously doubt UL would expel people on the basis of hearsay or mob rule.

At times like this you should remember that Facebook is stupid.

wnolan1992

pepe02 wrote: »

I still question the responsibility of the driver. You can't go running over dogs and just continue about your business as if nothing happened. Especially when this has escalated to the levels that it has.

This is a great point that no one seems to have answered yet. The article suggests that after the dog was hit (if indeed there was a dog) the driver just continued on.

Comhrá

wnolan1992 wrote: »

This is a great point that no one seems to have answered yet. The article suggests that after the dog was hit (if indeed there was a dog) the driver just continued on.

It could just be that the driver didn't even see the dog....it was a small terrier and if a group of people was in the road playing with a football as the van approached, it's very possible a driver would be distracted enough not to notice a small dog running out under the van's wheels.

garv123

tippman1 wrote: »

It could just be that the driver didn't even see the dog....it was a small terrier and if a group of people was in the road playing with a football as the van approached, it's very possible a driver would be distracted enough not to notice a small dog running out under the van's wheels.

The people were on the green...

You would feel rolling over a rabbit. Of course you'd feel a dog going under the wheel.

PaurGasm

Before I read this I assumed it was Junior Cert student... How wrong was I...

TheEntertainer

garv123 wrote: »

The people were on the green...

You would feel rolling over a rabbit. Of course you'd feel a dog going under the wheel.

Not necessarily to be honest... The dog was 4 months old.. A pup.. The driver was in a van... So its quite easy for the driver to completely miss the dog.. Probably didnt even see what these so called students were up to.. Are you telling me that when youre driving on a road that youre constantly watching out to see if even a cat runs out in front of you. I have to admit that whilst I say that, yes I would be very cautious but when youre in a van its a different story. You are so high up in a van that you wont see the dog especially a dog that small

garv123

TheEntertainer wrote: »

Not necessarily to be honest... The dog was 4 months old.. A pup.. The driver was in a van... So its quite easy for the driver to completely miss the dog.. Probably didnt even see what these so called students were up to.. Are you telling me that when youre driving on a road that youre constantly watching out to see if even a cat runs out in front of you. I have to admit that whilst I say that, yes I would be very cautious but when youre in a van its a different story. You are so high up in a van that you wont see the dog especially a dog that small

It wasnt that kind of van at all according to the report.. It would be normal height to the road like a car.

Kess73

garv123 wrote: »

The people were on the green...

.

According to the letter attributed to a UL student, the group were split between four locations when the van arrived and struck the pup. They were, according to the letter, standing on both sides of the road, on the green, and outside of one of their houses.