Tragic yet worrying scenes in waterford last night

RecordStraight · 17-05-2014 2:28pm

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Once again brown bomber "bothering old people with their antics" means playing knick knack on a summers evening before you got called in for your tea and bed. This gang were returning from a beach party drunk/high throwing bottles at peoples houses and smashing car windows. I'm not going to let you diminish the suffering and fear of the elderly. Antics my arse. Your quite insufferable.

He bends over backwards to forgive and understand some people, full of human love and moral superiority - criminals, Muslim terrorists etc.

But don't get him started on Israelis or victims of crime. His tolerance dries up very fast.

RecordStraight · 17-05-2014 2:29pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Unnamed eyewitnesses, which are worthless as they can easily be fabricated.

Pathetic.

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 2:30pm

Nino Brown wrote: »

I assumed based on the fact that normal people don't destroy property, harass families, and assault people. That is the work of criminals.

You can dress it up all you like you assumed based on your own prejudices.

Prejudice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PrejudiceÖversätt den här sidan
Prejudice is prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case.

Nino Brown · 17-05-2014 2:31pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You can dress it up all you like you assumed based on your own prejudices.

Prejudice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PrejudiceÖversätt den här sidan
Prejudice is prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case.

na·ive or na·ïve (nī-ēv′, nä-) also na·if or na·ïf (nī-ēf′, nä-)
adj.
1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
a. Simple and guileless; artless: a child with a naive charm.
b. Unsuspecting or credulous: "Students, often bright but naive, bet—and lose—substantial sums of money on sporting events" (Tim Layden).

RecordStraight · 17-05-2014 2:32pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You can dress it up all you like you assumed based on your own prejudices.

Prejudice is prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case.

Only someone as comically wrong-headed as yourself would fail to notice that the exact same definition applies to the exculpatory horsesh!t you have been smearing on this forum, blaming the Gardai and everyone else except the thugs involved.

Little CuChulainn · 17-05-2014 2:33pm

Nino Brown wrote: »

na·ive or na·ïve (nī-ēv′, nä-) also na·if or na·ïf (nī-ēf′, nä-)
adj.
1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
a. Simple and guileless; artless: a child with a naive charm.
b. Unsuspecting or credulous: "Students, often bright but naive, bet—and lose—substantial sums of money on sporting events" (Tim Layden).

I'd be fairly sure he is not naive. Nobody is that naive. He's deliberately grasping at the most ridiculous straws to try and retain some semblance of victory in the discussion. Like the rest of us, he knows well what happened.

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 2:33pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

Pathetic.

Not so interested in your personal review but on the the truth or the falsehood of the statement.

"unnamed sources can easily be fabricated". This is self-evidently true.

RecordStraight · 17-05-2014 2:34pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not so interested in your personal review but on the the truth or the falsehood of the statement.

"unnamed sources can easily be fabricated". This is self-evidently true.

Pathetic.

digzy · 17-05-2014 2:42pm

One less knacker to claim the dole and fill the country with his offspring. Good riddance, pity the rest of the gang didn't befall a similar fate.

I feel sorry for the cop here. There's a gsoc investigation going on here and his character impugned for him lying in a bed in his own house when he was interrupted by the scum.

I've yet to see any irish person with a neck tattoo who wasn't a complete Skobie too.

thirdtime · 17-05-2014 2:47pm

digzy wrote: »

I've yet to see any irish person with a neck tattoo who wasn't a complete Skobie too.

haha!! So true!

do knackers not realise the impact a neck tattoo has on their employment prospects?

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 2:49pm

Nino Brown wrote: »

Okay Brown Bomber, I give up.

There was 2 possibilities:
1. They were just scumbags with previous criminal histories out causing trouble.
2. There is giant conspiracy to frame them including the Gardai, Ambulance Service, Coast Guard, every news paper in the country, and people on this forum.

You're right, it has to be number 2.

There are only two possibilities if you you reduce a virtual infinite number of possibilities into binary form for no actual purpose. But let's be honest here based on your own admitted prejudices there is only and only ever has been one possibility - Dirty Harry/Batman/Robocop fearlessly challenges the outsiders consisting of sub-human vermin who are causing him and his neighbours some bother, gets a crack of a bottle for his efforts and the criminals flee, one of them dies in some kind of freak accident and this makes you happy when young people die whose lifestyle you disaprove of.

Here is another "possibilities". The four(ish) lads are drinking beer from bottles passing through the policemans neighbourhood on their way to/from somewhere. They decide that it would be entertaining to smash their bottles off walls, on the ground or whatever when they've drank them. This wakes up the local Sheriff and his blood is boiling. By the time he gets outside they have left - roughly 3 minutes walk away apparently.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Seapark,+Dungarvan,+Co.+Waterford,+Ireland/Clonea+Rd,+Dungarvan,+Co.+Waterford,+Ireland/@52.0948239,-7.6006714,18z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x4843183ff0c633c1:0x452babf9bd263792!2m2!1d-7.597973!2d52.0946342!1m5!1m1!1s0x4843183df82b03c7:0xac0ae713142d89e0!2m2!1d-7.6012241!2d52.0952161!3e2

He runs after them not as an objective officer but as a man with revenge on his mind. He catches them and initiates a confrontation and then gets hit with a bottle. The youths flee.

Not saying the above is what happened, I don't know what happened, and neither do you.

mikom · 17-05-2014 2:55pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He runs after them not as an objective officer but as a man with revenge on his mind. He catches them and initiates a confrontation and then gets hit with a bottle. The youths flee.

Initiate: cause (a process or action) to begin.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The four(ish) lads are drinking beer from bottles passing through the policemans neighbourhood on their way to/from somewhere. They decide that it would be entertaining to smash their bottles off walls, on the ground or whatever when they've drank them.

RecordStraight · 17-05-2014 2:55pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He runs after them not as an objective officer but as a man with revenge on his mind. He catches them and initiates a confrontation and then gets hit with a bottle. The youths flee.

Not saying the above is what happened, I don't know what happened, and neither do you.

Yes, and maybe Hitler was framed by the Jews, who staged a massive conspiracy to make it look like he persecuted them, set up 'concentration camps' where they lived as anorexics waiting for the Allies to find them, and forcing the unfortunate innocent Hitler to commit suicide to avoid the fit-up they had lined up for him.

Not saying the above is what happened, I don't know what happened, and neither do you.

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 2:59pm

mikom wrote: »

Initiate: cause (a process or action) to begin.

It is a possibility that he did initiate the second or escalated phase and was the aggressor. If he chased them down and tackled them aggressively without any way of proving he was a a genuine police officer then anyone would be within their rights to resort to violence to defend themselves.

RecordStraight · 17-05-2014 3:02pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is a possibility that he did initiate the second or escalated phase and was the aggressor. If he chased them down and tackled them aggressively without any way of proving he was a a genuine police officer then anyone would be within their rights to resort to violence to defend themselves.

This is totally plausible, once you can accept the idea of the Garda attacking them with the back of his head facing them.

I'm sure you can accept that idea, but you'll excuse those of us with a brain for not doing so.

mikom · 17-05-2014 3:14pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is a possibility that he did initiate the second or escalated phase and was the aggressor.

Initiate and second phase don't mesh........... sorry.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If he chased them down and tackled them aggressively without any way of proving he was a a genuine police officer then anyone would be within their rights to resort to violence to defend themselves.

The violence of a bottle broken across his head which required numerous staples.
Pure self defence, boss.
.
.

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 3:28pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

This is totally plausible, once you can accept the idea of the Garda attacking them with the back of his head facing them.

I'm sure you can accept that idea, but you'll excuse those of us with a brain for not doing so.

Perhaps you should try and use this brain of yours a little better if you think it's possible for one unarmed man to restrain 4 men with bottles without exposing the back of his head. He isn't Bruce Lee. His actions, though when taken at face value though noble were irrational and foolish, he could have been the one who was killed.

If his motivation was not a personal revenge but apprehending the suspects for the sake of law and order the rational thing for him to do would have been to call into the station and follow them at a distance, not hard when they are "shouting and screaming" until on-duty police arrive. The station is only 5 minutes away and that is without the sirens. https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Dungarvan+Garda+Station,+Rice%27s+St,+Dungarvan,+Co.+Waterford,+Ireland/Clonea+Rd,+Dungarvan,+Co.+Waterford,+Ireland/@52.0914062,-7.6217233,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x48431789f1fdb45b:0xe01612a88aa410c0!2m2!1d-7.6244795!2d52.0876893!1m5!1m1!1s0x4843183df82b03c7:0xac0ae713142d89e0!2m2!1d-7.6012241!2d52.0952161!3e0

RecordStraight · 17-05-2014 3:31pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Perhaps you should try and use this brain of yours a little better if you think it's possible for one unarmed man to restrain 4 men with bottles without exposing the back of his head. He isn't Bruce Lee. His actions, though when taken at face value though noble were irrational and foolish, he could have been the one who was killed.

If his motivation was not a personal revenge but apprehending the suspects for the sake of law and order the rational thing for him to do would have been to call into the station and follow them at a distance, not hard when they are "shouting and screaming" until on-duty police arrive. The station is only 5 minutes away and that is without the sirens.

So you think attacking someone from behind with a deadly weapon is 'self-defence'?

Because you were selling it as self-defence a minute ago in one of your hilarious rationalisations.

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 3:31pm

mikom wrote: »

Initiate and second phase don't mesh........... sorry.

The violence of a bottle broken across his head which required numerous staples.
Pure self defence, boss.
.
.

You could attack me, swing a baseball bat and miss and I could then punch you and break your nose. You being hospitalised is not any indication that I didn't act in self-defense.

RecordStraight · 17-05-2014 3:34pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You could attack me, swing a baseball bat and miss and I could then punch you and break your nose. You being hospitalised is not any indication that I didn't act in self-defense.

So you are standing by the principle that the Garda could have attacked these four thugs backwards and received a defensive blow from a bottle?

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 3:43pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

So you are standing by the principle that the Garda could have attacked these four thugs backwards and received a defensive blow from a bottle?

No, that is your 100th strawman of the day. There are a multitude of events which could have lead to the guard being the attacker and still getting hit in the back of the head.

Also, the injury is more consistent with self-defense than an assault with intention to cause maximum harm,. They could have continued to batter him after they took him out with the bottle - they didn't - or at least there is no indication of yhis so far .
Like I said, I don't know what happened in this time. If you do, and can support it with actual solid and verifiable evidence, then share it.

RecordStraight · 17-05-2014 3:47pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, that is your 100th strawman of the day. There are a multitude of events which could have lead to the guard being the attacker and still getting hit in the back of the head.

Can you outline how hitting someone who is FACING AWAY FROM YOU in the head with a weapon constitutes 'self-defence'?

(we'll leave aside that it requires us to believe that a single middle-aged professional man was assaulting a gang of young thugs)

mikom · 17-05-2014 3:52pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You could attack me, swing a baseball bat and miss and I could then punch you and break your nose. You being hospitalised is not any indication that I didn't act in self-defense.

No baseball bat in this situation.

Only a knacker wields a bottle.
Who wielded the bottle again?
.
.

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 3:58pm

digzy wrote: »

One less knacker to claim the dole and fill the country with his offspring. Good riddance, pity the rest of the gang didn't befall a similar fate.

I feel sorry for the cop here. There's a gsoc investigation going on here and his character impugned for him lying in a bed in his own house when he was interrupted by the scum.

I've yet to see any irish person with a neck tattoo who wasn't a complete Skobie too.

This is utterly reprehensible. This man, whom you have never met and has never harmed you in any has just lost his teenage son, only yesterday, in a tragic accident and you see fit to mock his physical appearance.

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 4:01pm

mikom wrote: »

No baseball bat in this situation.

Only a knacker wields a bottle.
Who wielded the bottle again?
.
.

What is the difference between wielding a bottle and a police baton?

It is logical to assume that they had bottles because they were drinking from them or planned to drink from them. In any case you have completely missed the point.

RecordStraight · 17-05-2014 4:01pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is utterly reprehensible. This man, whom you have never met and has never harmed you in any has just lost his teenage son, only yesterday, in a tragic accident and you see fit to mock his physical appearance.

Basic human right: free speech. I thought you were in favour of human rights? Or only in favour of the right of thugs to trash an estate and get away without being challenged?

Still waiting for your explanation of how attacking someone who is facing away from you with a bottle constitutes self defence.

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 4:06pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

Can you outline how hitting someone who is FACING AWAY FROM YOU in the head with a weapon constitutes 'self-defence'?

(we'll leave aside that it requires us to believe that a single middle-aged professional man was assaulting a gang of young thugs)

OK. Person X is walking east drink a bottle of lager. Person Y has been trailing him from the West, catches him and grabs him from behind with both arms around his throat. Person Y swings his extended arm (with bottle) in a looping motion over his head and strikes person Y in the back of the head to defend himself.

mikom · 17-05-2014 4:06pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What is the difference between wielding a bottle and a police baton?t.

One was smashed across a humans head and required stapling on the night in question.
Work it out.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is logical to assume that they had bottles because they were drinking from them or planned to drink from them.

Surprised they had any left what with the ones that were smashed.

RecordStraight · 17-05-2014 4:09pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK. Person X is walking east drink a bottle of lager. Person Y has been trailing him from the West, catches him and grabs him from behind with both arms around his throat. Person Y swings his extended arm (with bottle) in a looping motion over his head and strikes person Y in the back of the head to defend himself.

I'm going to sit that possibility right beside the Hitler/anorexic Jew argument, and of course the possibility that the Garda ran backwards at the group flailing his arms behind him. Unless the guy has two elbows in his arm, that bottle is going to hit the Garda on the TOP of the head. Do we know if he has two elbows?

Dermot Illogical · 17-05-2014 4:12pm

OK. Person X is walking east drink a bottle of lager. Person Y has been trailing him from the West, catches him and grabs him from behind with both arms around his throat. Person Y swings his extended arm (with bottle) in a looping motion over his head and strikes person Y in the back of the head to defend himself.

RecordStraight wrote: »

I'm going to sit that possibility right beside the Hitler/anorexic Jew argument, and of course the possibility that the Garda ran backwards at the group flailing his arms behind him. Unless the guy has two elbows in his arm, that bottle is going to hit the Garda on the TOP of the head. Do we know if he has two elbows?

Everything's under control lads, forensics have arrived.

Nino Brown · 17-05-2014 4:14pm

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Everything's under control lads, forensics have arrived.

We can't trust forensics, sure they're in on the conspiracy

RecordStraight · 17-05-2014 4:15pm

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Everything's under control lads, forensics have arrived.

Yeah, CSI Dungarvan are on the scene. "Your honour, the defence contends that - due to his remarkable elastic arms - the defendant was able to smack the officer on the BACK of his head from a position in front of him. You will note that his arm bends in two places."

Santa Cruz · 17-05-2014 4:23pm

thirdtime wrote: »

haha!! So true!

do knackers not realise the impact a neck tattoo has on their employment prospects?

I'm sure it has been mentioned in his many attempts at finding work.

lighterman · 17-05-2014 4:32pm

well on a lighter note ive never had more than 5 posts in a thread I've started never mind 500

mrsbyrne · 17-05-2014 4:37pm

lighterman wrote: »

well on a lighter note ive never had more than 5 posts in a thread I've started never mind 500

Well done lighter man its certainly been yet another eye opener for me! Talk about your delusions !

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 4:41pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

I'm going to sit that possibility right beside the Hitler/anorexic Jew argument, and of course the possibility that the Garda ran backwards at the group flailing his arms behind him. Unless the guy has two elbows in his arm, that bottle is going to hit the Garda on the TOP of the head. Do we know if he has two elbows?

I know you are hiding behind a second account but is there any possibility of you discussing this honestly?

If the girl in this picture had been drinking beer from a bottle in her left hand at the time of the attack and she swung her arm back over her shoulder she would have cracked him in the back of the head. Therefore, impossible? No.
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/7XI1uAdr_s4/maxresdefault.jpg

Nino Brown · 17-05-2014 4:46pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I know you are hiding behind a second account but is there any possibility of you discussing this honestly?

If the girl in this picture had been drinking beer from a bottle in her left hand at the time of the attack and she swung her arm back over her shoulder she would have cracked him in the back of the head. Therefore, impossible? No.
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/7XI1uAdr_s4/maxresdefault.jpg

You've never heard of Occam's Razor have you?

RecordStraight · 17-05-2014 4:51pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I know you are hiding behind a second account but is there any possibility of you discussing this honestly?

If the girl in this picture had been drinking beer from a bottle in her left hand at the time of the attack and she swung her arm back over her shoulder she would have cracked him in the back of the head. Therefore, impossible? No.

Are we looking at the same picture here? Oh, wait, you mean the one where the guy is bending over as well? Sure why not pile one more implausible hypothetical onto the pile?

I can see why you are such a fan of conspiracy theories - odds and likelihoods clearly have no meaning for you.

mercfisher · 17-05-2014 8:33pm

This is typical, we are becoming a nanny state, worse than that even, four people armed with bottles attack a mans house in the middle of the night, then attack him and seriously assault him , quite literally he could have been killed with a belt over the head from a bottle, if it was known or not that he was a Guard is irrelevant, the three left should be given lengthy jail terms 7 to 10 years, instead of that we have to use the police ombudsman to make sure the assaulted guard behaved properly. god help us !

digzy · 17-05-2014 9:02pm

thirdtime wrote: »

haha!! So true!

do knackers not realise the impact a neck tattoo has on their employment prospects?

I don't think "employment prospects " are too high on their list of priorities!!

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 9:48pm

Nino Brown wrote: »

You've never heard of Occam's Razor have you?

Yes, I have and unlike you I actually know how to use it.

By fault or design you are misusing Occam's razor here. It is not a substitute for evidence as you are trying to use it. Your hypothesis is invalid without any evidence; you haven't presented any evidence whatsoever. To apply Occam's razor your hypothesis needs to be valid from the outset. Your hypothesis is not. Your abuse of Occam's razor amounts to a cop-out.

In fact, you haven't even provided a hypothesis; nevermind provide any evidence.

Irrespective of all this you and our mutual friend who is hiding behind a second boards username are twisting what I have said. In line with Sherlock Holmes' maxim I agree that anything impossible should be excluded. The policeman being the aggressor and getting hit in the back of the head is not impossible and should not be excluded on this basis. That is all I am saying.

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 9:52pm

digzy wrote: »

Is it possible for brown bomber to get a ban for posting absolute rubbish?

Point out the absolute rubbish and I will explain to you why you are wrong.

digzy wrote: »

Let's a. Pitch in for a second hand shell suit-preferably in white, an earing and a neck tattoo:pac:

You do realise you are publically insulting a man who has never done you any harm who has just lost his teenage son in a tragic accident?

Can you explain the mentality of someone who does this?

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 9:56pm

mercfisher wrote: »

This is typical, we are becoming a nanny state, worse than that even, four people armed with bottles attack a mans house in the middle of the night, then attack him and seriously assault him , quite literally he could have been killed with a belt over the head from a bottle, if it was known or not that he was a Guard is irrelevant, the three left should be given lengthy jail terms 7 to 10 years, instead of that we have to use the police ombudsman to make sure the assaulted guard behaved properly. god help us !

You want people to be jailed longer for breaking bottles than child abusers?

niamh.foley · 17-05-2014 9:58pm

Sorry if i come off Wrong here, but i find this abit insulting to the general public, my house got broken into before and it took them over 1 hour to get to my house, even tho they are about 10 min drive from where i live.

This person gets a man hunt with the coastguard helicopter and a major search party. what did i get 2 garda members calling to my door asking questions and had to wait till the next day for some senior garda to come to take finger prints

pablo128 · 17-05-2014 10:01pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Point out the absolute rubbish and I will explain to you why you are wrong.

You do realise you are publically insulting a man who has never done you any harm who has just lost his teenage son in a tragic accident?

Can you explain the mentality of someone who does this?

And you are accusing a senior garda of running after a gang, trying to choke one of them out, and then bizarrely claiming the lad acrobatically smashed a bottle of the back of said gardas head. Without a shred of evidence.

Can you explain the mentality of someone who does this?

lighterman · 17-05-2014 10:01pm

niamh.foley wrote: »

Sorry if i come off Wrong here, but i find this abit insulting to the general public, my house got broken into before and it took them over 1 hour to get to my house, even tho they are about 10 min drive from where i live.

This person gets a man hunt with the coastguard helicopter and a major search party. what did i get 2 garda members calling to my door asking questions and had to wait till the next day for some senior garda to come to take finger prints

I can assure you no senior Garda called to your house to take finger prints. They were a sergeant at most.

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 10:06pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

Are we looking at the same picture here? Oh, wait, you mean the one where the guy is bending over as well? Sure why not pile one more implausible hypothetical onto the pile?

I can see why you are such a fan of conspiracy theories - odds and likelihoods clearly have no meaning for you.

This is not Paddy Power. The investigation will establish the facts. We don't have the facts yet. You have completely turned everything on it's head. I am not defending anti-social behaviour. I am saying that anti-social behaviour does not justify death. To take pleasure in the death of a stranger is sick. It appears that this pleasure is not based on him supposedly causing a disturbance but what he symbolises, at least in the small-minded black and white world where "we" are good and "they" are not even worthy of life.

Brown Bomber · 17-05-2014 10:07pm

pablo128 wrote: »

And you are accusing a senior garda of running after a gang, trying to choke one of them out, and then bizarrely claiming the lad acrobatically smashed a bottle of the back of said gardas head. Without a shred of evidence.

Can you explain the mentality of someone who does this?

No, because I haven't done this.

thirdtime · 17-05-2014 10:31pm

This forum has gone on too long

DubVelo · 17-05-2014 11:49pm

Smashing a bottle over someone's head is not 'self defense'!
Bloody hell... :rolleyes:

Tragic yet worrying scenes in waterford last night

Comments