Tragic yet worrying scenes in waterford last night

rm234

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.

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.

Ireland is small, plenty of people from Dungarvan use boards, use the two brain cells you have. If you live in ballyconspiracytheorymilebridge then stfu and let people who actually know their shít give useful information rather than troll.

Shady Tady

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

Was there anyone dead in your drain?

Brown Bomber

DubVelo wrote: »

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

Really?
Man accused of throwing bottle cleared of assault


http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/man-accused-of-throwing-bottle-cleared-of-assault-1.1130293

extracheese

From what I have read, this was a tragic accident caused by a series of bad choices made by this young man. A lot of people are making excuses for his behaviour while others seem to be condoning his death. Perhaps, this young man has always had people around him that were always quick to make excuses for his behaviour. And as such, never learned that all choices have consequences, whether good, bad or indifferent. I do think that as a society we need to teach young people that their decisions and choices have consequences and that they themselves need to take responsibility for those choices. People need to stop mollycoddling young people and making excuses for their behaviour. The man was 18, in the eyes of the law old enough to be accountable for his actions. And unless he was living under a rock for the past 18 years, knows what is and what isn't appropriate.

He chose to scale a seven foot fence and jump over it in the middle of the night without knowing what was on the other side, he chose to run away from the Gardaí, he chose to go out with his friends that night, and he chose to remain with his friends when the bottles were thrown. I can't imagine that anyone on God's green earth made him do these things, he, himself made these decisions. His decisions caused his death.

Also, there are literally thousands of eighteen year olds in this country. On that night, how many other eighteen year olds were out causing trouble? Of the thousands of eighteen year olds, how many of them would actually CHOOSE to engage in this sort of behaviour? If I were to hazard a guess, probably less then 2%. Most eighteen year olds go out drinking, they will on occasion have far too much to drink, they may be a bit too loud walking home from the pub or wherever, they may vomit or urinate in an inappropriate place, they may get into an argument, they may leave rubbish lying on the ground, they may....none of these behaviours are very appropriate but they are not criminal. The vast majority of young people would not hit a garda over the head with a bottle, nor do they have friends that would. Please stop making excuses for the 2% that choose to engage in criminal behaviour.

Brown Bomber

rm234 wrote: »

Ireland is small, plenty of people from Dungarvan use boards, use the two brain cells you have. If you live in ballyconspiracytheorymilebridge then stfu and let people who actually know their shít give useful information rather than troll.

If I could just make myself clear. I am not suggesting any conspiracy theory, if I was I would be talking about the police force acting like a militia and carrying out revenge attacks and killing anyone who attacks them - such as in Waco, the killing of Dormer and in Brazil recently where an off duty policeman was killed in a bank robbery and the police went out on a four hour killing spree which killed 14 people.

What I am doing here is the opposite to a "conspiracy theory", it is reserving judgement and not speculating until the facts are known.

I've been hit by a bottle, I have sympathy for the policeman, though I think his decision making process might have been influenced by his emotions. I have sympathy for the community. I lived for years beside a pub that would fill up (and then out) with the kinds of people like Ducey and his friends. I am no stranger to drunk and disorderly behaviour.

My only issues were the hatred and prejudices oozing out from people in the sadistic joy they feel in the death in a tragic accident of a young Irish student whose life was just as valuable as anyone else¨s here.

This repulsive and prejudiced schadenfreude is something that is alien to me, completely incomprehensible. So much so that I actually made an attempt to understand it. I can share the studies here if anyone else is interested.

Stereotypes and Schadenfreude

Affective and Physiological Markers of Pleasure at Outgroup Misfortunes

http://spp.sagepub.com/content/3/1/63.abstract

Us and Them

Intergroup Failures of Empathy


http://web.mit.edu/~ebruneau/www/Emile_Bruneau_Professional_Site/Publications_files/CikaraBruneau2011CDPS.pdf

Us Versus Them

Social Identity Shapes Neural Responses to Intergroup Competition and Harm

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/3/306.abstract

Brown Bomber

extracheese wrote: »

. Most eighteen year olds go out drinking, they will on occasion have far too much to drink, they may be a bit too loud walking home from the pub or wherever, they may vomit or urinate in an inappropriate place, they may get into an argument, they may leave rubbish lying on the ground, they may....none of these behaviours are very appropriate but they are not criminal. .

I'll just preface this by saying I agreed with virtually everything you've said. However, most, if not all of the above are technically criminal. The unanswered question is how far removed Ducey and his friends behaviour was to these kinds of other "innapropriate behaviour".

Shady Tady

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll just preface this by saying I agreed with virtually everything you've said. However, most, if not all of the above are technically criminal. The unanswered question is how far removed Ducey and his friends behaviour was to these kinds of other "innapropriate behaviour".

Very far removed thank god, most 18 year olds are decent, enjoy themselves without bringing crime to the doors of others and most of them make it home safely as a result!

extracheese

Yes, you are correct in saying that most of these things are technically criminal and there are fines and sanctions for such behaviour. I do not like the Schadenfreude mentality displayed by people. I do think much of the Schadenfreude is a reflection of people's own personal struggles and frustrations. How many people out there are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, pay the bills, find a job, keep their own children on the straight and narrow? Living in housing estates where this is a common occurrence? It does not excuse the Schadenfreude, simply rejoicing in this man's death does not solve any problems. Schaden=tragedy, freude=joy, there is no joy to be gained from this tragedy, no one has won or gained anything, and sadly, this man's death will change nothing.

Dan_Solo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

No, I think we all want child abusers to be jailed for longer.
Though I wonder how many people here would advocate 7-10 year sentences for assault with a police baton, which is far more dangeous than getting hit with a bottle.

Shady Tady

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No, I think we all want child abusers to be jailed for longer.
Though I wonder how many people here would advocate 7-10 year sentences for assault with a police baton, which is far more dangeous than getting hit with a bottle.

I think maybe a bonus payment for the police officer would be more appropriate when dealing with thugs!'

DubVelo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really?
Man accused of throwing bottle cleared of assault


http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/man-accused-of-throwing-bottle-cleared-of-assault-1.1130293

Really. I don't know why that person in a totally different case in a totally different country got off. Lack of evidence? Lack of independent witnesses? Conflicting testimony, a bit of a 'he said, she said' situation? Stupid jury? Who knows?
Fact is, man was charged with assault and the CPS saw fit to prosecute him.

If someone has a go at you and gives you a dig in the head, it's not then ok to pick up a knife off a nearby table and stab them in the chest.

In the same way if one lone empty handed guy has a go and is outnumbered 4 to 1 it's not ok for one of the 4 to smash a bottle over his head.

What about if he went down and the four started kicking the ****e out of him, I suppose that would still be self-defence in your eyes? :rolleyes:

DubVelo

extracheese wrote: »

Yes, you are correct in saying that most of these things are technically criminal and there are fines and sanctions for such behaviour. I do not like the Schadenfreude mentality displayed by people. I do think much of the Schadenfreude is a reflection of people's own personal struggles and frustrations. How many people out there are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, pay the bills, find a job, keep their own children on the straight and narrow? Living in housing estates where this is a common occurrence? It does not excuse the Schadenfreude, simply rejoicing in this man's death does not solve any problems. Schaden=tragedy, freude=joy, there is no joy to be gained from this tragedy, no one has won or gained anything, and sadly, this man's death will change nothing.

I think it's a reflection of peoples personal frustrations with criminal and anti-social behaviour all across this country and the failure of our justice system to deal with it.
We're all sick of it!

teddyhead

Any of the sunday papers covering this ? It seems the media have gone from total,inaccurate hysteria to quiet as a mouse in about 48 hours. Will be interesting to see what charges are made against the remaining 'terrorist, home invaders'.

pablo128

teddyhead wrote: »

Any of the sunday papers covering this ? It seems the media have gone from total,inaccurate hysteria to quiet as a mouse in about 48 hours. Will be interesting to see what charges are made against the remaining 'terrorist, home invaders'.

Breach of the peace, criminal damage, (cars), assault causing harm, there's 3 charges straight away for the 'terrorist home invaders'.

Dan_Solo

pablo128 wrote: »

Breach of the peace, criminal damage, (cars), assault causing harm, there's 3 charges straight away for the 'terrorist home invaders'.

Are they actual charges brought or more speculation?

pablo128

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Are they actual charges brought or more speculation?

Considering that the 3 were released without charge with a file sent to the DPP, they are speculation. However the 3 lads could well expect to have those charges brought against them.

Calling them 'terrorist home invaders' on the other hand............

Dan_Solo

pablo128 wrote: »

Considering that the 3 were released without charge with a file sent to the DPP, they are speculation. However the 3 lads could well expect to have those charges brought against them.

Calling them 'terrorist home invaders' on the other hand............

"Could" then. So nobody knows really.

extracheese

DubVelo wrote: »

I think it's a reflection of peoples personal frustrations with criminal and anti-social behaviour all across this country and the failure of our justice system to deal with it.
We're all sick of it!

Everyone is sick of our apathetic justice system and its inability and unwillingness to deal with petty crime. You need only read the local papers to see how many people are getting a little slap on the wrist by our courts because of 'extenuating circumstances'. Our justice system does not believe in people being held responsible for their actions.

Brown Bomber

DubVelo wrote: »

Really. I don't know why that person in a totally different case in a totally different country got off. Lack of evidence? Lack of independent witnesses? Conflicting testimony, a bit of a 'he said, she said' situation? Stupid jury? Who knows?

It's common law jurisdiction. The same principle of a right to self-defense applies. Anyone who reads the short article ought to know.

Man accused of throwing bottle cleared of assault

Last updated at 09:23, Thursday, 17 April 2014

A Whitehaven man accused of assault has been found not guilty.

Kane Johnson, a 20-year-old roofer from Meadow Road, had been accused of throwing a bottle and cutting the face of Stefan Brown from Copeland Avenue.
He claimed he had acted in self defence.


The jury reached its not guilty verdict following a two day trial at Carlisle Crown Court.

DubVelo wrote: »

Fact is, man was charged with assault and the CPS saw fit to prosecute him.

And the more important fact is that the accused had his day in court in front of a jury of his peers who found him not guilty. Justice prevailed.

DubVelo wrote: »

If someone has a go at you and gives you a dig in the head, it's not then ok to pick up a knife off a nearby table and stab them in the chest.

Not true. Depending on the details a jury could find that I was defending myself from an aggressor and used force proportional to the threat I was facing.

DubVelo wrote: »

In the same way if one lone empty handed guy has a go and is outnumbered 4 to 1 it's not ok for one of the 4 to smash a bottle over his head.

It can be. Though it's not self defense any longer if they continue to beat him after he has been incapacitated.

DubVelo wrote: »

What about if he went down and the four started kicking the ****e out of him, I suppose that would still be self-defence in your eyes? :rolleyes:

Nope.

teddyhead

pablo128 wrote: »

Considering that the 3 were released without charge with a file sent to the DPP, they are speculation. However the 3 lads could well expect to have those charges brought against them.

Calling them 'terrorist home invaders' on the other hand............

Indeed. You'll have to take that up with the media. The tone of reporting early on , indicated something far more sinister than rowdy youths.Many posts here indicate that people believed a 'home invasion' had taken place.Which given early coverage, is understandable.

teddyhead

extracheese wrote: »

Everyone is sick of our apathetic justice system and its inability and unwillingness to deal with petty crime. You need only read the local papers to see how many people are getting a little slap on the wrist by our courts because of 'extenuating circumstances'. Our justice system does not believe in people being held responsible for their actions.

Amazing , given the criminality thats going on, that more fleeing criminals are not falling into streams and dying of head injuries. I guess this lad was just really unlucky in that regard. What are the odds? Being chased by god knows how many police and a very irate and angry homeowner, yet he comes a cropper , on his own , behind a wall , in a stream.

DubVelo

extracheese wrote: »

Everyone is sick of our apathetic justice system and its inability and unwillingness to deal with petty crime. You need only read the local papers to see how many people are getting a little slap on the wrist by our courts because of 'extenuating circumstances'. Our justice system does not believe in people being held responsible for their actions.

Oh yeah, it makes my blood boil that - 'extenuating circumstances'.
'The accused has suffered two recent bereavements in the family.'

I'd suffered two recent bereavements in my family when my house was broken into! So ****ing what!? What possible relevance does poor little Darr'un or Wayun having a little bit of a hard time lately have to do with breaking into a ****ing house!?

:mad::mad::mad:

pablo128

teddyhead wrote: »

Indeed. You'll have to take that up with the media. The tone of reporting early on , indicated something far more sinister than rowdy youths.Many posts here indicate that people believed a 'home invasion' had taken place.Which given early coverage, is understandable.

I don't have to take it up with anyone. You are the one who said it. In fact, I quoted you saying it.

teddyhead wrote: »

Amazing , given the criminality thats going on, that more fleeing criminals are not falling into streams and dying of head injuries. I guess this lad was just really unlucky in that regard. What are the odds? Being chased by god knows how many police and a very irate and angry homeowner, yet he comes a cropper , on his own , behind a wall , in a stream.

You are aware it's not the done thing to run away from gardai? He could have stopped. The 'irate and angry homeowner' was at that stage incapacitated, having had the back of his head burst open.

Tony EH

extracheese wrote: »

It does not excuse the Schadenfreude, simply rejoicing in this man's death does not solve any problems. Schaden=tragedy, freude=joy, there is no joy to be gained from this tragedy, no one has won or gained anything, and sadly, this man's death will change nothing.

I don't think many engaging in "schadenfrude". "Schaden" means harmful BTW.

But, I do think that people have an understandable lack of care for this guys fate and actually see it a fate stepping in, in this case.

You're correct in your other post, HE chose his actions that night and HIS actions led to HIS death.

That's why a lot of people are, quite rightly, not considering this too tragic.

extracheese

teddyhead wrote: »

Amazing , given the criminality thats going on, that more fleeing criminals are not falling into streams and dying of head injuries. I guess this lad was just really unlucky in that regard. What are the odds? Being chased by god knows how many police and a very irate and angry homeowner, yet he comes a cropper , on his own , behind a wall , in a stream.

The young man chose to run from the gards, he chose to be present when the bottles were being smashed, he chose to scale a 7 foot fence and jump over it in the dark not knowing what was on the other side. He chose to make these decisions, the result of these decisions resulted in his death. If he was being chased by irate homeowners and gards, it was probably because of his and his friends actions. No one made these lads act the way they did, they all made the choice to behave in this manner.

teddyhead

Tony EH wrote: »

You're correct in your other post, HE chose his actions that night and HIS actions led to HIS death.

That's why a lot of people are, quite rightly, not considering this too tragic.

What are your sources on that ? Have the other youths made statements ?
You seem to be taking a lot of speculation as fact.
It is possible to get caught up in situations beyond your control. I once walked home from a pub with an aquaintance,not a friend , only to end up being assaulted by a passerby he insulted. Wrong place , wrong time kind of thing. I may have been foolish to trust the guy but I dont think me dying would have been 'my fault' entirely.

Tony EH

He chose to run from Det Lacey. He chose to leap over a fence in pitch darkness.

Regardless of whatever else he may or may not have been involved in.

Dan_Solo

extracheese wrote: »

The young man chose to run from the gards, he chose to be present when the bottles were being smashed, he chose to scale a 7 foot fence and jump over it in the dark not knowing what was on the other side. He chose to make these decisions, the result of these decisions resulted in his death. If he was being chased by irate homeowners and gards, it was probably because of his and his friends actions. No one made these lads act the way they did, they all made the choice to behave in this manner.

How do you know all this is true? Beyond "read it in the Mirror" or "me mate told me his uncle's barber heard it off his dogwalker".

DubVelo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's common law jurisdiction. The same principle of a right to self-defense applies. Anyone who reads the short article ought to know.

All your reference proves is a jury felt they had insufficient evidence to convict in a random case in the UK. It's 'he said, she said', a jury has no way of knowing who's telling the truth. It doesn't vindicate bottling someone as a valid way to respond to a threat.
There is a right to self-defence, that right does not extend to battering someone with a weapon any time you feel like it.

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/cumbrian-man-claims-he-threw-vodka-bottle-to-warn-off-attacker-1.1130062

Earlier the jury heard Mrs Brown, in her evidence, say that Johnson had come down her pathway demanding to see someone who did not live at the address.

She said they had asked him repeatedly to leave and added: “They knew for a fact he didn’t live there. I said to John, ‘Tell them to move’. Kane Johnson demanded a phone number for him which we didn’t have.”

She said the argument escalated and she called for her husband who was upstairs at the time.

She said she was pushed to the ground and the next thing she knew she saw her husband on the ground next to her covered in blood although she admitted that she did not see the bottle being thrown.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And the more important fact is that the accused had his day in court in front of a jury of his peers who found him not guilty. Justice prevailed.

All that means is he had his day in court, doesn't mean it was right.

Oh and by the way, your innocent man who bottled somebody in 'self defence' has previous for assault: http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/teens-admit-assault-1.992613?referrerPath=news

TWO 19-year-olds from Whitehaven have each been made the subject of a community order after they admitted assaulting an Egremont man.

Kane Johnson, of Meadow Road, and Ryan Murdock, of Kinniside Avenue, were also ordered by West Cumbria magistrates to pay compensation to Ross Toomey (£100 from Johnson; £50 from Murdock).

Both are also required to spend 36 hours at an attendance centre and Johnson must observe a 12-week 7pm-7am curfew.

£85 costs were imposed on Johnson and £300 costs on Murdock.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not true. Depending on the details a jury could find that I was defending myself from an aggressor and used force proportional to the threat I was facing.

You are kind of making my point for me, you can defend yourself but the response must be reasonable and proportional. If someone gives you a dig and you pick up a knife and stab them, that's not reasonable or proportional. It's pretty much the definition of not those things.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It can be. Though it's not self defense any longer if they continue to beat him after he has been incapacitated.

The same with the outnumbered empty handed man and the bottle. It's not in any way reasonable or proportional.

Little CuChulainn

teddyhead wrote: »

Indeed. You'll have to take that up with the media. The tone of reporting early on , indicated something far more sinister than rowdy youths.Many posts here indicate that people believed a 'home invasion' had taken place.Which given early coverage, is understandable.

Yes it appears now it was a previous night when someone had broken into a home using a hatchet and these lads just happened to know the guy and be near the senior Gardas house where they damaged a number of cars accidentally threw a bottle at his house and then accidentally hit him over the head with another one resulting in him being brought to hospital.

Seriously, it's people like you downplaying burglary and making excuses for thugs that are responsible for the leniency shown in courts to burglars and anti social mobs. Having said that, I bet you'd be the first one to complain if they were outside your home and you didn't get immediate service from the Gardaí.

teddyhead

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yes it appears now it was a previous night when someone had broken into a home using a hatchet and these lads just happened to know the guy and be near the senior Gardas house where they damaged a number of cars accidentally threw a bottle at his house and then accidentally hit him over the head with another one resulting in him being brought to hospital.

Seriously, it's people like you downplaying burglary and making excuses for thugs that are responsible for the leniency shown in courts to burglars and anti social mobs. Having said that, I bet you'd be the first one to complain if they were outside your home and you didn't get immediate service from the Gardaí.

Im primarily concerned with 'the facts' which are largely unknown at this point. The youths behaviour seems out of order for sure but one of them ended up dead and the public needs to find out why. There was no burglary by the way. I would indeed certainly be the first one to complain if a relative died in mysterious circumstances and people like yourself,the media and many politicians tried to downplay that fact.

Little CuChulainn

teddyhead wrote: »

Im primarily concerned with 'the facts' which are largely unknown at this point. The youths behaviour seems out of order for sure but one of them ended up dead and the public needs to find out why. There was no burglary by the way. I would indeed certainly be the first one to complain if a relative died in mysterious circumstances and people like yourself,the media and many politicians tried to downplay that fact.

The facts are known. They are largely unproven. There is no mystery. And I'm not trying to downplay his death nor do I take any joy in it. I simply don't care about it. If it later turns out that this lad wasn't a cancer on society I will likely change this view. I have no problem with a thorough investigation. Hopefully it will result in further charges against his friends who left him behind.

Brown Bomber

Tony EH wrote: »

He chose to run from Det Lacey. He chose to leap over a fence in pitch darkness.

Regardless of whatever else he may or may not have been involved in.

In fairness, even if I was completely innocent I'd considering running from the Dungarvan police after another young man died in police custody less than a year ago.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/watchdog-probes-death-in-garda-cell-29461538.html

mrsbyrne

extracheese wrote: »

From what I have read, this was a tragic accident caused by a series of bad choices made by this young man. A lot of people are making excuses for his behaviour while others seem to be condoning his death. Perhaps, this young man has always had people around him that were always quick to make excuses for his behaviour. And as such, never learned that all choices have consequences, whether good, bad or indifferent. I do think that as a society we need to teach young people that their decisions and choices have consequences and that they themselves need to take responsibility for those choices. People need to stop mollycoddling young people and making excuses for their behaviour. The man was 18, in the eyes of the law old enough to be accountable for his actions. And unless he was living under a rock for the past 18 years, knows what is and what isn't appropriate.

He chose to scale a seven foot fence and jump over it in the middle of the night without knowing what was on the other




side, he chose to run away from the Gardaí, he chose to go out with his friends that night, and he chose to remain with




his friends when the bottles were thrown. I can't imagine that anyone on God's green earth made him do these things,


he, himself made these decisions. His decisions caused his death.

Also, there are literally thousands of eighteen year olds in this country. On that night, how many other eighteen year olds were out causing trouble? Of the thousands of eighteen year olds, how many of them would actually CHOOSE to engage in this sort of behaviour? If I were to hazard a guess, probably less then 2%. Most eighteen year olds go out drinking, they will on occasion have far too much to drink, they may be a bit too loud walking home from the pub or wherever, they may vomit or urinate in an inappropriate place, they may get into an argument, they may leave rubbish
lying on the ground, they may....none of these behaviours are very appropriate but they are not criminal. The vast
majority of young people would not hit a garda over the head with a bottle, nor do they have friends that would. Please
stop making excuses for the 2% that choose to engage in criminal behaviour.

Excellent post. Agree with every word.

Brown Bomber

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The facts are known. They are largely unproven.

Can you explain how facts can be "known" if they are unproven?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

There is no mystery. And I'm not trying to downplay his death nor do I take any joy in it. I simply don't care about it. If it later turns out that this lad wasn't a cancer on society I will likely change this view.

So guilty until proven innocent then. I hope you aren't a policeman with a mentality like that.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I have no problem with a thorough investigation. Hopefully it will result in further charges against his friends who left him behind.

... and your reason you stating as fact that anyone was with him when he fell???

Brown Bomber

teddyhead wrote: »

There was no burglary by the way.

I think it is in reference to this. http://www.thejournal.ie/gardai-hatchet-robbery-dungarvan-1462443-May2014/

Quite how it can be known from the publically available information that there is a connection between the two events I am not sure. What we do know is that the deceased student had nothing to do with the burglary.

Brown Bomber

o

DubVelo wrote: »

All your reference proves is a jury felt they had insufficient evidence to convict in a random case in the UK. It's 'he said, she said', a jury has no way of knowing who's telling the truth. It doesn't vindicate bottling someone as a valid way to respond to a threat.
There is a right to self-defence, that right does not extend to battering someone with a weapon any time you feel like it. .

Yes, I know. The gentleman was cleared of all charges. This is what "not guilty means". He was judged to be not guilty of assault because he was defending himself. If you have a problem with trial by jury that is a side issue.

DubVelo wrote: »

You are kind of making my point for me, you can defend yourself but the response must be reasonable and proportional. If someone gives you a dig and you pick up a knife and stab them, that's not reasonable or proportional. It's pretty much the definition of not those things.

The same with the outnumbered empty handed man and the bottle. It's not in any way reasonable or proportional.

You are wrong. It can be. It depends on the context. I've just proven this to you by way of example.

Dan_Solo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you explain how facts can be "known" if they are unproven?
So guilty until proven innocent then. I hope you aren't a policeman with a mentality like that.
... and your reason you stating as fact that anyone was with him when he fell???

We'll have a fair trial followed by a good hanging, as the joke used to go.

mrsbyrne

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think it is in reference to this. http://www.thejournal.ie/gardai-hatchet-robbery-dungarvan-1462443-May2014/

Quite how it can be known from the publically available information that there is a connection between the two events I am not sure. What we do know is that the deceased student had nothing to do with the burglary.

Did you decide that somehow describing him as a "student" (of what?drinking cans and smoking weed?) Somehow puts him in a better light? If he is as you seem to feel yet another blameless innocent victim of the brutal corrupt gardai, then why would you feel the need to "spin" his image in this way?

Dan_Solo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I have no problem with a thorough investigation. Hopefully it will result in further charges against his friends who left him behind.

So you are neutral except you'd like to see more charges even though you really have no idea at all what really happened...
Reeeight.

Dan_Solo

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Did you decide that somehow describing him as a "student" (of what?drinking cans and smoking weed?) Somehow puts him in a better light? If he is as you seem to feel yet another blameless innocent victim of the brutal corrupt gardai, then why would you feel the need to "spin" his image in this way?

Well we know for a fact he was a student. Calling him a terrorist, criminal or scumbag based on wishful thinking is conjecture at this stage.

Shady Tady

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In fairness, even if I was completely innocent I'd considering running from the Dungarvan police after another young man died in police custody less than a year ago.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/watchdog-probes-death-in-garda-cell-29461538.html

Have you proof that something illegal was done to cause his death?

Brown Bomber

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Did you decide that somehow describing him as a "student" (of what?drinking cans and smoking weed?) Somehow puts him in a better light? If he is as you seem to feel yet another blameless innocent victim of the brutal corrupt gardai, then why would you feel the need to "spin" his image in this way?

The fact that you think calling a student a "student" is somehow spin says more about you than it does anything else.

Shady Tady

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well we know for a fact he was a student. Calling him a terrorist, criminal or scumbag based on wishful thinking is conjecture at this stage.

"There is no one so blind as those who do not wish to see"

Dan_Solo

Shady Tady wrote: »

"There is no one so blind as those who do not wish to see"

Random proverb... Is this thought for the day or what?

Shady Tady

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Random proverb... Is this thought for the day or what?

Relevant proverb mainly aimed at fools

Little CuChulainn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you explain how facts can be "known" if they are unproven?

Because not everything can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Doesn't make it untrue. I'm satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the overwhelming anecdotal and reported evidence is representative of the facts.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So guilty until proven innocent then. I hope you aren't a policeman with a mentality like that.

Innocent until proven guilty is a criminal law concept. We are not in a criminal court. People can indeed be guilty of a crime even if they are not proven to be so in a court of law. Or do you think nobody who committed a crime ever got off?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... and your reason you stating as fact that anyone was with him when he fell???

I didn't. I said they left him behind. Most likely before he fell. If they hadn't they could have helped him.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you are neutral except you'd like to see more charges even though you really have no idea at all what really happened...
Reeeight.

I'm not neutral. I dislike scumbags. I'm satisfied I know enough to justify my opinion.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In fairness, even if I was completely innocent I'd considering running from the Dungarvan police after another young man died in police custody less than a year ago.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/watchdog-probes-death-in-garda-cell-29461538.html

You should let his family know it was suspicious. They're getting involved in suicide prevention events.

"Jessie Kirby and her brother Edgar (playing the role of Donnie) and sister, Rebecca (assistant director), who have had two cousins take their own lives in the last year, one just this morning (at time of writing) in the local gardai station. His name was Nathan Kirby, and he was 21 years old."

http://eile.ie/2013/08/01/youth-suicide-irelands-silent-serial-killer/

Dan_Solo

Ah, I see. So on balance of probability from anecdotal and hearsay evidence you have come to the steadfast conclusion that everybody was guilty of whatever.
Why wait for the court case.

Little CuChulainn

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah, I see. So on balance of probability from anecdotal and hearsay evidence you have come to the steadfast conclusion that everybody was guilty of whatever.
Why wait for the court case.

For criminal charges to be brought of course. I would think that would be obvious. Do you only believe things that are found to be true in court? That must be an awfully uncertain life you lead. Yet somehow you believe anything which suits that chip on your shoulder no matter where you read it. Odd that.

Dan_Solo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

For criminal charges to be brought of course. I would think that would be obvious. Do you only believe things that are found to be true in court? That must be an awfully uncertain life you lead. Yet somehow you believe anything which suits that chip on your shoulder no matter where you read it. Odd that.

Ah yes, that chip on the shoulder (or was it a conspiracy?) that anyone who dares to question AGS about anything must have. So, why do YOU have a chip on your shoulder about the judiciary and anyone with the cheek to contradict you? Lose da hattitude!
And sorry, we were talking about criminal cases, where the proof needs to be a little bit better than "I hate young people" or "the Mirror said something that matches my prejudices".
You are saying you don't care whether things are proven in court or not. Go on, tell us, are you AGS or not? Edit:posting history says most likely yes.