Tragic yet worrying scenes in waterford last night

DubVelo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

Neither of us have any evidence as to why the gentleman with the previous conviction for assault was cleared on this occasion.
You're merely making an assumption that the jury bought his shaky defence, there could be any number of reasons why the prosecution failed to secure a conviction.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

I gave two hypothetical situations, there was no context.
So someone gives you a dig, it's ok to stab them, yeah?

Little CuChulainn

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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? Loss 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?

I care if they are proven in court because only then can someone be punished for their crime. Outside of that I make my own decision on whether I think someone did something or not. It's called an opinion and I make it based on what I believe the truth is.

And the chip I describe is the one that makes you dredge up the most remote evidence to justify your campaign to smear all Gardaí as corrupt, useless and lazy yet also makes you ignore all the more pertinent evidence shown to the contrary.

Mike747

Only came across this story now. Always nice to see poetic justice. Reminds me of the Manchester scumbag who died in Cork.

mrsbyrne

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

That's not an answer brown bomber. You desperately started reffering to him as a "student" in an effort to compare him to say, my nephew, who is heading down to UCC tomorrow to do his final final year exam after working very hard for three years.
There is no cedibility in reffering to the late Jamie Ducey as a ""student" anymore then a mafiosa bosses solicitor reffering to hi s client as a "legitimate business man". Its horse****.

Dan_Solo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I care if they are proven in court because only then can someone be punished for their crime. Outside of that I make my own decision on whether I think someone did something or not. It's called an opinion and I make it based on what I believe the truth is.

And the chip I describe is the one that makes you dredge up the most remote evidence to justify your campaign to smear all Gardaí as corrupt, useless and lazy yet also makes you ignore all the more pertinent evidence shown to the contrary.

Oh, well since you just told us for a fact you only need to go with your gut, or feeling in your bones or itchy ear or whatever for proof then I guess you've got just stacks of evidence this particular allegation up, huh.

Dan_Solo

mrsbyrne wrote: »

That's not an answer brown bomber. You desperately started reffering to him as a "student" in an effort to compare him to say, my nephew, who is heading down to UCC tomorrow to do his final final year exam after working very hard for three years.
There is no cedibility in reffering to the late Jamie Ducey as a ""student" anymore then a mafiosa bosses solicitor reffering to hi s client as a "legitimate business man". Its horse****.

But a mafiosi boss ISN'T a legitimate businessman whereas this boy most certainly provably WAS a student.
So your analogy is horse****.

Shady Tady

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But a mafiosi boss ISN'T a legitimate businessman whereas this boy most certainly provably WAS a student.
So your analogy is horse****.

Less of that language please or I'll have to start a thread in feedback about my feeling being hurt and why no one did anything about it!

mikom

The senior garda and his wife were at their home in Dungarvan when they heard the sound of glass breaking around midnight. http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/waterford-incident-18-year-olds-body-was-found-near-stream-630696.html

That was a Thursday night.
Friday is a schoolday for a "student".

But he may not have been a "student" as the young mans facebook profile states he is employed at..... Coffee shop at Amsterdam, Netherlands (18 June 2013 to present)

Little CuChulainn

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Oh, well since you just told us for a fact you only need to go with your gut, or feeling in your bones or itchy ear or whatever for proof then I guess you've got just stacks of evidence this particular allegation up, huh.

That doesn't make sense. Is it supposed to be a question? Are you saying you don;t hold any opinions that have not been proven in a court of law? Because that's just not true.

Dan_Solo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. Is it supposed to be a question? Are you saying you don;t hold any opinions that have not been proven in a court of law? Because that's just not true.

Doesn't make sense to you.
I have plenty of opinions on things which aren't criminal cases. For those there's a thing call a court of law which decides on guilt.
In fact, saying somebody is guilty prior to the court case is libel.
But what would you know about any of that complicated legal stuff, eh?

Little CuChulainn

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Doesn't make sense to you.
I have plenty of opinions on things which aren't criminal cases. For those there's a thing call a court of law which decides on guilt.
In fact, saying somebody is guilty prior to the court case is libel.
But what would you know about any of that complicated legal stuff, eh?

I can tell you that libel no longer exists in Ireland. It's now called defamation. Your legal knowledge is outdated. It's also only defamation if you cannot prove on the balance of probabilities that something is true.

tayto lover

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Doesn't make sense to you.
I have plenty of opinions on things which aren't criminal cases. For those there's a thing call a court of law which decides on guilt.
In fact, saying somebody is guilty prior to the court case is libel.
But what would you know about any of that complicated legal stuff, eh?

Would that not be slander?
Need to get things right in a law thread lads.

Dan_Solo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I can tell you that libel no longer exists in Ireland. It's now called defamation. Your legal knowledge is outdated. It's also only defamation if you cannot prove on the balance of probabilities that something is true.

Well you can't prove jack so I guess that defamation then.
Thanks Matlock.
BTW, whatever the article law is called it is still libel. Sorry to burst your bubble there. They mean the same thing.

Dan_Solo

tayto lover wrote: »

Would that not be slander?
Need to get things right in a law thread lads.

Traditionally slander is word of mouth and libel is written.
There's a permanent record of several people here proclaiming guilt so that's libel.
Which, yes, is the same as defamation for those who think using another word for the same thing makes them sound clever.

Little CuChulainn

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well you can't prove jack so I guess that defamation then.
Thanks Matlock.
BTW, whatever the article law is called it is still libel. Sorry to burst your bubble there. They mean the same thing.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Traditionally slander is word of mouth and libel is written.
There's a permanent record of several people here proclaiming guilt so that's libel.
Which, yes, is the same as defamation for those who think using another word for the same thing makes them sound clever.

You seem to be missing the point. There is no libel or slander anymore. There was legislation brought in called the Defamation Act which replaced both torts with defamation. There happens to be a defence of honest opinion set out in the legislation as well. Once again, you seem to know nothing of what you speak of.

EDIT: There is also a requirement that a defamatory statement reduces a persons reputation in the eyes of his peers. As this lad appeared to hang out with violent criminals I think I'm safe enough.

Dan_Solo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. There is no libel or slander anymore. There was legislation brought in called the Defamation Act which replaced both torts with defamation. There happens to be a defence of honest opinion set out in the legislation as well. Once again, you seem to know nothing of what you speak of.

EDIT: There is also a requirement that a defamatory statement reduces a persons reputation in the eyes of his peers. As this lad appeared to hang out with violent criminals I think I'm safe enough.

Of course there are still libel and slander. These things haven't ceased to exist because they are now covered by a law which calls them defamation. You are still confused by the entire concept of synonyms?
You cannot have an "honest" opinion as you do not have the facts of this case to hand and you have been told repeatedly you do not.

Little CuChulainn

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Of course there are still libel and slander. These things haven't ceased to exist because they are now covered by a law which calls them defamation. You are still confused by the entire concept of synonyms?

No don't be getting insulting because you have once again been shown to have no knowledge of the law. Neither slander nor libel exist anymore because they have both been amalgamated into one. In the same way you do not refer to the countries East Germany and West Germany because they are now the country Germany.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You cannot have an "honest" opinion as you do not have the facts of this case to hand and you have been told repeatedly you do not.

My opinion is based on what I believe to be true, making it an honest opinion. You are free to disagree with my opinion or what I have based it on but that does not change whether it is an honestly held opinion or not.

Dan_Solo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No don't be getting insulting because you have once again been shown to have no knowledge of the law. Neither slander nor libel exist anymore because they have both been amalgamated into one. In the same way you do not refer to the countries East Germany and West Germany because they are now the country Germany.



My opinion is based on what I believe to be true, making it an honest opinion. You are free to disagree with my opinion or what I have based it on but that does not change whether it is an honestly held opinion or not.

Slander and libel do not exist? No, they do exist, they are just covered by a law which happens to group them as defamation. Are you really contesting this? Next you'll tell me killing someone unlawfully doesn't exist because that's called murder. Ozzy doesn't exist anymore because he's rejoined Black Sabbath.
Puh-lease.

Little CuChulainn

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Slander and libel do not exist? No, they do exist, they are just covered by a law which happens to group them as defamation. Are you really contesting this? Next you'll tell me killing someone unlawfully doesn't exist because that's called murder. Ozzy doesn't exist anymore because he's rejoined Black Sabbath.
Puh-lease.

No I won't be contesting it because once again you will ignore what you are being told as is usual and reference the ridiculous to support you.

Brown Bomber

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. There is no libel or slander anymore. There was legislation brought in called the Defamation Act which replaced both torts with defamation. There happens to be a defence of honest opinion set out in the legislation as well. Once again, you seem to know nothing of what you speak of.

EDIT: There is also a requirement that a defamatory statement reduces a persons reputation in the eyes of his peers. As this lad appeared to hang out with violent criminals I think I'm safe enough.

You are missing a trick. I studied media law once upon a time. You have to able to prove the truth of your accusation. You have already admitted you can't. You'd lose. That is if you weren't defaming a dead person.

Dan_Solo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No I won't be contesting it because once again you will ignore what you are being told as is usual and reference the ridiculous to support you.

I will ignore it when you tell me that slander and libel have ceased to exist!
Go on, tell me what the article of law is called again as if that affects the existence of these things.

BTW, neither East nor West German land has disappeared into the ether. They are still there, just now parts of Germany. A bit like slander and libel are still there, just now together called defamation. In fact, your analogy proves my side of this better than yours! LOL!

Chiparus

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.

What the guards would pressurise the DPP to make charges, and manipulate the press to vilify a defendant, or pressurise witnesses to make false statements?

emo72

jesus christ, this thread has become unreadable with petty squabbling. can we give it time until some facts come out?

Brown Bomber

mrsbyrne wrote: »

That's not an answer brown bomber. You desperately started reffering to him as a "student" in an effort to compare him to say, my nephew, who is heading down to UCC tomorrow to do his final final year exam after working very hard for three years.
There is no cedibility in reffering to the late Jamie Ducey as a ""student" anymore then a mafiosa bosses solicitor reffering to hi s client as a "legitimate business man". Its horse****.

He was a student. I am sorry if those somehow makes him appear somewhat human to you. Far more difficult to stick your pitch fork into his dead carcass with the rest of the mob if he's human right?

Well he is human, just like me, you and your nephew. In fact he is some other people's nephew. How would you feel if your nephew was killed following a run in with the police and and then you seen people like you twisting the knife before he'd even been buried, stalking him on Facebook and slinging all kinds of **** at him? Ask yourself that...

Dan_Solo

emo72 wrote: »

jesus christ, this thread has become unreadable with petty squabbling. can we give it time until some facts come out?

I think you'll find there's one side of this argument that's been calling for exactly this right from the start.

mrsbyrne

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He was a student. I am sorry if those somehow makes him appear somewhat human to you. Far more difficult to stick your pitch fork into his dead carcass with the rest of the mob if he's human right?

Well he is human, just like me, you and your nephew. In fact he is some other people's nephew. How would you feel if your nephew was killed following a run in with the police and and then you seen people like you twisting the knife before he'd even been buried, stalking him on Facebook and slinging all kinds of **** at him? Ask yourself that...

See, I'm not delusional, so I wouldn't say my nephew was killed following a run in with the Guards (sorry brown bomber, I have to refer to them as the Guards because,well, thats their title. I know you prefer police because, like "paedophile priests" "corrupt cops" fits your conspiracy ideology much better).
No, I'm an adult who lives in the real world and I would know that my misfortunate nephew never stood a chance with the hand of cards he was dealt, and that he had died the way he had intended to live, running away from justice.
I would be sad for my sister/brother and I would hope that maybe just maybe others would learn from the many mistakes the t ha d been made during the short life of Jamie Ducey.

Brown Bomber

Mike747 wrote: »

Only came across this story now. Always nice to see poetic justice. Reminds me of the Manchester scumbag who died in Cork.

Reminds me of the Roma children who were taken from their own parents because of prejudice and bigotry.

Brown Bomber

mrsbyrne wrote: »

See, I'm not delusional, so I wouldn't say my nephew was killed following a run in with the Guards (sorry brown bomber, I have to refer to them as the Guards because,well, thats their title. I know you prefer police because, like "paedophile priests" "corrupt cops" fits your conspiracy ideology much better).
No, I'm an adult who lives in the real world and I would know that my misfortunate nephew never stood a chance with the hand of cards he was dealt, and that he had died the way he had intended to live, running away from justice.
I would be sad for my sister/brother and I would hope that maybe just maybe others would learn from the many mistakes the t ha d been made during the short life of Jamie Ducey.

The ****???

This is what I asked you...

How would you feel if your nephew was killed following a run in with the police and and then you seen people like you twisting the knife before he'd even been buried, stalking him on Facebook and slinging all kinds of **** at him?

Little CuChulainn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are missing a trick. I studied media law once upon a time. You have to able to prove the truth of your accusation. You have already admitted you can't. You'd lose. That is if you weren't defaming a dead person.

No you don't have to prove it's true, you only need to prove it is probably true. It is a much lower burden. And as you point out, you cannot defame the dead so it's all moot.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I will ignore it when you tell me that slander and libel have ceased to exist!
Go on, tell me what the article of law is called again as if that affects the existence of these things.

BTW, neither East nor West German land has disappeared into the ether. They are still there, just now parts of Germany. A bit like slander and libel are still there, just now together called defamation. In fact, your analogy proves my side of this better than yours! LOL!

They are specific legal concepts that no longer exist in Ireland, much like larceny. When you brought them up you were talking in legal terms. As usual when you were shown to be wrong you changed your argument to suit what you could. I'd hoped your trip to the feedback forum would have rid you of this pettiness but it obviously hasn't. Whatever you want to refer to them colloquially is up to you. Go wild.

emo72

mrsbyrne wrote: »

See, I'm not delusional, so I wouldn't say my nephew was killed following a run in with the Guards (sorry brown bomber, I have to refer to them as the Guards because,well, thats their title. I know you prefer police because, like "paedophile priests" "corrupt cops" fits your conspiracy ideology much better).
No, I'm an adult who lives in the real world and I would know that my misfortunate nephew never stood a chance with the hand of cards he was dealt, and that he had died the way he had intended to live, running away from justice.
I would be sad for my sister/brother and I would hope that maybe just maybe others would learn from the many mistakes the t ha d been made during the short life of Jamie Ducey.

i read mrsbyrnes comments as if she was the aunt of jamie ducey.

mrsbyrne

emo72 wrote: »

i read mrsbyrnes comments as if she was the aunt of jamie ducey.

You do know I'm not though?

emo72

mrsbyrne wrote: »

You do know I'm not though?

yeah;)

mrsbyrne

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The ****???

This is what I asked you...

You asked me and I answered you. What bits didn't you understand?

mrsbyrne

emo72 wrote: »

yeah;)

OK emo72, you got me bang to rights,I'm Jamie Duceys Auntie Sandra.

Mountainsandh

He was not a student, unless he had signed on for an adult course, not sure on the latter.

mrsbyrne you pretty much hit the nail on the head, except imo there is always a chance, and some of these youngsters do calm down with age, and show genuine remorse for the antisocial (and worse) behaviour they have committed.
It happens. There's that bit of naivity and good in every one of the scumbags, although I know it's hard to see it, and take it on board when they are being a nuisance to everyone, and I, like everyone, get these fits when I think to hell with them. But when you know them and see the bit of good in them, and get a grasp of the why of their behaviour, then you can't just say "great, one of them down, more to go". It's just sad, whatever the circumstances, whatever happened before.

I know it's hard to see, and most people won't see it, because the only interaction they'll have with the "scumbags" is negative.

emo72

mrsbyrne wrote: »

OK emo72, you got me bang to rights,I'm Jamie Duceys Auntie Sandra.

Sandra ****ing Ducey, i knew it was you:pac:

mrsbyrne

emo72 wrote: »

Sandra ****ing Ducey, i knew it was you:pac:

Jacinta Emo ya big wagon ya! Get around here now and bring a few feckin cans we've a ten spot and a bag a bangers, gerrup the yard ya ride ya!

mrsbyrne

Mountainsandh wrote: »

He was not a student, unless he had signed on for an adult course, not sure on the latter.

mrsbyrne you pretty much hit the nail on the head, except imo there is always a chance, and some of these youngsters do calm down with age, and show genuine remorse for the antisocial (and worse) behaviour they have committed.
It happens. There's that bit of naivity and good in every one of the scumbags, although I know it's hard to see it, and take it on board when they are being a nuisance to everyone, and I, like everyone, get these fits when I think to hell with them. But when you know them and see the bit of good in them, and get a grasp of the why of their behaviour, then you can't just say "great, one of them down, more to go". It's just sad, whatever the circumstances, whatever happened before.
I know it's hard to see, and most people won't see it, because the only interaction they'll have with the "scumbags" is negative.

Mountain maybe Jamie Ducey was going to be one of the few that emerge unscathed from the maelstrom of bad influences and permanent negativity. We'll never know now. I agree with you of course. Behind all the Facebook posturing with the cannabis plants and the extreme tattooing, he was probably just waiting for someone, anyone, to come along and make some positive suggestions about his future, a future were he could be a contributor to his community instead of a menace. But it wasn't to be and I think its time I left this thread. I hope Jamie Ducey is at peace and that his loved ones find peace and acceptance in the memories they have of his short life.

Dan_Solo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

They are specific legal concepts that no longer exist in Ireland, much like larceny. When you brought them up you were talking in legal terms. As usual when you were shown to be wrong you changed your argument to suit what you could. I'd hoped your trip to the feedback forum would have rid you of this pettiness but it obviously hasn't. Whatever you want to refer to them colloquially is up to you. Go wild.

Your squirming is delicious.
When I brought them up I was talking in legal terms? Why thanks for retrospectively deciding that I was quoting the names of specific articles of Ireland law, I thought I was just speaking English. Well I never said anything about what the article of law was specifically called, but it's exactly like I said, killing somebody unlawfully has another name, murder. Defamation is just the name of the law that covers libel. If they called the law floopdoopy it would still cover what in common English is called libel. Does the law on theft cover nicking and snatching? Oh, they're different words for the same thing so they don't count! I nicked that handbag m'lud, didn't steal it! LOL!

Dermot Illogical

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Reminds me of the Roma children who were taken from their own parents because of prejudice and bigotry.

Who were the bigots? The member of the public who made the report? The guards who have no option but to act on the report? The hospital with the incorrect records?
Seriously? That one was a rock and a hard place. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. The decision made was the absolutely correct in the circumstances given the facts were unknown at the outset. Any other course of action would have been wrong.

Brown Bomber

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No you don't have to prove it's true, you only need to prove it is probably true. It is a much lower burden. And as you point out, you cannot defame the dead so it's all moot.



They are specific legal concepts that no longer exist in Ireland, much like larceny. When you brought them up you were talking in legal terms. As usual when you were shown to be wrong you changed your argument to suit what you could. I'd hoped your trip to the feedback forum would have rid you of this pettiness but it obviously hasn't. Whatever you want to refer to them colloquially is up to you. Go wild.

You aren't getting this. Any opinion that you have has to be based on fact for it to be a defense against defamation charges. There is no solid evidence he was the one that threw any bottles or assaulted anyone. If you start putting up posters in your local area with a photograph and the name of the local indian man warning parents to watch out for him because he is a paedophile and your "opinion" is based the way you've seen him looking at children you are delusional if you think your "opinion" is any defense.

Brown Bomber

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Who were the bigots?

The hysterical lynch mob who had the innocent parents as guilty before the facts were known based on their prejudices against who the suspects were.

Brown Bomber

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Mountain maybe Jamie Ducey was going to be one of the few that emerge unscathed from the maelstrom of bad influences and permanent negativity. We'll never know now. I agree with you of course. Behind all the Facebook posturing with the cannabis plants and the extreme tattooing, he was probably just waiting for someone, anyone, to come along and make some positive suggestions about his future, a future were he could be a contributor to his community instead of a menace. But it wasn't to be and I think its time I left this thread. I hope Jamie Ducey is at peace and that his loved ones find peace and acceptance in the memories they have of his short life.

Why are you talking about him like you know him personally? Why are you even pretending you give a flying **** about him or his family? This comment is extremely callous.

Sandra ****ing Ducey, i knew it was you
Jacinta Emo ya big wagon ya! Get around here now and bring a few feckin cans we've a ten spot and a bag a bangers, gerrup the yard ya ride ya!

You are impersonating the caricature of a dead youth, a caricature that you have built up in your own head based on a facebook account, a single night in his life and your own prejudices. It's shameful.

Wedgie

What an interesting read. I had to double check that I wasn't in After Hours.

Zambia

Dan_Solo

mrsbyrne wrote: »

OK emo72, you got me bang to rights,I'm Jamie Duceys Auntie Sandra.

I wonder how well jokes about the families of dead Gardai would go down around here? LOLZ all round I bet.

Little CuChulainn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You aren't getting this. Any opinion that you have has to be based on fact for it to be a defense against defamation charges. There is no solid evidence he was the one that threw any bottles or assaulted anyone. If you start putting up posters in your local area with a photograph and the name of the local indian man warning parents to watch out for him because he is a paedophile and your "opinion" is based the way you've seen him looking at children you are delusional if you think your "opinion" is any defense.

It's a subjective test to examine whether a belief was honestly held. I'm satisfied that I could defend my opinion should the deceased resurrect and attempt to sue me.

I'm not exactly sure why you are linking Indian men to paedophilia but your analogy is not correct. It's a completely different scenario. Please read the Defamation Act before you keep trying to school me.

Dan_Solo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'm not exactly sure why you are linking Indian men to paedophilia but your analogy is not correct. It's a completely different scenario. Please read the Defamation Act before you keep trying to school me.

He didn't. It was a hypothetical. You do know the difference between a hypothetical and reality? Oh... Maybe the hypothetical, imaginary scenario had some resonance with you for some reason?

Lofty123

Dan_Solo wrote: »

He didn't. It was a hypothetical. You do know the difference between a hypothetical and reality? Oh... Maybe the hypothetical, imaginary scenario had some resonance with you for some reason?

What an offensive post. Your mask as one of the few posters who cares about the fate of this young man is slipping. :mad:

Post reported.

Dan_Solo

Lofty123 wrote: »

What an offensive post. Your mask as one of the few posters who cares about the fate of this young man is slipping. :mad:

Post reported.

Did you report the post above where it was being claimed someone was linking Indians with pedophilia? Oh no, you report the post that explains that that was an out of context allegation from a hypothetical situation.
How even handed of you.